Arapahoe High School Shooting Victim Dies

Arapahoe High School shooting victim Claire Davis.

Arapahoe High School shooting victim Claire Davis.

FOX 31, very sad news this Saturday evening:

Claire Davis, the 17-year-old student wounded in the shooting at Arapahoe High School last week, has died of her injuries, Littleton Adventist Hospital announced Saturday.

“It is with heavy hearts that we share that at 4:29 p.m. this afternoon, Claire Davis passed away, with her family at her side,” the hospital said in a Facebook post. “Claire’s death is immensely heartbreaking for our entire community, …our staff and our families.”

In the days since the attack, Davis had been the subject of a massive outpouring of support. Groups ranging from local equestrian team members to the international pop band One Direction had expressed their affection and worked to ease the burden on her family.

A public memorial service is reportedly being planned. In the meantime, please consider a donation to the Denver Foundation's Arapahoe High School Community Fund Honoring Claire Davis.

87 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Ralphie says:

    Having lost a daughter myself, this makes me very, very sad.  RIP Claire.  And may yout parents find peace.  It's tough.  Really tough.  But you can do it for Claire.

  2. Hawkeye-X says:

    And I'm not kidding. This shit makes me SICK. 


    Guns should be seized and destroyed and owners ordered to go and buy a musket.



  3. Ralphie says:

    Give it a fucking rest, Hawkeye.  A beautiful young girl is dead.  This isn't about Republican or Democrat.  It's about a young life unfulfilled.

  4. Hawkeye-X says:

    Ralphie – I'll give it a rest when all the Republicans are appropriately interred in prison so deep that it'll take them 150 years for them to escape.

    In the meantime, there are many Republicans gleeing and stroking their guns and going in frenzy on yet another gun death.

    It makes me angry, and I intend to remain angry until the Republicans have stopped abusing the Second Amendment and respect it as such – for law enforcement use only.


  5. Hawkeye-X says:

    In the meantime, I'll take a holiday break – Io Saturnalia to all. Merry Christmas to those who celebrate their holiday. Happy Kwanzaa, and I'll probably see you next year, if some idiot don't kill me in New Year's (Gun shots celebrations are too common here in Denver)


  6. Colorado PolsColorado Pols says:

    We're a very permissive forum for commentary, but we do ask for a degree of civility. We've deleted a comment on this thread to preserve minimal standards.

  7. roccoprahn says:

    Everyone I know is asking the same question………..

    How do we change the dynamic?

    Another beautiful young life taken for no reason. More questions than answers. No matter where a person stands re: gun safety/control, mental health issues, basic freedoms, privacy issues, political affiliations, surely we can agree that if Claire was our child, our lives would be devastated. Ruined. Effectively ended. 

    Knowing that, starting there, can Americans simply come together just enough to dialogue? Can we agree firearms are not toys, but absolutely lethal hardware that kill in an instant?

    Maybe, just maybe, we're arguing so vehementally about the right to own one that we forget to respect the awsome power and horrific possibilities firearms both represent and affect?

    Claire was gone from us in a finger snap. No do over, no chance for a change of mind once the trigger was pulled. The finality of it, the absolutely deadly consequence of a discharge should send a chill down everyone's spine.

    Bless her young heart, surely her death can lead to something positive. Yes, Newtown is fading, the public moving on, the images blurring. But something has to turn this around.

    Maybe Claire can teach us something. I guess we'll see. 

  8. DavieDavie says:

    An innocent young life is taken, unaware of the reason why.

    Hearts are broken, no purpose to be served.

    While we all ask, what can be done?

    More lives to be lost, from fear of threats unknown.

    Shed light on pain, and heal us all.

    Sweet Claire, we love you – pray for us all.

  9. hawkeye says:

    RIP Claire and condolences to the Davis family …

    Although I'm a Second Amendment supporter, a political discussion can wait another day as we reflect on this tragedy.




  10. speedyexpress48 says:

    Two young lives taken for no reason. RIP.

    Please leave the political discussion for another time…this isn't the time for it right now.

  11. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    Very sad news. This is just senseless. All the best to her family. 

  12. Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

    "With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,

    it is still a beautiful world.

    Be cheerful…strive to be happy."


