Colorado’s #Mags4Freedom event bids farewell to 30-round magazines in style

Someone had better check in on Piers Morgan, Jim Carrey and Michael Moore, because if they get a look at what’s going on at the Farewell to Arms Freedom Festival in Glendale, Colo., today, heads will certainly explode. In March, Gov. John Hickenlooper signed into law a number of gun control restrictions, including a ban on magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds, that are driving manufacturers like Magpul out of the state.

(For those readers who aren’t firearms experts like Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette, magazines “are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them.”)

Not surprisingly, residents are buying up the supply while they can, and today they’re sending off the 30-round magazine in style.

The highlight of the event comes at 5 p.m., when radio host Dana Loesch arrives via helicopter bearing cases of 30-round magazines. Sweet.

Proceeds from the event will go to support Second Amendment causes, including the effort to recall Colorado Senate President John Morse. Organizers collected more than 10,000 verified signatures to initiate the recall, 3,000 more than needed.

* * *

Update:

Look out, Rep. Joe Salazar: Dana’s on her way, and if she gets confused and feels threatened, she might just “pop off” a few rounds in a panic. Women, huh?

  • ICOYAR

    Chickenpooper should not be surprised then, to see crime rates rise dramatically.

    • kyleco

      Did I miss something? Are you saying that because 30 round magazines are banned, crime will now rise?

      • ICOYAR

        Exactly.

        They are actively trying to punish law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals.

        Now lets say that 31 men are trying to kill you, each one of them having a knife.

        What do you do?

        • Bathing Suit Area

          A perfect real-world example that happens all the time.

          • ICOYAR

            And I guess you have never heard of “peace through superior firepower”

          • Bathing Suit Area

            How do you have superior fire power to criminals? Sooner or later you’ll run into a legal limit (full auto machine guns, rocket launchers) and criminals won’t. You’ll lose the arms race every time.

          • ICOYAR

            To criminals, there are no limits. That is why Chicago and Detroit, which has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, have around 500 homicides each last year. Kennesaw, Georgia is required for each household to have a firearm. Crime there is lowest in the nation. Switzerland has some of the fewest gun laws of any country in the world, to the point where Automatic Rifles are mandatory in each household, and crime there is non-existent. In the U,K., crime rose 400% after banning firearms. And of course, Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world. Most firearms are illegal, gained through the black market or through Operation Fast & Furious. There is only ONE legal gun store in the country, in Mexico City, and it cannot be used outside of the home, you cannot carry it around with you, and you must have a limited number of rounds in each magazine, as well as magazine restrictions themselves.

          • kyleco

            See: Japan gun laws vs. gun-related crimes/deaths. There’s always going to be examples for both sides when you’re talking in extremes. What we’re talking about here, though, is 30 round magazines and I’d propose that this particular law is irrelevant either way. It will have minimal, if any, affect on crime (neither increasing/decreasing or preventing). At the end of the day this ban is just irrelevant and annoying as it has virtually no positive or negative affect in the real world and only serves to anger folks who are against any gun-related regulations/laws/restrictions.

          • ICOYAR

            Let’s pretend that you are a criminal living in Colorado. Would you rather risk your life with somebody who has a 30+ round magazine or less?

          • kyleco

            Neither. Thank you for making my point.

          • MTQ

            The real point is that this is just the beginning. This is how they get their foot in the door to get more and more gun control laws that will make a difference, in a bad way, for the law abiding citizens. Criminals don’t much follow the law, hence the category….criminal.

          • Adela Wagner

            Yep, because after Monday, when the next idiot does something bad with a gun, they’ll say “Oh my, looks like our works not done, gonna have to pass stricter laws” until they are coming around and taking away squirt guns. It’s the ol nudge nudge ploy. Happening in all kinds of areas around this country…..meanwhile, how about that arming of Syria?
            And how about that Janet Nap talking with Russia about bringing over at least 15,000 troops for an “Undetermined Disaster”? Hmmm now what could she mean? What COULD she mean?

          • Jay Stevens

            No. It will also turn formerly law abiding citizens into criminals.

          • Ronald

            Correlation is not causation. You should be careful not to draw hasty conclusions. Think about what other factors might be involved in crime rates.

