President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

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
December 01, 2013 09:16 AM UTC

So Long, Sheriffs: Gun Lobby Lawsuit Loses More Steam

  • 126 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols


Colorado county sheriffs pose for an NRA photo shoot last spring.

An important development last Wednesday in the ongoing legal action by the gun lobby against gun safety legislation passed in Colorado this year, as reported by the Associated Press' Ivan Moreno. Don't let this slip down the Thanksgiving weekend memory hole:

Sheriffs in most of Colorado’s 64 counties filed the lawsuit in May, saying the new regulations violate the Second Amendment. The sheriffs are elected and represent rural, gun-friendly parts of the state.

In her ruling, Krieger said sheriffs still can choose to join the lawsuit in an individual capacity, and they’ll have 14 days to make that decision. But they cannot, as a group, sue the state in their official capacities.

“If individual sheriffs wish to protect individual rights or interests they may do so … however, the sheriffs have confused their individual rights and interests with those of the county sheriff’s office,” Krieger said.

We'll be the first to admit that rounding up a majority of Colorado county sheriffs–generally conservative elected officials who have been boosted for years by pro-gun groups like the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners–to publicly front the opposition to these new gun safety bills was a brilliant public relations move. In Colorado, the huge difference between elected conservative county sheriffs who opposed the new laws for political reasons and appointed police chiefs who generally supported them for practical reasons was lost on the public. Furthermore, some of these county sheriffs, like Weld County Sheriff John Cooke, are in fact distantly on the fringe of the gun safety debate, standing in opposition to all background checks for gun purchases. It's always been our opinion that if the voting public understood the positions held by many of these elected sheriffs, those badges wouldn't count for nearly as much.

And as the Denver Post's Ryan Parker reported on this same ruling, another major component of the fear-based messaging against this year's gun safety bills has been invalidated–again.

Krieger dismissed the claim that the state legal language dealing with readily converted gun magazines — those with removable base plates, allowing for additional rounds to be added via an extender — is "unconstitutionally vague."

Krieger said that Technical Guidance letters issued by the state Attorney General's Office after the magazine-limit law passed, outlining the interpretation of the "designed to be readily converted" component of the mag-ban measure, sufficiently addressed that issue.

In the finding, Krieger wrote that magazines with removable base plates — which most possess — "are not considered to be 'designed to be readily converted' into large-capacity magazines for purposes of enforcement of the statute."

The claim that the language in the magazine limit's provisions regarding the "convertibility" of magazines to higher capacities could "ban all magazines" was heavily promoted by conservatives during and after the gun safety debate this year. Lawmakers and conservative pundits like Jon Caldara warned in the most alarmist terms they could find of these "far-reaching consequences," either unintended or part of a deliberate conspiracy to "ban all guns," that would result from the passage of House Bill 1224.

It's important to understand that a very large part of the backlash from gun owners to passage of these laws is based directly on this misinformation. The media did nothing to refute these claims, even after GOP Attorney General John Suthers issued his technical guidance on the new law that entirely disproved them. Reporters like Ryan Parker of the Post and Kyle Clark of 9NEWS subsidized these unfounded rumors rather than honestly looking at them. Proponents, for their part, insist the hysteria over the magazine limit's "unintended consequences" was always hogwash, and that Colorado is hardly the first state to limit magazine capacity. The language of House Bill 1224 is consistent with that of other states, and the federal 1994 assault weapons ban that withstood a decade of court challenges.

Democrats need to realize that this misinformation, which they scoffed at among themselves but totally failed to publicly respond to this year, has done enormous political damage. During the legislative debate and especially during the recalls this summer of two Democratic Colorado senators, a strategic decision was made to avoid direct confrontation on the gun safety bills. Given the outright lies being spread about these bills, and the media's failure to accurately report on them, that decision was nothing short of catastrophic.

It isn't just a lecture in hindsight, folks. Beginning in January, Colorado Republicans intend to make Democrats talk about guns every day, and Democrats must be ready. Republicans believe they have found the Achilles' heel of adversaries who have been trouncing them at the polls for a decade in this state. As is often said in politics today, being right is not enough. Democrats will either win this message battle or die by it in 2014.

Tweet
Share

Comments

126 thoughts on “So Long, Sheriffs: Gun Lobby Lawsuit Loses More Steam”

  1. RMGO apparently still wants to push this issue to the Supreme Court, even without the Sherriffs. They want to challenge the constitutionality of the magazine limits and background check laws. Their hope is that any laws limiting gun possession or use will be seen as an "infringement" of the 2nd amendment.

    I don't know how realistic this hope is, but Dudley Brown still fundraises from it, both at a state level with RMGO, and at a national level with NGRA. His two "non-profit" charities together bring in over 8 million dollars a year from people afraid that their precious guns will be taken or their use limited somehow. Brown's influence on both state and national politicians rivals that of the NRA.