    I love you all…

    Merry Christmas…happy holidays!


  13. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    "If you know someone who has lost a child, and you're afraid to mention them because you think you might make them sad by reminding them that they died–you're not reminding them. They didn't forget they died. What you're reminding them of is that you remembered that they lived, and that, is a great gift." ~Elizabeth Edwards

  14. marklane1351 says:

    let us be honest. For schools the issue is not just about security. Schools are the buildings we send kids to so they can learn things remember. If it would make the schools more secure, we could make schools military bases with armored vehicles, gunships, and troops where kids attend class. Will kids be able to focus on their studies when amatuers are armed and carrying guns just in case. A professional teacher who has taken the carry a gun course is an amatuer wanna be security gaurd at best. At Columbine High School there was an armed police officer stationed on campus. The   two gunmen killed 13 people then themselves. 

    • AntiCitizenOne says:

      You undercut your own argument with the admission that there was only ONE officer present.  

      We in the gun rights area are talking about MULTIPLE armed guards that cannot be picked out by a potential mass murderer.  Think about this: there will be a whole of of new "janitors," "plumbers," and "teacher's assistants" running around.



      Wannabe security guard?  Hm, some point.  A run-of-the mill CCW course does not adequately prepare one for the rigors of a deadly force encounter.  I'd rather be the course be multiple days long, with firearms training at the level of LEO training (judgmental shoot-no-shoot scenarios, weapons retention training so the weapon isn't grabbed, etc), before someone is allowed to carry.

      • Ralphie says:

        Yeah, because we'd all MUCH rather pay a bunch of cops than, say, buy books or hire teachers.  And LEO-level training, even of a janitor, ain't cheap.

        And wait until all those "armed guards" see each other with guns and think the other guy is the shooter.

        • AntiCitizenOne says:

          Find a way to make room in the budget then.  Progressives LOVE the idea of big government – get on board with it.

          "Wait until all of those armed guards see each other with guns and think the other guy is the shooter."

          If you had cared to look, there are already protocols and training courses taught to officers (that can be easily taught to security guards) about what to do when they are not in uniform or working as undercover/plainclothes in order to prevent being mistaken as the perpetrator:


          • Ralphie says:

            Who's gonna pay for them?  Under TABOR, what part of education are you going to sacrifice to pay for the training?

            You gun nuts are all alike.  Maybe if we had fewer people like you, we'd have fewer people shooting at each other.

          • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

            On what planet do you spend most of your time, anti-citizen? Security guards barely make minimum wage.  Nobody's paying for fancy training courses for them. Security guard's job is to watch, investigate anomalies, and call for police when necessary. Have you ever actually worked as a security guard, or had a family member who did?

            By the way, anti-citizen, you're over posting, which is a trollish thing to do. Surely you can manage to say what you have to say in one or two posts, rather than 6 or 7 in the same thread. Unless your intent actually is to choke off all voices but your own, which feeds into the general impression we “libs” have about gun rights activists.

            Oh, and if you gungrabbers weren't actually fighting against the right to bear arms

            Show me one – ONE- example of where a non-criminal has lost his/her “right to bear arms”. Not just a certain type of gun or ammo – but the right to bear arms. You can’t – because there haven’t been any.

            Or are you arguing that wife-beaters, felons, people who are irresponsible with guns generally should indefinitely be able to keep this “right” in spite of their proven anti-social behavior?

            There are gun-rights advocates on here who manage to have civil conversations which actually explore issues. So what’s your mission – harass the “libs” and post fifty times a day, or actually persuade people to your point of view?

            BTW, I was married to and raised kids with a Vietnam veteran with lots of guns, have shot recreationally at gun ranges with semi-auto pistols, own a gun. So don’t stereotype me as someone who thinks all guns are evil.

            • AntiCitizenOne says:

              "By the way, anti-citizen, you're over posting, which is a trollish thing to do. Surely you can manage to say what you have to say in one or two posts, rather than 6 or 7 in the same thread. "

              I don't see an option to edit my own posts so I can add on additional statements.  Hence the mass of posts.

              "~~Show me one – ONE- example of where a non-criminal has lost his/her “right to bear arms”. Not just a certain type of gun or ammo – but the right to bear arms. You can’t – because there haven’t been any."

