Quote of the Day
ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR SELF DEFENSE AND ARE NOT WELL-SUITED FOR HUNTING, SPORTING, OR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN MASS KILLING.
Hernandez and Epps, Garcia, Amabile, Bacon, Brown, deGruy Kennedy, English, Joseph, Lindsay, Mabrey, Ortiz, Rutinel, Velasco, Willford, Woodrow
Colorado House of Representatives
HOUSE BILL 24-1292
Considering that most of my rifles, all my shotguns, and two of my .22 caliber pistols* are considered “assault weapons” and that I have fired 10s of thousands of rounds in practice and competition with them without once being involved in a mass killing I can say with great certainty that they are deliberately lying.
This is pure evil. I look forward to their trials.
* Oddly enough my Limited Division USPSA pistol, a STI DVC chambered in .40 S&W, with 18 rounds magazines does not appear to be considered an assault weapon.
Obviously, they need to take patrol rifles away from the police and county sheriff’s departments as well. No need for those law enforcement officers to be running around mass-killing the populace.
I see nothing in the Second Amendment about “the right to bear well-suited arms”. Although there does seem to be a reference about the necessity to maintain a militia, presumably armed with weapons suitable for mass killing, ’cause that’s what militias do.
And once again comes the communist moronics. They seem to be unable to except that certain things are not under their control. Or that one doesn’t have to justify oneself before them.
It doesn’t matter what guns are or are not suitable for. (In their eyes or not.)
It’s none of their business.
If I feel like shooting skeet with a 30’06. Ain’t none’ya, bitches.
Remember that it is always one way. They would not, nor have they ever given suitable and logical answers to the most basic questions asked them. The only answer is nonsensical, illogical, hyperbole.
To the point AOC is telling us RICO is not a crime?!?! WTF??? A sitting member of the US congress actually said that. (Replacing Hank Johnson’s capsizing Guam, and Nasty Nancy’s, we have to pass the bill, to know what’s in it, for new lows in in congressional IQ.)
The only answer suited to such a questions about our firearms, or the IQ mentioned above controlling them for you?
Aaaah, BFYTW, ain’t never gonna happen.
And here, on full display, is the HUGE problem with “enforce existing laws”.
What you have here is a bill for a law that expressly says that “assault weapons” (whatever definition they’re using this time) aren’t good for self-defense or sporting purposes. If passed, it won’t matter one bit what evidence you present to the contrary, the law says what it says, and that’s the metric the State will use for enforcement.
If your stance is “enforce existing laws”, congratulations; you just gave up all legal claims to your semi-auto rifles, because that’s what the law you say should be enforced says. The NFA and GCA are “existing laws”, too, as is Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban, and so was “may issue” CCW licensing (which still is in Hawaii). Should those be enforced?
(And yes, I understand that in context, “enforce existing laws” means to enforce murder, assault, etc. laws instead of passing new “gun control” laws. But the Left never includes the context. When someone on our side says, “Enforce existing laws,” the Left reads that as permission to pass whatever laws they want because OF COURSE we’ll support it once it’s an existing law!)
I think it was Joe that reminded us that the people hiding Ann Frank were breaking the law and those who turned her in were following the law.
A modest proposal:
Arms bans should be legalized, with the following conditions:
1) Arms bans must be enacted at a sub-political level lower than than the lowest legislative body for a given area, and the electorate for the ban must be 10,000 people or 20% of the population of that area, whichever is lower. An sub-political area shall be no larger than 100 square miles, and areas are affixed within one year of a US census according an an algorithm that minimizes the total length of arbitrary boundary lines.
B) The arms ban applies to those that live in that area. The ban attaches to the people of that sub-political area, and travels with them wherever they go. People from outside the area carry their arms according to their home area. The bans must be re-enacted by popular vote of 2/3rds after any change to the applicable sub-political area.
iii) There are no exceptions for government or employment. Any applicable arms restrictions outside of an individual capacity are based on the official location of the business or office that said person is assigned to that day. Indeed, any penalty for carrying a banned arm by a public official is quadrupled. Any person individually hiring others to bear arms on their behalf have their own restrictions applied to their hirelings. For any employment that does not make any direction regarding the bearings of arms whatsoever, the employed person bears arms in their individual capacity and in their individual liability.
Q) Any arms bans must be expressed in a standardized technical manner, encoded in a electronic format such as XML according to a single schema and registered with a national repository, such that there is no ambiguity on how to apply it and which standard applies, since it will have to be applied by law enforcement persons from well outside their normal jurisdiction. Nonstandard restrictions are null and void. Unregistered restrictions shall not be enforced. All restrictions must be definitionally distinct and substantive: no making up a term like “assault weapon” which just happens to mean the same thing as “semi-automatic firearm”, or otherwise makes a distinction of no functional difference like “zombie gun”.
kumquat) Upon being provided with an individual’s name and address of primary residence (or unique reference that identifies the area of residence), and verifying the currency of that information in no more than 5 minutes, law enforcement may detain the individual for no longer than necessary and in any case no longer than 15 minutes to specifically identify any arms restrictions are applicable to a person of the detained’s area of residence and if any specific violation is presently occurring, or they shall release the individual. If no arms violation is identified during that detention, no information shall be retained by any person or organization, public or private, regarding the arms that individual bears during that detention.
In other words, if you live in an area of unworthy savages and want to ban arms for yourself and them, fine, but what you enact close to home do doesn’t apply to people that can’t vote for or against your restrictions. Also, you can’t just make stuff up and have it be enforceable.
It’s more of my “You can do that; here’s the price” methodology. A bit like my Swiftian approach to ‘gun free zones’: You can do that if you actually deliver as advertised, on the penalty of those personally responsible for imposing such a zone being accessories to any crime committed through their failure to deliver promised gun-freed-ness, which extends to the last place a person could reasonably store and retrieve their arms; also, the zones are licensed so as to clearly identify those personally responsible.
>NOT SUITABLE FOR SELF DEFENSE
…means “we don’t agree that they are suitable”, i.e. an opinion about ethics and morality as they see it.
>NOT WELL-SUITED
…as in, a screwdriver is not well-suited to drive a nail i.e. an opinion that there is a physical problem.
Two distinct viewpoints.