this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
404 points (96.3% liked)

News

35692 readers
2790 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This just seems like a stupid time to be pressing legislation like this. I don't even disagree with it myself. I just think it's idiotic from a political perspective. The Dems can see the GoP struggling with the fall out of Roe v. Wade, and they still want to step into this fight now?

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Step in and lose as it's swiftly struck down by one of the most conservative courts in history.

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

You don't have to be a conservative to recognize it's a violation of the 2nd amendment.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 4 points 2 years ago

Looks well regulated to me!

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 -4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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 1 points 2 years 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 1 points 2 years 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.