              I present to you multiple examples.


              "Wrongfully convicted finds their record haunts them."

              ~“It was destroying my life,” said Sabrina Butler, who was sentenced to die in Mississippi for the 1989 death of her infant son, then exonerated in 1995. “It’s always there.”

              Clearing a criminal record can take years and cost thousands of dollars in legal fees, and differs widely state to state. Many require that defendants return to court to prove their innocence, a higher hurdle than showing that charges were dismissed or a conviction was overturned. In some states, a governor’s pardon is needed. It can be a complex process, which advocates say is made even more difficult by a lack of support services for the exonerated.

              Ms. Butler said she realized her arrest was still on the books after she failed a criminal-background check while trying to buy a shotgun. She said she applied for jobs at restaurants and retailers, and was turned down every time. After she petitioned the state, her record was expunged last July — 17 years after she was released."


              I am not arguing that actual criminals and irresponsible people should have the right to bear arms.

              When I said "stop fighting against the right to bear arms" – I am referring to all lobbying efforts and money spent on campaigning to preserve/eliminate gun free zones, assault weapons bans, "discretionary licensing."  I am actually in favor of universal background checks, so long as you can separate "mentally ill but no risk" from "homicidal intent."

              • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

                Relying on stories of "wrongfully convicted people" is pretty thin gruel indeed, AC1. Your use of the term "gun-grabbers" doesn't reinforce your credibility…quite the contrary.

                By the way..I am a multiple gun owner who does not share your paranoia.

                • AntiCitizenOne says:

                  So she had asked for "non-criminals" who lost the right to bear arms.  I provided examples of people who technically are non-criminals but still have their false record following them around that has prevented them from passing the background checks needed to get a job or buy a firearm.

                  Explain how exactly is that sub-par work again?

                  • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

                    technically are non-criminals

                    Lose the technicality and what do you have…?

                    "technically"…she might be wrong…

                    "actually"…you are.

                    • AntiCitizenOne says:

                      So, poor phrasing on my part.

                      Exonerated = not a criminal.  All the people in the article are not criminals.

                      Still has a criminal record that is FALSE = prohibited person in the eyes of the law to be able to bear arms.

                      What is going on here?

                    • AntiCitizenOne says:

                      (No edit button)

                      No federal firearms dealer will sell to someone who comes up with a red flag on the NICS – even if it was supposed to be expunged but was somehow forgotten about.

                      The false-positive tries to buy through a non FFL – if a cop encounters her and her weapon and does a background check – if they do a background check and find that the false charge is still there – she's toast.

                    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

                      There is no reply button after your comment, so I am using the last available…

                      Yes…poor phrasing.

                      ~~Quoting a favorite movie, here.

                      "In order for you to mean what you say, you must say what you mean."

                      There are other adjectives, as in… former…or, "ex". Even though someones' gun rights may have been taken away by mistake, because they were wrongly convicted, it is the conviction that affected their right…not themselves.

                      At the time their rights were restricted, to the knowledge of the the state, they were criminals…sorry AC1… Fail…try again.


                    • AntiCitizenOne says:

                      Let's try this again.

                      Ms. Butler was exonerated of the charge of killing her infant.  Thus she's not the actual criminal.  From the time of her exoneration, she's not supposed to be a prohibited person because there's new evidence to prove that she never even committed the crime in the first place.

                      By way of bureaucratic incompetence, her false charge is still sticking with her.  This false charge has led to denied employment opportunities and the inability to purchase a firearm for self-defense.

        • AntiCitizenOne says:

          Oh, and if you gungrabbers weren't actually fighting against the right to bear arms, none of the gun rights lobbying organizations would exist and all the money could have been spent helping to train the actual guards themselves as the NRA/Gun Owners of America/even your evvvvillllllll gun manufacturers could put more money into training rather than lobbying.

        • AntiCitizenOne says:

          We also spent an exorbitant amount of money on our military that has been abused by our leaders for decades in foreign escapades in the name of corporatism and imperialism, only to create even MORE enemies than before, and created an out of control intelligence community with god knows what kind of budget they have to spy on us – and I'm sure if we cut defense spending significantly we'd have more than enough money to spend at home for these guards.

