U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 16, 2013 09:12 AM UTC

How Republicans Lost a Gun Debate They Could Have Won

  • 79 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
“Crazy Gun Barney.”

As of yesterday afternoon, the two most important gun safety bills to survive the agonizing debate in the Colorado General Assembly are on the way to Gov. John Hickenlooper's desk: House Bill 1229, closing the so-called "background check loophole" and requiring a standard CBI background check for most sales of guns, House Bill 1228 reinstating a fee for background checks, and House Bill 1224 restricting ammunition magazines to 15 rounds. Other bills, like House Bill 1226 restricting on-campus concealed carry, and Senate President John Morse's Assault Weapons Responsibility Act, were killed by their sponsors. Two other bills considered wins for Democrats, Senate Bill 197 prohibiting guns to persons who commit domestic violence and Senate Bill 195 banning online only training for concealed-carry permits, are both now expected to pass.

This has been easily one of the longest and most brutal debates over legislation that anyone at the state capitol can remember. To call the opposition to these measures fierce was a considerable understatement. Although the gun safety legislation proposed by Democrats in the wake of mass shootings in Aurora and elsewhere last year is considered moderate compared to some other states, and the individual proposals enjoy broad majority support, the gun lobby proved adept at mobilizing impressive numbers of angry citizens–who then swamped committee hearings and legislative town halls regardless of their topic. The fever-pitch outrage from gun owners seems to have been meant to rattle Democrats into gutting or killing these bills.

Unfortunately, Republicans and their allies in the gun lobby chose to stoke that outrage with an uninterrupted string of outright lies, and deliberately obtuse "concerns" about the bills which had little or no basis in reality. In the case of House Bill 1229, which Gov. Hickenlooper explicitly called for in his State of the State address, the gun lobby and Republican legislators falsely told supporters from the beginning that the bill would "criminalize the private transfer of firearms." Most recently, Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute, in a video spreading virally throughout conservative media and social media, claims that if the magazine limit bill passed, "almost all guns in Colorado will never be able to get a magazine again." These are just two of countless examples we could cite.

These absurd lies may have riled up the mobs, but they insulted the intelligence of Democratic lawmakers. 

It comes down to a question of Republican goals in this debate. What did they want to get out of this politically? If the goal was to rile up their own base in advance of the 2014 elections, we understand that–though that would be of limited utility a year and a half out. But folks, if their goal was to actually peel off enough Democrats to kill bills, the only success they Republicans can claim is House Bill 1226, and only because Democrats impaled themselves on their own gaffes with the bill. That strategy was, assuming the goal, a massive failure.

The fact is, House Bill 1229 (background checks) was always the highest priority for Democrats, and their allies local and national. House Bill 1224 was also a priority, more than we actually thought after Gov. Hickenlooper's office helped get the bill through its final votes by holding firm in support. Strategically, some of the bills in the "package" introduced at the beginning of this debate were meant to die as bargaining chips–or at least evidence of compromise. Democrats didn't plan for some of their members to insert feet in mouths quite like they did, but it's a reasonable argument that House Bill 1226 served its intended purpose best when its sponsor killed it.

Now, a coherent package of gun safety bills is on or soon to be on Gov. Hickenlooper's desk, and he too knows better than to believe the ridiculous last-minute "warnings" being sounded about these bills. We are fully confident that Hickenlooper is going to sign all five. When he does, and these bills take effect without the freakishly disastrous consequences Republicans and the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners have been warning of?

What are they going to say then, folks?

When the sky does not fall on July 1, and these measures which enjoy strong majority support are shown to be entirely workable law, the failure of the campaign by Republicans and the gun lobby against them will be complete. The goal for the GOP should have been to kill these bills by persuading majority Democrats using the superior knowledge of the issue they supposedly possess. A bunch of dead bills would have had real political value in 2014, enabling a case for "overreach" that would never have to face facts. Instead, Republicans relied on silly, condescending "gotchas," a massive campaign of misinformation and misdirected emotion targeting the gun-owning public, and the resulting grossly misinformed public pressure to accomplish whatever their goal was.

As a result, Democrats will notch another major win, and Republicans will take yet another credibility hit.

Be gentle when you tell them, please. They really thought they had something going here.

