We need a state level Trump that can convey that message. Although, a threat of death would be better than actually shooting them. I know, because that is the threat they use for paying taxes on time.
Printable View
We need a state level Trump that can convey that message. Although, a threat of death would be better than actually shooting them. I know, because that is the threat they use for paying taxes on time.
FIFYQuote:
Originally Posted by DOC
But yea, sucks donkey ballz.
nope its every year. I did't stutter.
I didn't mean to justify these taxes or fees. I was just stating that I don't think it's right and law abiding citizens shouldn't have to do it. Everyone here pays for the CCW and NFA items as well. They prefer not to and if we can avoid it I think we prefer not to have additional fees for our rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT951
The way it should be. And it wouldn't move the crime stats one bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric P
But we'd be denying them a monopoly on violence which gets in the way of their ultimate goals.
In the words of a former President: "Read my lips. No. New. Taxes." They've already figured out in CO how to work around TABOR. What's really stopping them from further going after gun owners pocketbooks? It doesn't help that we have folks, here in our own community, openly stating that they'd gladly "pay a little more." That's how tyranny happens, when you keep giving them a piece of the cake without getting diddly in return. I say no more compromise, because in the end it's not compromise. They keep using that word, but it doesn't mean what they think it means.Quote:
Originally Posted by KevDen2005
Now Denver wants to bad standard capacity magazines with no grandfather clause. And they want to do it to be in line with the Colorado law. Its not more illegal if they copy the Colorado mistake. And why didn't they copy the Colorado law about preemption?
I don't have time today to respond to each comment. It's late and I need to go to bed.
But for those for the no compromise solution trying to get the mag ban over turned via the legislative means...how well has that worked out?
How well has the gun case worked out?
About the anti gunners...they compromised a little each time. They didn't what they wanted in full...So they settled for something.
Learn from the left.
Q. How does one eat an elephant?
A. One small bit at a time.
Take small wins when you can get them over no win at all.
You must be a project manager. [ROFL2]Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT951
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT951
Where da fuk you get that information, VPC ??? Seriousely...... The anti gun faction has NEVER compromised.
But since you believe they have, here's a short read regarding the current crop of D compromise.
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/01/1...ump-stock-ban/
State Sen. Mike Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, introduced a bill the first day of the 2018 session to make the sale, purchase or possession of a multi-burst trigger activator a Class 5 felony punishable by a one to three years in prison. The measure includes tougher penalties for subsequent violations and builds on current restrictions for firearm silencers and machine guns.
Merrifield acknowledged the politics surrounding his bill, saying he was “flabbergasted” that Republicans could oppose such a measure.
“I’m waiting for somebody to explain to me a legitimate reason why any gun owner would need to convert a legal weapon into an illegal weapon,” he said.
In an interview, Gov. John Hickenlooper stopped short of supporting a full ban on bump stocks. Instead, he said, the devices should be subject to the same stringent approval process that applies to owning an automatic weapon.
“I’m not saying ban them,” the Democrat said. “I’m just saying you put them in the same category with weapons that are, with all intents and purposes, identical.
BTW: you've conveniently avoided answering my last question in post # 68
what exactly is a multi-burst trigger activator? I don't have a login so I can't read the article. Guessing they mean a bump fire stock?
It's that thing right next to the shoulder thing that goes up.Quote:
Originally Posted by izzy
It's another made up scare tactic word the party of compromise folks throw in, to get SJW moms to vote for.Quote:
Originally Posted by izzy
Here's the text.Quote:
Originally Posted by izzy
http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb18-051
Reading the text, I can’t help but wonder if they know their first bullet point is covered by NFA and the 2nd bullet point simply doesn’t exist because there is no device to increase the firing rate (I.e., cyclic rate), as that is a mechanical limitation by design.
What mouth breathing, idiotic Dim wrote this crap?
Sen. Michael Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs
Just checked and I’m outside of his district. Sheesh, what a dolt.
The creation of NFA items is a felony
Making something faster, an impossibility, is also a felony.
Ain’t a representative government grand? Lol
The way I understand it, a stronger trigger or buffer spring could technically make an AR cycle faster, until it won't cycle anyway....
I challenge any of these dumbasses to time how fast they can do a mag dump with a bump stock and a geissele compared to Jerry Miculek with a mil spec trigger group. They gonna ban the old man?
I'm inside his district, but those nice people from the International Benevolent Order of Assclowns sent me a restraining order that I shall not insult their organization.
Three seconds? I guess I'll just bring my muzzle loader!Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
1st. I didn't avoid. No time. I have a few minutes before work this morning so I need to keep it short.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
To fight against them, you need at least understand how they think.
To a anti gun person this multi burst trigger ban (and the 15 round limit) are a compromise. They are compromising on getting what they really want. They really want a complete ban on guns. To them any thing less is a compromise.