  2. I haven't read Judge Krieger's decision but it sounds like she held the sheriffs could not bring a lawsuit in their official capacity asking a court hold a law unconsitiutional. The reasons behind that concept is the fact counties and the elected county officials, including county sheriffs, are nothing more than extensions of the state government and therefore cannot sue requesting a court hold a state statute unconstitutional. The same is true in almost all of the fifty states. They can each sue as an individual citizen but not in their official capacity as a sheriff.

    As Pols points out, this was a brilliant political step to have the sheriffs front for the "pro gun lobby" lawsuit but they never had a prayer of overcoming a motion to dismiss them as plaintiffs and I would suggest that if the truth be known, most of the county attorneys around the state informed their sheriffs of that fact before the lawsuit was filed. Most of the sheriffs joined this lawsuit for local political reasons because if they failed to join it, most of them, especially the Republican sheriffs, would find themselves out of office the next time they came up for election for the simple reason they didn't meet the litmus test. And as we all know, within the Republican Party litmus tests must be passed 100% of the time or you can forget your political career.

    The Democrat should stand-up to this nonsense when it is raised next Fall and turn the tables on the opposition by informing the voters about what each of these bills really means. Also, time is on our side. By next year, everyone paying any attention will realize the government has no intention of taking anyone's guns and they will realize no one from the United Nations is circulating forcing people to give-up their weapons (as the NRA and the RMGO are still asserting). Let the gun lobby overstate their hypothetical horribles day after day and shoot them down with the facts (no pun inteneted).

    1. Your first paragraph is right on target for an explanation of the ruling.

      I disagree, though, on your conclusion at the end. While time is on our side, Republicans will pivot to one of their fallbacks: "this is only the first step!" or "they're waiting until after the election to dupe you!" No matter what happens, until we counter the real misinformation behind this idiocy, we'll still have to deal with too many people convinced that Democrats really are out to take their guns.

  3. Good to see Colorado Pols come around to my point of view that this choice by Democrats to ignore the issue and not stand up for the great bills that they passed is "disastorous."

    1. I agree with you Craig. Democrats need to stand-up and not let the opposition define them on this issue.

      Another thing, the recent recalls are not signs of Republican strength or renewal in Colorado. In fact, the recall elections establish the weakness of the Republican Party. It can only win when one of it base groups is involved in an election where there is low turnout.

    2. At the very least they could explain what the hell's in them and push back on the lies. Maybe then we wouldn't have people polling in agreement with them and recalling legislators who passed them at the same time. Both the GOTP success in cashing in on their lies about gun legislation and ACA legislation (and I mean for years before there was any problem with the site roll out)  has been the direct result of Dems running scared from their own legislation and refusing to so much as mention anything about what's actually in it , much less explaining and defending it. The GOTP is always happy to step in with scaremongering attacks. 

      When will Dems learn that leaving the field to the GOTP is always going to lead to worse results than standing up to them by standing up for themselves and their own legislation. If something, such as reasonable gun law legislation, isn't polling well in spite of the fact that what's in it polls well, it certainly won't help to look like you're ashamed of it and let the GOTP explain it.

    3. I think it is going to be easier to do in 2014 Craig when people start to realize that no guns have been confiscated and Magpul is still operating in Colorado.  The easiest way to rebutt the lies to ask "Where's the beef?".  Make them point to specific examples of unreasonable seizures of guns from responsible gun owners.  When they can't then pounce on their lies and shred them.  A year after these regulations have been enacted, we'll see whether the fears and misinformation holds up.

      1. Sheriff Stan Hilkey of Mesa County will be visiting the discussion group at Main Street Bagels on Dec. 20th…

         

        Make them point to specific examples of unreasonable seizures of guns from responsible gun owners.  When they can't then pounce on their lies and shred them.

        I will make certain he gets asked this question. I will report back here with a list of gun seizures he has compiled…laugh

    1. Saw that article. And you're right. These ladies have a special kind of courage to keep on leading and legislating in the face of that kind of attempted intimidation.

      But if the Boys Club thinks that somehow they're going to scare women leaders back into silence and compliance, they sure have another think coming.

    2. I read it as well, doremi.  Thanks for sharing.  At this stage in my life I try to read things like this through the eyes of my now 5-year old grand daughter as an adult.  There is a really special place in hell for these gunzo's…and not only have they underestimated the women they're taking on…they've underestimated guys like me with granddaughters.  Game on.

    3. That gave me the chills and it wasn't aimed at me.This is the legislator they recalled?! Some of these emails ought to have been used by the pro-Hudak supporters in her defense. But how many "family newspapers" would have had the guts to print that obscenity? Certainly not the Pueblo Chieftan.

    4. These disgusting creeps are cowards of the first magnitude. I vividly recall the verbal beating Kathleen Curry took when she had the temerity to cross the oil and gas bullies. While most of the abuse she endured did not sink to the level of the obscenity represented above, it was brutal and relentless. It comes from the same place…a reptilian brain located in a pin head.