Tweet
Share

Comments

79 thoughts on “How Republicans Lost a Gun Debate They Could Have Won”

  1. Dear "Republicans"

     

    As usual, the voters are smarter than you.  The voters can pick through the dung that you spout and see what is true and real.  In this case, fortunately, and perhaps for the first time, the Democratic legislators in this state could too.  You over played your hand and you lost big time.  Fortunately, the citizens of Colorado won.  It certainly won't cure the problem of gun violence, but most people know that it will help.

    So, continue your path to total destruction in this state.  Gun nuts, continue to show regular folks who you are and why they should be so afraid of you.  Leaders, continue to show that you pander to the absolute nut case fringe of your party and not to the mainstream.  All good for everyone else and the state.

     

    PS.  I've still got my over/under 22-Shotgun.  It's enough for safety.  I can still buy shells and bullets.  Oh dear, what you said wasn't true.  What a surprise.

    1. Reminds me of the Health Care debates of 2009 Craig only this time it will be a lot harder for Republicans can keep the paranoid fires stoked for 20 more months to make a difference in the next election particularly when all the hysteria about confiscating guns doesn't materialize.  There could actually be a backlash from voters tired of these overhyped drama queens.

      1. I dunno, GG.

         

        Seems like the hardcore followers of the Republican party never tire of their leaders presenting them with yet another defeat.  I mean how many times did they fail to repeal Obamacare?  But Repub leadership is still saying, "and repeal Obamacare. . . ", as if, like, you know, they can.

         

        It's as if the Repub base would rather have a new grievance against the left than have a victory for the right.

        1. exlurker19 wrote: It's as if the Repub base would rather have a new grievance against the left than have a victory for the right.

          The two are not mutually exclusive, if anything they're related: a victory for the right comes from having a grievance from the left and winning, or at least having the illusion of winning, on that grievance. 

    2. Very well said, Craig.

      And an excellent thread. Pols hit all three of my major points. But you did it without insulting the deserving goobers like I'm prone to do.

      The background checks and "tougher standards" on CCW permits, as well as the prohibition of firearms in the hands of people that can't keep those hands to themselves, were simply common sense FIRST STEPS in the never ending tug of war with the gun goon demographic.

      The magazine limit will make any enterprising concern a ton of money. And believe me, the maggots at "magpull" know that. Now, an entire new generation of gun goons in search of the orgasm of the megaburst will purchase a new toy……….the 15 round magazine. Magpul ain't goin' anywhere, and that's that.

      Ain't this a great country?

      But hats off to the greatest Democratic Legislative body of my lifetime. They faced down the goonies and the industry, told caldera he's a bullshit artist, a liar, and a hack to his face, openly mocked the duddy, endured death threats from the nock like imbiciles, the ilk of franklin sain, faced down angry, out of control mobs at town halls, and voted their collective conscience. Because of them, our children have a better chance of not getting shot at the movies or in school.

      And that's not even counting Civil Unions!

      Wow!

      Thank you.

  2. Nice summary Pols.  Republicans keep digging themselves deeper and deeper into the hole of unreasonable extremism and people are going to stop caring about their "Wolf Wolf cries".

  3. Excellent analysis, ColPols.  The few Dem 'losses" aren't going to hurt Dems at all and the wins are real, important wins.

    The GOP will probably try to spin this as a looming disaster for Dems once people suffer the dire consequences of the bills that the Dems passed but since, as you point out, those dire consequences are all of the GOP created reality variety, they aren't going to materialize.  They put everything they had behind a tissue of lies and they not only lost big time but exposed themselves as untrustworthy hacks and clowns.

  5. I watched the entire House floor debate on these bills.  The majority party didn’t debate, 4 maybe 6 Dems defended the bills.  While ever Republican asked questions, to which few got answers.  There was not chance of the other side winning.  Perfect example of mob rules.

    Look now at channel 9 report.  The language of bill actually makes all magazines currently being sold in the state illegal. 

    http://www.9news.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=2226703142001

    Either this bill was poorly thought out or it was deliberately obtuse. 

    1. questions being asked were stupid and were not worthy of a response. very siilar stuff to what most of the right has been saying. "a gun is inanimate", "hammer", "unconstitutional", "restricting our rights"

      1. I guess if you don’t care about rational debate on bills that will restrict your rights, and may potentially be unconstitutional, then yes those would be stupid questions. 

