This Week: Get Ready For Magazine Ban Mayhem, Maybe

Magpul PMAG and Bushmaster AR-15 rifle used at the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting.

Magpul PMAG and Bushmaster AR-15 rifle used at the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting.

​ AP's Ivan Moreno reports via the Colorado Springs Gazette:

Gun-rights advocates who want to see a repeal of Colorado's limits on the size of ammunition magazines realize their chances are slim when they go before Democrat-controlled committees next week…

Holbert's repeal attempt is scheduled to be heard by a House committee Monday, and a separate but identical proposal in the Senate is expected to have a committee hearing there Wednesday.

The magazine restrictions were among a handful of gun-related laws that Democrats passed in the aftermath of mass shootings in a suburban Denver movie theater and Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School. One of those laws expanded background checks to private and online firearm sales.

A Republican attempt to undo that law has already failed.

Democratic Rep. Rhonda Fields of Aurora, who sponsored the magazine limits and the expansion of background checks, said she believes Colorado residents support the measures, and that they'll come out in big numbers to testify against repeal efforts.

The latest Quinnipiac University poll of Colorado residents, out last week, shows once again that the strongest public support among the different gun safety bills passed by the Colorado General Assembly in 2013 is for requiring background checks for all sales of guns including private sales. While support for universal background checks on guns is at no-brainer upper 80th percentile levels, the question of limits on the capacity of gun magazines is much more divisive. The latest Quinnipiac poll is in fact the first polling we've seen in Colorado showing support for Colorado's new magazine limit law at 50%, with 47% opposed. It's notable that support for this law has grown slightly, perhaps more importantly not declined, even as the gun lobby raged against it all last year.

As we indicated at the time, the committee fight over repealing last year's universal background check law, House Bill 13-1229, was anticlimactic in comparison to last year's huge mobs of opponents who flooded hearings and circled the Capitol laying on their car horns. In the Senate State Affairs Committee's hearing on the Senate background check repeal bill, many more witnesses appeared to testify in favor of background checks than against. If Republicans are going to make an election-year stand anywhere to placate the gun lobby and the issue's vocal "grassroots," the magazine limit is the place. It bears repeating–much of the anger over Democrats' "gun control agenda" last year was the product of either outright misinformation, or so-called "flanking bills" like the assault weapons liability measure that were ultimately killed. In retrospect, the flanking bill strategy was probably a bad idea, as it gave opponents fuel even after those more onerous bills were killed. But that debate is over.

The magazine limit law is, as we've been forced to spend a lot of time on in this space, a major point of public misinformation. We believe that if the media had gotten this story anywhere close to right after the passage of House Bill 13-1224, support for the new law would be considerably higher than polls suggest today. Democrats should use these hearings as an opportunity to demonstrate how basic facts have been misrepresented in the local press and by the gun lobby, every bit as egregiously as Victor Head unwittingly confessed to last week.

Hopefully, we won't learn that "removable baseplates" got him lots of signatures.

54 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. BlueCat says:

    Only partly the media's fault. The rest of the blame  goes to frightened Dem pols hoping not talking about it would make it go away instead of aggressively pushing back and proudly touting their votes, explaining exactly what is and is not in the bills and the degree of approval, on a par for approval of being nice to puppies, for what's in the background check legislation. Even the magazine size leg, which which enjoys more support than opposition, would most likely be polling better with aggressive pro messaging. Had Dems done that the media would have reported it. Instead they left the field entirely to the antis so everything the antis loudly said was duly reported. 

    Our Dem pols ought to be well aware how lazy the media has become and that, even if the facts and polling are on their side, they have to make a lot of noise to get those facts out there.

  2. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    I hope that the pro magazine-imits base gets their people out to testify, as they did at last week's hearing on background checks.

    Looks like Colorado Ceasefire is getting their folks active on it, posting a list of House members of the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee to call and email:

    COLORADO CEASEFIRE NEEDS YOU TO OPPOSE THIS BILL! COLORADO WILL NOT BACK DOWN ON COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS!
    Call/Email/Testify. Contact COLORADO CEASEFIRE if you are able to testify on this bill: info@coloradoceasefire.org
    HB14-1151 Repeal Ammunition Magazine Prohibition (Holbert, Saine, Marble)
    Monday Feb. 10 1:30 p.m. Old Supreme Court Chambers (1st of 3)
    House State Affairs:
    Su Ryden (D-chair) 303-866-2942 su.ryden.house@state.co.us
    Joe Salazar (D) 303-866-2918 joseph.salazar.house@state.co.us
    Mike Foote (D) 303-866-2920 mike.foote.house@state.co.us
    Jeanne Labuda (D) 303-866-2966 jeanne.labuda.house@state.co.us
    Jovan Melton (D) 303-866-2919 jovan.melton.house@state.co.us
    Dominick Moreno (D) 303-866-2964 dominick.moreno.house@state.co.us
    Angela Williams (D) 303-866-2909 angela.williams.house@state.co.us
    Kathleen Conti (R) 303-866-2953 kathleen.conti.house@state.co.us
    Tim Dore (R) 303-866-2398 tim.dore.house@state.co.us
    Stephen Humprey (R) 303-866-2943 rephumphrey48@yahoo.com
    Dan Nordberg (R) 303-866-2965 dan.nordberg.house@state.co.us

    The members of the Stand strong, Colorado coalition will probably all have people there. That said, my prediction is that fewer people on the "gun responsibility" side will testify, just because the magazine issue is more confusing and technical, and the public is more divided on it.

     

  3. ModeratusModeratus says:

    I don't see how that plastic box with a spring inside that happens to have been used in a tragic crime is pictured for any reason other than to be emotionally manipulative. But don't worry, you've already driven those jobs out of Colorado!

    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

      They weren't driven out, they went running to a tax handout.

      • roccoprahn says:

        Sometimes we just figure everybody knows about something like magpul robbing the taxpayers in Wyoming and Texas,  going the corporate welfare route, then falsely blaming Colorado's Legislature for the move.

        We're routinely stunned byhow lacking the republican base is re: current events, facts, what's happening in our daily lives. We can't process the idea everyone doesn't stay up.

        But we shouldn't be.

        conservatives by and large don't get outside that bubble. moderatus is no different than most republican/libertarians, as he's not listening to, reading, or watching anything but beck, limbaugh and fox.

        It's a problem. Some of these dolts vote.

    • Ralphie says:

      Nice recitation of the talking point.  I heard that last week.  Do you have something original?  No?  Then that confirms everything that has been said about your intellect.  Or lack thereof.

    • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

      "Plastic box with a spring." Do you realize you all are saying the exact same verbatim thing? At least change it up a little.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      Speaking of a "plastic box with a spring inside" . . . 

      . . . aren't you about due for some kind of upgrade or regular service by now, Moddy????

  4. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    I hope that the pro magazine-imits base gets their people out to testify, as they did at last week's hearing on background checks.

    Looks like Colorado Ceasefire is getting their folks active on it, posting a list of House members of the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee to call and email:

    COLORADO CEASEFIRE NEEDS YOU TO OPPOSE THIS BILL! COLORADO WILL NOT BACK DOWN ON COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS!
    Call/Email/Testify. Contact COLORADO CEASEFIRE if you are able to testify on this bill: info@coloradoceasefire.org

    HB14-1151 Repeal Ammunition Magazine Prohibition (Holbert, Saine, Marble)
    Monday Feb. 10 1:30 p.m. Old Supreme Court Chambers (1st of 3)

     

    I hope that the pro magazine-imits base gets their people out to testify, as they did at last week's hearing on background checks.

    Looks like Colorado Ceasefire is getting their folks active on it, posting a list of House members of the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee to call and email:

    COLORADO CEASEFIRE NEEDS YOU TO OPPOSE THIS BILL! COLORADO WILL NOT BACK DOWN ON COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS!
    Call/Email/Testify. Contact COLORADO CEASEFIRE if you are able to testify on this bill: info@coloradoceasefire.org
    HB14-1151 Repeal Ammunition Magazine Prohibition (Holbert, Saine, Marble)
    Monday Feb. 10 1:30 p.m. Old Supreme Court Chambers (1st of 3)

    - See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/54134/this-week-get-ready-for-magazine-ban-mayhem-maybe#sthash.N3WHHLWL.dpuf

  5. Curmudgeon says:

    Meanwhile, at the bottom of the page, Gomer Pyle is shootin' blanks again…..But he got all the good buzzwords.  