          • ICOYAR

            Because citizens not being able to defend themselves against thugs is NOT a critical factor in crime?

          • Ronald

            It’s a factor. One of many. I bet you could think of a few others if you try.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Think about what other factors might be involved in crime rates

            You mean like whether the criminals have a friendly working environment (read ‘unarmed victims’)?

          • Ronald

            Is that the only one you can think of? I’m sure if you try hard, you can think of other factors that influence crime rates.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Is that the only one you can think of?

            It’s the one that was important to criminals when surveyed.

            I’m sure if you try hard, you can think of other factors that influence crime rates.

            With or without the “Oh, it’s not their fault” schtick?

          • Jeff McCabe

            Ergo, give up. Submit to the criminal.

          • Jay Stevens

            When, outside of the movies and television, have you even seen rocket launchers used to commit crimes in the U. S.?

          • Bathing Suit Area

            I haven’t. Why do you suppose that is? Wouldn’t criminals want as much firepower as they can get?

          • Adela Wagner

            Of course,however they are restricted by what they can afford or steal, you think you CAN’T get a rocket launcher? HA… and look at Obama, seems he wants as much POWER as he can get.

          • Adela Wagner

            YEAH…So listen up all you non-criminal types….Give UP and turn into a big ol jellyfish wussie NOW. No sense in fighting it, you’ll lose EVERY TIME doncha’ know. There are loads of criminals out there every day in the perfect real world, that have automatic machine guns and rocket launchers.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            Are you telling me that criminals don’t all have machine guns and rocket launchers? But why not? Surely they’d want as much firepower as they can get, so why aren’t they all buying machine guns and rocket launchers from the illegal gun sellers on every other street corner?

          • Adela Wagner

            I SHOULD be able to have as much fire power as anyone who may come against me, your messiah and his agents included.
            And if I am not being threatened and I go after someone unprovoked, I should be punished according to the law, passed by my state.

            It’s wimps like you who are afraid that by touching a gun they may actually be in a situation where they are called upon to actually take a stand and DO SOMETHING, instead you act all self righteous and above it all, when the TRUTH is, if any threat goes down, you’ll be the one balled up in the fetal position over in the corner, whimpering and pissing yourself, PRAYING to that God you don’t believe in to send someone to save you….and that someone, will be someone, like me.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            You’ve not answered the question. Why don’t criminals use machine guns and rocket launchers all the time? You’d think if someone wanted to shoot up a school, they could do way more damage with those weapons… so why don’t they?

          • Adela Wagner

            Cuz that shitz don’t come cheap. But you CAN get them.And while some of these pukes have indeed gotten past the laws in place and bought guns (cuz gun laws, like all laws are not 100%) they usually, take guns from someone else. Or in the case of the Boston Bros.(you know the ones the NSA and the FBI shrugged off) they can spend 30 bucks on a pressure cooker.
            Maybe because not every thief robs banks, hey, there’s one on every corner…
            Also because Eric Holder’s not on the corner with all the arms they redistributed (liberal fave word) to Mexico.

            Hey, I hear some people even use their BARE HANDS to kill others…wanna outlaw people’s hands? And geez, last April, 14 people stabbed at Liberty, in TX. Are knives next? If you outlawed knives….well as you like to say “if it saves just one life”….of course you would never bring up that catchy phrase (or “it’s for the children”) in the wonderful world of pushing “Abortions for Everyone, no Matter How Far Along” and yet you act so concerrrrned.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            “they usually, take guns from someone else”
            So the majority of criminals are limited to what guns people buy legally? Do go on.

          • Ronald

            Because they are illegal and very difficult to procure.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            So you’re engaged in an arms race against the whole world on your own so that you’ll be ready when God sends you to rescue wimps like me?

            That is some powerful crazy, right there.

          • Adela Wagner

            Nope I’m only engaged in a Constitutional war with my own Government (the one that takes OATHS to UPHOLD that precious document) so that if we were thrown together into a situation like that, at least one of us came prepared.

          • Ronald

            I’d say you’re in a war with your fellow citizens. Some people that live in America want to live in a society without guns. Whether or not that is realistic is another question, but every American has the right to influence the face of the country. You, them, everyone.