        1. the right, the Rs, were far from rational

          You want rational, listen again to Sen Mike Johnson speech. You want rational, count the dead, count the tears, count the survivors and the days of their suffering. You will be counting until your last breath

                2. but, nothing in the legislation adopted in CO or even with registration would restrict your freedom. You can own the same gun tomorrow that you can own today unless you can't pass a nbackground check

                3. I can still buy a gun, and a magazine big enough to hold more than enough ammo to kill someone. Several someones.

                  I can get a CCW, if I want to pay some fat wannabee cop for the class. 

                  Hell, I can even buy an AR-15 (POS weapon that it is), once the "OBAMMER'S TAKING UR GUNZ" panic buying wears off.

                  What are you pissing your pants over, exactly?

                4. I'm not. I'm asking you to agree to reasonable and constitutional restrictions, such as the ones we just passed.

                  You don't have to, of course, but we know that you are speaking falsehoods when you say that they jeopardize your freedom.

            2. Being ignorant may not be safe but it' s apparently way too easy.  Otherwise, Koch, you would know about all the regulations already in place that have passed muster with a succession of Supreme Courts. You'd know that the argument as to whether or not these regulations can be allowed under the constitution has long been settled and the answer is yes.

              One more time ( this is getting tedious) the Supreme Court has demonstrated consistently and over a long period of time that  the right to bear arms is no more absolute than any other enumerated consititutional right and that the Supreme Court has not interpreted it to mean that that any and all arms must be allowed in any and all places under any and all circumstances.  Which is why you can't take your shoulder mounted rocket launcher with you to a Broncos game and why fully automatic weapons are banned and why certain semi-automatic weapons were banned for 10 years during which that law was never judged unconstitutional. 

              If you were either not so fundamentally dishonest or so fundamentally ignorant about the constitutionality of regulation of guns and other arms, you'd be able to have an intelligent discussion about any specific proposed regulation without the hysteria and name calling.

              1. Name calling? Hysteria? If the act of posing an alternative view and not stroking your ego, upsets you.  I apologize.  But to sit idly by and just watch our rights erode and say nothing, to me is a dangerous thing. Personally, I don’t what to hang out sites just hear just my opinion regurgitated back to me.

                I never said the legislator can’t attempt to regulate guns, I just offer a different point of view on this matter.  And to caution only trusting police or your government to offer you adequate protection.  As to this being settled law, I don’t believe so.  I imagine as with most of the far reaching legislation there will be a regime change and these laws will be pulled from the books before it ever reaches the courts.                         

                And by no means have I suggested that we have the right to brandish weapons in a public places.  I am only talking about in your home on your property.  The state constitution specially says the state has the right to determine if a citizen can carry concealed.  And actually this is an open carry friendly state.  Though I would never do that.

                I ask you what will these new laws really accomplish?  Nothing, in their current form, other than to add more ambiguity and potentially making law abiding citizen criminal.  The police won’t have any way of knowing you purchased that a magazine before July 1st, nor will they have any way of know you had a background check for a particular gun.  So what is the point of these laws if in their current they can’t be enforced?  The intellectually dishonest people are the one putting these laws into effect. 

                1. if you own a magazine that holds more than 15, I have several, you might photograph them, date them, make an affidavit attesting their lawful ownership and have it notarized. That is my intent. Would be simpler if they had serial numbers

                2. If your side had chosen the route of posing their point of view in a fact based , calm manner, maybe you would be doing better. But your side has most  often chosen to use emotional fear based arguments, much like generals fighting the last war because those arguments served so well for so long.  I'm sure, for instance, there were high hopes for the old fear mongering tactics back in 2008 when Rs either voiced or  said nothing to discredit those who  were  trying to defeat Obama by creating hysteria over his allegedly hating whites, being a foreign born Kenyan anti-colonialis t( though I always wondered why American patriots were supposed to be for colonialism), being a secret Muslim, etc..  It didn't work but there is no sign the right has taken note.

