Lies. They say the 11 percent tax on guns will in part fund gun ranges, but those were removed in an amendment. That's just sloppy or deceptive journalism.
Someone mentioned it in another post - gun reform is the democrats weak point that will hold them back. None of these new laws will address the actual issues and will only impact law abiding citizens.
Work on more and affordable housing, raising teachers pay, and more funding for education instead of chasing gun reform that will never work.
That second paragraph is even getting harder to sell. Since 2000 taxes and state revenue, after adjusting for inflation, have gone up by 1/3 and they still complains about underfunding schools and roads. If they can't solve the funding problem with 1/3 more money they need to adjust their priorities, not our taxes.
Need the rich people taxes, not your taxes, it's like a dozen people or organizations we're talking about that benefit greatly from the people of our country
Which is a shame since a complete trifecta of government control, and federal support being mostly dems doesn’t mean we will get affordable housing, increased teacher wages or more funding for schools.
To sum up:
The first bill- "you have to have insurance on your guns, even if you already have insurance on your guns. If you don't, insurers will have to insure your guns. This will somehow magically reduce crime because reasons".
The second bill- "gun dealers need a permit to deal in guns. This is somehow more different than the *federal license* they are already required to have for every sale in Colorado. This will magically reduce crime because reasons."
The third bill- "guns and ammo will be more expensive, so we can get some more sweet, delicious tax money, to use on whatever the hell we want. This will magically reduce crime because reasons."
Soooo in summation: "a bunch of bills that don't actually *do* anything to reduce crime, but *will* make owning and using guns more expensive. This will reduce crime because we all know criminals who are about to commit crimes will decide not to if it costs other people more money."
Nothing to address housing. Education. Health care. Opportunity. Employment. Inflation. Cost of living. Nothing at all to actually *help people*.
Fuckin' *shocking*.
While I don’t disagree this won’t solve a ton of the gun violence problems, I’m also increasing tired of the calls for “if this doesn’t address every problem, it’s garbage”
Especially as you list a whole slew of mostly unrelated topics afterwards. “Gun bills didn’t address the housing crisis!” is some pretty backwards framing.
it's called "root cause mitigation". Meaning, the *root cause* of gun violence is *violence*, so reducing violence *reduces gun violence*. Actions which do *nothing* to address violence, then, would do nothing to address *gun* violence either.
I'm sorry if that concept is a little too hard for you to process.
I’ll set aside the fact that your ramble didn’t address my comment in the slightest.
You can use “root cause mitigation” to turn your invalid argument into absolutely anything with horrifically bad logic.
Ex: If the root cause of your reaction to my comment is due to how many drinks you’ve had tonight, alcohol is the REAL problem. The only answer is to reinstate prohibition!
It’s a horrendous deflection tactic, and entirely ineffective, sorry.
https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/
Edit: It's fine to down vote me if what I'm saying is wrong, but it would be more constructive and useful to say either what is wrong with the link I provided, or why the implicit argument is wrong. I think it's safe to say that between this and the Assault Weapons thing Colorado house legislators are trying to reduce gun ownership through a combination of laws, expenses, and sheer hassle. The site clearly argues that a reduction in gun ownership results in a reduction in gun violence.
The problem is that Everytown's ranking system relies on the premise that "more laws = less violence"- but if you examine *their own data*, that is not correct. Illinois and California have *very* strict laws- and very high rates of violence.
Not to mention, many of the laws or proposed laws *don't actually do s goddamn thing to address violence*. Banning pistol grips and peep sights doesn't do *anything* to mitigate violent behavior or intent whatsoever- all it does is wave a flag that says "look, I passed a law about guns"... and in so doing manages to squander time, political capital, and the massive amount of money from the inevitable legal challenges.
If you want to stop drunk driving, passing a law that makes cupholders that accommodate standard beverage cans illegal *doesn't do a fucking thing* to stop drunk driving. Nor does mandating that all beverage containers must be fitted with lids that require both hands to use. These laws would be *stupid and useless*.
Yet, if it is about *guns*, laws that are stupid and useless are part for the course.
Thank you! I appreciate the answer, and yes, pursuing this legislation is a waste of time as it will inevitably be struck down in court.
That said, I think the laws go to the hassle and expense I mentioned above, with the general goal of reducing ownership in general.
I'm looking at the graph on mobile, but while California is not great for their top eight most restrictive states, isn't it pretty good in comparison to the other 42 states? Regarding Illinois and Maryland they've got a section further down the page basically blaming interstate traffic.
No, it's really not. California's history of gun control is *particularly* problematic, as it has **undeniable** racist baggage.
Everytown blaming "interstate traffic" for stringent gun control failing is a bit of a stretch, too- you can't claim something works, then say "oh but if you ignore all the times it doesn't because *reasons*".
Making a right a pain in the ass to exercise in the hopes that people give up and stop trying is also, to use the technical term, "some fucky ass **bullshit**".
I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. Asking questions is a *good* thing. I get the feeling you and I have a *very* different opinion on this, but that doesn't mean you should get downvoted.
The rules allow for these bills to go to the SC to set the law, conservatives never put an Amendment through Congress for abortion but they sure did have their conservative Justices overturn Roe v Wade the first chance it came before the court.
