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%
January 06, 2014 03:05 PM UTC
50 Comments
I opposed Senate Bill 197 just like Sen. Cadman, and I'm not afraid to say so. It's not fair to restrict a citizen's rights without a criminal conviction. Republicans tried to modify this bill to make it better but were refused by Democrats.
It's not always so simple as Pols makes it sound. The devil is in the details, that's why polls that get into the details of UBC show a huge drop off. No one believes they should have to get a background check on their family members.
"No one believes . . ."
Call it [Smaldone] family values !!!
Good point, Mod.
'Tis better to let the wife-beatin' rapist with a restraining order *prove* he shouldn't be allowed a gun by actually committing murder, rather than subject him to the embarrassment of having his purchase denied in front of his buddies *and* deny the Gun industry their due profits on the off chance the victim was justifiably afraid for her life.
You realize, of course, Moddy will never see your point in this.
You'd have to convince him there's something wrong with wife-beatin' in the first place.
Not even Nancy Lanza!
It's still a lie that anything in the legislation prevents law abiding citizens from having and using guns to protect their families. That's not a question of simple or complicated. Those who have legitimate points to make shouldn't feel the need to lie. Why does everyone opposed to the recently passed gun safety legislation feel the need to throw in lies?
As for "But Cadman said that support drops when Coloradans learn about all aspects of the law" we all know how things are "explained" in push polls looking for a particular result. If the lie about law abiding citizens being prevented from protecting their families is part of the "explanation" then the poll is a load of crap. Besides, there's room for a lot of slippage from an 84% that would still leave a solid majority in favor.
The Dems' job is to be just as strong in messaging the truth as the Rs are in messaging the lies. People need to be told that the reason they poll 84% in favor is because it's good legislation that has what they want in it and doesn't have what Rs claim is in it. No more, please don't think too much about this and think more about all the issues you do agree with me on apologetics.
The truth, or anything even remotely resembling it, simply is not within these contemptible uber-extremist ghunfreeks.
They are amoral, dishonorable, and shameless. There is no lie too despicable to fabricate and disseminate if it serves their narrow, selfish ends; no low-info/no-info voter they are unwilling to deceive, con, manipulate and mislead; no low too low for them to stoop in their quest for power and dominance.
They are bald-faced, shamless, unrepentant LIARS, and will get away with their treachery and deceit as long as decent, honest, honorable Coloradans remain silent, and the vast majority of Colorado's political "journalists" remains unquestioning water carriers for, and stenographers to, said liars.
Why do liberals hate the US Constitution?
Show me the part of the 2nd Amendment that requires a background check, and I'll admit I'm wrong.
It's right next to the part that mentions "a well-regulated militia", you dunderhead.
I do not believe those words mean what you think they mean.
oh we'll, to own his each.
Show me where it says the right to bear arms in the second amendment is the only right that can't be subject to any regulation or limits All of the other rights guaranteed in the constitution are. Also, let me know when they start letting you board a plane armed with a shoulder mounted rocket launcher.
I do not believe you know how to think. I only wish you'd keep it to yourself rather than publicly demonstrate your ignorance. Betcha you're the type oiling up for some "2nd amendment remedies" if you don't get your way.
Show me the part of the 2nd Amendment that says I can't have a personal nuke and I'll admit I'm wrong.
Yeah, that is a tough one. So it's not so much the keep and bear, it's the "arms" and the not being infringed. I'll concede limitations on "arms" but we should agree about the keeping and bearing not being infringed.
NUH UH — NO LIMITS!!!!!
Sed so yourself:
We'll, you got me. No limits it is. Good one.
You do realize that you're making no sense, LBJK16. Either the right to bear arms in the second amendment is an absolute right to bear any arms, including personal nukes, or it isn't. If you concede that it isn't then you must also concede that the argument is only about how far those limits should go, not about loving or hating the constitution, the flag, mom, apple pie, etc.
