President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 26, 2012 11:17 PM UTC
31 Comments
same conclusion.
Some are going to question how you could come to your conclusion, given your background. Not me.
Thanks for sharing.
I own three guns. Two handguns and a shotgun. I do a lot of wilderness hiking. Don’t need no stinkin’ AK47.
Why should it be up to me (and others) to achieve the limiting, the making it harder, the mandating waiting periods?
Not assuming one way or the other whether you’re members of the NRA, if you “greatly favor gun control”, have you tried to influence that organization? Have you written your state and federal senators and representatives? Hick?
I appreciate you’re “coming out” here, but it’s an uphill climb to get some sanity in our gun laws. We need your help, and as owners/users you lend credibility to the effort. Thanks.
I’ve never been a member of the NRA, nor the military, and if you would ask anyone who knows me, the last thing they would call me is a “gun nut”. I am not a hunter, except for mosquitos and moscas, though I grew up hunting for food in eastern Kentucky and have no objection to the practice.
A gun is a handy tool for feeding yourself in a pinch, if you are stranded in the desert or mountains, say, and, God forbid, you should ever have to defend your life or that of a loved one, you hope you have had SOME training, because, your conviction that you can pull that gun and use it may not stand the test when that moment actually arrives. I have been in a position to be forced to engage that consideration. Luckily, the situation diffused before any weapons appeared.
My ownership of guns has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment…in terms of why I have them. As I said in another thread, the camo wearing patriots among us are not the Mujahideen. I can only imagine the soiled trousers when some of our local militia get a load of six helicopter gunships above the treetops, coming in fast.
I began hunting (small game — pheasants, ducks, rabbits) with my father, uncles, and grandfather as a child. It was both putting food on the table as well as father-son-family time. Our family friends were pretty much all land owners, farmers, and hunters. I began hunting on my own with friends at about age fourteen — again, small game. I shot trap and skeet in high school.
When I moved to Colorado, there was not a lot of small game hunting close to our home and a dearth of lands on which I had access to hunt such. I kind of quit for a while except for the occasional return to home and family over the holidays. I took up archery as a hobby and shot at a local range three times a week; eventually I shot competitively.
Neighbors from Wisconsin and Michigan moved in who became friends; they grew much hunting much as I did, except that they had hunted deer with their families as kids. I learned to deer hunt, and together we learned elk hunting; that combined my love of the outdoors, camping, backpacking, and hunting. Handguns were carried for protection.
I’ve always seen a gun as a tool, primarily for hunting, but also for protection in remote areas. I enjoy target shooting both with guns and with archery. I have taken hunter safety courses, several handgun training courses, shotgun courses, rifle courses, and regularly shoot at local ranges. One of my best buddys and hunting partners is in law enforcement and would definitely qualify as a gun nut; he owns maybe 40 or 50 guns. We often practice shooting handguns, rifles, muzzleloaders, shotguns and archery together.
But to echo dukeco, my ownership of guns isn’t about the second amendment as some kind of special right or religious belief. I was an NRA member for about one year, maybe fifteen years ago. It didn’t take long to see that an organization that was once largely about hunting and hunter’s rights in my childhood, had become a totally unreasonable and insane cult that had nothing to do with hunting or responsible gun ownership — they had become about completely unfettered ownership sans any concern for personal or societal responsibility except for some occasional lip-service.
I have a CC permit that I have held for over fifteen years — I got it originally not because I actually wanted to carry any type of concealed weapon, but as insurance at that time against having any legal problems with Denver police if I got pulled over in traffic while I was transporting a gun to shooting range practice. (Law enforcement in Denver at that time was renown for harassment of drivers with guns in their car. Having a CC permit was pretty much an unquestioned affirmative defense if ever needed. It now also provides me with evidence of having had a complete and thorough background check to any responsible private party who I might someday purchase a gun from.)
I don’t really feel like I’m “coming out,” because I’ve never done anything with or in owning any of my firearms that I have ever been ashamed of, or was even ever questioned as improper. On the contrary, I’ve gone out of my way to never give anyone a reason to view me as anything other than completely responsible and safe. All of my guns are stored locked up and in safes, as is the ammunition for any of them.
I believe that owning a gun or guns for home or personal defense is completely proper and appropriate as well as a constitutionally guaranteed. (I would not recommend anyone doing so, however, for without sufficient training and and strong requisite responsibility to gun safety.)
When I say, “limit me,” I don’t mean “stop me before I purchase another gun.” I mean that I have no problems with additional limits on the out-of-control and irresponsible situation we face today. We should have limitations on gun ownership including: extended waiting periods before purchase, more thorough background checks, limits on the number of guns that anyone may purchase in a given period of time, registration of firearms, elimination of all internet sales of ammunition, and elimination of the general public from being able to purchase or possess military-type (assault) weapons and related materials. I would have no problem with any training or course requirements as prerequisite to any gun ownership.
