Close
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 74
  1. #41
    COAR SpecOps Team Leader theGinsue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Colo Spr
    Posts
    21,836
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .455_Hunter View Post
    Lovely that the guy wants to throw the rights of 18-25 year olds into the trash.
    He's also good with banning bump stocks. I don't own a bump stock nor any other device which can "increase the rate of fire" as I've never felt the need to have one and don't want to be careless with my ammo. Still, there are non-device techniques that can be employed to effectively perform the same function as a bump stock. So, then, banning bump stocks is just another feel good measure which does nothing potentially positive but puts restrictions on citizens enjoyment of their rights. Anyone who, when discussing firearms restrictions says "I don't agree with this part, but I'm okay with this other part" is no friend of the Second Amendment. Any restriction is an infringement and that is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.
    Ginsue - Admin
    Proud Infidel Since 1965

    "You can't spell genius without Ginsue." -Ray1970, Apr 2020

    Ginsue's Feedback

  2. #42
    Varmiteer
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Longmont
    Posts
    655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theGinsue View Post
    He's also good with banning bump stocks. I don't own a bump stock nor any other device which can "increase the rate of fire" as I've never felt the need to have one and don't want to be careless with my ammo. Still, there are non-device techniques that can be employed to effectively perform the same function as a bump stock. So, then, banning bump stocks is just another feel good measure which does nothing potentially positive but puts restrictions on citizens enjoyment of their rights. Anyone who, when discussing firearms restrictions says "I don't agree with this part, but I'm okay with this other part" is no friend of the Second Amendment. Any restriction is an infringement and that is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.
    From a legal standpoint, if a semi-auto can already be bump-fired without a device, isn’t that the “rate of fire”

    This issue with this “rate of fire” is the pro shooters like Jerry M show that he can fire a semi-auto AR almost as fast as a full auto or maybe even the same speed.

    Rate of fire on a machine gun is based upon how fast the entire mechanical system can recover from one shot and fire the next.

    This is mostly a mass/spring/cartridge energy problem (as long as the rest of the mechanism can keep up).

    So from a legal stain point what the base “rate of fire”? The “accelerators” in the law is “increase the rate of fire”

  3. #43
    Zombie Slayer kidicarus13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Littleton
    Posts
    6,273

    Default

    Offering 1-click options to email your State Senators, HB25-003 Committee Members, and Gov. Polis, with your thoughts on the proposed firearm legislation (HB25-003)

    https://wethesecondcolorado.com/
    Lessons cost money. Good ones cost lots. -Tony Beets

  4. #44
    Zombie Slayer kidicarus13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Littleton
    Posts
    6,273

    Default

    The forum seems a lot less vocal on the topic this year compared to years past. Just an observation.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot_20250125_093306_Reddit.jpg 
Views:	174 
Size:	93.9 KB 
ID:	98178
    Lessons cost money. Good ones cost lots. -Tony Beets

  5. #45
    Paintball Shooter
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Englewood
    Posts
    30

    Default

    the never ending battle

    Will try to make it

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	9725084585_0dfc4c660c_o.jpg 
Views:	155 
Size:	25.3 KB 
ID:	98183

  6. #46
    Zombie Slayer kidicarus13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Littleton
    Posts
    6,273

    Default

    Passed the Senate Committee 3-2
    Lessons cost money. Good ones cost lots. -Tony Beets

  7. #47
    Proud Infidel beast556's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    2,751

    Default

    Done deal, this will sail through the senate and house. I'm glad I only have two years left here and can then move. Really sucks what colorado has become in a very short time. When we moved out here Colorado was amazing.
    Don't be stupid!!!!!

  8. #48
    Fancy & Customized User Title .455_Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Mountains West of Boulder
    Posts
    2,678

    Default

    New senator Matt Ball seems to be cut from the Crow/Buttigieg cloth of veterans who have sold their sole to the anti-gun cult. Somehow, they are propped-up as having views representative of all "sane" vets, namely the "I carried an M4, it was icky, and I don't want you to have one" line of patronizing crap.
    The vagrants of Boulder welcome you...

  9. #49
    Gong Shooter
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Arvada
    Posts
    357

    Default

    If Polis has Presidential ambitions (which I am sure he does), will he sign this into law? Wouldn't look good on the national stage if he signed into law the worst gun ban this country has seen.

  10. #50
    Looking Elsewhere
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Peoples Republic (Boulder)
    Posts
    3,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zulu01 View Post
    If Polis has Presidential ambitions (which I am sure he does), will he sign this into law? Wouldn't look good on the national stage if he signed into law the worst gun ban this country has seen.
    I don't think he will sign it, but will he simply do nothing and allow it to pass without signing or will he veto it?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •