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%
April 16, 2013 01:38 PM UTC
60 Comments
The reason why words like that make it out of the mouths of Tea Baggers is because they NEVER take the time to be informed OR watch any of those Documentary & other REAL Reality shows that feature the criminal element in action/at work
In other words – THEY LIVE SHELTERED LIVES !!!
Not only that BUT they were probably brought up that way by their parents when THEY were kids (We can blame the JOKE of an organization called the PTC for this) & are now PERPETUATING this behavior by bringing THEIR OWN KIDS up that way. Thankfully my parents NEVER believed in hiding me & my brothers from life in the real world
And THEY COMPLAIN because life in the real world rears its ugly head in their direction & have to take action ?? HYPOCRITICAL !!!
I say SHADDUP & SUCK IT UP !!! Be an ADULT about it. If you KNOW you haven't anything to hide, YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE A REASON TO OBJECT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT VERIFYING THAT WHEN YOU PURCHASE A GUN !!!
Plain & simple
That's great Guvs, but Dave Kopel's still gonna say it, and Lynn Bartels is still gonna write it without question.
When the press lets bullshit thrive, unsurprisingly, it thrives.
The problem with this bill is that it doesn't specifically address gun violence. And we all know that the solution to gun violence is more guns.
Yes. If only everybody at the Boston marathon had been armed ….Oh wait. Wouldn't have changed a thing except maybe some gun toting citizens would have shot some suspicious looking innocent people in their panic. Surprised the NRA hasn't called a presser yet to gloat over the fact that this was home made bombs, not guns ad therefore….yadayadayada.
This is the same crap argument that Colorado GOPers used, and the local press nodded and stenographed it.
Why should Washington GOPers be afraid to say it?
The stupid, it boggles the mind.
I don't think the local press is stupid. I honestly believe they are giving the GOP a pass to keep them in the game. This has enormous public support, and still we have to contend with ridiculous bullshit given credibility.
Not you, I mean real bullshit. 🙂
We must repeal all laws prohibiting murder because they don't prevent criminals from murdering
Yes, especially those laws that inconvenience law-abiding citizens who simply want a permanent way to keep nosy neighbors off their lawn.
I think murder, kidnapping, theft, assault, and rape should all be legal. I firmly beliI eve this because criminals ignore laws against these act. For the same reason I don't believe in laws limiting what type of guns and ammunition we can own!
You are making the mistake of associating Malum in Se with Malum Prohibitum. For a contrary view, see here:
http://xrlq.com/2013/03/27/if-roofies-are-outlawed-only-outlaws-will-have-roofies/
+1 (these trolls won't know what you mean)
ooh…ooh…Latin….
Um…Ille Sonat Quo Mordetur Gallina Marito…
Duke,
What it basically means is that you guys are confusing something that is wrong because it is illegal with something that is wrong because it is wrong. Take murder – it doesn't matter if it is illegal – it is wrong. On the other hand take marijuana prohibition – there is nothing "wrong" with smoking marijuana except for the fact that it is illegal.
This is the last line of the article you cite.
I don't like where you draw the line..
What's 'murder.' In my Bible it says 'Thou Shall not KILL" Is killing wrong, oh wise latin-spewing one? Or just 'murder' and if just 'murder' what/who decides what type of killing is or isn't?
Your neat law school binary terms and categories, while undoubtedly good for making one feel smugly educated and smart, fall to pieces in the real world of complexity.
ClubTwitty,
If you can't see the difference between putting cyanid in Tylenol bottles marketed for sale and merely possessing an "assault rifle" with a high capacity magazine, then you are exactly the sort of person who nobody should take seriously in these discussions.
If you cannot grasp that making a claim that somethings 'like murder' are just up and 'wrong in and of themselves' morphing into posioning tylonel vs. possessing one someone shouldn't; then the feeling is mutual. Your reasoning is absurd, as usual.
ClubTwitty,
Again, there are funadmental differences between murder and restricting gun rights. Murder we are trying to prevent it for its own sake. Gun rights are, on the other hand, purportedly being restricted not because there is anything wrong with owning a gun but rather because there are allegedly negative aggregate effects of such ownership.