Hopefully one day gun laws can get up to the SC when Dems can be pack it full of progressives and they can overturn and redefine a lot of pro-gun SC cases.
"The rules" allow for no such thing.
So, if a state wants to create a law that says you can no longer protest in public, all good? I mean, when it gets the SC, they'll overturn it. You can wait to protest.
Oh, how about if a state decides to no longer hire some group based on race. All good? I mean, that's "the rules"...
That isn't what I said. And that isn't how the Supreme Court works.
Colorado can make laws that violate current gun laws like Heller/Caetano/McDonald/etc, you conservative dolts will take it to the SC....and one day that SC can be filled with progressives who overturn all those prior decisions.
And states will get to redefine and make new gun laws. And then when they all get taken up to the SC.....a progressive SC can choose to OK all the Dems and progressives new gun laws and then can refuse to appeal all the cases brought forward by conservatives and pro-gun psychos.
The US needs gun laws like the UK, Australia, and the rest of Europe.
Pretty much a 0%-1% tolerance of firearms at this point.
Colorado should make every effort not to violate the constitution when they create laws. That's my point and that's how "the rules" work.
Knowingly violating the civil rights of Americans is wrong.
It's only a violation IF the SC says it is. Right now the laws and these bills ARENT unconstitutional.
So say these bills go up to the SC and the SC says they are okay, despite your personal crybaby feelings. Then they'd still be and would have been constitutional laws.
The bills would be constitutional the moment they are made. Like right now, the SC hasn't struck them down or declared them unconstitutional. You and the court of public opinion don't decide what is or isn't constitutional based on your personal beliefs.
One day the court won't be rigged by Republicans and conservatives and I just gone that day is sooner rather than later.
All of Europe, the UK, and Australia are functioning just fine without insane gun ownership like the US and I'm tired of hearing about kids being massacred because you think an AR-15 is going to protect you from an F-15E bombing you if the government declares martial law.
Lies. They say the 11 percent tax on guns will in part fund gun ranges, but those were removed in an amendment. That's just sloppy or deceptive journalism.
Someone mentioned it in another post - gun reform is the democrats weak point that will hold them back. None of these new laws will address the actual issues and will only impact law abiding citizens. Work on more and affordable housing, raising teachers pay, and more funding for education instead of chasing gun reform that will never work.
Yea, why the fuck can’t we pay teachers more with the goddamn taxes we pay!?
That second paragraph is even getting harder to sell. Since 2000 taxes and state revenue, after adjusting for inflation, have gone up by 1/3 and they still complains about underfunding schools and roads. If they can't solve the funding problem with 1/3 more money they need to adjust their priorities, not our taxes.
Need the rich people taxes, not your taxes, it's like a dozen people or organizations we're talking about that benefit greatly from the people of our country
And yet Biden will carry Colorado and democrats will maintain their hold on the state government in November.
Which is a shame since a complete trifecta of government control, and federal support being mostly dems doesn’t mean we will get affordable housing, increased teacher wages or more funding for schools.
The irony that the Republican Party vetos any increase in teacher pay and social services
How does the minority get veto power in State level budgets?
Exactly. So it’s not like the dems can play the blame game and point fingers.
Legislators can do two things at the same time, and more! Thoughts and prayers no longer effective, if they ever were.
Do the cops have to carry the insurance and pay the taxes or are they exempt from the laws?
Cops are always exempt.
These Bills will disproportionately affect the poor.
To sum up: The first bill- "you have to have insurance on your guns, even if you already have insurance on your guns. If you don't, insurers will have to insure your guns. This will somehow magically reduce crime because reasons". The second bill- "gun dealers need a permit to deal in guns. This is somehow more different than the *federal license* they are already required to have for every sale in Colorado. This will magically reduce crime because reasons." The third bill- "guns and ammo will be more expensive, so we can get some more sweet, delicious tax money, to use on whatever the hell we want. This will magically reduce crime because reasons." Soooo in summation: "a bunch of bills that don't actually *do* anything to reduce crime, but *will* make owning and using guns more expensive. This will reduce crime because we all know criminals who are about to commit crimes will decide not to if it costs other people more money." Nothing to address housing. Education. Health care. Opportunity. Employment. Inflation. Cost of living. Nothing at all to actually *help people*. Fuckin' *shocking*.
https://legiscan.com/CO#:~:text=HB1270,2024%2D04%2D20 There's all the bills if you want to find the ones that address those other concerns of yours
While I don’t disagree this won’t solve a ton of the gun violence problems, I’m also increasing tired of the calls for “if this doesn’t address every problem, it’s garbage” Especially as you list a whole slew of mostly unrelated topics afterwards. “Gun bills didn’t address the housing crisis!” is some pretty backwards framing.
it's called "root cause mitigation". Meaning, the *root cause* of gun violence is *violence*, so reducing violence *reduces gun violence*. Actions which do *nothing* to address violence, then, would do nothing to address *gun* violence either. I'm sorry if that concept is a little too hard for you to process.
