wtf Colorado?

[bofa]

Every time I hear the name Feinstein I just

Anyway, even with an all out ban on the BS propaganda term "assault weapons", making them in house to own illegally does us no good if we don't want to go to prison. Basically the only use you may ever see use is if the country went to hell in a hand-basket and we had to get all Red Dawn and stuff (the new version was terri-bad btw). :usa2:

But as for the specifics in CO, the most troublesome ban that passed imo is the mag cap ban.

The bill prohibits the sale, transfer, or possession of an
ammunition feeding device that is capable of accepting, or that can be
readily converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition or more
than 5 shotgun shells (large-capacity magazine).

Not only is the 10/5 round completely arbitrary, by using the terms "capable of accepting" and "readily converted" it essentially blacklists most magazines, and therefore guns, on the market today. The cap itself blocks most medium and full size (as well as some compact) semi-auto pistols. When you consider that most guns can accept as large a mag as they can produce and, in many cases, there are kits to extend mag capacity, then we are f*ucked. Really the only things that seem "safe" are revolvers, deringers, and garbage guns that have no after-market attraction to them (think Bryco... bleh).

So I will be stocking up on all mags that I can reasonably obtain. And I see a raging judge (pun intended? perhaps) in my future in case things progress or if I need to visit the Denver metro area.

 

[aha2988]

But then the real question is do you deserve the right the 2nd amendment provides you if you missed your adversary 15 times and likely woke up your neighbors while you never even had the decency to even practice?

I say NO.

who says a gun is for only protecting against one adversary. you can have multiple adversaries.

plus a magazine capacity limit changes nothing. here's tested proof..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b2Upjn5DR0o
Points which were exhibited:
1. Active shooters typically transition from target to target
2. Active shooters typically reload frequently (see reports on VA Tech).
3. Active shooters are more dexterous than the typical citizen, including most typical Law Enforcement Officers.
4. Target Transitions and movement are more time consuming than reloads.
5. It is the person who is defending rather than on the attack who suffers more from a magazine capacity restriction.
6. The Fastest Reload has long been the "New York Reload"; dropping the empty gun and pulling another.
*
Other points of interest; *
1. As the Glock heated up the magazines stuck (they were factory drop free magazines) giving the disadvantage of longer reloads
2. The tests were performed a week earlier using "slide lock" reloads and magazines carried in pouches or stuck in the belt -- the times were not noticeably different. (the weapon was different however).
3. This is the first time that Christy has ever fired a Glock (she is not a trained shooter but is not totally unfamiliar with firearms).
4. There were no "practice" runs. *One reason that the shooting speed increased is that the exercise is heuristic in nature. *Another reason is most likely the subconscious knowledge that the clock is running. *The bottom line is that shooting / Target Transition speed are the most relevant aspects of multiple target shooting and they are not something legislation can effect.
good luck stopping a trained marksmen.

want to know an interesting fact, majority of the mass shooting perpetrators were trained marine riflemen that had mental issues not issues with reloading or sharp shooting at large distances. Charles Whitman killed 17 and wounded 32 people during his 96 minute shooting spree at Texas U before being killed and he used a 3 round bolt action rifle called a Remington 700.

I still have hope that none of this will pass in the senate. I'm also confident that majority of local law enforcement will never enforce any laws passed that would question their vow to uphold the constitution. Oh an there is that ever going on militia in the good ol southeast just waiting to refresh the tree of liberty when the time comes.

 

[Reino]

Sadly, things will continue to progress, as they always do with legislation. Today it's 15 round limits... and then some school gets shot up by a dude with five 10 round mags. So then the limit is 7 rounds... and it happens again. Then we're either all shooting deringers or as our vice-puppet suggesting, rocking double barrel shotguns.

Agreed. I am so sick of liberals yelling in my face 'NOBODY IS TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS! NOBODY IS TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS!' What they don't understand is that it is a slippery slope, a little bit of legislation here and there, and suddenly down the road, they've taken away your guns.