This is exactly why comparing the two in this context (claiming "that only criminals will have guns" is a stupid argument) is dishonest.
That you are either having trouble understanding this or refusing to acknoweldge it speaks volumes.
Did I suggest there were not fundemental differences? No. Just that your particular analysis is whack. As usual. That you continually dodge relevant questions and weave and bob speaks volumes. I do not think I am alone in that observation.
We're not confusing anything and if you weren'r so completely lacking in ability to present a cogent argument you would have done so in addition to providing a couple of Latin terms and a link. While this comment doesn't make it (or anything) clear one can't help wondering if you are making the ridiculous assumption that the morons who make the argument that laws are useless since criminals by definition break laws are smart enough to know their asses from hot rocks much less distinctions between Latin terms.
Bluecat – see the above explanations. "Malum in se" and "Malum prohibitum" are pretty common terms in law. In any event, yes you are still confusing those things. Certain things, such as murder (which the OP references) are wrong regardless of any law on point. Owning a gun though isn't like that. It would only be "wrong" if the natural law/second amendment/etc. didn't apply to stop an ownership prohibition statute from applying to bar said ownership.
Additionally, some of these gun laws are only making things illegal to prevent criminals from using them. They are not being made illegal for their own right. Thus, if the law isn't going to be followed by those you are targeting AND ALSO those that follow it will be made more at risk (b/c criminals will not be following law while law-abiding citizens will), then you end up with a decrease in safety due to the law…which is the exact opposite effect as the law's sole justification.
I went to the link. You don't need to educate me. Especially on the subject of putting together a cogent argument, something I've never seen you do.
He's jerkin' chains again.
The basic premise of his argument is that the absense of a 30 round magazine makes the homeowner not safe.
Some times common sense can trump Latin handles, as the possibility of 1 or more of the 30 rounds fired at the attacker just might hit a family member in another room exists.
libertarians are forever in desperate search of actual scenarios that dovetail into their unlimited "rights" ideology.
The argument, in the simplest terms, is comparing gun laws to murder laws is dishonest.
I think dividing the world up into neat either/or categories that happen to conveniently fit your preconceived worldview is dishonest. Its at leaset stunningly uncompelling. If you haven't noticed by the response you provoke.
Neat categories can be useful for showing when an argument plainly doesn't work. Which the OP's argument doesn't for the reasons stated – namely that the problem with breaking a gun law isn't that gun ownership itself is wrong, rather that the law itself makes the act illegal.
As does the law against 'murder' as opposed to say 'justifiable homicide.' One which is illegal, the other not. Further the difference can vary state to state. So much for 'murder' being unequivocally wrong, or does the neat category stop at Kansas? I hate to tell you, but I don't think you are as clever as you believe. I find the arguments rubbish, no offense.
Club Twitty – do you see a difference using cyanide-laced tylenol to kill somebody and breaking a gun law? It should be obvious. We have gun laws not for the own sake, but obstensibly to protect others. We have laws against using cyanide-laced tylenol to kill somebody though because, well, its murder.
Human sacrifice and even murder is okay in some religious cults, Elliot. Murder is wrong because we as a society believe it is wrong. We even assign different levels of "wrong" for different types of killing, from the cold and calculated wrongness of first-degree murder to the unavoidable and therefore perfectly acceptable civilian casualties in war.
Sure, we say that things are inalienable rights – but we also excuse certain violations of those rights and decide they're "less wrong" or even "okay". IMHO the concept of inherent wrongness is no more than something we as a society have agreed on.
Uhh. See laws do not all fit into neat categories as much as you wish them too in order to bludgeon your argument beyond recognition. The reason one set of things is 'wrong' may be differnt than the reason another 'are' but you have not made the case that the fundemental difference is of kind, of 'wrong in themself' and 'wrong becasue the Dem legislature said it is.' Thus, you have NOT made the case that the argument you think you are attacking is fallacious. Yes, poisoning tylenol is different than breaking a gun law (if that is the only offense) and presumably Sen. Morse isn't talking about executing people over the latter. Your argument is stupid regardless of how wonderful you imagine it to be.