    5. I've noticed that whenever something like this is brought out, their excuse, and the excuse most often offered by their apologists, is that they just feel so passionate about their rights it makes them do stuff, like sending despicable and threatening messages and slurs instead of just laying out their case. Don't you just love the idea of people with guns having so little control over their emotions that passion makes them do and say really vile, creepy, scary stuff?

       At the same time they take offense at being called "nuts". Go figure. "Nuts" is nothing compared to what they deserve to be called.

      2.  

        In re-reading some of this very long thread, this comment of yours, BC, caught my eye. 

         

        so passionate about their rights it makes them do stuff

        "It makes them do stuff"… I knew a woman once whose desperate need for denial of her personal culpability (because of her crushing feelings of guilt), drove her to madness.

        Only difference in my mind is these gunnutz don't have the guilt. Their denial is driven by hatred and fear. Pity them.

         

    7. Wait a minute.  I have a terminology issue here.

      Since guns don't kill then how can they have rights.  They can't be gun rights people because guns don't have rights.  They are deluded gun owners who believe in bullying.  I don't think you should use 'gun rights' people to describe these thugs. 

      1. Maybe I should have restated it as:

        They are deluded gun owners who believe that violence can never be reduced through responsible gun ownership and regulation.

      2. To explain:  I struggle with what to term the people who advocate for looser gun laws.  It's so tempting to call them "gun nuts," but I usually try to stay away from that. I chose to use "gun rights people" not to say that the guns have rights rather to say that these people claim they have gun rights (By the way, individual rights to guns was not considered constitutional until our ultra-right-wing supreme court ruled that in the Heller decision, negating about 220 years of constitutional tradition).

  5. So that technical guidance clears thing up pretty well. I can have a 5 round magazine, with a 10 round extension, and its totally legal. I can have a 10 round magazine with a 5 round extension, and its totally legal. I can have both in my possession and as long as the 10 round magazine doesn't have the 10 round extension installed, I'm good. The magazine which "could" accept the extension is completely legal to remove the baseplate, and the extension that "could", in the improper configuration, produce an illegal configuration, is also legal to own, possess and transfer. 

    I think that "strategic decision" to avoid confrontation on these bills was a good one. I just don't think there is a member of the legislature, on either side, that could reasonably navigate the rationale into a convincing argument. 

    Can we be sure the "technical advisor" does not work for Dudley? 

     

     

    2. no calculus necessary, no complicated formulas. No prime numbers. Simple addition. Just make sure each of those multiple magazines is for the same caliber as the rifle you're playing with. Advice from a many year NRA member 

    3. So, help a non-gun person here…

      Do most of these magazines with removable baseplates accept an extension without any modifications? Or do most have to be modified in some way before accepting the extension?

      It's my understanding that if the purpose of the baseplate is to allow cleaning, and it's not sold as "readily extendable" or somesuch, then it's okay. But sell it based on its expansion capabilities, or make modifications to a previous design to allow extension where the older design wasn't – that's not so legal to own.

      1. I've never seen an extension. Common, and cheap, are little plastic/metal thing-a-m-jigs (I think Mag-Pul makes one type) that join 2 magazines so one can simply eject an empty magazine and flip it over and reinsert. I've not seen one for more than 2 but I'm sure some capitalist is working on it

      2. Any magazine with a removable baseplate is readilly converted to hold more than the original use. No modification whatsoever, and can be converted back to original configuration in seconds:

         

        There is nothing in the law that states I cannot own an extension such as above. There is no law I could not have these, seperated, or attached to a magazine where the TOTAL round count is 15 or less, completely legally. I can buy, sell transfer and use this attachment. 

         

        2. have you compunded these 2 magazines? Do you have to load each individually then remove the base plate from one? Must be awkward to carry and I'd be concerned that I would misplace the baseplate or ding it in carrying

        4. Thanks for the response.

          Gun laws, like most laws, don't get applied to the general public unless and until law enforcement has reason to act on a specific instance of lawbreaking. The police aren't likely to come by and bother you about your gun collection unless you do something to get their attention – like committing domestic violence. It doesn't really matter what you do with your guns until you get in trouble… Just like it doesn't matter what I do with my computer – including the network probing software I have installed, or the packet composition software – until they see my IP address doing Bad Things. Then I have to start explaining why I have that stuff installed.

          And some things make more sense than others… You might own an extension for a Glock 17 magazine. But the smallest magazine for that pistol is, I believe, 9 rounds (made for markets with a magazine size limit – I'm guessing they're selling this magazine with their new pistols here now…). So you would have to be careful if you purchased a 10-round extender for a Glock 17 post July 2013 – there's no legitimate combination you could create with that extender. In fact, I would not be surprised to see Colorado crack down on magazine extension sales, i.e. not just on 30-round magazines, but also on extensions that when combined with the available magazines for a pistol exceed the 15-round limit.