  15. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    As Duke  said, the injustice lay in the wrongful conviction, not from any effort to take away the right to bear arms. So yeah, your main point remains on shaky ground, AC1. No concerted effot by "gun grabbers" to violate the 2nd amendment.

    On the security guard issue, there have been cases in which an armed security guard has thwarted a (probable) mass murder or assassination – I'm thinking of the church in Colorado Springs,  in which Jeanne Assam brought down a shooter after he had shot four people.

    I say leave open weapons to the heroes and professionals: armed trained guards, police, soldiers, SWAT teams.  Amateur people who swagger around with guns at public events and wannabe cowboys and vigilantes do scare me. Why? That's their intention, clearly….they intend to intimidate. The bully mentality. No other explanation.

    One of the weaker arguments the "gun rights" movement puts out there is that there should be fewer restrictions on concealed carry, fewer requirements to lock up firearms to keep them away from kids, less regulation and oversight in general. This doesn't inspire confidence in your goodwill for all of the potential victims of gun violence and their "rights to life".

    What I still see in the gun right movement  is terminal selfishness – this idea that any limitation or restriction on type, availability, or access to certain firearms violates the "2nd amendment rights" of a small group of people, even though such restrictions are proven to help preserve lives. They (you) beleive that a hypothetical, unproven future "gun grab" trumps all of these other lives of kids, women, innocent bystanders, middle aged suicidal white men, everyone else.

    Everyone grouses about the lack of post editing capability. You can edit if you write a diary – perhaps you should consider doing that, if you have a lot to say.  Also, there is a CK editor's guide available with the question mark above, if you want to know how to hyperlink or format text, etc.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      + 30.06

      We have this same issue right now in Castle Rock where our gun-range owning mayor has been working his agenda to repeal the town ordinances against open carry of firearms in our city parks and offices.

      Here's the part I don't understand about so-called "open carry" — being a fairly avid shooter myself, I haven't yet found a gun store or gun range that allows the unresticted open carry of firearms on the premises.  Ususally there's requirements that all weapons be in some state of being cased, holstered, unloaded, actions open, empty of all magazines, etc., etc. — all or some of these restrictions.  

      These businesses are the most gun and gun-owner friendly places on the planet — firearms and ammunition transactions and discharge are all an expected, and desired, part of the normal course of their business.  Theyalmost always have armed, trained staff (often times off-duty or retired law enforcement) on hand with knowledge and experience in handling any potential shooting ememrgency.  And in these places no one can carry an open loaded shotgun, rifle, or handgun in the door.  So why in the sam hell should any eighteen year-old with a loaded shotgun, or any joker with a loaded AR, be allowed to parde their weapons into a city park or city administration building???? 

      • AntiCitizenOne says:

        Unable to write a diary when clicking on link for new diary - "you do not have sufficient permission to access this page.

        I believe it has something to do with insurance liability that prevents open carry on premises.  But at least you mentioned the part that all the staff on hand are well-trained in firearm usage – mandatory, live fire training for every prospective gun owner would go a long way.

    • AntiCitizenOne says:

      1 – Why should there be ANY restrictions on concealed carry, IF you can show you are properly trained?  I use LEO-level training as an example because they are allowed to carry everywhere.

      1a – I am not an advocate of open carry.

      2 – I am not an advocate of less requirements for safe storage from kids.

      3 – "Hypothetical future gun grab."  Oh, so I guess you missed what happened on New York State then recently.  People who had registered their apparent "assault weapons" before the SAFE Act was passed were forced to either hand them in or get them out of state.  If that isn't a gun grab than I don't know what is.


      • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

        We had this argument already with your fellow "gun enthusiast", Negev. The New York restrictions on magazine size allow people to keep their guns if they modify the magazines to comply with the law. Or, they keep ownership, but allow somebody outside of New York City to store the noncompliant guns. Nobody seizes the guns.  And since New York's firearm murder rate has been coming down, this is probably one part of the solution. I, for one, beleive that the potential for more people to keep on living instead of being shot to death is worth a few modified magazines.

        You disagree, but you have yet to make a solid case for it. I think Pols probably has to approve your diary writing permission- write to him at the "contact us" address below. He may be waiting to see if you can comply with the norms around here, which involve not outing someone's identity if you know it, not insulting people, and backing up your claims with evidence.