          • Adela Wagner

            Nope. This is not a democracy. It is a REPUBLIC. Want to live in a society without guns….go find one, I hear Chicago has some mighty tough gun control laws…move there. THAT is one of the freedoms OUR Constitution protects, you are free to move and pursue your happiness, to me, Happiness is a warm gun.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            “Happiness is a warm gun.”
            I’d be interested to ask John Lennon if he still feels that way… oh but we can’t. :(

          • Ronald

            Almost nobody is armed in Canada. So why are their crime rates so much lower than here?

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Cultural difference, not availability of a tool.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            So why is American culture so inferior then?

          • mike_in_kosovo

            It’s not inferior and it’s not superior…it’s just different than others.

            As an example:

            UK violent crimes (2011): 1.98 million
            US violent crimes (2011): 1.20 million (39% less)

            UK violent crime rate (2011): 3524/100k
            US violent crime rate (2011): 386/100k (89% less)

            Yet, the US is seen as ‘more violent’.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            That’s an odd way to compare America to Canada.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            That’s an odd way to compare America to Canada.

            I must have missed where I was limited to only speaking of Canada, when referring to how the US culture is different than others. I had the information for the UK already, so I provided it as a proof that simple disarmament does *nothing* to reduce violent crime.

            Edit to add:
            According to StatsCan;
            Canada violent crime rate (2011): 1231/100k
            US Violent crime rate (2011): 386/100k (69% less)

            Removing burglary and simple assault changes Canada’s violent crime rate to 644/100k in comparison to the US 386/100k (40% less)

          • kyleco

            It also doesn’t hurt that the US and the UK define violent crimes differently. For example, robbery is a violent crime in the UK statistic and not the US (unless assault accompanies it). I think the homicide rate is a little better comparison, since the definitions are the same. The US has FOUR TIMES the homicide rate of the UK.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            I think the homicide rate is a little better comparison, since the definitions are the same.

            Of course you do – you think it proves your point for you.

            The US has FOUR TIMES the homicide rate of the UK.

            Now all you have to do is prove it’s due to the guns. Going to be pretty hard, since even the gov’t studies can’t make that claim, and violent crime rates have been decreasing since BEFORE the Brady bill came to pass.

          • kyleco

            I’m just correcting your skewed statistic. I did not bring this up to make a point about guns, per se. Though I’m sure there are statistics that are more pertinent.

            If you remember correctly, you are the one trying to use it to make a point.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            So you’re trying to claim that robberies being counted in the UK make their violent crime rate so much higher than the US?

            Yeah, ok…

            Subtracting all robberies and assault without injury, the UK violent crime rate is reduced to a miniscule 2635/100k, in comparison to the US rate of 386/100k.

            Wow…when you’re right, you’re right…that *totally* changes things!

          • mike_in_kosovo

            And for further evidence…

            Washington DC violent crime rate: 1130/100k
            Chicago violent crime rate: 1045/100k
            NYC violent crime rate: 623/100k
            US violent crime rate: 386/100k

            Washington DC murder rate: 17.47/100k
            Chicago murder rate: 15.94/100k
            NYC murder rate: 6.27/100k
            US murder rate: 4.7/100k

            Makes a pretty damning case AGAINST gun control, given the gross disparities between their Meccas of DC and Chicago and the national average.

          • Adela Wagner

            It is a trade off. They do not enjoy a lot of the freedoms we do here. And until this Obamacare kicks in and really screws us, we have a better health system.they accept being babied. Not as much poverty, one tenth the population we have….plus most are high and just not into crime when the Nanny Government takes care of them.
            However, Canada has actually become less Socialistic, and since then has actually been better off financially.
            I watched a “Cops” type show from there and my husband and I laughed so hard when the police actually gave a drunk guy a ride home. It was cool, but would not happen here in the city.

        • Bathing Suit Area

          Why do the bad guys in this story only have knives? Did someone ban them from buying guns or something?

        • Jay Stevens

          Hardly realistic. What is a realistic situation is you against multiple (three or four) assailants.Odds are that 15 rounds would not be enough.

          Consider that Boston area LEO’s expended over 200 rounds in their battle with just two bombers.

      • Zach Smith

        Crime will rise because innocuous actions taken by formerly law abiding citizens will now be criminal.

        Actual crime will not go down, however.