ClubTwitty,
If you acknowledge that some things (thing X) are made illegal to prevent the same prohibitted thing from occurring while other laws make other things (thing Y) illegal to prevent a different thing from occurring (thing Z), you necessarily have knocked out the central foundation of the OP.
Thanks for playing.
Wow. Elliot won his own circle…uhhh…game. Good job, Eliot. What amazing smarts–Elliot reconvinced himself that he is right.
By this logic (which I'm guessing is the basis for Libertarianism), we should repeal all regulations and simply prosecute things after the damage is done. After all, running an unsafe workplace isn't wrong – only causing someone actual injury is wrong.
Phoenix,
Apples and oranges. Whether a regulation is a good thing or not is a policy analysis. That isn't what the OP contended. The OP contended that the argument that "gun laws will make only criminals have guns" (paraphrased, and henceforth the "criticized argument") was a stupid argument. The OP's argument though was the argument that was stupid. The criticized argument was in fact valid.
You're avoiding the question, and doing so poorly.
Regulating gun purchasing via a background check is no different from regulating an industry in your argument of things that are "wrong" vs. things that are legislated.
You can't even get a paraphrase of the OP's argument right – or, rather, it looks better for your argument that you misrepresent it. You're a lawyer, Elliot; quit playing with words and make the argument as though your audience will catch you and lose respect for you and your argument when get caught trying to alter the debate.
The argument that criminals will avoid background checks at all costs is simply wrong – background checks deny thousands of prohibited people from purchasing guns every year, and that's including all of the loopholes that existed as of last year's reports. Expanding background checks will most definitely limit the ease with which criminals and domestic abusers can obtain guns, and saying otherwise certainly qualifies it for entry in the Dumbest Argument Ever (This Year) category.
CT,
OP's argument is that saying criminals avoid laws is a stupid argument b/c it would apply to murder as well. That argument is pathetically weak, and that has been what my comments here have been limited to.
As for dodging though, CT, I find it quite telling that you don't defend the murder example. Perhaps you agree with me that it is a dumb example (and hence a dumb argument).
If so, it wouldn't kill you to agree with me for once. I'm 99% sure the Dems won't throw you out for it, so long as it doesn't become a pattern 😉
I'm replying here because your next comment has no reply option. Here's the problem with your entire argument, Fladen: It's not the one that's being called stupid.
The distinctions you are making concerning Malum in Se and Malum Prohibitum, murder and gun control, etc.are not the ones being advanced and called stupid here.
The argument in question is one that contends quite simply that law that will be obeyed by the law abiding and broken by criniminals is pointless. This simple contention, and they do make it quite this simply, would, as stated here, render all laws pointless since all laws are obeyed only by the law abiding and criminals, by definition, are those who do not obey the law. Period. Plain and simple. Simply stupid.
Please show me an example of a public actor, such as a politician or gun rights organization leader, setting forth the view that gun laws won't work because criminals won't obey them who uses any of the arguments you have introduced in their public statements on the matter or admit that the simplistic argument that they do use is, in fact, stupid.
I won't hold my breath for a direct response with an example of a specific public proponent of the view in question espousing anything more complex accompanied by a link. If anything your response will no doubt be something of the look over there or look at me, I know legal terms variety.
Bluecat,
Thanks for your comment. And you raise the right question – what makes gun laws different from murder laws? As you point out such an argument seemingly makes "all laws pointless since all laws are obeyed only by the law abiding and criminals, by definition, are those who do not obey the law."
The problem with your point though, again, is that gun laws aren't enacted to prevent people from having guns. Instead they are enacted to purportedly increase safety. So the issue that many are raising here with "criminals will not follow the law" is that the law will actually DECREASE safety because the people you are aiming it at won't follow it.
Now wheter safety will increase or decrease due to the law is a good debate that people can have and I am not really in a position to judge who is ultimately correct and to what degree. However, simply labeling one side of the debate as having the dumbest argument of the year smacks as not willing to seriously engage in thoughtful argument.
why does unraveling mean the same thing as raveling?
So… what? You just avoided my argument on removing regulations because it's not as convenient to you as removing laws against murder?