 

[JohnnyT]

Agreed. I am so sick of liberals yelling in my face 'NOBODY IS TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS! NOBODY IS TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS!' What they don't understand is that it is a slippery slope, a little bit of legislation here and there, and suddenly down the road, they've taken away your guns.

But really...... Nobody is taking away your guns.

 

[04rnr]

I kind of hope they ban ALL weapons, then just think how easy, fast and cheap, Ill be able to get an M-16, AR-15 any weapon I want, look how the ban on PCP, is doing, hows the ban on cocaine working out ? :hello:
Oh, and for those, that thinks the gov. should tell us, what we can and cant have, what weapons I, can and cant have, I PROMISE, not to infrindge on your beliefes and WILL NOT protect you in way shape or form using any of my weapons.

 

[boondoggle]

Wow. Just remembered why I never frequent the Off Topic section. Colorado is awesome. We have a lot of hunters and sportsmen here. A lot of us don't feel we need to have rifles that hold that many bullets. Matter of fact, pretty sure we aren't allowed to take rifles with high capacity magazines hunting. So, not sure what the point of having them around is. They suck for home defense.

And for defending against the 'government', well, from a tactical POV, if the government decides to take me out and I'm counting on using close range weapons for defense, I'm pretty ****ed.

When I read the 2nd Amendment, I don't really think they meant for everyone to have a gun. They wouldn't let women or slaves have a gun. At least, I don't remember them arming their slaves and telling them to use them against a repressive govt. That's just how I read it though.

Signing out of OT…. probably never to look back.

Cheers! :sniper:

 

[bofa]

Wow. Just remembered why I never frequent the Off Topic section. Colorado is awesome. We have a lot of hunters and sportsmen here. A lot of us don't feel we need to have rifles that hold that many bullets. Matter of fact, pretty sure we aren't allowed to take rifles with high capacity magazines hunting. So, not sure what the point of having them around is. They suck for home defense.

And for defending against the 'government', well, from a tactical POV, if the government decides to take me out and I'm counting on using close range weapons for defense, I'm pretty ****ed.

When I read the 2nd Amendment, I don't really think they meant for everyone to have a gun. They wouldn't let women or slaves have a gun. At least, I don't remember them arming their slaves and telling them to use them against a repressive govt. That's just how I read it though.

Signing out of OT…. probably never to look back.

Cheers! :sniper:

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I hope you never need more than a few rounds to protect you and your loved ones. I also hope you can always find solace with a government that increasingly controls your ability to own things and protect yourself without reasonable justification.

FWIW recent polls taken by the Denver Post show that most of your statesmen/women disagree (nearly 80%).

 

[boondoggle]

Nothing wrong with having several rounds, but seriously I would never shoot off an AR-15, Bushmaster, MP-15 or anything of the sort in my home if there were a burglar or something. I'd use a handgun.

I know some ranchers and they occasionally have to shoot varmints. You know, coyotes and stuff, but they just use regular rifles. They're good enough shots they don't need to have more than a few rounds loaded in their Brownings.

Personally, I understand an AR-15 is not an 'Assault Rifle' anymore than a 10/22 or a 30-06 (which I've used with family for years to put food on the table). That said, it's not surprising to me that they are coming 'under fire' (no pun intended). They been marketed to appear aggressive and are about as relevant to hunters as a samurai sword - personal opinion. Neat looking and some people like collecting them.

I remember in the late 70's/early 80's my uncle's grumbling about cops cracking down on DUI laws when they were passed. I used to ride around with them in their Pickups in Missouri and they'd drink beers while driving out 4 wheeling or to the fishing/hunting/camping spots. No, they weren't getting drunk (I don't think, I was a kid) but at some point I guess some politician somewhere had to 'do something' so they started in on DUI laws - then seatbelt laws later on...