        • kyleco

          This is somewhat of an eye roll of a statement. Jaywalking is a crime, too. Don’t be silly.

          • Zach Smith

            Jaywalking is a crime? Where?

          • kyleco

            In the United States? What do you mean “where”?

          • Zach Smith

            It is certainly not a crime where I live. It is a civil offense.

          • kyleco

            You mean it’s an action that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law? As in the definition of a “crime”?

          • Zach Smith

            No.

          • kyleco

            Guess I’m not clear why you’re even making this a point of contention. Jaywalking is illegal. As in it’s against the law. While the punishment varies state to state and sometimes even by county, the fact of the matter is when something is labeled even as a “misdemeanor,” it is a crime. Court appearance, fines, etc, are also penalties of jaywalking. Because it’s a crime.

          • Zach Smith

            You’re the one who brought it up. Not even sure what the point of your original comment was, but since it was counterfactual, I pointed that out.

          • Ronald

            No, you were arguing semantics and failed.

          • kyleco

            “Innocuous actions taken by law abiding citizens”

            You’re saying that because people will be in possession of 30 round mags, they are now criminals and therefore crime is rising. My point was jaywalking is a crime, too, and how often is it punished? Almost never? It’s not a good point on your part. At all.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            So, because there’s not a huge number of people being convicted for it, it’s not a problem? Not a bad law?

            Sorry, no….the “not a good point, at all” is yours.

          • kyleco

            The difference is that I’m not making a case for it being a good law. And if I were making the case for it being a bad law, using the “formerly law abiding citizens” argument is extremely weak.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            The difference is that I’m not making a case for it being a good law.

            No, just trying to shoot down *his* claim of it being a bad law, with an extremely weak comparison to jaywalking.

            Those people caught by this (like the veteran that got arrested in NY with an over-limit magazine recently) will be lumped in with every other ‘gun crime’ and used by the Left to bolster their arguments for even *more* restrictions that do *nothing* to reduce violent crime.

          • kyleco

            Sorry, where’s the empirical evidence that restrictions/regulations do “nothing”? That is also a ridiculous statement. If it’s true, then you’re saying all laws are completely ineffectual.

          • kyleco

            It’s illegal to steal, people still steal; get rid of the law. Murder is illegal, yet people still kill; get rid of the law.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Typical black/white thinking….why am I unsurprised?

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Sorry, where’s the empirical evidence that restrictions/regulations do “nothing”?

            How many hundreds of shooting deaths in gun-free Chicago last year?

            If it’s true, then you’re saying all laws are completely ineffectual.

            Laws are punitive, not preventative. The simple existence of a law prevents no action, fear of the consequence does. Remind me again about how criminals obey laws?

          • kyleco

            How many shooting deaths…actually how many gun related crimes in total were there in the entire country of Japan? They have almost 50 times more people than Chicago, so I think that’s a pretty good sample size. Which one is the “correct” statistic? Whichever one agrees with your point of view? Further, I asked you to show me how regulations (not just gun related) do “nothing” and you responded by pointing out people still get shot in Chicago. Can I not just arbitrarily maintain that it would have been WAY worse if those restrictions weren’t in place?

            By definition, criminals are not obeying whatever law(s) they broke to be labeled a criminal, so I’m not sure I understand the second part. If the fear of punishment prevents action, then it seems to me that supports *my* point…

          • mike_in_kosovo

            How many shooting deaths…actually how many gun related crimes in total were there in the entire country of Japan

            Lame. Try picking someplace with a similar culture, if you want a serious discussion.

            For that matter, why do you think it’s so much more terrible to die from a gunshot than from a car wreck, drowning, fire, poison, etc etc etc that you feel the overwhelming need to focus on the METHOD rather than the crime of murder, itself?

            Can I not just arbitrarily maintain that it would have been WAY worse if those restrictions weren’t in place?

            Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing, especially given that there’s studies showing that the gun laws have had no appreciable effect on violent crime?

            By definition, criminals are not obeying whatever law(s) they broke to be labeled a criminal, so I’m not sure I understand the second part.

            The point is that they’re ALREADY not obeying the gun laws…so *WHY* do you think they’re going to suddenly turn their life around and get on the straight and narrow way if you pass JUST. ONE. MORE???

