SB18-052 - Repeal Ammunition Magazine Prohibition

[DDT951]

Curious, are you an actual gun owner? If you are one, why did you not buy greater than 15 round mags before the law took effect?

From your post sounds more like one of those common sense hunters and sportsman i've encountered before. Lets make nice so we can beg for our Constitutional RIGHTS.


Why do "we have to compromise" ??
Not sure what age bracket you're in, however i've seen compromise since 86. Oddest thing........... NEVER has the other side compromised on any gun law, Ever. Only thing i've seen.... Is MORE Laws, More restrictions, More road blocks for gun owners.

So yeah lets compromise and have more rights taken away.

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.

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?

[DDT951]

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".

[DDT951]

How long you been shooting AR's, again, or other semi-autos ?

Again ad hominem.

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?

[cstone]

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.

[DOC]

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.

[DOC]

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.

[brutal]

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.

Magpul now makes a 300BLK specific mag.

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.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Or maybe...

Baby steps.

Introduce a bill that allows CCW holders to purchase magazines greater than 15. Why would it at all be necessary to prevent law abiding citizens, who have had a background check performed, and are known to their sheriff from having these?

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.

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.

[Ronin13]

1st. I didn't avoid. No time. I have a few minutes before work this morning so I need to keep it short.

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.

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.

[wctriumph]

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.