I know it's different, but I personally don't see it as "the socialist/commie big bad government" coming shred the constitution (the constitution didn't even give everyone a right to vote - unless you were a male landowner). I just see it as a kneejerk reaction. They'll make a few changes, try to make it look like they're 'doing something' and who knows, maybe even some good will come of it.

Then again, my firearm ownership has been pretty minor. A few handguns, some hand me down family firearms and a hunting rifle or two. Oh, and I have a partial bow a friend was helping me make before he passed away. It doesn't work but has sentimental value....

Again, just my opinion. I'm not a huge Obama fan or an 'Anti'. And having served in the military, I don't fear the military because most people in it are good people. And without the military the government really isn't all that scary. Well, the DMV can be but it isn't life threatening.

So, that's my post. Hope it's not too rational.

I really want to go back to talking about my Semi Luxury Recreational Assault Vehicle now.

 

[WFO_Racer]

But really...... Nobody is taking away your guns.

Read the Führer Feinstein bill, she does want to take them away. My weapons cannot be gifted to my sons when I pass but must be turned in and destroyed.

Hence the 80/20 route, all legal all under the radar.

Google her 1990's interviews, this waste of a female vagina is a traitor.

 

[KCcarguy]

Wow. Just remembered why I never frequent the Off Topic section. Colorado is awesome. We have a lot of hunters and sportsmen here. A lot of us don't feel we need to have rifles that hold that many bullets. Matter of fact, pretty sure we aren't allowed to take rifles with high capacity magazines hunting. So, not sure what the point of having them around is. They suck for home defense.

And for defending against the 'government', well, from a tactical POV, if the government decides to take me out and I'm counting on using close range weapons for defense, I'm pretty ****ed.

When I read the 2nd Amendment, I don't really think they meant for everyone to have a gun. They wouldn't let women or slaves have a gun. At least, I don't remember them arming their slaves and telling them to use them against a repressive govt. That's just how I read it though.

Signing out of OT…. probably never to look back.

Cheers! :sniper:

You're right. We don't need these guns. You don't need a 4runner either. See how great it is when other people tell you what you do and do not need? And what happens when the next guy uses a shotgun the murder a bunch of people? When they ban those, are you OK with that?

 

[KCcarguy]

Read the Führer Feinstein bill, she does want to take them away. My weapons cannot be gifted to my sons when I pass but must be turned in and destroyed.

Yep. Exactly, they DO want to take them away. READ THE BILL...It's in writing. She even says her goal in to slowly reduce the supply. But, there's no way they're going to destroy all those guns. First, the authorities will take their pick to keep for themselves, then they'll store a few others in a warehouse somewhere, then maybe scrap the junk for show. I will follow the law and turn mine in, but I will be sure they're inoperable when I do.

 

[bofa]

Yep. Exactly, they DO want to take them away. READ THE BILL...It's in writing. She even says her goal in to slowly reduce the supply. But, there's no way they're going to destroy all those guns. First, the authorities will take their pick to keep for themselves, then they'll store a few others in a warehouse somewhere, then maybe scrap the junk for show. I will follow the law and turn mine in, but I will be sure they're inoperable when I do.

I honestly don't see myself turning anything in.

 

[Thai]

You don't need a 4runner either. See how great it is when other people tell you what you do and do not need?

Well, isn't the upcoming EPA requirement doing something to that effect?

 

[KCcarguy]

Well, isn't the upcoming EPA requirement doing something to that effect?

Well, sort of. I wouldn't doubt if new SUVs won't be available (to us peons anyway) in another 10-15 years. Like a lot of people, I still have to get to work in a blizzard, go hunting, pull a boat, haul the family to Grandma's for the hollidays, etc. I plan on always having a real SUV, but maybe not as a DD. That's actually why I'm really torn weather I should keep my 4runner or get a LC200 while I can. I just want to be sure I have something that will last many, many years as a family work-horse.