            If the fear of punishment prevents action, then it seems to me that supports *my* point…

            No, not really… the threat of punishment suffices for those who wouldn’t break the law in the first place.

          • kyleco

            After re-reading some of your and @disqus_W0yOURPl5Z:disqus’s comments, I think I completely glossed over the piece that you both seem to think folks who have 30 round magazines in their possession will now be criminals. this is simply not true. This law bans the manufacturing of anything larger than 15 round mags. Any existing magazines that someone already owns are essentially “grandfathered” in.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            That’s true…for now. Ask Californians or New Yorkers how well that worked for them.

    • Marjorie

      Chickenpooper! lololol…will plagiarize that one!

    • OpenTheDoor

      Love how Magpul is sticking a thumb in Hooperlooper’s eye on the way out the door.

  • David Johnson

    When did the libtards take over Colorado? It used to be a nice normal middle of the road state!

    • Saar

      They’re parasites. They run one state into the ground then move on to the next one, and the next.

      • GaryTheBrave

        Kinda like the bark beetles that have devastated the forests thus making it easier to burn.

        • Saar

          Good symbolism. Take what they want and destroy it.

        • Garym

          It is depressing when you drive by Vail and see brown trees.

          • Marjorie

            Breckenridge is the same.

        • Jeremy

          well said.They are infesting states all over.

      • http://pennyrobinsonfanclub.net/ PennyRobinsonFanClub

        I’m thinking more of the headcrab zombies from the Half Life games. The Democr– I mean headcrabs — attach themselves to their victim’s head, take over the nervous system, and control the body. There is just enough awareness left in them that as they stumble about you can hear them groaning “Why? Why?” and other expressions of anguish.

        • NeoNationalist

          Brilliant!

    • Jack Deth

      About the same time California’s economy started going Tango Uniform. The Libs move eastward. And the next thing you know, they’re running the Home Owners Associations and establishing a beach head for teachers, school boards and Mayors. By then, there’s enough graft to bring in Unions to finance larger scale, more expensive operations.

      And almost everything they run on “Is for the Children!”

      • CatHerder

        I.e. for themselves.

      • http://JamesArtre.com/ James Artre

        Very well stated!

      • mickeyco

        You really have a great way with words, Jack.

    • McCabe

      The Californication of Colorado started in the 70s and climaxing with the total destruction you see today.

    • Clete Torres

      Cal-oradans, I think they’re called.

    • kyleco

      It’s still a pretty middle-of-the-road state. We have Colorado Springs and we have Boulder. This is a pretty simple answer: people have illogical knee-jerk reactions to tragic events. Plain and simple.

    • http://JamesArtre.com/ James Artre

      About the same time they started taking over Amerika: when the church got on TV instead of on the streets.

  • Michelle

    She’s right – it is hysterical these folks are under the impression mass shootings will go down by outlawing 30 round mags and having 15 round mags as a max. I am thoroughly convinced those who write these mag restriction laws have NEVER fired a gun. Anyone who owns guns or is at least familiar with them knows the solid fact is, one can drop an empty mag with the touch of their thumb from their shooting hand while simultaneously using their other hand to retrieve a full mag from a belt and have it in place in SECONDS. This is the epitome of “a sense of false security” and the only way they’re going to learn is the hard way. If every state in the nation outlaws any mag over 15 rounds, and mass shootings still occur (and they will!) they’ll be dumbfounded.

    • CatHerder

      No, they’ll scream for even tighter restrictions. And hospitalization for opponents.

      • Michael Anderson (WB)

        That’s where it’s going to go, true conservatism will eventually be a “mental illness” requiring “treatment”.

        • Marjorie

          Will it be covered under Obamacare?

          • Torqued

            No.

          • Michael Anderson (WB)

            Yes, free institutionalization for life.

          • Marjorie

            Oh great…then my children will know where I am at all times and will show up with their offspring before I can hide. My only option is survival training. :)

          • mickeyco

            We have to get together! Some days I feel the same way about my grandkids.

          • Marjorie

            They are all right in small doses but I am NOT an automatic child warden. You want to go to survival training with me? I’ll bring the Icy Hot and Lipitor.

          • mickeyco

            Wonderful!