  6. Negev says:

    Hi Guys!

    Do you think Co-sponsor of the original mag ban bill Diana Degette will be around to discuss the detailed nuances of the misinformation? She seemed to have a firm grasp of the dangers of high capacity magazines and the effect the ban would have when she wrote it:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z96Ks3Ajcv8

    Thank god you can only use those evil things once….they will all be gone in no time…oh wait…

     

     

    • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

      Hi Negev, we missed you, because you have some original thoughts. (Some of us did, anyway).

      I'll say this once: the magazine limitation law is not perfect. It may stop some planned mass shootings from carrying through, because of the necessity of reloading.

      When my son was in high school at the time of the Columbine shootings, they banned black trench coats (which were high fashion post – Matrix) because the shooters wore trench coats. My son had just gotten one, and we were frankly pissed that he coulcn't wear it anymore.

      That is always the way with random, crazy, unmanageable, uncontrollable and in this case evil behavior; the adults in the vicinity try to ban what we can ban, which is usually clothes, a size of magazines, or something materially possible to ban.  Dress codes in high schools work like that, and it can become goddam silly trying to sort out which T shirt /pants combinations are possibly "gang related". Uniforms make life simpler.

      So I do think that there is an element of that in the magazine ban.  But I'll only back off from my advocacy of the magazine limits ban if you gunzos tell me what, specifically, you would do to control the behavior:

      • the hundreds of people killed every year by domestic partners
      • the kids killed "by accident"
      • the suicides with a gun handy
      • "make my day" gone bad, with innocent people presumed guilty and shot
      • regular violent gun-totin' crime, including "road rage" incidents
      • "open carry" with intent to intimidate fellow legislators and citizens
      • the occasional rare mass shooting or school shooting

      And you don't get off the hook by saying the magic words "mental health". What mental health laws and funding will you stand for? What about privacy and the HIPA laws? At what point do you beleive someone who is a credble threat to sociiety, a James Holmes or an Adam Lanza, or the Arapahoe HS shooter, should be locked up? What about your run of the mill domestic abuser? How many chances should people get after they threaten someone or damage property with a gun?

      Here's the challenge: you answer some of those specifically, and I'll acknowledge that we could improve on a magazine limits ban.

       

       

       

       

       

  7. Ralphie says:

    Monday, 1:45.  Anybody having trouble getting audio from the Old Supreme Court Chambers where the hearing is supposed to be?

  8. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    I checked out some of the testimony after 5:30 pm today. I heard a preponderance of pro-repeal speakers. There was at least one yahoo from RMGO who had the gall to tell the sister of a Sandy Hook adult victim that her sister might be alive today, if only the teachers had been armed.

    Victor Head got on at 5:34 pm, asking the committee to reconsider repeal in light of new facts coming to light. The "new facts" were:

    • magazine repair /replacement kits are available to buy for ~ the cost of buying a magazine. So, Head says, the law is pointless and ineffective. "Point of sale" availability of 15+  magazines continues.
    • Then Head went into a long ramble about the "hundreds of magazines" he has at home, wondering what would happen to them if he dies and no one is old enough to receive them.  To him, he said, it seems like a "de facto" confiscation. Really. Even though the law 13-1224 does not prohibit possession of existing magazines, only selling them, it seems that Mr. Head could will them in his estate to any person over the age of 21. Or they could sell them over the internet to out of state people.  But that hypothetical scenario, of a healthy 28 year old dying intestate and leaving his hundreds of magazines fatherless is  "de facto confiscation".

    6:20 pm, no one waiting to testify,  public testimony was closed. No amendments were offered. Lori Saine went into the history of 2nd amendment, that the "militias" should have same kind of weaponry as governments standing army. Re: mass shootings: suicide notes indicate mass shooters look for "gun free" zones. Large capacity mags will jam more often than smaller mags. More guns = less crime.