Phoenix,
The OP wasn't about removing regulations. It was about whether one could intelligently argue that criminals would avoid a background check (thus defeating the laws benefit). The OP contended this was a stupid argument – however the OP's contention was what was stupid, not the argument that the OP criticized.
Nice trollfest. His belly is never full.
I feel like I have just been victimized by the dumbest argument ever.
Eliot. I'm replying here because of, once again, lack of a reply button. You have completely ignored the argument I made and are pretending that I was making a point of something else. Either your reading comprehension skills really suck for a lawter or you are playing look over there.
In any case you have refused to debate the points I made as to what constitutes the content of the argument being made by the people making it, not as prettied up by you, and whether or not, as stated, the content is stupid. You declined to challenge the accuracy of my representation of the argument or to defend it, as stated, on its own merits. You failed to provide examples of pols or lobbyists presenting it with distinctions anything like those you chose to employ. As a side issue, whether or not you approve of calling things or people stupid is not relevant to this particular debate.
I believe I win on merit but, in any case, your refusal to respond to my points and to instead try to substitute another discussion is an admission that you have no answer to my actual, as opposed to invented by you, points so I win by default as well. Oh and that would be a win in English or Latin or any other language you might prefer.
Bluecat, the point you wanted me to debate was irrelevant. The OP was about whether the argument that "only criminals use guns" was the dumbest argument of the year. Whether other people have or have not used the argument is besides the point as the OP was, again, saying the argument itself was stupid. And again, the OP's point was itself the point that was stupid for the reasons described above.
You rerally are hopeless at this. Yes, that specific argument is demonstrably stupid. Once again that argument doesn't reference any of the points you a make in your entirely separate argument. The argument as stated is the only one relevant to a discussion of whether or not it's stupid.
You simply have no concept of how to argue a specific point, sticking to that point. I blame the rightie spin machine which has made such a virtue of maneuvering around inconvenient objective reality, a la Karl Rove's boasts about creating your own, that the art of debate has been completely lost. You righties simply are too out of practice, having become exclusively reliant on distraction, deflection, projection, fear mongering and misinformation in place of cogent, logical reasoning.
Once again, I sincerely hope you aren't the kind of lawyer who argues cases in court. Let's hope you're more of a nice little desk job lawyer. And please don't bother to hit the reply to this comment. Since you steadfastly refuse to directly address anything I say, the proper course would be to just use the general reply to the diary instead of pretending that you are addressing my arguments directly,
Are you done with your baeless monologue yet or do you wish to rant some more?
baseless
Tu excors stupri
Actually, hers was not a baseless monologue, nor was her post "baseless".
Time after time over the last few weeks, posters here have attempted to engage you in substantive debate. Bluecat is probably the LAST person you should have leveled the above "baseless" charge at, as time after time, she's been willing to extend a hand, give you the benifit of the doubt, and wait for a cogent and/or on topic post from you. On several issues,
Her exasperation with you is simply the end result of your constant circular, "look over there", purposefully confusing as well as snarky point avoiding replies and endless non sequiturs.
My term for your bullshit is "jerkin' chains", and I admittedly have little patience for your nonsense. But Bluecat does try to engage you, and she deserves better than your childish play. You think you're "coy". In truth, you're a waste of time.
I just thought of something.
Your history here is actually the very definition of the term "non sequitur"
"An argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises"
Bullseye!
Attempting to engage would be trying to show why the OP was a valid point. You guys haven't come close to succeeding in doing that.
Ha! You wouldn't know a point, valid or in, if one ran you over. You've certainly never addressed one here.
That's OK. I typed rerally for really.
Fladen is the kind of guy that just loved law school and thought the whole world would be interested and impressed with his Socratic foolishness. He is angling for a law school job and the Front Range is a pretty good place for that
Guilty as charged for loving law school. As for the rest, not so much.
But, you could have just read One L or another great book about law school and, rather than going, gone to work for the Post Office and become a contributing member of society
Agreed.
But his need for attention is annoying.
If only there were anything remotely Socratic about his foolishness. Apparently one can graduate from law school with a very messy, disorganized, illogical mind. His strong suit must have been a talent for memorization.