    • Clayton B

      . . . fifteen round mags will stop mass shootings like five gallon fuel tanks in automobiles will stop ‘global warming’ . . . /sarc

    • kyleco

      It is certainly a pointless restriction. Though the same argument you use here could also be used to satiate the frustration/anger(?) about the restriction — who cares; now you just have to take a few extra seconds to reload. My point is it’s a dumb law and it’s almost as dumb to be furious about it.

      • gekkobear

        It’s a dumb law, but not why you think.

        Lets say I have a 10 round mag for my pistol… I could hypothetically remove the baseplate and add an extension for 6 more rounds with a better sprint from an extension kit.

        But no worries; they thought about that… they banned all magazines over 15 round and all “designed to be readily converted” to over 15 rounds.

        Does your magazine have a removable baseplate for easy cleaning? Yes, they all do.

        Now you must find out the INTENT of the DESIGNER of the magazine to see if it was DEIGNED with the INTENT to allow the extension. The extension kit is legal, and the magazine is legal unless the intent of the designed was to allow you to attach the extension kit.

        Two identical magazines, one might be legal or illegal based on the metal process of the designer before you bought it; which you’ll never know.

        But if you ever sell it, you must know the inner mental workings of the person who designed it. Or you’re probably breaking the law and facing 5 years in jail for not knowing the mental processes and intent of another person you never met.

        They did this to avoid the original bill’s “can be converted” which was clearly banning every magazine… now it’s contingent on the thought process of the designer, who you don’t know, never met, and yet somehow can determine in his own if your 10 round magazine should be legal… or if you should go to jail for giving it to your relative (in an illegal transfer for an illegal “high-capacity” magazine… that holds 10 bullets as you own it today).

        It either is a meaningless law that can be used to intimidate and persecute (yes, not prosecute) anyone the government takes a dislike to with any magazine; or used uniformly will ban all magazines of all sizes.

        Which of those is dumb to be furious about again?

      • Michelle

        I care about the restrictions because the more they put in place and they see it does nothing to decrease gun violence, the more restrictions they’ll implement. To what end?

        • kyleco

          I think this subject is just really tough to come up with popular solutions or, more importantly, effective solutions. Taking it to the extreme for sake of example; Australia and Japan got rid of basically all guns. In Japan there is virtually no gun crime now. In Australia, crime went up. I think everyone can agree that some restrictions and laws regarding the acquisition of personal armament are necessary. We all agree that nukes shouldn’t be available. We agree that RPGs shouldn’t be available. And yet by the logic of “the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms!” it should be totally legal to acquire those items. But of course we agree taking it to that extreme is ridiculous. You asked “to what end?” and I think that’s pretty simple: the goal is to reduce gun related crime. I certainly don’t think this magazine limit is the right answer or even close, but it seems that so many folks are just completely unwilling to compromise or even have the appropriate discussion (on both sides).

          • Ronald Green

            Because these laws are not about ‘reducing gun crime’. When you push these people to it they acknowledge that their silly new law will not reduce any sort of crime. It is purely a first step in removing guns from private ownership. Diane & Charles have both publicly stated that the ultimate goal was and is a total gun ban. They package it in small steps because they know they will not be successful any other way.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            but it seems that so many folks are just completely unwilling to
            compromise or even have the appropriate discussion (on both sides).

            There’s a reason for that:

            http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html

            http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html

          • kyleco

            I question the basis for that stance entirely. I question the disingenuous interpretation of the constitution and I certainly have a hard time with folks who refuse to acknowledge that technology plays a huge role on this matter; this document was written when guns were muskets, for example. People still dueled with swords. Context plays a role and it’s completely ignored with this hard stance.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            By that logic, the first amendment only applies to hand press broadsheets and the town crier.

            IOW, your interpretation is not only complete bunk, but disproven by many sources including Congressional reports and Supreme court decisions.

          • kyleco

            So I have the freedom to possess WMDs as my constitutional right? Or do we agree that restrictions/regulations/laws are appropriate on those? Assuming you don’t think there should be ZERO laws regarding self armament, there is, at some level, a need for laws and regulations on modern weapons. This is in contrast to the ridiculous article you just posted.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            So I have the freedom to possess WMDs as my constitutional right? Or do we agree that restrictions/regulations/laws are appropriate on those?