I think military-type (assault) weapons and high-capacity magazines serve no legitimate purpose to anyone not in the military or law enforcement — the ability to purchase these weapons should be limited to those folks with this special need and federal permitting. I would say the same for military grade body armor.
Sorry with the long run-on answer. This topic gets too little thorough discussion and explanation, and too much bumper-sticker sloganeering. Hope that it explains my thinking.
1) keep abreast of the propaganda
2) discounts at gun ranges available in most of the country
I don’t think of myself as a gun nut either though even some here might given what I have said in this diary.
I don’t think gun ownership needs constitutional protection, it should be a local control issue. The CO Constitution contains a provison re the “right to hunt” but hunting is still quite regulated
I fully agree with your conclusions. They are even more persuasive coming from gun owners. Let’s keep the pressure on to get reasonable legislation passed.
And, let’s have this be the first question in the DU Presidential debate.
.
I’m more than a little surprised that the Presidential candidates are debating the use of Depleted Uranium (DU) in tank ammo,
but it is a legacy of death and birth defects for untold generations in the places where we choose to wage unnecessary wars (and also where we wage defensive wars, as that occasion arises.)
It was a chilling account of the consequences of this material used in shells to pierce armor, the Agent Orange of our Mid East wars.
Didn’t know they were talking about it, but if they are it’s long overdue. I find it incredible I never heard anything else about it all these years, at least from the mainstream press.
.
the 5.56 bullets coming out of the business end of an AR-15 or M-16 (very similar pieces of machinery) are going very fast, and spinning very fast.
The spin is caused by lands and grooves cut into the inside of the barrel (rifling.)
One purpose is to gyroscopically stabilize the projectile in flight.
With most of that angular momentum carrying through to the end of the bullet’s flight, as soon as it touches something solid, whether glass or bone or anything else, it veers sharply off course.
When hitting a human target, this vastly magnifies tissue damage.
There has been a move to outlaw this sort of high-spin ammo, even in war because, combined with its low mass, the M-16 bullet seems designed to inflict massive injuries, rather than kill the target.
This is allegedly so because it usually serves a military force much better to grievously injure enemy soldiers than to kill them outright, for a couple of reasons:
— impact on morale; and
— it takes 2 to 4 soldiers to evacuate one very badly injured comrade.
Gray’s .308 caliber AR-15 wouldn’t do that. Nor did the M-14.
.
except they are “lans”
more importantly what you say about the reasons that an army would almost rather wound than kill I learned more than 40 years ago is also correct. And, when you think of the financial cost to treat a wounded soldier rather than bury a dead one it is even more appealing to both sides
but then I checked Wikipedia.
Can’t win for losing, some days.
I have coveted the Springfield Armory M1A (civilian M14)for many years. The Super Match and its ilk are near equivalents of the M21 sniper rifle. Though a fine weapon I could never justify the price when I my skill level was just as well served by an out of the box Savage 110 in .270.
I have allowed people to shoot my Detonics CombatMaster, who until the companies rebirth, which is a near legend for its ease of concealment and ease of shooting in a .45 caliber as the first of its kind and they are amazed by its accuracy and ease of shooting in such a small pistol in a large caliber.
As a person who grew up with guns, owns more than a dozen, loves and covets guns and takes pride when others covet mine, it is time to have a serious conversation about sensible limits. Limit me.
Thanks for the diary.
I have zero issue with hunting or target shooting. I have little issue with people who want “personal protection.”
But I just don’t get the gun culture as explained here and with other Polsters.
But carry on. Safely.
I enjoy being able to make very difficult shots. On a pool table or a rifle range. About a 4 hour drive from me is a bell the size of a coffee cup. When I can hit that from 900 yards it makes me very happy. It means that my equipment and my body are both working very well. I only get to shoot at that bell about once a year and for ten years I am better than 50% with one shot.
I don’t carry a weapon on me though I may get a CCP. I always carry a weapon in my car during late summer and fall so I can put critters hurt by cars out of their misery. Then I call CHP and they get the meat to a kitchen.
The only hunting I’ve ever done is for rabbits and coyotes. But, I do hope to begin elk hunting next year
I guess it’s like so many human endeavors and interests. Some things, click, some don’t. I’ve lived on the water with boats many years of my life yet have never developed any serious interest in fishing. Go figger.
and became a sailing fanatic. But, I really don’t like working on motors so no other boating has ever been of enough interest to get me to bite
do you agree with me about what makes a rifle an “assault rifle”? How might you define it if not?
.
But then I read – in the last couple of weeks – that it had to do with the combination of an automatic or semi-automatic cycle of function, plus removable magazines.