        One reason I want you or someone to start a diary to continue this everlasting debate is that I feel that this thread – for Connie Davis, should be left to rest in peace.  She comes under the category of innocent bystanders slain by gun violence in Colorado -  and I have yet to hear that you give a crap about her, or others like her.

        In Colorado, deaths by firearms are on the upswing, while deaths by motor vehicles and other causes are trending downward:

        You notice that suicides are rising. Of course, this is part of a "big picture" problem, and the big picture solution will involve better access and funding for mental health services (Yay Obamacare!), better services for veterans, and continuing to refine and fine tune firearm restrictions. In Colorado, 937 veterans have committed suicide, mostly by gun, over the last five years. That's shameful.

        It's also shameful that, every time we have another of these high profile mass shooting or school shooting incidents, in Colorado or elsewhere, we talk and debate a lot, but get very little legislating done. Mostly due to the lobbying efforts by the NRA and the NAGR. The NRA does have a training and outreach effort, the NRA foundation; but the budget on this is dwarfed by the lobbying and campaign finance arm of it. The NAGR, Colorado's own Dudley Brown's national campaign lobbying organization, doesn't really have any education/ outreach activities – it's pure vote-buying. I can provide links once I'm back at my own computer.



        • AntiCitizenOne says:

          I have already explained my position against magazine limits in another thread that I will post here until I can obtain a diary.

          30+ round magazines are needed as they can give the user of a semi-automatic weapon more chances to hit the CNS (brain, spinal cord) to stop an assailant on the spot.  Low perfusion takes a very long time to take its effect on the body and the assailant still has the ability to continue their assault during this time period.

          When you are reloading your weapon you are taught to go behind cover in order to reload.  This also means that you may lose sight of your assailant(s) and the possibility increases that you could be ambushed by them.

          Being forced to reload more often does not help you at all when you are faced with multiple assailants as well.  Obviously it takes less time to pull a trigger than it does to reload.

          With gun owners gravitating towards ammunition designed for less penetration of walls, you're essentially fighting with under-powered ammo that will have less ballistic effect on human tissue.  If you're relying on the pain of a GSW to stop an assailant (and a determined enough/drugged up assailant may be able to withstand the pain), your "safer" bullets will not be as effective as standard issue hollowpoints or FMJ and you will need more of your "safer" bullets to have the same ballistic impact as other types of bullets.


          "Oh, but if you force the mass murderer to reload more often there will be more chances to tackle him/her."

          To be blunt – the gunman is only facing in one direction whenever they are aiming.  You could have tackled him even when they're not looking in your direction.  Magazine change or not, doesn't make a difference.

          "So then why do you even need a gun to stop an active shooter?"

          If you're the only one tackling the gunman be prepared if they are able to fight you off and get you off of them – once they've fought you off, unfortunately, you're in a perfect position to be executed by them at near point blank range.  A handgun (and some short barreled rifles) can be fired at especially close ranges (see "fire from retention") to deliver maximum ballistic force to significantly reduce their physiological reserve to fight back moreso than fists or an edged weapon will..  Although an edged weapon will do just as well, if you don't lose control of it.

          And in that case, why do you even call cops if you think "one does not need guns to stop a spree killer?"  You know they have guns, correct?  Would you want a plainclothes/off duty officer sitting in the crowd when that terrible day occurs?

          • AntiCitizenOne says:

            "go behind cover in order to reload" clarifying as "go behind cover to reload so as to not unecessarily expose yourself"

          • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

            Because the law enforcement data are replete with people fighting off assailants with bullet number 16.

            • AntiCitizenOne says:

              So why do you let the cops have all the "high capacity mags" then?


              • Curmudgeon says:

                Because, as much as I disagree with them, I'd rather have them, (what with their training and policies governing use of force ) packing high-capacity mags than someone who thinks that 3,000 hours on Call of Duty makes them a damn Navy Seal.  

                • AntiCitizenOne says:

                  For the record, I stopped playing video games a long time ago.

                  In terms of their overall firearm handling capability, what is the difference between a law enforcement officer's firearm training and a civilian taking multiple courses that teach the exact same material that is taught to LEOs?