    4. It makes sense to me. If you have to add something on, or take something off, then the number of possible people (not targets, not game – get real) people (Navy workers, soldiers, first grade children) shot will be limited, or at least substantially slowed, at 15.

      It does suck that we see this as "progress'.

       

       

      1. What is fascinating is that you still find it reasonable to think a criminal will actually abide by the law in terms of magazine capacity just before going on a shooting spree. 

        Has anyone been "busted" by the magazine capacity law to date? If I recall 10 people were thwarted from purchasing a gun with new background check in the first 30 days of its implementation. While I find that marginally successful, its a number. Whats the number of potential mass shooters who have been stopped by the magazine law to date? Anyone know?

        What your missing, respectfully, is this is not progess. 

        1. The kind of mass events Mama is referring to are not being perpetrated by rational career criminals or street criminals committing the usual robberies and murders.  Those people aren't interested in the mass murder of movie goers, school children or in going nuts on the military or in airports. The kind of shooter who is interested in that kind of thing is the kind for whom we'd like to make it just a tad more difficult.

        2. No. What's "fascinating" is that you jump from positing that the 5 Laws are the "death of the Second Amendment" to doing a 180 and ranting how the laws are either "marginally effective or completely inneffective"

          Make up your mind..

          You're basing every point on the other side having to prove a negative. You're so obsessed with the magazine limit you were all for Jefferson County spending a fortune on a recall of a term limited Senator? Why?

          A "moral victory" for cletus and andy"? What's that accomplish?

          How does the mag limit at 15 change your ability to hit a target? And, if  the extensions are needed to get  get your hit percentage up, wouldn't eye glasses work as well?

          Anyway, other than that old resentment you had when your parents said you couldn't light the cat on fire welling up over being given a legislated mag limit, why do you need 30 rounds?

          Again, glasses or contacts.

           

           

           

          1. why do you need 30 rounds?

            This is the question they never answer, rocco. I think it was Negev who said "for the same reason you need abortions". That is, without doubt, one of the most pathetic excuses for an answer I have encountered in recent memory. It is the same technique used by old vaudville performers.

            If you can't remember your lines…start dancing!

              1. I am sorry if you find my response pathetic, but the point still stands:

                 Why do you need an abortion? 

                Your condemnation of the question and attack on its validity makes me think you get what I am saying, and have little to offer in retort. 

                Its the same technique offered in your mentor Saul Alinsky, and is a played out and predictable method of diversion. I use it too, so don't feel bad. 

                But the short answer of why I need 30 round mags?

                 I don't.

                Now, whats your point?

                 

                2. Why might someone need an abortion? Is this a serious question in this day and age? Did you miss a certain event in Ireland late last year? Or a lawsuit filed just today by the ACLU against a Michigan Catholic hospital?

                  I suppose, by some person's definition, these don't necessarily qualify as "needs"…

                  1. What I find baffling is that the anti-choice folks are also anti-birth control and also don't want to pay for programs that give nutritional support to low income families.

                    So how are people supposed to be responsible and not have more children than they can afford to support without access to effective family planning options?  And why don't they support people who, according to them, do the right thing, get married, don't have abortions, don't use birth control and have all those children? 

                    Also why is it that so few of the people who espouse these anti-family planning views have eight or ten kids of their own? Where are all these anti-family planning people coming from when for decades polls have shown well over 90% of the population does use birth control at some point in their lives, including over 90% of Catholics? How does that work? 

                    The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife. 

                    And, oh yeah, sometimes an abortion is necessary to save a woman's life no matter how often righties claim that never happens. These are the same geniuses who came up with the magical ability of the bodies of women who are being raped (but only if it's "legitimate" rape) to shut down pregnancy. In other words…. morons.

                    1. Agreed. Let me be clear on my position. I am pro choice. My mother worked at Planned Parenthood. I grew up spending the time between after school and dinner waiting the recovery room of an abortion clinic. I am all about women's rights. 

                      However its perplexing to see one stand strong for an individuals right with that which they agree on, and shun those individual rights of that in which they disagree. I found this article which I thought was a good read:

                      http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2013/04/29/a-guide-for-the-left-using-abortion-to-understand-the-passion-of-2nd-amendment-advocates/

                      See it as you may…

                3. I found this so breathtakingly stupid that I couldn't answer yesterday.

                  Your position is, though, the current position of the gun-rights movement. "Pro-choice" to them means only the "choice" to be armed with increasingly deadlier guns.

                  They're trying, so far unsuccessfully, to replace reproductive choice – the ability to determine when and how one has children – with choice of weapons.

                  This seems so amoral and cynical to me that it's hard to grasp.

                  Please tell me this is not what you are proposing-that there is some moral equivalence between being able to "choose" a larger gun magazine, and "choosing" whether or not to bear a child.

