Why does Colorado want to regulate shotguns?

March 04, 2013

Writer

Colorado has been at the center of some controversies related to gun control over the past few weeks, and they aure aren't looking to get out of the spotlight anytime soon. A new law would come after the standard shotgun, and it's already passed the House.

"Colorado has a new bill that's been passed by the House, now going to the Senate. It would ban the standard shotgun. Why? Because you can take the tube at the end, you can take the tube off of it and you can put an extension on it. And when you put an extension on it, you can hold up to, I don't know what it is, 12 or 14 shells. And that's just too much. Why would anybody need 14 shells? Why would anybody need? Oh, I don't know. I was just at the gun range this weekend and I used a shotgun just like that. Why ‑‑ why not? Why can't I have 14 shells?" Glenn said.

"They are now going after the standard shotgun. Not the extension, but your gun, your shotgun, if it's a pump shotgun, it can be modified and so that's not ‑‑ what does that leave you with? That leaves you with a shotgun that's a double barrel because two shots is enough."

TheBlaze explains:

“They’re coming after the standard shotgun,” Republican state Sen. Greg Brophy told KCNC-TV.
The bill, aimed at banning high-capacity ammunition, has already passed the House and has support from Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper. If it’s signed into law, it will also seriously limit shotguns used by most hunters in the state, according to the station.
“Hundreds of thousands of pheasant hunters are probably going to be carrying around a gun they won’t be able to replace after July 1 this year,” Brophy told KCNC.
In a state that’s seen two of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history — Aurora and Columbine — Brophy said there’s a section of the bill that defines a high-capacity magazine as one that can hold or be converted to hold more than 15 rounds or eight shotgun shells.

"Has anybody asked why is Colorado the leader of all of this gun regulation besides New York? Why? Because they have New York and then they are looking at the other end of the spectrum and they're saying Colorado. And they're putting the pressure on the politicians in will Colorado, the White House is, to get them to pass all this stuff."

Glenn suggested that Colorado was leading the charge from a strategic standpoint because it has traditionally been a pro-gun state. If they pass the new regulation, then the spectrum from traditionally anti-gun states, like New York, and pro-gun states, like Colorado, are covered.

Glenn then went into history, explaining the role that the NRA played in Reconstruction and how banning guns could end up like Prohibition America.

Transcript below:

Look. You know there's a ‑‑ I want to show you this. This is an original. This is an original document from the National Rifle Association. It's not even in their archives. In fact, I told them that I had this and they were like, "You what? Huh?" This is the National Rifle Association, this is a certificate of membership and it says this person is in ‑‑ a member in good order and it is signed. I don't know if you can see here because there's so much glare on it. I'm trying to get it so ‑‑ there it is. It's kind right there by Ulysses S. Grant, president of the National Rifle Association. Now why is U. S. Grant president of the National Rifle Association? Because the National Rifle Association was started by two union generals. That's why. And why was it started by two union generals? Because what was going on with Reconstruction with the South. And they knew they needed to get people to understand the Second Amendment and they needed to get people trained with guns because of the oppression that was happening in the South.
Now think of that. What is the ‑‑ what is the ‑‑ what is the ‑‑ who's killing here in America? Where are most of the gun murders happening? They're happening in the inner city. Where are ‑‑ where are the strictest gun control laws?
PAT: Inner cities.
GLENN: Inner city, right? Who lives in the inner city? Mainly minorities. The poor. So they're living in these drug‑infested neighborhoods with no way to protect themselves. This is exactly what was happening with Reconstruction, and the KKK. It wasn't the drug dealers. It was the KKK. And during Reconstruction, the white man in the South was saying, "Yeah, you guys can't have any guns." So they weren't able to defend themselves.
The National Rifle Association is important. Has been important for a long time. When you see the signature of Ulysses S. Grant, the greatest union general, the one that won the war, when you see his signature on a membership card, his actual ‑‑ he hand‑signed it, and he says president of the National Rifle Association, that's not president of the United States. That's the president of the NRA. Because his buddies started it. To make sure you could go after the KKK. The same thing is happening. It's just not the KKK. Minorities are the ones who are going to be hit the hardest on this because, what, you really think ‑‑ go ask anybody in these drug neighborhoods. Go ask them. If they're living there, really, is gun control going to stop this? These guys, are they buying guns legally and they are filling out all the paperwork? Do you think they are doing that? You think you could stop ‑‑ you know this is the progressive way: They really thought they could stop people from drinking with Prohibition. Because it's the right thing to do. "People hurt themselves. People get drunk and it's bad." And so they make it illegal to have alcohol. And they think they can stop people from drinking and so what happened? People were making it in stills in the woods. People were getting it across the borders and smuggling it in. And what happened then? Illegal crime went through ‑‑ illegal crime. Illegal booze starts coming through the border, you've ‑‑ all of a sudden you have these giant mobsters like Al Capone. What do you think Al Capone was funded on? He was funded by illegal booze. That's what he was funded with. Because people couldn't get it. So he could charge an arm and a leg. It makes the crime syndicate go through the roof. The same thing with the drug war. The drug war is doing nothing, gang. Nothing. Except make these guys a buttload of money. The same thing that happened with alcohol. We have to start realizing these connections. And they think they are going to wipe out gun crime? They are only going to make it much, much worse because there's always somebody that will provide that gun. And how many legal Americans who live in a tough neighborhood, who know that it's not about the government to them, who live in a tough spot will then do business with somebody they know, they would never do business with because they fear for their children's lives?
Let me ask you something: If they make guns illegal and you happen to fear for your life, if your daughter fears because somebody is stalking her and you can't buy a gun, let me ask you a question: Will you at least consider going to a nefarious underworld type to buy a gun to protect your child? I don't think there's a dad within the sound of my voice that wouldn't at least consider it, especially when you've grown up in a country where you know that right to defend yourself comes from God.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep