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.
The whole premise theyre defending is we should have guns to defend against the US government. If the US government actually wanted to kill them, thats what they would be facing.
Putting aside the moral legitimacy of a government or a ‘rebel’ or ‘resistance’ group:
How does a government determine the difference between an intelligent citizenry that is defending itself in covert guerrilla warfare vs the citizenry that is not doing so?
You’re acting like the government could just blow through with tanks and airstrikes, and be done with it all. That’s not how a civil war with a mixed population works. As a more extreme example to make it clear, the government could also use nukes on the populace, but would obviously not typically do so, since doing so would involve killing the citizenry it considers legitimate along with those it considers illegitimate, and would cause too much collateral damage.
It’s not like any modern rebellion would involve forming lines, having regular meeting spaces, or anything like that. Either the government is reasonable enough that change from within is possible, or it will be fought, in both passive and direct ways, by the populace.
Basically, your reasoning amounts to “being armed wouldn’t work, so let’s permit a Holocaust, because in the mean time, people are killing each other sometimes”, even though this is the safest period in history.
Your current opinion that it’s pointless or not possible basically relegates you to the role of being a fascism enabler that’s tender to kids. I’d rather fight if needed, but you do you.
By identifying the participating combatants, likely before they ever manage to engage in that guerilla warfare to begin with. US intel has thwarted a lot of terrorist attacks before they could happen.
I dont think you understand what youre up against. You dont even have to have a physical meeting space at all, someones gonna be communicating online, or via cellphone. And then the government commandeers those records and finds out everything. You dont get to be covert against US intel.
The holocaust was only stopped by similarly advanced military resources
Those sufficiently advanced resources were applied by people actually willing to fight. The mentality is scalable.
You can continue to think I don’t know what i’m up against and that any group (like the government) can hold the kind of near-omniscience that you think it does. I’m fine with that. I understand your point, and I don’t think you understand mine. …and honestly, I don’t really care to relate it. You’ll do as you wish, and I’ll do likewise.
Good luck, soul.
It totally worked in Vietnam and Afghanistan. The militant forces were completely pacified.