But they understand they won't get what they really want. They don't say "all or nothing". They will settle for the small incremental wins knowing it at least gets them closer to their end goals. They are playing the long game.
How well, since 2013, has the no compromise tactic worked to get us normal magazines back?
Sometimes small incremental wins are needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT951
How long you been shooting AR's, again, or other semi-autos ? AS i asked before.. Knowing a bill to limit magazine capacity to 15 rounds had a good chance of passing. You failed to plan ahead, no reason for your compromise B.S other than that.
Or is there?
What else you willing to compromise on with mine and other gun owners firearms to appease the AG crowd.,
Clearly you have no issue with a multi burst, what ever that unicorn is, trigger. Maybe collapsible stocks, yeah that's it you're willing to give them up too.
Throw in the extra $5 per mag fee. Why not up the BGC to mmmm say $50. What's your threshold per round fee, before you take action? Or is that on the table too , after all it's reasonable
[bs]
To your first question. I am pretty sure you know the answer tonthat. You just want to lead off with ad hominem argument for the general reason why people do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
The second, why does how many magazines I had before July 2013, have bearing on what I want to buy in 2018?
But since you want you play that game, I will play along.
Please point me to a source where I can legally by 300BLK Pmags. The key word is legally. I realize that places are openly selling them. However are they legal to own?
And those that are not understanding my position that the left compromises..
The current 15 round mags limit was not 15 rounds when Felony Fields introduced it and it made it through the house. The original bill was a 10 round limit. The Dems didn t refuse to compromise. They needed two votes more and that woykfmonky happen if they changed to 15 round limit. The could only get 15 round passed so they took that. The didn t say "10 rounds or nothing".
Again ad hominem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
But I suspect very few people on this forum have been shooting semi auto firearms in CO longer than I have.
I still have ram-line 10-22 mags from when I was kid.
Do you want to try and make other as hominem arguments that have little bearing on the argument.
And again, since you think it was poor planning issue, please tell me how I could have planned ahead in 2013 to have 300blk pmags. Or a D60 pmag?
Stop with the personal comments. Discuss the issue. Don't like what someone writes, offer a rebuttal but not a personal attack.
This thread is getting close to the end of it's usefulness, so make your final comments before it gets closed.
If memory serves me there is no 300 AC Black Out mags. They are all .223 AR mags since the shell is the same they just widened the neck to fit a .30 bullet in there. So all .223 PMAGS should be 300 mags and vice versa. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I have been shooting since 2001 on my own with my own guns if I need to qualify. Before that I was always bumming a gun and ammo off of family and friends at the range. I never understood how they go so uppity over it either? Its not a big deal at all for someone to shoot a few rounds out of my guns. And if they bring their own ammo its even less of an issue as long as I don't hate them and they are safe as me.
I still think no compromise is the way to go. But if they want to repeal all the antigun laws going back to the gun show BGC in exchange for the bump stock ban only I could see a compromise there... maybe... if they don't try to double cross us.
Magpul now makes a 300BLK specific mag.Quote:
Originally Posted by DOC
The issue is that any mag over 15 rounds made AFTER July 2013 is technically illegal to possess in Colorado.
As an example, I couldn't go buy a full frame P320 when first released because it was only available with a 17 rd mag (I believe there are CA compliant mags now that won't get up and kill some dumb lib).
Many new to market firearms that only offer >15 round mags are simply not available per the letter of the law.
You can't possess a 300BLK PMAG, you can't possess a Magpul AK mag. They were all mfr after the stupid law.
The way you attack this is you ask if we are going to limit police to 15 round magazines and when they say no you say that this just shows that even they fundamentally know that it isn't just the magazine, it is the person with it. (If they get into the fact that police are protecting us, shouldn't we be able to protect our family just as effectively?). CCW holders have crime rates similar to that of LEOs.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT951
In a state like CO, you have to take the wins you can get, when you can get them. Until the GOP gets their heads together and form a viable party, to stop the gun grabs and have any chance of making things better you need D votes.
Otherwise you'll end up with your principles in one hand and your pud in the other.
The right plays hail-mary football while the dems play 3&out football. They move the ball and punt, and then come back.
If people want to follow Dumb-ass Dudley from RMGOs playbook, prepare to lose; bigly.