I think that language comes out of the 1994 Ban.
.
An infantryman needs to be able to kill a lot of people in a hurry. Those two features are what makes it possible, seems to me.
.
Note: my MOS (specialty) when I was in SF was Heavy weapons, like recoilless rifles, heavier machine guns, anti-tank weapons, mortars and up. Small arms are more of a hobby for me.
.
Another note: I have fired around 200 rounds from a single M-16 in a short time, and didn’t notice it causing any harm.
Maybe I did damage it, and just didn’t notice.
But I know that common machine guns come issued with a second barrel, and an asbestos mitt, so that barrels can be swapped every so often. With the M-2 .50 cal, I thought is was every 1,000 rounds, and 500 rounds for the M-60. Of course, those barrels are 5X as thick as an M-16’s.
those are common in hunting rifles
Since the M-16 is not an accurate weapon in any case, firing 200 rounds, with the brief intervals necessary to change mags, there would probably not be a noticeable impairment.
The M-16 was the first weapon I ever fired on auto. Must admit it was fun. But, I’m sure you can remmember how difficult it is holding that weapon on target while on auto.
I do think it was the “aggressive appearance” that got most weapons classed as assault rifles. So, I keep coming back to that chambering feature.
What the Gundamentalist gets their Reagan-print panties in a wad over is the use of the term “assault weapons” when we talk about this issue. The problem is we’re using a marketing term to describe something much more vague.
What we should be talking about is what makes some weapons have a military component – in that, how do you kill a bunch of stuff in a hurry. People mostly, but anything that has a heartbeat will do.
I was trained as a Infantryman in the early days of my military career, and most of my training at beautiful Ft Benning consisted around this mission:
We can argue over the gun-geek details of why a particular firearm has this muzzle velocity or that caliber or is chambered for a particular round. The real acid test needs to be how well it’s designed to kill things in all the above circumstances, and how quickly and effectively it can do it.
If we look at the weapons used by the Aurora Shooter, the AR15 and Remington 870 shotgun (if they’re the versions with the folding stocks and for the shotgun, a pistol grip) are entirely designed to kill things at a variety of ranges, and quickly. The compact size of these weapons make them easier to use in confined urban spaces.
In a movie theater with lots of obstacles to move around, this was a huge advantage towards shooting lots of people. Anything with a full stock makes it hard to point your weapon around seats or in between aisles.

Accuracy is not really a big factor in urban combat, esp if you’re the grunt that has to move between buildings and go thru doors. The ability to put out a lot of rounds over a short time is more important, since it makes the bad guys want to duck and not shoot back. Again, both of these weapons are ideal for that. 

If a weapon can fit these specs, then it’s a military weapon and should at least be restricted, if not banned. The 2nd Amendment does not grant the right for citizens to bear M249 SAWs.

Lastly, I can’t think of a military application for a 100-round drum magazine. That thing would be heavy (unbalancing the weapon) noisy from the rounds clanking together and (as it actually happened) prone to jamming in use. It seems like it was made for some “Walking Dead” fantasy and not a serious shooter.
“The Infantry closes with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver in order to destroy or capture him or to repel his assault by fire, close combat, and counterattack.”
FM7-8, Infantry Rifle Platoon And Squad
that’s pretty cool.
What I’m getting out of this is one should own a weapon for a particular purpose. I used to own a sporting shotgun and a rifle when I hunted, but I quit hunting years ago so I had no need for them and sold them.
I have two handguns, a .380 Colt and a .41 Magnum Taurus Titanium Tracker. I have a carry permit so the Colt is for that purpose, but I rarely carry.
I bought the .41 Tracker off a private party in a intrastate sale for the particular purpose of a mountain gun, which is exactly what the weapon is for. Small and light it makes a great camp gun and I can take it on backpack trips like the trip I’m planning on in the Weimenuche this fall.
The seller of the .41 as a responsible person wanted to know I was a law abiding responsible person purchasing this weapon, since no back ground check was needed. He was assured of that because I had a carry permit in which a through background check is performed.
The point here is one should own a weapon for a particular and legitimate purpose. Unfortunately the Aurora shooter purchased his weapons for the particular purpose of committing a mass murder, but he did so legally.
As a responsible gun owner, I support the 2nd Amendment and the individual right to own a firearm. But it’s not an absolute right and reasonable restrictions can be imposed, as held by the SCOTUS.
I would be in favor of classifying certain purpose built assault weapons in the same category as machine guns in which a special Federal permit is required.
Comments are welcome.
I’m largely in agreement with you. As I’ve said though I think the real problem in the past was the very vague classification of “assault weapons” and I think that people like you and me can help legislators with that definition if the opportunity arises. It can NOT be left to the NRA.
What does or does not constitute an “assault weapon”.