            Up through the 1960’s, you could buy antitank rifles through mail order. During the Revolutionary War period, private citizens owned cannons and armed ships. Next stupid question?

            Assuming you don’t think there should be ZERO laws regarding self armament, there is, at some level, a need for laws and regulations on modern weapons.

            Why? How is an AR-15 any more deadly or dangerous than a .223 Ruger Ranch Rifle?

            Answer: It’s *NOT*. It *looks* like the M4, so hoplophobes and idiots (but I repeat myself) mistakenly think that it’s select-fire like the M4 (which *IS* an assault weapon due to that, unlike the AR-15).

            This is in contrast to the ridiculous article you just posted.

            And just what was so ridiculous about it, other than your disapproval of it?

            It *is*, in fact, a very APT summation of the ‘progression’ of gun laws and how they’ve affected legal owners and done NOTHING to prevent crime.

            “Compromise”, to the hoplophobes, means “give me what I want and be satisfied with what I leave you”.

          • kyleco

            I guess it’s a stupid question only if you’re confident in your ignorance. I suppose a suitcase nuke is stupid? Is it also stupid that we can no longer buy antitank weapons? Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, mines…should those all be legal?

            Again, this is the problem; your view is that any and all conversation about regulation/restriction is automatically “trying to take all your guns”… and while that may be the case on the EXTREME, I do not think this is a popular mentality. I mean, we make people register their cars, take a basic test of operator competency, take an actual driving test, and renew these things every so often. It is strange that it’s less of a hassle to amass a bunker full of weapons and ammo without even so much as knowledge of how to use a gun…

          • mike_in_kosovo

            I guess it’s a stupid question only if you’re confident in your ignorance. I suppose a suitcase nuke is stupid?

            Speaking of being confident in your ignorance…you *are* aware that a ‘suitcase nuke’ *ISN’T* the size or weight of a suitcase, yes?

            Is it also stupid that we can no longer buy antitank weapons? Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, mines…should those all be legal?

            Remind me again what crimes have been committed with antitank weapons? If your points are argument by hyperbole (comparison of personal weapons to *nukes*, ferchrissakes?), it should be a clue that your argument is lacking.

            Again, this is the problem; your view is that any and all conversation about regulation/restriction is automatically “trying to take all your guns”… and while that may be the case on the EXTREME

            On the EXTREME? Go read that list again, then tell me that Dianne Feinstein saying “If I could have gotten the votes, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in” *ISN’T* prima facie evidence that, in fact, is *EXACTLY* their goal.

            Sullivan law confiscations. Roberti-Roos confiscations in California. Confiscations in New Orleans. Etc. Etc. Etc.

            I mean, we make people register their cars, take a basic test of operator competency, take an actual driving test, and renew these things every so often.

            Only if you’re going to drive on the street. You don’t have to have ANY of that to simply possess or use on your own property.

            You really *don’t* want me to make a comparison of treating guns like cars…trust me.

            It is strange that it’s less of a hassle to amass a bunker full of weapons and ammo without even so much as knowledge of how to use a gun…

            It’s even stranger that people with no knowledge of guns try to lecture those that *do*.

    • Torqued

      It’s all about disarming American citizens. Period. They don’t give two hoots about the “chillren.” They have no interest in “saving just one.” Hence their fervent sacrament of baby killing. It’s not about “safety.”

      IT’S ABOUT DISARMING AMERICANS!

    • SPCAndyJ

      That’s the plan…15 round mags today. Then next time it will be 3 round clips. Then none at all….

    • Bob

      Hush! They’ll come for our thumbs next!

      • Michelle

        Bob, that made me laugh out loud!

    • Roto

      At least with idiots like DeGette writing gun laws, they don’t have a clue what a bullet button is.

  • Charles Hammond Jr

    I may have missed the announcement but does anyone where Magpul is going yet?

    • Billie Slash

      They haven’t announced yet.

      • GaryTheBrave

        I thought they were leaving within 30 days after the legislation was signed.

    • Marjorie

      It is my understanding they are going to Wyoming.

