District 18 State Senator CO anti-2a

[-]

LurkingNobody@reddit

Wtf is a "boyfriend loophole" that sounds like a straw purchase with extra steps

[-]

TopHatGorilla@reddit

It's the idea that someone who has been convicted of abusing his girlfriend will still be able to buy guns, where he wouldn't be able to if he were married to the victim.

[-]

cluelesscreativity@reddit

Wth? Domestic violence convictions of any kind are prohibitive in my state. Pretty regular arrest in certain areas of town.

[-]

Macrat2001@reddit (OP)

It is… it’s a pretty ridiculous piece of proposed legislation

[-]

bees422@reddit

I support the repeal of the first amendment because there can’t be a legitimate debate on yelling about fires in theaters while it is in effect

[-]

Chasing_Perfect_EDC@reddit

"There cannot be a legitimate debate about gun ownership policies while the Second Amendment remains in effect"

Dude just figured it out and didn't even realize...

[-]

Hector_Salamander@reddit

I actually respect this guy's position, I think he has figured it out and he's one of the few that has.

We probably don't agree on much when it comes to guns but I respect a man who tells it like it is.

[-]

Nah. There shouldn't be much to figure out when the 2A is as explicit as it is. And I can't respect anyone who makes a career and/or makes himself feel more secure, by oppressing others. He overtly demonstrates his understanding that the 2A does not grant a right, but rather prohibits federal violation of a natural right, and asserts he wants that prohibition lifted so he can violate rights.

[-]

Hector_Salamander@reddit

I wouldn't have any idea what this man's motivations are, but I appreciate that he is centering the debate. A debate about the 2A centers around keeping power in the hands of the citizens when compared to their government. It's a worthwhile debate to have rather than tangentially discussing duck hunting, murders, and gang violence.

[-]

Chasing_Perfect_EDC@reddit

"I support repeal of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment prohibits legislators from enacting laws that restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

His basic motivation for repealing the 2A seems clear: to enact laws to restrict rights. I'm glad he checked those boxes as he did, but his desire to remove the people's restrictions on the federal government is concerning.

It's fine if you respect him; that's your business. My perspective is that I don't really care what his deeper motivations are. He seeks an objective that will deeply undermine the liberty of millions, and I find that unacceptable.

[-]

Hector_Salamander@reddit

He seeks an objective that he will not obtain in his lifetime - while simultaneously acknowledging that the 2A prohibits most firearm restrictions and centering the debate on the thing that matters most.

This guy is a net gain compared to whoever he beat in the primaries, if this guy were your average Democrat that would be a huge win for gun owners.

30% of the citizens of this country believe that DJT tried to overthrow the government while simultaneously believing that we should disarm the working class. This guy's opinion should be front and center. Instead we get to hear about suicides and stray bullets and drug dealers killing each other.

[-]

Chasing_Perfect_EDC@reddit

I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph, but ignoring that I pretty much agree. I can appreciate a new field of argument beyond the same old tired rhetoric and flawed statistics, especially when it's a dead end on his side. That doesn't mean I respect his position on it. That's all I'm really objecting to. The grass may be greener here, but I still don't eat grass.

[-]

Hector_Salamander@reddit

In regards to the second paragraph:

For gun owners winning isn't winning a single election cycle or winning one more seat on the Supreme Court. Winning is convincing everyone on both sides that the purpose of the 2A is to limit the power of the government in it's attempts to become more authoritarian. It's an easy win, it fits right in there with the rest of the bill of rights, but half the population still fails to see it that way. Half the population thinks "You don't need an AR for deer hunting" is a valid argument .

There is broad bipartisan support for police body cams and term limits for Congress, both of which place limits on government power. We win when there is broad bipartisan support for gun ownership explicitly for the purpose of limiting the power of government.

This guy actually wants to debate the 2A in context, that's a debate that needs to happen and more people need to be exposed to that discussion.

[-]

zmaint@reddit

Can't repeal the 2nd. It's not something that gives us a privilege, it's a statement that it is a right inherent in the people given to us by our creator. Even if they erased the words or burned the doc, the right still exists.

[-]

Montananarchist@reddit

They've totally violated the first, second, fourth, ninth and tenth amendment. They don't have to erase them they just have to make people think that those Rights are granted not enumerated in the constitution.

*I moved from Colorado to Montana back in '05 when the writing was on the wall.

[-]

zmaint@reddit

O they will absolutely trample them, have for decades. Just saying the right doesn't exist because its on some piece of paper. The reason it's on the paper is as a warning to them that it's hands off. Eventually the People will need to hold them accountable.

[-]

Ok-Preparation-3138@reddit

Every gun law is unconstitutional even the ones you like

[-]

Thatsthatandchicken@reddit

These are the people calling Republicans a "threat to democracy."

Democrats are also running non-stop ads talking about women's rights being taken away...while actively working to limit the 1A and 2A.

[-]

Macrat2001@reddit (OP)

Dude says “I don’t support gun-control legislation” while actively calling for the eradication of the second amendment in a statement at the bottom of his page.

[-]