                  I have my own ideas on what the right to abortion means for women – like most women, I've had an abortion. Like most women, it was after I had been married and had children. Like most women, it was for economic necessity – an unplanned pregnancy would have made me drop out of college, or stay in a violent marriage, and harm my physical health.

                  But unlike the majority of "pro-choice" women, I do believe that abortion is a matter of life and death. A potential for a life, a child's life, is cut off when the child is barely alive at all.

                  What I beleive, most feminists male and female believe, is that women are capable of making those sound, life vs. death, impactful decisions, just like men are.

                  That's all I'm going to say for now.

                   

                    1. The gun right that intersects abortion-rights theories is the "right" to own and use a gun for individual self-defense  Armed resistance against criminal attack is the "model case" that the right addresses

                      There is nothing I can see in any recent gun laws that deny this right. Certainly, most such legislation is aimed at establishing reasonable limits on aspects of gun ownership, not gun ownership itself.

                      You don't need a 30 round clip to defend your self. Just as you don't need a bazooka…

                      …Unless you intend to do battle with the police or the U.S.armed forces. In which case, you're out of your fucking mind.

                    2. Must agree with Duke that there is nothing in the very modest gun control legislation recently passed or any being seriously considered that takes away the right to own guns and use them for self defense. 

                      You can argue that you don't think the legislation is effective in preventing more gun violence. You can even argue that you see  all such legislation as a slippery slope which could conceivably lead to the loss of those rights. But you can't argue that  there is anything at all in legislation that exists that takes away the right to own guns and use them for self defense because that is quite clearly and demonstrably not true. 

                      Therefore any comparison between the right to choose abortion and the right to choose to have a gun is invalid. The GOTP has sworn to take away the former right. Dems are not proposing to take away the latter right. Two entirely different situations.

        3. Not really, Negev.

          We have a law now to arrest people who are acting bizarrely or threateningly and have high capacity magazines. Like this guy.

          Or an additional charge for this Columbian drug runner.

          I don't have CBI stats for arrests based on magazine size, and I think most have been waiting to hear the court's clarification, which has now happened. If you feel like researching it to show us all what you feel is a waste of time, please feel free to do so and let us know.

          I have no idea if potential mass murderers obey laws in acquiring their weapons and ammo, or if any have been deterred, and I would doubt any study that claimed to prove either side of that argument.

          It's more like, we have to start somewhere. The thorniest part will be in deciding who is too insane or violent or threatening to have a gun. I would say, anyone who has ever misused a gun and hurt any person or property (looking at you, Dick Cheney).

          Twice in my life, I've been in the position of taking guns and ammo out of easy access from mentally ill family members. Guess what? No one else will do it.  But now at least there is a law which gives a starting point if someone wants to adjudicate someone as mentally ill, or file a restraining order against an abuser, thus preventing them from legally owning guns (Thank you, Evie Hudak!).

          And yes, even those mentally ill family members and rich psychos like Cheney or mass murderers could probably have still obtained their tools of death even with laws in place.

          As others have commented, if murderers ignore the laws against murder, that doesn't make the laws stupid or useless.

            1. Sorry rocco I thought this was debating. I am not sure if your swinging in with insults and antangonistic banter qualifies for debate either, but I must say, you are entertaining. The delivery is a little stale, but the enthusiasm is there, so I feel you. Carry on.

              Mama, what law is it that allows you to be arrested for acting bizarrely AND having a high capacity magazine? I did not realize these were criminal actions. 

               

               

              1. Are you serious? Public endangerment. Employees reported "threatening behavior", i.e. pacing through the lobby of the hotel while holding two AK-47 rifles, the day before the recall election. When police checked, they also found that his gun was stolen. This was the only instance I found where the high cap magazine was added to the charges.

                If you want to try it out, go ahead, act bizarre in a public place, carry a stolen AK or two. See what happens. I can't promise bail.

                1. Well, yeah, I am serious. This guy was wandering a hotel, acting bizarre in public, with a AK and 2 high cap mags – and a stolen gun – It was not until the police found out the gun was stolen that he was arrested – in fact they asked him to leave before the gun was found to be stolen.  

                  I consider you, MJ, to be a research talent. You always come up with the facts, and I commend you for that. Are there facts to this case I am missing? I don't see the mags, or the AK's, or the behaivior being slated as the crime.

                  I found no charge whatsoever of public endangerment.

                  Not that it shouldn't apply or anything, come on, what a dipshit, right? We can agree on that.smiley

                  (I just used a smiley for the first time)

                  2. Negev, I admit I was a little lazier than normal for me.   I like to dig deeper than the reporter's assertions, usually, but didn't in this case.

                    The original story was from the Springs Gazette, and it was pretty minimal. All it mentioned was an AK47, "high capacity magazines" (no #), and "threatening behavior". Various other news outlets jumped on the story and printed it more or less verbatim, although Raw story, which I linked to above, supplied the details that he had a stolen handgun, an assault rifle, the magazines, and had the paraphrase that the hotel employees found the man to be "threatening".