                  • Curmudgeon says:

                    Several differences. An LEO is (or at least, is supposed to be) governed by a multitude of internal policies governing use of force, and extensive training in conflict resolution and non-lethal control devices.  It's more than just the tingle of putting your hands on a lethal weapon. It's having some restraint regarding when to use it.   Sure, there are abuses and wrongful shootings by LEOs. Do you really want to stack those numbers against your "gotta have a 30+ mag" civilians? 


                    • AntiCitizenOne says:

                      You…do realize that conflict resolution classes are available to civilians as well (and I would like for those classes to be part of a required training course for prospective CCW permit holders)?

                      I would not trust a Taser to effectively stop 1 assailant, let alone multiple.

                      I'd rather stack every case of police criminality/wrongful shooting against crime rates of CCW permit holders.

                    • AntiCitizenOne says:

                      Although in fact, a can of mace would work better than a taser, since you can carry it on your person (pocket) rather than on your belt (Taser) – my own CCW permit instructor encouraged us to carry mace as well as our own carry firearm.

              • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

                That's a whole lot of posts without any data.

                Please remember the plural of anecdote is not data.

            • AntiCitizenOne says:


              In fact, why don't you ask every cop during a gun fight if they wished they had LESS rounds in their magazine? 

              And to think we let cops have the "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines when they are in a high risk, high stress profession, and much more susceptible to mental illness than the general population!

              • Curmudgeon says:

                That's why I'd rather have cops carrying them than guys like you. You're convinced that you're more qualified, and you just want to use them soooo damn bad…… 

                • AntiCitizenOne says:

                  What gives you any idea that I'm just itching to use my weapon?

                  • Curmudgeon says:

                    Because you fantasisze about BS like "CNS" shots. Real-world shooters (snipers excluded) aim center mass.  I won't bother explaining why. Life is not a naction movie, and a CCW doesn't make you an expert. 

                    • AntiCitizenOne says:

                      You aim for center mass because that's the biggest target and the one that contains the vital organs.  INCLUDING THE SPINAL CORD.

                      Severing the spinal cord guarantees the loss of motor function for your assailant.  You can have hits anywhere else but all it does is create more blood loss – which takes time (precious seconds) to take effect.  What would you rather take, an assailant unable to move or fight or an assailant still mobile despite multiple GSWs but none of them disabling?

                    • AntiCitizenOne says:

                      Oh, ONE "perceived" lack of knowledge about where to aim leads to an immediate judgement on the apparent knowledge (or lack thereof) of WHEN to use deadly force, sure, that's quite the leap of logic you got there.

                    • AntiCitizenOne says:

                      Because clearly one perceived misconception on where exactly on the human body to aim a firearm leads to the fact that the person does not know when exactly deadly force is warranted.

                      That's one hell of a leap there.

                    • Curmudgeon says:

                      (repsonding to comments below, since there's no more reply options) "Multiple GSW, but none of them disabling…."  again with the action movie fantasies.   Apparently, you're ignorant of the actual physical force of a bullet, or that many shots other than "severing the spinal cord" can put an assailant down (They just don't sound as badass).  Bullets can ricochet off of bones, and do all kinds of damage inside of the sack of meat we all walk around in. I don't know who taught your CCW/Special Forces/Double-Naught Spy Classes, but you're entitled to a hefty refund. 


                    • AntiCitizenOne says:

                      "or that many shots other than "severing the spinal cord" can put an assailant down"

                      And I'd like to have as many as it takes, not be limited by some arbitrary number.


                      Turns out the shot suspect in this case only took one round to the chest in the end, yet still managed to be able to get back in his car, still drive for quite some time before expiring.  What if the suspect had decided to try and press on to kill the officer instead?

  16. mamajama55mamajama55 says:

    AC1, post a diary and give poor Connie Davis a rest here. Your arguments about how you need unlimited magazines to ensure killing shots are hypothetical, just like your paranoia about the liberal "gun grabbers".

    Use facts and stats, not paranoid fantasies.  I'm done responding to you here.

    • BlueCat says:

      Better yet, how about just starting his own blog instead of carpet bombing this one? Even if I never read another AC1 post it gonna take an awful lot of scrolling around here if this keeps up.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.