    Rep. Holbert: 13-1224 does not prohibit possession.  its very easy to put a magazine together.  We're asking you repeal a line in the sand that exists in front of a few cash registers in colorado.

    Most of the other members of the committee were voting "No" on the repeal, for the reason that they had asked their constituents, and their constituents did not want to law to be repealed.

  9. Negev says:

    Ok Mama bright and early – mag ban repeal rejected, ain't that a surprise. My initial comments ie Dianna Degette are intended to suggest that it would be reasonable to expect the sponsor of such a bill, to AT LEAST know what it is they are banning, I mean a working knowledge of the item would be requisite in my opinion to convince the opposition you are at least marginally knowledgable on the subject. More importantly, proving beyond a shadow of doubt publicly that you have absolutely NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about the subject you are banning, lends little to no credibility to your cause and raises skepticism to the process. 

    In terms of me answering specifically your items above, I will give it a shot, but please note that I in know way am looking for any acknowledgement that we can improve on the magazine limits ban. In fact I am quite content with the current law and do not want it repealed as well -

    Whaat? You say? Yup. You heard me correct. Gun nuts need to shut the fuck up on this issue and smile and say thank you. Here's why: This law is so egregiously impotent and ridiculously unenforcable that a gun nut would be crazy to repeal it, as it provides open ended, vague and impossible verbiage that will lead to, in my opinion, absolutely zero violations in its current wording. Repealling it would give the Dems a second chance to potentially make a law that has some utility – I'm not holding my breath on that one – but the fact is they can't make a less effective bill that they already have, so any attempt to "improve" the current mag ban bill would only be an effort to punish those who had the first, useless bill repealed. So please, feel as if "something" was done, and this "Common sense" legislation is what we needed to "save the children" and move along to something else. Keep up the good work. 

    Now in terms of specifically  addressing you points above Mama, you make some very relevant behaviour issues. Perhaps not entirely gun related, however clear social issues this country must face. 

    Domestic violence – I do not know the statistics, but many domestic partners are beaten, stabbed, bludgeoned and pushed off cliffs. Banning fists, knives, sports equipment and travel does not appear to be on the list for safety concerns here, but I would suggest that an abusive partner should be detained, as in jailed, while they await trial. I also beleive false accusation of abuse should hold the same sentence. I do also believe that a domestic partner with intent to murder thier partner will accomplish this goal whether it be with a gun, bat, fork or bare hands, so I am not certain any ban on magazines would prevent this occurance.

    Kids killed by "accident" is tragic, and can be ultimately blamed on poor parenting habits and should indeed be prosecuted. It would be difficult to agree that a family that losses the parents to prison for not adequately securing a firearm is the best alternative, but if your suggesting that this is some relevant to magazine capacity and that you would revisit the mag ban due to kids being killed by "accident" with over 15 rounds of ammo, I would submit that it is most likely not an "accident". That being said the fact you bring this up would suggest that NO guns would prevent this from happening, which would suggest to me that the slippery slope of complete removal of guns from society is lingering in the comment… is it?

    Suicide with a gun handy – now does it count as a gun crime when you shoot yourself? I mean – and I am serious – is suicide illegal? If so I am not sure who would be held accountable, but again, this is a social responsibility issue that would require accountability on those affected by the suicide and the actions they choose to take. I would agree that this issue must be addressed because those god dam suicidal nuts really skew the gun death stats and make it appear more people are shot – by other people – than actually are. I will again say, this rarely requires more than 1 shot and the idea you appear to be suggesting is that spontanious suicide by gunshot would be prevented by not having a gun available, supporting the theory that banning guns altogether would prevent suicide, which I believe would stop suicide by gun, but not suicide. Is it worse to kill yourself by gun than jumping off a building? I mean would could ban high places, right?

    Make my day gone bad – Agreed tragedy. Innocent people presumed guilty and shot. Largest perpitrator of this crime – the police. You can realistically take the guns away from police and prevent this issue from occurring. More innocent people die from death by cop than in mass shootings. 