                  So here we are and, perhaps not you personally but  the loudest voices we hear, including prominent GOP pols and the NRA, say no to all regulations because they violate our second amendment rights and assault liberty, trample our rights, are part of secret plots and therefore those who want any new controls are either ignorant of the constitution or  are enemies of freedom. 

                  We're told, and responsible voices on your side don't deny it, that universal background checks (approved by 90% of the public)  are part of a secret Dem plan to create a nationwide gun registry for the purpose of confiscating everyone's guns. The list of hysterical and inaccurate accustations goes on and on.

                  It is your side who have chosen this route instead of calm discussion of the pros and cons of specific regulations.  If it hasn't worked out, don't blame us.

                  I believe that universal background checks will make it harder, granted not impossible, for those who shouldn't have guns to get them. I believe that smaller size magazines will increase the chances of earlier intervention in mass episodes and help lower the, not eliminate, the death toll. I believe that  those regulations can easily pass constitutional muster. I don't hear rational counters to those views from your side as much as I hear silly Tea Party style ranting.

                   

                   

                   

                  2. I will start here, First I don’t claim a side, I haven’t voted Republican in years, though that might change during this next election.  The only side I take is for the constitution, I am against the Patriot Act, the NDAA, Gitmo, TSA, Raptor, undeclared wars not approved by congress, kill lists.  Anything that takes away from our core freedoms.  I try to stay consistent in that manner.  I was repeatedly called Libtard by the right with I questioned the Bush’s policies.   Just as now I am called a right wing or tea party nut for questioning this regimes policies.

                    So on to background checks, in which 90% of the people are in favor of, until you explain the details.   For instance there is no, gun show loop hole in Colorado.  Which a majority of those polled believed.  Now for private sales a check is not required, and while I would make someone do this I sold too, It is rather a difficult thing to enforce.  Because as the system is now if you purchase a gun and have a background check after 24 hours no law enforcement officer can verify it.  Why you might ask, because the CBI deletes the records.  I assume it has to do with the state not having a registry? 

                    Another piece of this law is that technically if I go to a range with a friend we can swap guns to test with.  You are supposed to perform a full background check for each firearm. Even though I had one for the firearm I already own.  Of course they can’t prove it with the before mention deleting of records.  So why bother to have this law at all?   This law only adds ambiguity instead of clarity.  And the thought of a Universal background check somehow being better than the current CBI check is patently false,  Many reports show it being better and more thourgh.  If you had a library book overdue or unpaid parking ticket in this state you wouldn't pass a check.

                    I don’t have the answers, maybe some kind of card that proves you passed a background check, I don’t know.  But lack of the majority party discussing real options with any kind of expert lead me to question their judgment.  It just makes law abiding citizen ability to defend themselves more onerous and does nothing to inhibit the criminals from obtaining them.

                    Same with paying fees for background check.  One surface seems reasonable till you find there is not set limit of what they can foreseeable be charged in the future.  Look at California, they are up to $350 per check.  This law could easily inhibit of the finically less gifted from being able to protect themselves.  Just call it the new poll tax.

                    And as for wife beater, Just becuase someone accusses you of a crime I don’t believe your rights should be smartly taken away,  Called me nut job tea bagger, but I still believe in due process..

                    2. I will oppose exorbitant background check fees, but it's absolutely reprehensible to expect the taxpayers to foot that bill. Your right to bear arms doesn't mean we should subsidize it.

                    3. First, I apologize for all the little editing and spelling errors in my comment.  But I guess that's the way it's going to be since it just takes too much time to go over everything as carefully as I should without any quick way to spell check, etc. at the new "improved" site.

                      Second, I don't know where you get your information, Koch, but so much of what you have here on the gun regulation you refer to is just plain wrong, I don't know have the time or energy to go into all of it right now.

                      I think I have a pretty good idea of  the kind of sources you must be getting this stuff from, though.  All I can do is recommend that you don't accept as gospel everything that lands in your e-mail box. Especially if it's from the NRA which is nothing but the lobbying organization of the fire arms industry and which is only concerned with profit.

                      More guns are being sold but to a smaller percentage of the population than ever. Fewer young people are taking up hunting and sports shooting. The industry can milk the hysteria the NRA, helps create for now but the sad fact of life for them is, in spite of the profitable frenzy going on now in sales, the percentage of gun owning, hunting and sports shooting households is going to continue to decline.