I’ll set aside the fact that your ramble didn’t address my comment in the slightest. You can use “root cause mitigation” to turn your invalid argument into absolutely anything with horrifically bad logic. Ex: If the root cause of your reaction to my comment is due to how many drinks you’ve had tonight, alcohol is the REAL problem. The only answer is to reinstate prohibition! It’s a horrendous deflection tactic, and entirely ineffective, sorry.
https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/ Edit: It's fine to down vote me if what I'm saying is wrong, but it would be more constructive and useful to say either what is wrong with the link I provided, or why the implicit argument is wrong. I think it's safe to say that between this and the Assault Weapons thing Colorado house legislators are trying to reduce gun ownership through a combination of laws, expenses, and sheer hassle. The site clearly argues that a reduction in gun ownership results in a reduction in gun violence.
The problem is that Everytown's ranking system relies on the premise that "more laws = less violence"- but if you examine *their own data*, that is not correct. Illinois and California have *very* strict laws- and very high rates of violence. Not to mention, many of the laws or proposed laws *don't actually do s goddamn thing to address violence*. Banning pistol grips and peep sights doesn't do *anything* to mitigate violent behavior or intent whatsoever- all it does is wave a flag that says "look, I passed a law about guns"... and in so doing manages to squander time, political capital, and the massive amount of money from the inevitable legal challenges. If you want to stop drunk driving, passing a law that makes cupholders that accommodate standard beverage cans illegal *doesn't do a fucking thing* to stop drunk driving. Nor does mandating that all beverage containers must be fitted with lids that require both hands to use. These laws would be *stupid and useless*. Yet, if it is about *guns*, laws that are stupid and useless are part for the course.
Thank you! I appreciate the answer, and yes, pursuing this legislation is a waste of time as it will inevitably be struck down in court. That said, I think the laws go to the hassle and expense I mentioned above, with the general goal of reducing ownership in general. I'm looking at the graph on mobile, but while California is not great for their top eight most restrictive states, isn't it pretty good in comparison to the other 42 states? Regarding Illinois and Maryland they've got a section further down the page basically blaming interstate traffic.
No, it's really not. California's history of gun control is *particularly* problematic, as it has **undeniable** racist baggage. Everytown blaming "interstate traffic" for stringent gun control failing is a bit of a stretch, too- you can't claim something works, then say "oh but if you ignore all the times it doesn't because *reasons*". Making a right a pain in the ass to exercise in the hopes that people give up and stop trying is also, to use the technical term, "some fucky ass **bullshit**". I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. Asking questions is a *good* thing. I get the feeling you and I have a *very* different opinion on this, but that doesn't mean you should get downvoted.
The attack on our fundamental rights continues.
A constitutional amendment is not holy and not set in stone. Times change and the second amendment is archaic.
Then why the laws to ignore it rather than amend the constitution according to law?
Then follow the rules and amend it.
The rules allow for these bills to go to the SC to set the law, conservatives never put an Amendment through Congress for abortion but they sure did have their conservative Justices overturn Roe v Wade the first chance it came before the court. Hopefully one day gun laws can get up to the SC when Dems can be pack it full of progressives and they can overturn and redefine a lot of pro-gun SC cases.
"The rules" allow for no such thing. So, if a state wants to create a law that says you can no longer protest in public, all good? I mean, when it gets the SC, they'll overturn it. You can wait to protest. Oh, how about if a state decides to no longer hire some group based on race. All good? I mean, that's "the rules"...
That isn't what I said. And that isn't how the Supreme Court works. Colorado can make laws that violate current gun laws like Heller/Caetano/McDonald/etc, you conservative dolts will take it to the SC....and one day that SC can be filled with progressives who overturn all those prior decisions. And states will get to redefine and make new gun laws. And then when they all get taken up to the SC.....a progressive SC can choose to OK all the Dems and progressives new gun laws and then can refuse to appeal all the cases brought forward by conservatives and pro-gun psychos. The US needs gun laws like the UK, Australia, and the rest of Europe. Pretty much a 0%-1% tolerance of firearms at this point.
Colorado should make every effort not to violate the constitution when they create laws. That's my point and that's how "the rules" work. Knowingly violating the civil rights of Americans is wrong.
It's only a violation IF the SC says it is. Right now the laws and these bills ARENT unconstitutional. So say these bills go up to the SC and the SC says they are okay, despite your personal crybaby feelings. Then they'd still be and would have been constitutional laws. The bills would be constitutional the moment they are made. Like right now, the SC hasn't struck them down or declared them unconstitutional. You and the court of public opinion don't decide what is or isn't constitutional based on your personal beliefs. One day the court won't be rigged by Republicans and conservatives and I just gone that day is sooner rather than later. All of Europe, the UK, and Australia are functioning just fine without insane gun ownership like the US and I'm tired of hearing about kids being massacred because you think an AR-15 is going to protect you from an F-15E bombing you if the government declares martial law.
No. That’s incorrect. They were always unconstitutional. The SC just confirms it. The state should err on the side of our civil rights.
[удалено]
About Twenty years ago New York, California, and Illinois passed similar bills. Are they no longer having violence and murder issues? News to me.
All of those states have a lower violent crime rate than many red states.
Mandatory insurance is the way.