    Regular gun totin crime – well, you got me on that one – we can ban drugs, or money, or economic inequality and really take a bite out of crime, but this one really hits the point hard - a criminal does not obey the law – so any law you consider in an effort to prevent this goes out the window, you just can't legislate crime away - 

    And aaaahhhh… the occasional rare mass shooting. The one and only issue that the magazine ban reflects upon – occasional and rare – thank you. Have you ever boarded a plane and sat through the flight attendant speach - you know "seat cushions can be used for floatation devices" have you ever thought for a second, like, wow – thanks for that…. you mean after I survive the fall from 36,000 feet, the impact of terminal velocity to water, and the exit from plane into presumably open water ocean, you have taken the opportunity to provide me with a floataion device? Thank you very much. This is my position on mass shooting prevention by magazine restriction. So after a psycho lunatic has entered the location, chosen as to be gun free and full of unsuspecting innocent people, opens fire and begins mowing down people, with some unknown weapon, with who knows how many 5,10,15,30, 60, 90, 120 round magazines on his person (remember this is now a crimanal, and the 15 round limit law does not apply), you have given me the opportunity to assess the situation, visually index the shooter, who presumably is shooting in my direction, anticipate the arrival of a 1.5 second break in the fire to gauge my approach to run toward the shooter in an effort to tackle him and stop the slaughter. And you call ME Rambo? Get real. Useless legislation for political purposes. Period. If you don't see it your not looking.

    And now you mention NOT to just say mental health. I had breakfast with our state rep (Dem) and asked him why, out of all the gun bills, there was no mental health bill – he made it clear that the Dems want nothing to do with mental health as it would require HIPA violation and not bode well with the constituants they wish to garner votes from. Huh. Thats awesome. The one and only common thread from all mass shooters is mental health and its politically unfavorable. Go figure. 

    I hope I have addressed a majority of the issues specifically – again, I urge you to NOT reconsider the mag ban and feel confident it is an effective stop gap to prevent these issues. Nothing to see here, move along – I am certain there are more pressing items on the docket… 

     

    • roccoprahn says:

      No.

      I'll address your last point. 

      Maybe you "had breakfast with our State Rep  (Dem)". I don't know you, so I really can't say you're a liar with absolute certainty. But……………….if you did, "he" didn't say anything remotely close to what you're attempting to say he did. If, in fact, you conversed with "him", you were told the republicans in the US Senate have repeatedly blocked or filibustered Senate Bills that would have allowed access to health records re: background checks.

      So no, the Democrats in Colorado aren't afraid of constituents, they didn't attempt that because it would have violated Federal Law.

      We've been over this enough for you to realize this is a red herring you're not going to pull off.

      • Negev says:

        Rocco your hubris precedes you - 

        • roccoprahn says:

          No arguing that.

          But…………….my faults and weaknesses have nothing to do with the fact you just tried to put out disinformation. Falsehoods. Bullshit. 

          Or………………correct me.

           

          • Negev says:

            Alright. You stand corrected. 

            • roccoprahn says:

              Any actual data, facts, numbers, Representative's names?

              Not an attempt to out anyone. But it'd be great to actually hear from "him", his explanation as to the reason the Democrats in Colorado don't want to violate HIPAA.

              Didn't think so.

              • Negev says:

                Do you mean to tell me (puff, puff) that the legislature did not want to enact (bong rip) laws in the interest of public safety (pfft pfft) that violated federal law (exhale)?… whoaa…

                 

                • roccoprahn says:

                  You just changed the subject.

                  The comparison's not valid, either.

                  You knew when you posted your above that had Colorado enacted mental health records access on background checks contrasting Federal law, that law suits would ensue immediately and the plaintiffs would win every one of them.

                  Hard to equate that to (puff, puff,) legalization.

                  So quit your bullshit, stop wasting peoples' time with your gunzo whining.

                  Or answer the challenge and produce something of value re: your "State Rep./HIPAA scam.

                  Get to it. You're burnin' daylight, you phony.