                      The NRA doesn't care about your freedom. It works for the industry.  It cares about promoting the clients' most expensive and profitable products and keeping sales up for as long as possible.

                      By the way, we have a few guns in our home.  The guys like to do a little target shooting once in a while. We know that, statistically, people in homes with guns are more likely to be killed by one than those who live in homes without them but, hey, we've always had them, we're careful and we're all pretty sure we're not the type to shoot each other in a drunken rage or anything like that.  So far so good. 

                      I'm not anti-gun. Just pro-sanity, as is my husband, a Vietnam swift boat vet who grew up hunting and fishing and who is a strong supporter of sensible regulation.  We don't support taking everyone's guns away and the regulations we support don't do anything of the kind, no matter what gets forwarded to you.

                       

                       

                       

                       

                3. Yer rights didn't "git eroded", there slim.

                  People are just doing the math, and it's like this………..

                  My grandson's right to go to the movies and/or to school without gettin' shot superceeds "yer" right  to bring an assault rifle with 100 rounds in a drum to his location.

                  If you beat your wife, you already proved you're not qualified to purchase a fire arm.

                  You can damn well afford to pay for your own background check if you can afford a firearm at the prices these vermin are selling them. I'm sick of the gun goon entitlement syndrome.

                  Oh yeah, background checks are needed. No exceptions. Decisions have consequences, and for the irresponsible seller, they need to be serious. Same for the unquilified buyer

                  And CCW online? You can't move your fat ass into the car, drive to the shop where the class is at? 

                  It's not freedom eroding. It's asking, for the first time, firearm owners to be responsible. Just a little bit. Shoulda happened a long time ago. Now, asking anything's like pulling teeth.

                  But the old extraction's just begun.

          2. Mike Johnson's speech was as far from "rational" as you can get. Rational is being prepared to defend your own not sitting on your can waiting on the government to come save you. But what this really does it take away my choice to defend my family in the way I see best. I respect your right to be a sheep I wish you would respect my right to be a sheepdog.

            1. So, you can't defend your family without a 15 round magazine? You might want to prepare for whatever BS Doomsday Apacolypse you're currently fantasizing about by…I dunno…. working on being a better shot, or something.  

               

              2. Depends. Watch some YouTube videos of riots and ask yourself if 15 rounds is enough? I am not a fan if doomsday scenarios but I enjoy shooting I enjoy firearms their history tinkering etc. I also take comfort in being prepared to defend my family home neighborhood or country if that day ever comes.I also believe that our rights and freedoms should be defended the most vigorously when they are least popular. I do wish you all would stop being so insulting to all of us who see this differently. You may need a neighbor with a 30 round mag one day.

                1. YouTube videos of riots? Why not episodes of The Walking Dead, while you're at it?  

                  Garsh, I don't think there's been a riot on my cul de sac in, like…you know, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say….NEVER!   

                  Look, you wanna own a gun? Fine. That's your right. I have no problem with it. Buy as many as you can afford. I also have no problem with background checks, lower magazine sizes, and seriously controlling assault weapons.  Just don't pretend you're doing something noble. You wanna carry a gun and play hero? Put on a badge, or join the military. I did. That's why I see weapons as what they are….tools. Tools that were a lot more closely monitored and inventoried than you could imagine, and the slightest indication of being "not quite 100%"…even OTC medications…meant you didn't carry a weapon that day.  And yet, with all those restrictions….we still managed. 

                  So I don't need a neighbor with a 30-round magazine. Most of the people in my neighborhood (including myself) are better shots than that, anyway.  

                  1. No one plans for the worst, it just happens. Maybe you have faith in the government, I don't. Katrina? Wildfires? Power grid go down? Good luck. I have faith in myself. You are supporting taking that freedom away from me, that is why I am pissed and created an account on this stupid site to try and present another view. Good luck out there, you will need it.

                    2. If you can't handle people not dropping to their knees and thanking you in advance for being something you're not, you're free to slink back to whatever echo chamber you came from. Go back to your dehydrated food, and make awesome forts out of surplus ammo cans, and keep fantasizing about how "when the shit hits the fan",  people will finally respect you. 