  • Marjorie

    I can only hope the good people here will unite and bring common sense back. It has gone from bad to worse over the past twenty years. Property taxes have escalated, education is a bad joke, gangs are expanding, cameras everywhere and I hope the hunters go elsewhere to spend their money to make a statement.

    • Charles Hammond Jr

      it seriously looks like the good people are outnumbered though.

      • Marjorie

        Indeed…the majority is too busy getting high :(

  • Maxx

    Reactionary misguided legislation from liberal politicians who during reelection time, will invariably cackle back to their nitwit constituency with feel good stories about how their vote “saved” the children.

    No more. No less.

    On a non-related note, let me be a typical guy for a second to appreciate that photo of Dana above. That ought to drive liberal women crazy. lol

  • heckrules

    Dana should send a complementary 30-round mag to CNN’s Limey Brit…..

  • http://JamesArtre.com/ James Artre

    Pass a state amendment to halt migration from the West Coast into CO. Then, increase taxes on all those who remain so they’ll feel right at home. 😉

  • juandos

    Isn’t MagPul pulling out of Colorado?

    • Ronald Green

      Yes.

      • juandos

        OK, that’s whhat I thought…

        Thanks for the info…

  • RblDiver

    I was there and got my 9 mags, in addition to some other cool swag. (I was a *tiny* bit disappointed with the chopper, I thought it’d be bringing a pallet or something in some sort of sling deal, not just a couple boxes they had in the cockpit. But still good times!)

  • Sharkteeth

    The State is doomed by liberals from Cali.

  • annoyinglittletwerp

    I just got home(Texas)after spending a week in Colorado Springs.. Basically, I spent a week in hippyville. I saw more Obama bumper stickers in one week in CO-than I have in 2 YEARS in Texas.

    • alanstorm

      I hear that Nigerian scammers are using the DMV to find targets now. They just wander through parking lots, taking license plate numbers from cars with Obama stickers to identify the gullible ones.

  • TTTCOTTH

    Freedom is such a wonderful thing to witness!

  • EDUCATEDPATRIOT

    The point is someone LEGISLATING infringements on my freedoms. When an idiot politician screams “NO ONE NEEDS TEN BULLETS TO KILL A DEER!!!” in order to pass more restrictions on my FREEDOM, that is when I get upset. Stop telling me what kind of light bulbs to use, whether or not I can have 20 ounces of soda, and how many rounds I can carry in a magazine.

    The problem is that as soon as you bring the concept of FREEDOM into the conversation, the libs short cicuit. Unless you are talking about “reproductive freedom”; they understand that one pretty well, don’t they? Well, the libs don’t want the government in the uterus of a woman, and I don’t want them in my damn gun locker!

  • SR5150

    That picture = HOT

    • Bathing Suit Area

      That comment = CREEPY

      • SR5150

        Yeah, recognizing beautiful women sure is creepy. Your reply = idiotic.

  • blacksmith26
  • http://www.huz6.com/ huz6

    Very useful and supportive article.

  • Saar

    Thats the thing though. First they come for the 30 rounder, so you improvise to 15’s.. Then they come for your 15’s and say you can only have 5. So on and so forth.

  • Saar

    oh no i agree, how will they know and are they going to try and force it. But you’ll see crap like in new york where they’re rail roading a veteran for having the ‘high cap’ magazines. They’ll crucify anyone they can actually catch to try and make a point. (But from what ive seen alot of colorado sherrifs and police are not too happy about this crap either- So there’s that at least.

  • http://JamesArtre.com/ James Artre

    Buy a cheap “Throwaway” gun; one that is registered and you don’t mind giving them. Then purchase the others separately, as kits, then put them together yourself. None of the serial numbers will match, and you don’t have to register it once it’s built. Problem solved.

  • mickeyco

    There are throw away guns? Like throw away phones? As you can tell, i don’t know anything about guns. Except I’ll fight for your right to have it.

  • Adela Wagner

    Like I’ve said for years..”A smart gun owner, owns no guns”….

  • http://JamesArtre.com/ James Artre

    Very problematic, indeed 😉

  • http://JamesArtre.com/ James Artre

    What I mean by throwaway, is any cheap rifle, shotgun and/or pistol; that is legally registered with the state, that you do not mind giving up as a sign of compliance, as a cover for those guns that are not registered and stowed away where they will not be found.