Crickets
JBJK16 probably is new at the critical thinking required to play outside his usual echo chamber. From his responses, I don't think he'd ever heard, much less considered, the simple arguments that refute his position.
He's now off to repeat other fairy tale talking points.
There is also this: The amendment refers to the right of "the people", not to all persons. So long as the government does not limit storage and use of guns to government personnel, the amendment's purpose (whether it is allowing a militia or restricting the military advantage of the government) is met. Regulations as to how civilians keep and bear arms does not violate the right of "the people" per se.
And the wording of the right of "the people" reinforces the point that this is about "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…" The militia as "the people" makes sense. The current SCOTUS's divining an individual right from this sentence does not–and it did not to any SCOTUS in the history of the country until about ten years ago.
I'll go with the federal judiciary (see Article III, US Constitution) opinion that background checks are lawful rather than some random poster on a blog. Just saying, you're wrong but whether you admit it or not matters not to me. There are a lot of mis-informed, mistaken fools out there.
Ok- so the Constitution requires application and even interpretation.I support background checks, but they are not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.
I support training requirements for those want a private carry permit. Age limits. Weapon restrictions. Transfer regulations.
But the weak, though popular argument seems to be guns are dangerous and bad, so we must regulate and restrict them. It's an easy approach to run against, and more likely than not to lead to electoral difficulty, especially for those who cannot or will not successfully articulate a more careful and respectful message.
Show us all the part that specifically prevents any background check.
For those new to actually reading and understanding the Constitution:
The Constitution doesn't say a lot. In fact, it deliberately leaves out the details, in large part to ensure that it will survive generations of human advancement – and it has.
The Constitution doesn't say anything about political parties, or primaries.
The Constitution doesn't prohibit yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater.
The Constitution doesn't say anything about Miranda warnings.
The Constitution doesn't require a photo ID to vote.
The Constitution doesn't explicitly define all rights that a person might have.
Interpreting the Constitution, from a legal (court) perspective, is all about balancing. Is the possibility that you injure someone by excuting your Constitutional rights with poor judgement sufficient to warrant protection of that person's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness? Or might it infringe on another Constitutional right?
Learn nuance.
From Guns and Ammo, December 2013 — read it:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Lets-Talk-Limits-by-Dick-Metcalf-of-Guns-Ammo-December-2013.pdf
Now, being the obvious constitutional scholar you seem to be, please show me the part of the constitution that precludes background checks (and other reasonable regulation)??
"…, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It does not say "infringed in a big, significant way." Shall not be infringed.
(The little dot at end is a period- the end of the sentence.)
Yee Haw! That means the 1st Amendment allows me to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Thanks JBJK16 — I mean Justice Thomas. Glad a renowned constitutional expert has blessed this miserable blog with your presence!
Only if there is a fire.
Nope. You can't have it both ways. If the right to bear arms can't be infringed by any degree of regulation then the right to free speech can't be either. It might be helpful to accept that no right, or anything else for that matter, is absolute. Our right to free assembly doesn't include assembling on a runway at the airport. My right to freedom of speech doesn't include the right to yell fire in a crowded theater just for the fun of seeing what happens. It's silly to insist otherwise.
There is plenty of legal precedent for the recognition of certain limitations on the right to bear arms that has never been overturned by any Supreme Court decision.
You seem to think no personal nukes is a reasonable infringement. Others have different ideas about where to draw the line and that's all any intelligent discussion of the matter should be about. Getting hysterical about how people who don't agree with you on the details don't understand or hate the Constitution is simply childish.
Hysterical?
yeah, that's me.
Probably armed too and that's a bad combination.Hysterical and armed.
Yet, I predict a great future in rightie politics for JB. Note how he ( I'm only guessing but juvenile male sounds about right) refuses to allow himself to be confused or distracted by either facts or logic. So he passes the single most important litmus test for righties with political ambitions with flying colors.