                    There is no information about what the man was ultimately charged with, although the stolen gun is a pretty good guess. To find out more would be more digging than I care to do.  You're right that there is no indication that he was charged with possession of high capacity magazines – they are mentioned in every news article, though.

                    My original search was for arrests based on possession of large capacity magazines. I found none, although the gunzo groups are flaunting their defiance of the law. That, in itself should show that, contrary to hype, no one is confiscating magazines or persecuting gun "enthusiasts". 

                    As far as Hudak's law, it merely allows confiscation of guns from domestic abusers, who are under restraining court order. This is an extension of the law which you quoted, that felony violent offenders can't own guns. Before this law, there was no muscle or enforcement provision in the law – so it made the restraining order a little bit more than just a piece of paper.

                    Thanks for saying I"m a research talent, and BC, thanks for saying I make you smile, or at least post smileys. I'll take it! laugh

                    1. I found little on it as well. But one can only guess that, based on the title, description, and insinuation, that this dude was a mass killer. The "high capacity" magazines were  the icing on the cake. 

                      I wonder how long it will take before anyone who owns a "high capacity" magazine is considered a potential terrorist or mass shooter, because the writing is on the wall (or web) that this is now as telltale of a killer as being Muslim is to terrorism.

                      Thats a shitty spot to be in. And I am sure you all support Muslims, right? Religious expression is still protected, at least for now…

                    2. In reply to negev's latest whine…if the Muslim you refer to is in possession of a bomb, and brags that laws won't stop him from possessing that bomb, and that he has the same right to a bomb that a woman has to exercise control over her own body….yeah, I'm gonna assume he's a dangerous nutjob, regardless of his religion.

                      That's the thing about analogies, negev…they're like guns. They can backfire on you if you don't know what you're doing. 🙂

                  3. Dude, its like the allegory of the cave or something I read about once in school and I want to drop in a reference so I can be like all EF and such, man.  DFamn I'm smart all Platonistic on you silly liberals.  Ipso facto. 

                2. There are those on this planet it seems, that would love to exist in a world where every adversary could be dispatched with a steady stream of bullets…just like when you are holding a joystick.

                  He doesn't sound like a well-regulated militia member to me.

                   

                    1. . . . but only if your pen can hold more than 15 ink cartridges at one time????  

                      (. . . ever notice how having to replace a pen cartridge is such an unthinkable inconvenience — it might even be unconstituitional, eh?????)

            2. I don't think that's quite fair, Rocco. I think negev does engage in debate. In fact I feel I've had some very civil and mutually responsive and respectful exchanges with negev. This doesn't mean we're going to convert each other in fundamental areas of disagreement but we do find a few areas of agreement and it isn't at all like making futile attempts to have a real give and take discussion with Elliot or trying to find any sign of intelligent life in the likes of n3b.

              Presenting a well reasoned argument to them or to our other righties is such an exasperating waste of time. Not so with negev, a nice addition to a site where we're otherwise either mainly talking to ourselves or past the trolls and apologists. 

              1. Copy on that BC. And thank you for your opinion.

                While I don't see negev's banter as you do, I have read much or most of your back and forth. As does MJ, you try to bring in a point of view that includes trying to do something…….anything…..that will bring about a change in the culture of violence so prevalent in our society.

                I get it that capping mags at 15 is the same as issuing a restraining order against an abusive spouse. The paper won't stop a punch, someone who's bent on mass murder won't be swayed by a law stating they can't have a 30 round magazine………for now.

                As we move into the future, 30 round mags will become more rare. Far into the future, point taken. We know the movie shooter had a malfunction, and that basically ended the chaos. Had he not had that jam, who knows how many more he'd have killed. So there's that.

                negev also has correctly stated mental illness is a huge factor. But at the Federal level the republicans have repeatedly blocked legislation that would have addressed that. At least in Colorado, Evie and the Democratic Majority have passed landmark legislation limiting the sale of firearms to those who haven't been convicted of abuse. So while I'm  quick to say the 5 Bills are anything but perfect, it's a start.

                negev and those of his ilk want everything. They consider the removal of thier background check entitlement an "affront to thier Second Amendment rights" As if the general public's taxes should pay for thier checks.. While they scream "blame the crazies, not the gun owners", when you try to do that, they cry thier "liberties" are being taken away and give the "slippery slope" grift..

                Take a peak at the "recallhudaktoo" facebook site. That's what we're dealing with in the gunzo demographic. Ignorant, entitled beyond belief, arrogant, and as nasty as anything you'll read anywhere. "hudak the Hutt"? The witch"? This is an elected Senator that cast legal votes in chambers and voted he conscience. negev and his ilk call that "failing to follow the Constitution". How many Amendments other than the Second could they quote? Or even know exist?