                  • Negev says:

                    Rocco you just answered the challenge yourself. "had Colorado enacted mental health records access on background checks contrasting Federal law, that law suits would ensue immediately and the plaintiffs would win every one of them." 

                    How can you find that so hard to believe coming from me?

                    Get over yourself, your not that important. 

                    • roccoprahn says:

                      It's not working negev. Your bullshit is not only stale and old, it's TOO easy to knock down.

                      "Distract, change the subject, now look over here" The negev scam.

                       

                • ClubTwitty says:

                  Gee, I thought that We the People did that at the ballot box.  

    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

      Negev…

      You have never offered up a reason why you need a 30 round magazine any more than you need an RPG. Perhaps there may be some validity in what you say regarding the efficacy of restricting magazine size, but the fact is…no citizen needs a 30 round magazine. If such a restriction ever saves the life of just one child, it will have been a worthy move.

      • Negev says:

        Duke we live in a rights based society – you don't NEED to be here exercising free speech. Nobody really NEEDS privacy. We all know there are limits like yelling fire in a crowded theater, if it poses a direct, clear and significant threat to others(its not illigal if you are attempting to save them) - so when you ask me why I NEED a 30 round magazine, the question should be will limiting people to 15 rounds get rid of a clear, direct and significant threat?

        I think most would agree the answer is no.

        Just like your yellow shirt analogy, its not the shirt you NEED to wear, Duke, its what that yellow shirt represents that you do not need restricted. 

         

         

        • roccoprahn says:

          Now that's what I call a stretch. 

          I'm thinking the analogy's that a 30 round magazine or a 100 round magazine is safer that a 15 round magazine is 'cause maybe it'll jam.

          Well, that's one way, albeit pretty loony, to look at it.

          Good luck with that one.

        • BlueCat says:

          As long as you admit that all the rights in our rights based society are subject to limits and restrictions so debate on the extent of those limits or the conditions of those restrictions is legit. Hysterical accusations that any restrictions violate our constitutional rights aren't. Period. 

          • Negev says:

            Word. "In common use" from Heller is all one could ask.  

            • Yet the Supreme Court has, since Heller, refused to review magazine size limit laws. Why is that? Maybe because they can't find even 4 justices who want to strike down such a limit?

            • BlueCat says:

              That term is open to interpretation which probably accounts for what PR said. I'm just saying that your allies who insist that there can be no regulation because any regulation violates our constitutional rights are irrational, have no credibility and therefore don't deserve to be taken seriously. If you are capable of making distinctions that your wacko friends can't or choose not to manage, you'll need to make that clear in order to be taken seriously.

        • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

          Negev..
          I differ…
          we do not live in a rights based society. From what orofice did you pull that?
          We live in a law based society. Individualism is based in our rights. That’s why we have a bill of rights in the first place.

          • Curmudgeon says:

            Face it, Negev lives in his own world. 

            A world where tools specifically constructed to kill people are as innocuous as yellow t-shirts; unless in the hands of a trained killer such as himself (trained killer being a guy who waddles around a target range, shooting paper targets while "Danger Zone" blares on the PA system); but, they're only effective enough for him when they have a 15+ magazine…otherwise, it's just not fair.

            • Negev says:

              Dude, Danger Zone is a good song. But do tell if these tools were specifically constructed to kill people – why are there not millions of dead people? I would think that if they were specifically constructed to kill people they are either incredibly ineffective and poorly suited to do the job, or god forbid, have an alternative use? Its just a bummer shooting 15 round mags in full auto – its like less than 1 second – at least with 30 you get like, almost 2 seconds on the giggle switch…are you guys against the pursuit of happiness too? Please don't ban fun – think of the children!

              • Curmudgeon says:

                Of course, guns (at least, the kind you play with) have an alternative use than just killing people. 

                They make out-of-shape wannabe cop/soldier/mercenaries feel like they're badasses, and indulge their fantasies that non-gun suckers are somehow intimidated by them.  

                And that's a lot easier than getting a life. 