All he needs to do is proclaim The Flintstones to be historically accurate, women to be in no position to make their own reproductive decisions, trickle down to be the key to economic growth and call for the undocumented to self deport and he could be another losing GOTP candidate for President some day.
You forgot childish. I suggest a nap.
"I dunned looked it up in my dictinary and what hem judges and the United States federal judiciary says don't matter to me, I can read!"
It also says "well regulated."
For the sake of argument, assume that Heller is the law of the land (which it is). The "well-regulated militia" phrase is on the outs in the current Supreme Court – it's been legally separated in application from the rest of the 2nd Amendment.
So for now, assume that the 2nd Amendment says "[blah blah blah…], the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Which of course means that anyone can brandish their gun in any way they want, because otherwise you hate the Constitution.
Yes, it was so wise of our current court to point out that the first 13 words of the 2nd Amendment were just worthless, nonsense filler put in by the illiterate founders, and that those 13 words have no relevance to the main body of the Amendment, the last 14 words.
Ever seen a page of whereas sentences at the beginning of a bill? Completely meaningless for implementation…
I happen to agree with the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller. Individuals were the possessors of guns at the time the Constitution was written. In fact, at one point this country required every qualified citizen to purchase and maintain a gun, that he might come to the defense of the country at a time of need. States wanted the provision in part to protect against the Federal government essentially disarming the various state militias. And while few states had provisions guaranteeing the rights of individuals to bear arms, at least two states did have such provisions at the time.
Without an historical record of the discussion that led up to the final wording, we can only guess, but certainly some of the founders did want this as an individual right.
I agree w/ Pheonix. I think it was meant as an individual right, I also think that Heller found that some types of gun safety measures/gun control do not violate the 2A, and found previously that banning certain types of weapons (including personal arms) and instituting things like BC are Constitutional. People, like our latest soon to disappear like all the rest (I surmise), that argue 'shall not be infringed' means there can be nothing policy-wise that addresses guns is just stupid.
BC ?
background checks-Constitutional
AR ban-constitutional
Limits on certain types of ammo-"
I would never argue thus. And those that do are stupid. Or more accurately, making a stupid argument.
In the coming debate, I will predict more lies and misperception will be propagated by the Rs than the ads. But it will also be true that the Ds will be on the defensive and are likely to be less unified with a solid response. And by solid I mean politically popular messaging. If they would stick to "most people support background checks" it would be better.
Are you the same JBJK16
that was posting yesterday? The one who made that very point?
Of course.
So were you stupid then or merely making a stupid argument?
Don't confuse JB with logic. It doesn't exist in is universe.
That Guns and Ammo post by Mr. Metcalfe resulted in an outcry by the readers and threats by the gun industry to pull their ads. Result. Metcalfe, long-time writer for G&A was fired. For the gun industry and the gun zealots, there is abslutely no compromise, ever. They would sacrifice their believed (but not absolute) rights to all arms for the sake of 20 first-graders or their 6 teachers.
Life, it is lovely, but a cheap thing compared to the thrills of owning these lethal pieces of metal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-questioning-the-gospel-of-guns.html?hp
Why do these legislators not read the freaking legislation?
Cadman has to know that HB13–1229 has NOTHING in it about requiring a background check when transferring a gun to an immediate family member. And an immediate family member is defined as:
I think that about covers it, don't you? By the way, the specific family relationship language there was an amendment from Senator Giron, after she listened to her constituents about the "giving guns to family members" argument. Her constituents asked her to broaden the definition of "immediate family member", and she did.
Senator Cadman has to know this language exists in the bill, so he's deliberately lying. A sad commentary on our elected "leaders".
Thank you Mamajama55. I just went to the bill to extract the same language, then found you had just posted it.
It is incredibly disingenuous of Sen. Cadman to try to pump up the gun zealots with false information…..and I agree. He knows. He was in the senate when this bill was debated ad infinitum and had to hear it over and over.