DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
20%↓
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
50%
40%↑
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
20%↓
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
50%
40%↑
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
On SaturdayВ The Denver Post’sВ Jordan Steffen reported that “Almost 1,000 people gathered outside the Colorado state Capitol.” Based on the pictures taken by Andy Cross, its difficult to see howВ The Denver PostВ derived its estimate of 1,000 people. Counting approximately 40 people in the front row and then counting 10 to 12 rows back, it seems a generous estimate would be about 500 people.
Leaving aside the numbers, Steffen’s reporting also failed to address the fundamental disconnect between what gun owners are protesting and what state lawmakers and President Obama are proposing.
Many [attendees] held up signs with messages such as “Party like it’s 1776” and “Registration is the first step to confiscation.”
Gohlke, a competitive shooter, drove up from Colorado Springs to attend the rally, she said.
“I’m worried that Obama is going to take my gun away. I’m not only worried as a competitive shooter but as a woman who would like to defend myself,” Gohlke said. “The more laws there are, the more criminals there are going to be.”
State Rep. Chris Holbert, R-Parker, spoke at the rally[…]
“The Second Amendment serves as a defense against tyranny, and I will not compromise on that issue,” Holbert said. “I am not going to compromise on the Second Amendment.”
In reality, President Obama’s plan would:
Contrary to all the fear mongering, nobody is trying to take people’s guns away; a registration system has not been proposed; there is no looming tyrannical threat; laws only create criminals if people choose to break the law; and the Second Amendment right to “bear arms” is only being compromised against its own provision for “a well-regulated militia.”
В
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: harrydoby
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: ParkHill
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Best Custom Writing Solution for Business
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Weld County Loses Redistricting Home Rule Case
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Best Custom Writing Solution for Business
BY: joe_burly
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
BY: DavidThi808
IN: Tuesday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Good post. The point about “a well-regulated militia” can’t be overstated. These statements are contrary to that notion..
“I’m worried that Obama is going to take my gun away. I’m not only worried as a competitive shooter but as a woman who would like to defend myself,” Gohlke said. “The more laws there are, the more criminals there are going to be.”
“The Second Amendment serves as a defense against tyranny, and I will not compromise on that issue,” Holbert said. “I am not going to compromise on the Second Amendment.”
These folks must then support the notion of an un-regulated militia…which would not be in keeping with the 2nd. Ignorance and fear just don’t mix well…
The current Supreme Court does not recognize “a well-regulated militia” as the defining reason for a 2nd Amendment (and if you’re not a textualist/originalist, it isn’t these days – irony of ironies).
However, if a case were presented for background checks, I think even this court would agree that it is helpful to the concept of a well-regulated militia.
Assault rifle bans may very well go a different route under this court (and under the philosophy presented last week on Thom Hartmann’s show, which states that the 2nd Amendment was a sop to the slave-owning states to ensure that the Federal government couldn’t disarm the state militias through its centralized control of them).