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.

  • Wogi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Man people really love to drop off the first half of that sentence when quoting the second amendment.

    Who’s being denied access to arms? It doesn’t say you get any firearm you want and there’s plenty of precedent keeping certain firearms regulated.

    Also, which militia are you a member of, specifically?

    • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      It doesn’t say you get any firearm

      It says shall not be infringed which means what it says. There is no prescription for what is allowed but instead the opposite. The government cannot and should not prevent the population from arming itself. If people think that’s disagreeable then they should amend the constitution not defy it.

      The constitution was written by people who had just overthrown a government. This amendment wasn’t written to protect the rights of hunters. It’s specifically to enable the people to take control if the government gets out hand.

      Also, which militia are you a member of, specifically?

      Do you think the US would allow a militia to exist when it’s entire purpose is to be a check on government power?

      • Wogi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        The amendment specifically states that it’s there to aid the common defense.

        You really aught to read the entire amendment.

      • Wogi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Also the idea that the founding fathers wrote down the bill of rights, still battle weary with fear of future governments is completely false.

        The bill of rights was written ten years after the war had been settled, with a significant faction of the founders worried about another revolution.

        They had just come out of the Articles of Confederation, a government that had no authority to tax or raise an army. The second amendment was written to address specifically that issue. That we need a militia to defend the country since we really can’t do it any other way, and don’t want to. So might as well let farmers have guns, much to the dismay of the federalists.