                • Negev says:

                  Either that or just a lot of fun, with little bother about what you suckers actually think…ever have a good time, curmudgeon?  I believe you suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, in which you have to put down people to make yourself feel better. 85% of you are alcoholics or drug addicts, with15% raised by people who put them down as children and made them feel small…

                  Its ok. I understand you really can't help yourself so perhaps me being here is a little therapy for you to grow. Carry on…

                  • Curmudgeon says:

                    Acutally, I'm usually having a good time; I just don't need to fondle the same weapons people use to slaughter innocent children to do it.  That just doesn't seem like fun to me. Some people lug weapons around for years as part of their job. They tend to get over the "wow, look at me! I have a gun!!" aspect; mostly because pulling the trigger is seen as a last resort, rather than the ecstatic moment of triumph.  As to NPD? I suppose that's possible…I am somewhat overfond of my own wit.

                    But you're right, Negev, you're obviously the psychologically healthier one; since I don feel qualified to make any sort of clinical diagnoses about a person based on their posts, I can't opine about your drug or alcohol use, or parentage.  

                    I just figure, judging by your posts, that you're  another gun-sucking wannabe who insists his fallacious arguments and leaps of logic be taken seriously, because he's such a badass.   But that's not a clinical diagnosis, or anything.

                    • roccoprahn says:

                      So now negev's a qualified health professional AND has the ear of "Dem legislators".

                      Next he'll be one of the guys that got Bin Laden.

  10. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    Negev, you attempted to answer some of my arguments, but perhaps I wasn't clear:

    Most of the following are not situations in which the size of the magazine is relevant:

    • the hundreds of people killed every year by domestic partners
    • the kids killed "by accident"
    • the suicides with a gun handy
    • "make my day" gone bad, with innocent people presumed guilty and shot
    • regular violent gun-totin' crime, including "road rage" incidents
    • "open carry" with intent to intimidate fellow legislators and citizens

     

    Although I really don't want the guy next to me in traffic with the handgun in the glove compartment to be packing a 15+, the above situations are better addressed with other gun laws, like background checks.Including Hudak's extension so that domestic abusers with active restraining orders may not legally buy guns.  

    The gun law I want, which is more restrictive than any passed so far in Colorado, is a one-strike-you're-out rule with gun misbehavior. In other words, you threaten someone, you shoot out a streetlight or an animal, your kid gets hold of your gun, guess what….no more guns for you. You are on gun probation, possibly permanently. If that was ever legislated, all you guys would be shitting bricks. 

    But you're right, the only case in which the 15+ magban  has had any real-world application is the statistically rare mass shooting. As much as you mock the chances of the victim escaping, people have escaped mass shootings when magazines jammed or needed to be reloaded. Arizona, Century 21,  Sandy Hook. 

    But as I said in my post above, it's an imperfect law, and I do think it's something like the dress code policies in schools, which are supposed to protect kids from gang violence; the problem of gang violence is so damn big and complex, and so much of it is out of the control of school administrators,  that we fall back on controlling the concrete things we can control: what the kids are allowed to wear.

    Similarly, the mag ban is a fall back position; the problems of mass shootings are so big and complex and mostly out of our control that we fall back on the little we can control, which is the size of the magazine. I'll stand by it, even if it's imperfect. As far as whether it can be enforced, people much smarter than you or I, like Colorado Supreme Court justices and the Attorney General, seem to think that it can be enforced. So I'm not going to argue that point anymore with you.

    What I did ask you to do was to talk about mental health, and you didn't. You put out some bs story about a Dem legislator you supposedly talked with.

    How do I know it's BS? Because Dems actually did promote several mental health laws, to add funding to community mental health services that had gotten cut down to the bone. ACA funding is going to help with that. Now, none of these violate existing HIPAA regs. Obama, however, is pushing for a law which would allow psychiatrists and psychologists to report dangerous individuals to the NICS.

    So your line about "Dems not wanting to deal with mental health" doesn't wash. It's a difficult area. Distracting and refusing to deal with it doesn't help. 