                    3. Hey,  if the rest of us are not as impressed with you as you are, please excuse us.  Don't think I'll be placing my faith in the likes of you any time soon, grid or no grid.

              1. I'd love to see stats on how many American homes have been defended only by virtue of high capacity magazines in the face of marauding bands of  who knows what. In the real, rather than fantasy, America, that is. I'd also like to see how those stats stack up to the number killed senselessly in high capacity magazine mass shootings and mishaps.

                Gun owners who don't feel the need for 30 or more rounds to defend their homes probably aren't sheep so much as those who feel the need for extremely large capacity magazines may be compensating for an inverse relation between the size of a certain piece of anatomy to the size of the magazine.

              2. Giarandamntee you are not a better shot than I am. You don't think 30rds is enough? You watch too much Hollywood crap. If someone comes in my house after my wife, there aren't enough rounds on earth for that scumbag. Good luck with your whistle, scissors and pissing yourself. 

                1. I've got a shotgun. An asshole getting into my house would be a goner with one blast. If you need more than that, you are a truly pitiful shot.

  6. when we get around to registration the right will again raise stupid, emotional and highly inaccurate questions largely formed to get an emotional response. know what they are? "Hitler", "Stalin", "taxing or taking". The reason to do registration is so that guns can be tracked to the most recent lawful owner and try to determine how they ended up being used in crimes or accidents

    1. and I don't want to hear the stupid shit that there aren't any bad questions. A question that is designed to be misleading is a bad question. That it is raised 1000 times doesn't mean it has to be repeatedly answered. That you don't like the answer or agree with it does not mean it has not been answered

      From an NRA member and owner of a great many guns

        1. Both need to be addressed. This is not the end of gun legislation I hope. It may not happen her in CO, it may be federal but universal registration is a necessity. The more gun saftey laws the better

          At least part of the "why" is also being addressed by the Gov efforts toward mental health adjuncts. Some of the "why" will be addressed when folks who should not have guns, stalkers and domestic violence perps, lose theirs.

          So, why would you empty a 30 round mass murder magazine into someone? Wouldn't they be dead after one or 2? Wouldn't the rest just be overkill? Do you think that saying shit like that makes any sense at all?

          1. I completely agree with your answer regarding mental health and keeping guns away from people who cannot handle the responsibility. Wish there was more emphasis, focus and study in that regard. Gun registration, we are way apart. Do that…..and sooner or later someone is going to want blog name registration for the purpose of public safety.

            I don't want to dump a 30rd mag into anyone. I do enjoy shooting the hell out of the DVD player that made my life a living hell for the last few years though. Thou shalt not kill, kind of the fundamental rule that makes all this around us possible. Separates man from beast. People who cannot abide by that need to be kept away from guns and irresponsible gun owners. Banning 30rd mags, doesn't get us there. At least it will put a stop to more than a few political careers though.

            3. So…. someone who's thwarted by a DVD player to the point that he has to shoot it to feel better, is talking about responsible gun ownership….. 

              Good thing it wasn't a Blu-Ray, I guess. Someone might have died. 

  7. The first company that markets a 14-round clip in this state — and they should indeed call it a Fourteener — will make a mint. And if national standards go that direction, think of how much of a new market there will be.

    And here I am with the million-ollar idea.

    1. Couldn't the Fourteener just be a 15 round magazine with the last chamber…decommissioned?

       

      I'm not talking about a broken pencil stuffed in – but you know- same basic design

       

  8. On the gun issue the media is, as always, pursuing politics not solutions.  If they were, they'd be holding advocates from ALL sides accountable instead of ONLY attacking groups associated with the right.  The ACLU is typically the media's go-to organization when it comes to civil liberties issues. And when addressing the issue of allowing mental health professionals to report potentially (and that "potentially" part is the key here) violent individuals you are opening one gigantic civil liberties can of worms.  Normally you'd expect somebody from the ACLU to be appearing on the major networks early and often and for the media to be seeking them out.  They haven't.  Why is that?  Could it be that the ACLU has stood in the way of every common sense measure that would allow professional mental health workers to take action when they believe a disturbed person may be about to turn to violence?  The media has been rabid in holding the NRA to account.  Why not the ACLU.  While I've heard the term "NRA" hundreds of times lately, I don't believe I've heard "ACLU" once.

     

    1. And did you notice?? NOT A SINGLE ONE of these bills dealt with the mental health issue.  Do Colorado congressional Dems care AT ALL about actually solving the problem of gun violence.  Clearly and absolutely NOT.  They are concerned, just like Democrats in DC, with sticking it to Republicans, NOT with actually solving problems.

      1. Oh, how I do wish that were true.

        Pinkos have that comin', and deserve any "stickin' it to 'em" they get.

        As far as the con about the ACLU , be sure to check out how limbaugh used 'em to defend his under age prostitutes/prescription drug soirree a few years back.

        Stop whining. 5 of 7 passed. You lost. Find another outlet. Hey, if you love semi automatic weapons, join the……….oh that's right, your "ilk" doesn't do the National Defense gig, do ya?

      2. If only mental health issues were a reliable predicter of violence. Fact is, most of the mentally ill will never commit violence and many who do always seemed like such nice normal people to their friends and neighbors. Dealing with mental health issues is a worthy goal and it's a shame there is so much opposition on the right to funding services for them but sensible regulations will always be needed. Without them it's just way too easy for those who are both mentally ill and dangerous to obtain the makings of another mass shooting.

        1. Ever notice how the NRA et al refer to all the shooters as "crazy". Then the prosecutors put all their energy into proving them not "crazy"?

          1. And while doing something about mental health seems to be their new mantra, you don't hear them calling for more funding to provide more services to the mentally ill either.

            I don't hear them railing against the draconian Ryan budget, for instance, which would absolutely result in more "crazies" getting no treatment. I don't hear them decrying the fact that already fewer options, especially long term care options, are available for the non-wealthy mentally ill than ever in modern America and demanding we spend whatever it takes to fix it.

            I just hear them blathering falsehoods about long settled constitutional issues, parroting the words "liberty'" and 'freedom" as loudly and often as possible and arguing against established facts and statistics with hypothetical fantasy scenarios they probably got from the video games and Hollywood (shorthand for evil) films they also blame. 

            Never mind the number of other countries, including Canada where people can and do own guns, as saturated with the same games and films but with nowhere near the same level of gun violence.   Something other than the ridiculously easy availability of ultra destructive (and profitable) weaponry is always to blame.

             The NRA is all about profit for the gun industry.  Nothing else.

  9. I am attaching an example of an email I received just this morning.  Regardless of where one is on policy, the tone has been more violent and more toxic than anything I have ever seen in 8 years of public service.  This is by no means unique among the emails received by me or my colleagues.  Not for the delicate…

    "When it comes to intelligence you are a pathetically stupid politician.  You sponsor emotional based laws because it feels good,not because it is logical.  You have your head so far up your ass that the jaws of life couldn't save you.  As a stupid bitch if you would have done your research , according to the FBI more people are killed by hammers, objects and bare hands more than they are by a rifle.  So ban hammers and objects while your at it,  I really hope some day you are confronted by a rapist or a killer so as to put yourself in someone's shoes.  More people are killed by cars than any type of gun.  So ban cars!

    What about fast and furious.  We got a fucking tyrant in the White House who is not accountable for the murder of a us agent and over 300 innocent Mexicans.   But, you as a stupid cunt do not see what is happening and why that asshole wants to control guns.  The first objective of tyranny is to disarm the people.  This is true in nazi germany, takeover of Russia by Lenin, the murder of Ukrainians by Stalin, the murder of over 100 million Chinese by Mao.   

    Politicians should take a iq test.  Apparently you do not qualify and that goes  along with the other stupid democrats.  Democrats are some of the most  ignorant people on the face of this earth

    We are experiencing tyranny and hope that the stupid politicians will pay dearly for their arrogance just like Nicolae CeauИ™escu and his wife by the people of this country if it gets to the point of total repression."

    1. Morgan,

      As busy as you are you may not have been able to include this site in your regular reading. Many of us here are very grateful for the work you and your peers have done this session. These kinds of emails are pathetic and a poor excuse for communications

      GIM

    2. Really pathetic.  Why don't people like that move to a state (or country) that's more to their liking?  They can move to an extreme-rightwing place where the laws and the leaders more closely fit their views and their anger.

