An amendment to Senate Bill 3 would give sheriffs broad power to deny an application to buy certain semiautomatic guns that accept detachable magazines if they have a "reasonable belief that documented previous behavior by the applicant makes it likely the applicant will present a danger to themself or others"

I love how CO Democrats are just watching the rise of the Orange Reich, and their solution so far is to ban modern firearms and allow sheriffs to decide that black people can’t get an exception to the ban.

  • ssroxnak@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    51·
    14 hours ago

    My issue with background checks on private sales is that they’re unenforceable unless you have a database of every gun and who owns it. I’m not comfortable with Trump having a list of every liberal, POC, and LGBTQ person who has a gun.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      31·
      14 hours ago

      Then you’re also not comfortable with any other administration having a record of every Nazi with a gun?

      Because you can’t do one without the other.

      The social contract isn’t one sided, all of society has to sign it.

      • ssroxnak@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        21·
        14 hours ago

        If it means Trump and possible future administrations don’t have a list of vulnerable people and people most likely to oppose them, then absolutely yes.

        • Carmakazi@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          14 hours ago
          1. This is already achievable through surveillance capitalism.
          2. Right now we are in a unusual state of lawlessness. But for normal countries, crafting policy to enable and encourage armed insurrection is not freedom, it’s insanity. Like a fire department distributing thermite and napalm by the gallon.
          • ssroxnak@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
            21·
            14 hours ago

            Two wrongs don’t make a right.

            And wasn’t that the whole point of the 2nd amendment?

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            13 hours ago

            Logic isn’t going to work here…

            Some people lie about why they have certain beliefs as a reason for a political stance. When those beliefs are shown to be illogical, they pick a new one and keep the political stance

            You can poke holes in 100 of their beliefs one after another, the political stance will never change, because they won’t say the indefensible belief that really led them to that stance