     

  11. Negev says:

    Mama I have lost my hour long reply by clicking your links, but I will hit the bullet points as time is not short:

    I realize your arguments were not related to 15+capacity. The relate to 2 things – personal responsibility and the complete removal of guns from the population. If you prefer to remove the tool you have not changed the behaviour, and would most likely find the tool is easily replaced with a competing substitute.

    The gun law you want is indeed called a felony conviction. Nobody seems to be shitting bricks. Now, if a kid gets a hold of your gun and shoots a bear thats eating his sister, does he go to jail or get a medal?

    And yes, people have escaped mass shootings. People have fallen from planes without a parachute and survived. Not the recommended strategy and legislation based on anomaly is reckless.  

    And you don't know my story about the Dem legislator is BS. You wish it was. Your "several mental health bills"? I do see the "persons with mental illness criminal justice" bill SB14-021 which extends a current law 5 years? Is that what you are reffering to? I found it after "Prohibit Nicotine Product Distribution to Minors" bill (boy that ones working out well)… I am not sure your providing me addequate support that something is being done to address mental health and gun sales, so my "line" of Dems not wanting to deal with mental health, in terms of the topic at hand, guns, remains valid from my perspective.

    It seems your all in a bunch from this coming from a Dem representitive – note I would submit to you that I wholeheartedly believe that a Republican would have said the same thing. Hell even Curmudgeon agreed with the logic, so why are you so surprised/defensive?

    • ClubTwitty says:

      Oh, what a tragedy!  I think we all owe mama a beer!

    • roccoprahn says:

      Yeah, I'm pretty sure your story about the "Dem Legislator" is pure bullshit.

       Reason being, you started your argument out by saying the Democrats had the House and Senate and didn't even try to pass legislation re: mental health records accessibility in background checks, thereby showing "they weren't serious about the "real reason" mass shootings happen".

      When it was conveyed to you…..here…..several times by several posters……that the US Senate failed to pass that very legislation because of red obstruction, thereby rendering any action by Colorado moot, you switched to " a Dem legislator" telling you the Democrats didn't try it for fear of the voters. When that was shot down, you went a full 180 and agreed that Colorado couldn't buck Federal law.

      You're a 1 issue fringe radical, and a bullshitter.

      After reading you for the last couple days, yeah, it's pretty obvious that "Dem Legislator" doesn't exist.

      Note to self, negev, you need to stay away from countering your first claim with your last when making stuff up.b

  12. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    Curmudgeon, anytime on that beer. I warn you that I'm a cheap drunk, so 4 ounces will probably get me buzzed just fine. 

    Negev, I've lost my writing many times on here. Sometimes it was better that way.  When you open a link in here, ctrl click it and select the "open in a new tab/new window" option. Or compose your reply in a word processing program, then copy & paste. 

     

  13. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    Many people misbehave with guns, yet are not charged with felonies, or not charged at all.  Examples: Dick Cheney, the Navy Yard shooter. Violent, abusive people with domestic violence charges in their pasts were 57% of the shooters in the MAIG study, referenced below.  If they were ever charged with a felony, it did not prevent them from attacking their communities. 43% of the people in the MAIG study were "prohibited possessors". That tells me that many of them had not been charged, or were charged with misdemeanors. 

    When I started looking this up, I was appalled at the number of mass shootings we've had in the US. These are just the deadliest 25.  Mayors against Illegal Guns  has done an analysis of the backgrounds of the shooters in 93 of these tragic events. 

    An interesting finding from that analysis was that high capacity magazines were used in only 14% of those incidents, yet resulted in 63% of the fatalities.  So, again, we're controlling what we can control.

    Actually,  it doesn't matter to me whether the comment on "Dems not touching mental health" came from a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, if it was said at all. It isn't true, anyway.  Dems are certainly more likely to allocate funds to community mental health clinics and preventative care than Republicans, and the links I cited showed that.

    What about the law Obama is promoting, to allow psychiatric professionals to circumvent HIPAA to report information on dangerous people to the NICS.  Where do you stand on that proposed rule? Public comments are open. 

  14. Diogenesdemar says:

    Did I not mention earlier that, for those adherents of the religion of Gunzoism, common sense and reasonableness are completely dismissed as "a slippery slope"??????

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.