                I rarely disagree with you BC, and when I do I usually wind up eating crow. Maybe I will with negev, we'll see. But right now, I see him as just another gun nut, unwilling to compromise, unwilling to see a picture larger than what he wants and when he wants it. A person that's unwilling to even hear the other side. MJ has brought very cogent argument, he doesn't respond or he snarks.

                That's why I've decided he's a bullshitter and an extremist.

                But I've been wrong before, and as I said, you rarely are off point. I'll follow closely the back and forth going forward.

                2. Well now, rocco, that was engaging. Thank you. Usually I just get the small dick bad shot crap from you, but this time you actually said something of use. 

                  And again, BC thank you. I appreciate the discussion. And support. 

                  Look, I am not trying to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. If we can go back and forth, smart ass, bad apple, this, that and the other thing and make some sort of headway, then this discussion is a success. I really don't care what you think of me, nor do I believe you care what I think of you, so we can go back and forth, no harm, no foul. I see this as great discussion with those opposed. If you don't like it, don't post. But your not right. Neither am I. Truth be told there is no answer to this debate, we just have to keep pushing the proverbial rock up the mountain and be thankful it did not crush us when it comes rolling down. 

                  So I will throw out my opinion – I encourage you to do the same. Lets go at it and see how the cards fall – we are anonymous passers by in a freekin online forum for christ sake who cares?

                  So back on point – as you stated, someone bent on mass murder won't be swayed – for now. Understood and agreed – the movie shooter had a malfunction because he used a 100 round magaine. That is a HIGH capacity magazine. HIGH capacity magazines tend to fail, as the more rounds in a magazine the more chances of failure (see spring stack error). 15 round magazines do not fail, and were perfected in terms of spring stack before the Korean war.  So thanks, that just shot down the only hope of malfunction – realistically if you made a law that required mass shooter to use the largest capacity magazine on the planet your chances of survival are greater, as evidenced by the movie shooter hitting 12 people and wounding 70 with 100 round drum while the VA tech shooter killed 30 and wounding 17 with 10 round magazines. So all Hudak supporters "THE STATISTICS ARE NOT ON YOUR SIDE"

                  And why is it that on a Federal level, Republicans have blocked the mental health issue, but in Colorado, where Dems have complete control over House, Senate, Gov, and had unbridled reign to pass any gun bill they see fit, NONE presented ANY bill to include mental health into the new laws?

                  And the domestic abuse issue has prevented gun sales for over a decade. The form 4473 section H states "Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threating your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner"  Hudak smoodak.

                  So if you feel these new laws have made you safer, more power to you. I see them as political BS moves, failed historically BS political moves, and feel you have been duped.

                  Now, I don't expect you to belive, or listen to me, because you know, I am an armchair warrior paper slaying wanna-be cowboy –  But how can you believe ample thought was put into this when you have Reps like Diana Degette who does not even know what it is she is banning? Seriously – drop the party line for a minute and THINK.

                   

                   

                   

                   

                  1. Know this is addressed to Rocco but I'd just like to point out that, as far as the domestic abusers ban or any other ban? None of it works if background checks aren't universal. Point taken on mental health issues but of course nothing there would work without universal background checks either. Now back to you guys.

                    1. If everybody who wanted to buy a gun required a background check and full mental screening I would not be happier. 

                  2. By your logic, the larger capacity magazine, the safer we are. We'll base our safety on hoping the weapon jams. We'll just have to disagree on that one……..if your information on a 30 mag never jamming is even something that can be vetted.

                    The reason the Democrats didn't introduce mental health legislation in the State Senate is simple. It's neccessary to do it Federally first, because Federal HIPAA legislation trumps State legislation. There would have been a lawsuit that the plaintiff would have won…….guaranteed.

                    The Democratic Majority in the Senate attempted legislation would have bridged the HIPAA reg's to allow for mental health history to be a factor in firearms purchases. It was filibustered and went down.

                     

                    1. Sorry, I meant 15 round magazine, not 30. I remember the AR15/M16 ran a 20 round mag. We never loaded more than 18, as the belief was 20 taxed the spring. We sometimes taped a 2nd mag upside down to the loaded mag, but that meant the loade mag might be 'cocked" inside the weapon.

                      The only time the weapon reportedly jammed was on full auto switch. We'd keep the port sloppy with LSA on operation. I never had a jam, but I only had my weapon on full auto once……..and that was by mistake.

          2. BC no reply again under your post. So if I have this straight, you are comfortable with me making the argument that the legislation is not effective. You also grant that the argument for the slippery slope is relevant. Therefore, in order to make the legislation effective, one would conclude further, stricter legislation was inevitable, thus supporting the slippery slope.

            Based on that rationale, really, what difference does it make what the current legislation is? Its the end game that fuels the fire, on both issues. 

