Imagine the Denver Post’s editorial board, perched in their ivory tower overlooking the Rockies, penning a glowing defense of Colorado’s latest assault on the Second Amendment. They’re cheering on the state’s ban on so-called assault weapons, dismissing a federal lawsuit from the Department of Justice as mere political theater. But here’s the kicker: their ridiculously dumb argument boils down to claiming these guns are uniquely dangerous because… they’re scary-looking and have high-capacity magazines. Never mind that handguns are used in the vast majority of gun crimes, or that assault weapons are a made-up media term for semi-automatic rifles that function just like the AR-15s owned by millions of law-abiding Americans. It’s peak cluelessness, wrapped in sanctimonious prose, as if banning cosmetic features will magically vaporize criminals who don’t follow laws anyway.
This isn’t just editorial malpractice; it’s a symptom of the anti-2A echo chamber that’s gripped blue-state media. Colorado’s ban, signed into law amid the predictable post-Boulder hysteria, mirrors failed experiments in places like California and New York, where compliance rates hover around laughable lows and violent crime hasn’t budged. The DOJ’s challenge, filed on behalf of the NRA and others, invokes Bruen’s clear directive: gun laws must align with historical tradition, not modern feelings. The Post’s retort? Hand-wave it as Republican meddling. Spoiler: history shows semi-auto rifles were common in the founding era’s equivalents, and magazines holding more than 10 rounds? That’s been standard since the 20th century. Their argument crumbles under the slightest scrutiny, exposing how gun controllers rely on emotion over evidence.
For the 2A community, this is red meat—and a rallying cry. As the lawsuit grinds through courts, expect more stateside dominoes to fall if Colorado’s ban gets neutered, vindicating the post-Bruen blueprint. It underscores why we curate these stories: to arm patriots with facts against the fearmongering. Share this, hit the range, and keep fighting—because when editors defend dumb with dumber, it’s our cue to reload the debate.
