CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 13, 2013 02:33 PM UTC
21 Comments
Bernie was celebrating with his people–Andrasik and the NRA.
Whatever.
The Dems were not paying attention and lost these elections.
Next.
It's worse than that. The Dems were paying attention, put in an immense effort, and still lost. Pretending anything different just sets us up to lose next time.
That is however a sweet suppressor.
You mean the small penis compensator at the end? Sweeeet.
Don't be mean. I'm sure Negev is slobbering over that long, hard piece of equipment because it would serve some beneficial function in legitimate sport shooting events, like….
uh…..
Negev, you wanna help us out with that?
I got nuthin. Sorry. Oh wait, you could shoot without pissing off your hoplophobic neighbors..?? I don't know but I'm gettin one..
You should write your own porn novels… your good!
Thanks, I figured that would make your little…Uhm…heart go pitty pat.
I live on the Western Slope, dude… I don't know anyone here who's afraid of weapons; it's just that most people I know who own them don't use them to pretend they're a sooper-sekrit agent.
You do seem to have an irrational aversion to weapons, however, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them.
(Que Bond theme)….
For the record I do not support the actions of that guy in the pic…I support his right to say it, but do not agree with what he said.
Aversion to weapons? Nope. Just an aversion to wannabe cops, wannabe Soldiers of Fortune, and wannabe Minutemen who have neither the training nor the emotional maturity to carry around a boom-stick.
See, I carried a number of different kinds of weapons in the military. I'll even wager I have more hands-on time than you do. Like, years? To the point where you realize they're just tools. But that was my job, and I wasn't playing. I have absolutely no problem with weapons. just people playing with them and thinking they're the Militia.
As for the guy in the pic, yeah, yeah.. "I do not support"…you just lust after his piece. You're not so different.
If you don't want to carry a gun, Curmudgeon, nobody is forcing you to. However, plenty of people disagree, and their disagreement does not make them "wannabe cops, wannabe Soldiers of Fortune, and wannabe Minutemen "
What does it make them, counselor?
I am quite certain Curmie is specifically referring to the activists of the Andrasik mold. I am also quite sure he is not referring to people like one of my family members, who often must make after hours deposits of large sums of money. He has a reason to carry, in contrast to our hot headed young “patriots” who imagine themselves fending off F-16s with their AR 15.
You may try to obfuscate this clear distinction as much as you like, but once again, you are wholly unconvincing.
That is a clear distinction. A person willing to take a life to protect monetary interests is justified, yet a person willing to take a life to protect their own is a lunatic.
What if my watch is expensive? Would that count?
How about a child in tow? Do you a value for that?
It makes them people who feel more comfortable being armed than being rather defenseless.
So, provided an individual can show adequate training and emotional security to carry around a boom-stick, you would be fine with whatever weapon they choose? That does not seem consistant with your prior arguments ie magazine restrictions, as the background check appears to be the industry standard for "emotional security" these days.
If I recall correctly, you served in Vietnam. I honor and respect you for that. I would however submit that at the time, you were a boy, forced to do a mans job, in which you developed an emotional security much faster than the average citizen. I again say that this deserves much respect. It does not however make you the benchmark for emotional security, and many of our soldiers today are questioned on thier emotional security exclusively due to thier military participation, and risk denial on firearms purchases because of it.
And wanna-be cops? They ARE cops. Your suggesting that cops have the same emotional security you do and your incorrect, and you are vastly more likely to be shot by an officer of the law than a emotionally insecure civillian.
You also seem to criticise non military for "playing" with guns while simultaneously demanding training to qualify your lack of aversion to weapons. How does that work? How does one gain adequate training in the civillian world to be considered adequate in your book to bear the responsibilities only you seem qualified to bear?
And the guy in the pic? We are not much different – we both have been screened by the federal government to possess restricted weapons, we both have submitted fingerprints, photographs, and written police verification that we are not prohibited in any way to carry a (full auto) "boomstick" and we both meet the prerequisite definitions to legally purchase and possess firearms over the counter.
I however respect women.
Now, back on point – do you believe that a backround check qualifies a person to be emotionally secure? If so how to you explain the Aurora shooter? I am curious which law was passed in CO that allowed you, by your provided definition, to feel as if progress was made in increasing gun safety.
My family member does not carry an AR-15 w/ a 30 round clip for self defense.
There is no self defense scenario I can envision in which it would be necessary.
And that's the issue. Since regulation per se has long been established as allowable under our constitution the question is what's sensible. We can have disagreement and discussion on that issue.
Legislation can be voted up or down. We can ask the courts to decide whether a piece of legislation crosses the line of what the constitution allows. But the irrational attitude that all gun control is an unconstitutional denial of our right to bear arms and/or our freedom of choice is simply invalid as established by long standing court precedent. Period. That doesn't even qualify as a valid part of the discussion.
The Rodney King riots forced Asian community members to unite against raging mobs of looters, out to rob, destroy and kill… if in fact your family member was at the source/location of where the large amount of money was generated at a time like this, would you discourage the use of an AR-15 in order to protect themself?
First, and foremost, I wasn't in Vietnam (Far too young). But you go ahead and talk about what it was like for people who were there. If there's one thing armchair warriors (and wannabe warriors) are good at, it's talking about events like they were there.
Newsflash: I don't care about how many guns you own. Just because I don't own any myself anymore (just don't see the need), doesn't mean I have any aversion to them. If a friend of mine buys one (like a sweet M-1 Garand) it's quite likely I'll go out shooting with him.
You want a full auto boomstick (and yes, I'm making fun of it, and have taken note of how that offends you)? Have at it. Lots of people own things they probably don't need, myself included.
Restrictions don't mean taking away that right. Stop being a damn baby about it. Having to get a license, registration, and insurance doesn't mean you can't drive a car. Jesus, grow a pair. You're like a shaky Chihuahua with an AR-15. No wonder you need a larger magazine; who could hit anything when they're trembling so badly? You're constantly making up scenarios where your long-overlooked super mutant gun powers will finally be of some practical use, and by God, then people will be thankful!
I just wish you silly bastards would stop acting like you're stockpiling weapons and playing Soldier of Fortune for any reason other than it makes you feel good, or a little less afraid of the many, many, many things you seem to be so afraid of. That's your business. You're not doing the rest of us any favors. If you insist on packing heat at Wal-Mart because some "young urban hoodlums" make you uneasy, fine. Just don't whine when reasonable society wants to throw a few restrictions on that type of behavior. If the lack of a 15+ magazine suddenly makes you impotent in the face of a "Rodney King Riot", that's your problem. Just stop acting like anyone's preventing you from being safe. Your own mind is doing a fine job of that.
No reply after your post, Negev. I don't think an AR-15 would be necessary and I think having everyone, mainly untrained, on a block armed with them would cause a lot of collateral damage to innocents including other business owners. The number of friendly fire casualties in any battle, which is what it would be, can be quite high. But that really wasn't my point.
My point is, yes we can have a discussion about that. We can see what the courts have to say about it. But that's not what we're hearing from your friends in the wingnut contingent. What they say over and over is that the right to bear arms, as apparently opposed to all other rights, is so absolute any gun control legislation is an unconstititional violation of that right and you add a claim of violation of freedom of choice. That's the argument that isn't worth having because it's so blatantly without merit.
Hey pols. I tried highlighting and clicking on the blue thing and it came out fine but since it does sometimes anyway I'll have to keep at it to see if it really is the solution. Here goes again.