Kinda like what one Supreme Court justice said about pornography, “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it”.
above a certain caliber, say .22. A more “normal” rifle requires manual chambering of each round.
Another criteria, one that might be more meaningful, would be a rifle that can not, no matter what, be made automatic. Almost everytime I take my AR to the range someone will offer, for $20-$50, to make it automatic. That is an option that I have absolutely no interest in but I do know at least 50 people who have done it with a variety of gas chambered rifles. Rather scary because a lot of these folks shouldn’t be allowed to have anything more dangerous than a paper clip and they can’t shoot for shit. I know it would be the ruination of my AR’s long distance targeting capabilities.
to define an “assault” weapon as one used in a situation where one might conceivably receive return fire? Where a rapid fire capacity and extensive magazine capacity are features?
Deer, Elk, and most rabbits are unarmed and it is not particularly advantageous, as a matter of self defense, to be able to squeeze off 30 rounds in a matter of seconds. Besides…it ruins the meat.
.
I would say that the AR-15 is “gas operated,” and that another form of semi-automatic operation, used in most semi-auto handguns, is “recoil operated.”
Then, of course, a revolver is technically semi-auto, but the action of squeezing the trigger includes the force needed to rotate the cylinder and cock the hammer, making for a harder pull.
(The M-16 actually incorporates a type of “recoil,” inasmuch as the bolt slams the buffer back into the hole in the stock, compressing the buffer spring, which then rebounds, knocking the bolt forward, causing it to strip the next round out of the clip, chamber the round, and due to the cam pin, lock the bolt. But all of that starts with the gas in the gas tube propelling the bolt back in the first place.)
A true “recoil-operated” semi-auto cycle of function performs all necessary functions without the propellant gas doing anything but sending the round downrange. The rearward acceleration of the expended shell casing is the only force causing the gun to cycle. There is no such rearward acceleration in an M-16 chamber because the bolt locks shut until the gas going through the gas tube pushes it back.
By “semi-automatic,” I mean that a single squeeze of the trigger not only moves the sear, causing the hammer to strike the firing pin, igniting the primer, with the obvious consequences,
but without any additional human intervention,
the weapon is cocked and ready to fire the next round, with just another squeeze of the trigger.
To me, “automatic” just means that the weapon keeps repeating the cycle, until either the trigger is released or the magazine is empty.
To me, even if a semi-automatic weapon cannot possibly be made to fire on full auto, it could still be an “assault weapon.” It’s not difficult to just keep squeezing the trigger repeatedly.
If a weapon only holds e.g., 8 rounds, like say the M1 Garand (IIRC,) and has to be manually reloaded, because the magazine is not removable, then even if it could fire fully auto, it wouldn’t be an “Assault Rifle” to me.
Maybe one way to set the bar is to measure how many bullets an expert could fire within one minute, under optimal conditions, including an unlimited supply of loaded magazines.
If less than 30, then unarmed folks would have a reasonable chance of rushing a shooter and tackling him during magazine changes or reloading.
The AR-15 used in Aurora could conceivably fire close to 180 rounds in a minute, one shot at a time, if the shooter doesn’t use a magazine known to frequently malfunction.
+ 2 additional features under the old federal ban definition of “assault weapon” that would establish a weapon as an “assault weapon”. Nearly all of the provisions were against the manufacture of the now-(then)-prohibited items.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…
Weapons manufacturers had a field day building semi-automatic weapons with just one of the features from the list. Purchasers could then later add aftermarket enhancements (for which there was now a new burgeoning market) to their weapons. There were separate provisions of this act that limited magazine size — for most semiautomatic rifles and handguns — to no more than 10 rounds.
Because this bill was aimed at manufacture, “pre-ban” (i.e., items manufactured prior to the ban) weapons, magazines, etc. manufactured any date prior to the act could still be owned and sold both privately and from retailers. Manufacturers had a good deal of time after the law was passed but prior to the time of enactment to ramp up production an stockpile many several years stockpile and inventory supply of guns, magazines, etc.
This law had so many loopholes and exceptions that its only hope of success was for a very long-term of implementation and compliance so that the (manufacturer stockpiled) supply of “pre-ban” guns and materials would be exhausted and eventually start to wear out, break, be retired from service, etc., etc.
When the ban was expired in 2004, that ended all hope that this weak-sauce law would have any impact on the situation. Also, with the ban expiration manufacturers really ramped up marketing and sales exploded; hat tip to the NRA for enticing more and more buyers into these purchases “’cause you never know when the gummit’ is gonna start taking your right to own these weapons away again leaving you and your family totally defenseless against crime.”
Which brings us to today.
semi-auto, able to accept detachable magazines,
+ 2 additional features,
which were mostly cosmetic rather than functional.
thnx 4 the link.