      I'm really sorry that our elected officials are subjected to such foul anger – and I do believe there is a level of danger among the people who write messages like this.

       

    3. Dear Senator Carroll,

      We expect much from our elected representatives, and you have exceeded our expectations.  Thank you and all your peers for the courage and dedication you show each day in order to pass legislation that will allow all Coloradans to live safer, with more opportunities to prosper and find happiness with their loved ones, while standing up to those that are driven to irrational fears and outrageous behavior.

      Your work is greatly appreciated.

      Harry Doby

      Aurora

       

    4. And about that hammer stat.  If it sounds impossible that's because it is. This stat only works when comparing all blunt object and hands and feet killing to rifles only.  If you include handguns and shotguns,  turns out about two thirds of homicides are commited with firearms. Not many with hammers or rifles.

    5. Dear Senator Carroll,

      Please consider running for governor of Colorado. John Hickenlooper does not have the best interests of Colorado citizens at the top of his priorities. He has been completely compromised by the oil and gas industry and will not stop them from destroying Colorados' future economy by devastating our land, water, and air.

      You have proven yourself to be a tireless servant of Colorados' people…we need you to lead our state into a clean, sustainable, energy future that doesn't compromise the vast natural capital of our beautiful state.

      Thanks for considering my request.

      Duke Cox

       

    6. Dear Senator Carroll,

      You're not my State Senator, as I reside in 19. But you, along with Senator Hudak and all the Democratic lawmakers that literally pulled off the pragmatically "impossible" and got 5 of 7 Bills to the Governor deserve huge thank you's.

      Unbelievable. I still can't actually process the thought of this happening, with what you and your colleagues endured from the pro no-law gun rights idiots. Your entire body of Progressive Legislators braved the worst society dredges from the bottom of its' barrel, and made theaters, schools, playgrounds, malls, homes, and society in general a whole lot safer.

      I'm truly sorry you get emails, any kind of trashy communication from these dead enders. I guess as a law maker, you have to somewhat disregard this insanity or you'd never get anything done. It's unacceptable though, and you deserve better.

      Rest assured, I'll volunteer for Evie again. I'll volunteer for HD27's Democratic candidate in '14. Your courage inspires me tremendously, and it should.

      All of you have a lot to be proud of.

      Again, thank you. Very much.

  10. Thanks, GIM, Realist, Blue Cat, Harry Doby, Duke & Others for your support for all of us during this unusually toxic debate.  It means a lot to all of us.

  11. I'm going to save our paranoid gun rights absolutists some trouble and post a link to a story about a Marine stopping a crime with a gun.  Unlike our hysterical paranoids I will note that none of the legislation that has passed would have prevented this from happening.  None of it bans concealed carry permits or 9mm hand guns, both involved in this thankfully non-lethal incident.  If this same thing were to occur in Colorado in exactly the same way the day after all the new gun related regulations go into effect, it would all still be perfectly legal. Your welcome,  extremists.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/16/charlie-blackmore-marine-veteran-draws-gun_n_2891176.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

    1. Thank goodness that young Marine had a cool head, and brave heart.  Facing down a threatening stranger, even with a gun, is no small task.  Calling the police (and knowing the correct protocol to not become a threat to police) while holding a gun on the guy takes a lot of focus.

      However, just imagine instead if it had been some AR-15-wielding nut job like Ted Nugent.  Of course, The Nuge probably wouldn't have the guts to actually, you know, stop and help.

      1. Absolutely.  Which is why I'm not for taking away everybody's guns.  Just for sensible regulation. And I'm a Dem who has even served in minor (very) party capacities at the HD level so I really ought to be on the mailing list for secret conspiracies and I haven't heard a thing about a secret plot to take away everyone's guns.  I also seem to have been left off the Elders of Zion World Domination mailing list.  Drat!

        1. Yeah, I also wish I knew what latest plans the Kenyan has for sending our gentle foes into fits of apoplexy.  I never did get my free phone, and the welfare hammock Ryan keeps talking about isn't strong enough to let me quit my job yet.

          And Soros still hasn't sent me a check!

  12. “When the sky does not fall on July 1”

    More accurately: when gun crime does not noticeably decline in CO after July 1, will Democrats tell us what exactly was the point of this feel-good, do-nothing legislation?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

50 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!