But, rest assured, the Holly Wood types, politicians, and billionaires will always have their SUVs, private jets, and exotic cars to play with when they're not driving their Telsas or Fiskers and telling us what ignorant polluters we all are.

Wow, went a little long on that one. That's a bit of a sore spot for me. :behindsofa:

 

[KCcarguy]

I honestly don't see myself turning anything in.

Well, I respect your feelings and ideals on that topic, but it's not worth dying for IMO. I'd rather be around to raise my kids.

 

[McFly2003]

Magpul | Unfair Advantage

 

[blizz86]

Colo. sheriff refuses to enforce gun-control bills - Yahoo! News


Damn good news fellas in CO.

 

[ALBPM]

There is hope for New Mexico!!!!

HB 77, failed to pass in the state senate ( at least for the moment). It would have required background checks on all private sales. The AWB went up in smoke in committee before the ink dried.

 

[bofa]

Well, I respect your feelings and ideals on that topic, but it's not worth dying for IMO. I'd rather be around to raise my kids.

I didn't say I'd die holding onto them per se, but seeing that as there is no registration with firearms I don't think I'd volunteer any of my hardware if it came to that, especially at just the state level. I would have to make a decision about how and where to keep whatever I'm not "supposed" to have. Now if the reduction in liberties continues and the country snowballs into some kind of crazy sh!tstorm, that might be another story and a separate consideration. I'd rather have what I need to protect my family than to have handed it over without a second thought.

Colo. sheriff refuses to enforce gun-control bills - Yahoo! News


Damn good news fellas in CO.

Yeah, the laws are super vague and I don't really see how they could be enforced, even if the sheriffs did agree with any of this nonsense. This fight is still far from over. I imagine there will be a complete lack of enforcement, subsequent amendment proposals attempting to gut them, or if anything don't be surprised to see amendments on the 2014 ballot. Then there's the inevitable legal challenge once someone has to go before the judiciary.

Every poll I've seen shows an overwhelming majority of CO residents do not agree with most of what has been passed recently.

I feel bad for the first "offender" that does have to go through the ringer in the mean time... I hope they have deep pockets or rich supporters.

I'm also interested to see what this does for Magpul. Do they stick to their word and GTFO immediately or do they stay and fight it? I'm sure there are plenty in CO trying to convince them to stick it out until the 2014 elections. I personally wouldn't fault them either way, but I would guess some people will be more critical if they don't leave now.

 

[KCcarguy]

I didn't say I'd die holding onto them per se, but seeing that as there is no registration with firearms I don't think I'd volunteer any of my hardware if it came to that, especially at just the state level. I would have to make a decision about how and where to keep whatever I'm not "supposed" to have. Now if the reduction in liberties continues and the country snowballs into some kind of crazy sh!tstorm, that might be another story and a separate consideration. I'd rather have what I need to protect my family than to have handed it over without a second thought.

Yeah, the laws are super vague and I don't really see how they could be enforced, even if the sheriffs did agree with any of this nonsense. This fight is still far from over. I imagine there will be a complete lack of enforcement, subsequent amendment proposals attempting to gut them, or if anything don't be surprised to see amendments on the 2014 ballot. Then there's the inevitable legal challenge once someone has to go before the judiciary.

Every poll I've seen shows an overwhelming majority of CO residents do not agree with most of what has been passed recently.

I feel bad for the first "offender" that does have to go through the ringer in the mean time... I hope they have deep pockets or rich supporters.

I'm also interested to see what this does for Magpul. Do they stick to their word and GTFO immediately or do they stay and fight it? I'm sure there are plenty in CO trying to convince them to stick it out until the 2014 elections. I personally wouldn't fault them either way, but I would guess some people will be more critical if they don't leave now.

If San Francisco can openly choose not to enforce immigration laws, couldn't other cities do same regarding gun laws? Of course, the Feinstein bill also provides funding for growing the ATF to enforce her ban. So, it probably won't matter what local government/ LE wants.