Colorado’s Democratic-controlled House on Sunday passed a bill that would ban the sale and transfer of semiautomatic firearms, a major step for the legislation after roughly the same bill was swiftly killed by Democrats last year.
The bill, which passed on a 35-27 vote, is now on its way to the Democratic-led state Senate. If it passes there, it could bring Colorado in line with 10 other states — including California, New York and Illinois — that have prohibitions on semiautomatic guns.
But even in a state plagued by some of the nation’s worst mass shootings, such legislation faces headwinds.
Colorado’s political history is purple, shifting blue only recently. The bill’s chances of success in the state Senate are lower than they were in the House, where Democrats have a 46-19 majority and a bigger far-left flank. Gov. Jared Polis, also a Democrat, has indicated his wariness over such a ban.
We have already established that some speech is too dangerous to be allowed in public. I wonder why states can’t decide what we are allowed to say or not.
Oh wait, I don’t. If you have an issue understanding opposition to a gun control law, try replacing gun with speech and see if you see the problem. Both are equally constitutionally protected rights.
But we have already established that some speech is too dangerous to be allowed? Yes, there is opposition to that notion, but it doesn’t change the reality that some people can and will kick up enough bullshit to start a Holocaust.
Allow me to help.
A common take is that semiautomatic firearms are a privilege to have because they’re not necessary for self defense. As a privilege, States have the right to regulate said semi automatic firearms. Including outlaw them.
The 1st ammendment reproduction here is
Documents of more than 800 words are a privilege to write and dessiminate because on average it takes less than 800 words to convey an argument or point. Therefore, as a privilege, a state has the right to regulate said level of speech since it exceeds the level of protected and becomes a privilege. A state therefore can outlaw forms of speech exceeding 800 words.
If that example doesng jive with you, another would be:
It takes on average 1m30s for a TV News agency to tell a story. TV News and their ability to tell stories is protected 1st ammendment speech, but, since it only takes 1m30s to tell a news story, anything on the news taking longer than 1m30s is a privilege and therefore can be regulated by the state. Including outlawed by the state.
A lot of people feel that regulation of the second ammendment is very scary because of the ramifications regulation like the ones proposed could have on other ammendments. Such as the like counterparts to regulating first ammendment speech I generated above.
As a real world example; I imagine if she could, Mayor Tiffany A. Henyard would see regulation of speech such as ive described above perfectly legal and in the best interest of her community in order to stop missinformation of her mayorship and the political agendas of The News in her area.
In a similar light, gun owners are seeing the regulation attempts of semi automatic firearms and are feeling very similar to how all of us would feel in the Henyard example above. For clarity, gun owners are feeling as though they are being told that the Government has the extreme authority to tell an individual citizen that has grown up with firearms, effectively and safely uses them, that said citizen doesn’t truly understand what it is they have and that an individual collective of politicians ultimately knows whats best and safest for them… Many dont feel OK with that idea of giving up personal freedoms to some weirdo on TV that says “it has to be done for your own best interest”. To those gun owners, it feels the same as Mayor Tiffany A. Henyard appearing on TV and saying “im regulating the local news agencies in the area based on average time to convey news that is not filled with political missinformation for the collective safety, progress, and betterment of our community and my ability to lead”.
The Supreme Court just this week made it much harder to collectively protest in three states, which is also in the First Amendment. So I think you’re argument is moot.
You’re right, it’s bad to restrict speech rights, but the law should be applied equally to gun rights.
Free speech is being weakened, so you’d rather lose even more of your rights?
People’s free access to guns puts my life more at risk. I don’t own a gun because it’s a stupid hobby and it’s dangerous.
So, in this specific instance, yes. It’s a good idea to revoke the second amendment completely.
Ok, so let’s imagine you’re able to revoke the 2nd amendment. What then? Your life was never at risk from law abiding gun owners to begin with. Now only the criminals have guns, and you and I have lost our right to bear arms. How does that help?
Personally, I don’t have an issue with gun ownership being regulated (within reason). I live in a state with fairly strict gun laws, and while some of them don’t make sense, I do see the need for it overall. I’d rather fix the things that aren’t working than throw the baby out with the bathwater.
No they didn’t. They didn’t give blanket immunity to organizers. They still have considerable protection established in other cases of what is required to meet non-protected speech.