What you're describing- the democrats saying "Okay, not 10, we'll restrict more than 15" is not compromise. Compromise is defined as "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions." They are conceding nothing. Taking a little less is still taking. Infringing a little less is still infringing. I think that's what is getting Kazoo frustrated with your responses is that you're failing to realize his point of view as to what is or is not a compromise. I'll explain it this way: If I'm going to rob you, is it a compromise if you have $100, and I agree to only take $50? No. I'm still robbing you. That's the crux of the issue here. They haven't compromised a thing, they've just agreed to "infringe just a little less," but make no mistake, they're still infringing. Even if they agree to take a smaller piece of cake, they're still taking your damn cake, and most of us are sick and tired of having our delicious cake being STOLEN from us by anti-freedom tyrants.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT951
A politician asks to borrow $20 from you and will pay you back the next day. The next day he gives you back $10 and when you ask him for the other $10 he tells you that paying you back the $10 makes you even because you both lost $10 on the deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
When you have the majority, you can set the tune. You guy can yell "Muh GUNS" all you want. You play the cards you are dealt, and our side has the losing hand because the R's can't get their crap in line. You win the majorities- and keep your cats in a herd- and then you can compromise by 'giving up' open carry in state buildings for constitutional carry. And it isn't even the majorities themselves, it is having enough votes to get something out of committee for the body to vote on.
I DGAF about your definition of compromise. This is getting the least amount of damage for the longest amount of time. I can lose $100 or keep $50 bucks. It seems like some people would rather have no money and something to bitch about than $50.
Frankly, if someone is pointing a gun at my head and I walk away with $50, that is a win. Crap, I could have been killed or raped.
Some of us would rather put up a fight than comply with strong arm tactics. The Colorado constitution has guarantees about the right to keep and bear arms that are even more comprehensive than the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Too many times the "Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,
determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, and safety" is used to allow the legislature to bypass the constitutionally mandated referendum process. Literally EVERY law that the legislature passes that has to have this language, with the exception for appropriations and budget.
One might want to actually read the Colorado Constitution sometime. Quite enlightening.
Actually compromise has two accepted meaningsQuote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
1. An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
2. The expedient acceptance of standards that are lower than is desirable.
If you read what I have been posting, it is clear I am referring to the second definition.
The current situation with regards to magazines is the DEMS are not taking anything right now. They did that. The rule of the land is no mags greater than 15. At this point they are not trying to change anything. We want something changed.
To get them to agree to change something that is already on the books, they need to have a reason to go for it. Sometimes, people can accept something (using the first definition) when they will get something in return.
We have to negotiate from a position of reality. Reality is, we dont have legal new 16+ round magazines. That is the law.
I have been misrepresented saying that I want to ban or tax something that is currently legal. I have never said.
What I have said is that I want 16+ round magazine, which are currently legal, and I am willing to take a position on normal capacity magazines, that is between all or nothing.
I am not for any additional gun laws (binary triggers, ammo taxes, etc). I am for trying to come up with a deal that gets us normal capacity magazine back.
I dont no want to trade bump stocks for magazines. But if its is a [reasonable] "fee" to buy a magazine that is currently verboten, I am willing to entertain the idea. To me, I dont care if a 30 round PMAG is $12, $17 or $22. I just want to be able to buy a 300BLK mag if I want it or a D60.
This is not about giving them more bans. This is about trying to get what is illegal back.
How the legislators get the CO Constitution is a different topic all together.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
It not like TABOR stops them from enacting a tax....oh..sorry...I mean "fee"
The legislative session woud be quite short if they didnt invent ways around many things. And the courts supporting them doing it.
I agree with you on these statements. Basically the same position I have been taking.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand
Lets not forget this:
https://www.denverpost.com/2015/04/1...agazine-limit/
"Complete Colorado first reported that the gun group would not agree to 30 rounds. That came after a video surfaced from Revealing Politics in which Rep. Joe Salazar, D-Thornton, said he can’t vote for a repeal but could consider increasing the limit to 30 rounds."
2015 was the best shot.
"RMGO executive director Dudley Brown didn’t engage with Caldara, focusing instead on Democrats. He said they need to repeal limits or “face the election consequences in 2016.”"
They faced the consequences. The DEMS got a bigger majority and now this is off the table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
I see the problem. You are applying a judicial differentiation to a legislative function. This is a lesson that the left has learned a loong time ago and uses to great effect. You can talk till you are blue in the face about constitutionality in the legislature. If you can't get the votes, it passes. It's actually counterproductive to talk about constitutionality at the legislative level, it is waste of time because you have to appeal to what drives the votes- money, power and re-elections. Vote for my bill and get those or vote against me and lose them.
After it is a law, then you get the constitutionality argument in front of a judge. Preferably in the jurisdiction you picked with a judge to get the decision you want. The left does this and usually blocks the right on 'standing'. Remember when Prop 8 in CA denied gay marriage? People forget that the people of CA in an election voted against gay marriage. It got overturned by the courts and the people who filed Prop 8 were denied standing to defend their own ballot initiative.
All of this gun legislation is a car wreck. There is no negotiation in a car wreck. You act as hard and as fast as you can to reduce the damage. We are in the middle of a car crash, stop wishing that we aren't in a car wreck and work to limit the damage.
Dudley "Do nothing good' is in the Dudley business. He is about gun rights like bank robbers are into banking regulations- it all about where the money is.