            So, when the right comes at you with meager at best, un intrusive, hardly noticable anti abortion legislation – do you take it on the chin or do you fight?

             

             

            1. Not at all. First, I said you could reasonably make that argument, which is not to say I accept it as a good one. That's for another discussion. And the effectiveness is completely irrelevant to the comparison you posit.  That's also an argument for another time. Any comparison, to be valid, as opposed to apples and oranges, needs two equally concrete things, sets of facts or circumstances to compare to one another, just for starters. 

              Opponents of  the end of  reproductive rights don't need to make any slippery slope arguments about the possibility of losing the right to choose. The GOTP is absolutely clear that the goal is exactly that, to outlaw all abortion. It is clearly stated, bragged about, even taken as a GOTP article of faith. That's not hypothetical slippery slope stuff. No theoretical imaginings about the real goal are needed to infer intent.

              The overwhelming majority of Dems have no such goal in mind with regard to the right to choose to bear arms, especially here in Colorado. If you feel Dems secretly do have that intent you have only suspicions and imaginings as your basis for making that claim. You can't point to anything factual in the legislation or in any serious legislative proposals or in stated goals to back that up. Suspicions of intent are not equivalent to knowledge of clearly stated and demonstrated intent.

              So in the case of modest gun control legislation, you are talking about a purely hypothetical slippery slope as opposed to the anti-choice no ifs ands or buts proponents' clearly stated intentions to end the right to choose, requiring not so much as an iota of speculation. That's why the comparison is invalid.

              You are asking us to accept a comparison between something some suspect might at some point in the future be the case in the absence of a shred of hard evidence and something that is definitely the case supported by the hard evidence of a clearly stated concrete goal and seriously proposed legislation. That's not reasonable. The facts established by concrete evidence simply don't support your grounds for asking us to accept the comparison.

              1. Ok, so let me get this straight. You cannot compare the two because one is real and one is percieved? Alright, well, while I would submit the Fienstien Assault weapon Ban legislation, or the Rhonda Fields "this is just the beginning" speach, or the new CA laws, which come from the same blueprint as the CO laws, just a few years ahead…. or the NY, Chicago, NH, CT laws which began with the similar "modest" measures and lead down the slope to where they are, with more on the way, that one would have to be naive or obtuse to not find all the components of a slippery slope. The allagory of the cave comes to mind but my argument does not rest with your belief of whether the threat is real or not. So, if in fact the apple to orange comparablity lies in this fact that one is real and the other fabricated, I ask of you:

                Pretend.

                Pretend for a moment that the real threat of the radical right was only percieved, or

                that the gun control concerns are real.

                That would eliminate the unit of comparison objection you have here and perhaps get through the ideological misconceptions that hinder the comparison before its even considered.

                Now, I would also submit that the differences of whether it is real or perceived as real is irrelevant, but if you can imagine your way into the comparison, I would be surprised if pro-choice proponents would act any different when faced with similar conditions. And good for them. They should. 

                Rights are rights, man. Heres a quote from the text I linked:

                Former ACLU national board member Alan Dershowitz, who admits that he "hates" guns and wishes to see the Second Amendment repealed, nevertheless warns:

                Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.[12]

                We already see recall campaigns against R's starting up, perhaps an uninteded consequence. Perhaps, one day, slippery slope aside, the opposition to your cause may find reference in your attack of his.

                Would it not be ironic, that in the future, the fascist right took control and began attrocities that even your own Duke Cox would find worth fighting them for, and in your infinate wisdom to save the planet you left yourself with nothing to do so?

                 

                1. In some people's worlds, we don't have to pretend in order to make it so.

                  We can theorize, and prepare, and act on things that are actually happening, and speak up against things that are being considered. We don't have to live in pretend-land.

                    1. I generally recommend reality to the land of make-believe when it comes to making policy decisions. That always agrees with me, and I'd suggest it's more accurate for everyone…

                2. Nope. Didn't say one was real and one was perceived. Something can be real even though it can not yet be proved but in that case, it can't be treated as coequal with a proven fact. I'm puzzled that you can't see the distinction but I'll give it one last try.

                  I said one was a concrete fact, the GOTP's vows to end the right the choose, and the other, the intent of those who support modest gun control to end the right to own guns, was conjecture.  

                  Can you name a single Dem, including Rhonda Fields, who is vowing to end the right to bear arms? There is no evidence that anything like enough Dems to get such a thing done exists. It certainly isn't an official Democratic Party position.

                  You may imagine that when Fields says this is only the beginning she is talking about ending the right to own guns altogether but you do have to imagine it. You could well be wrong.  She could also mean, and I believe does mean, that she would like to see stricter controls, not an end to private gun ownership altogether.

                  Even if this individual does mean that no one should have the right to possess a gun, there is zero evidence that a majority of her fellow Dems, or anything approaching a majority of them, share that view.

                  However where the GOTP stand on choice is concerned, no one has to imagine, infer, conjecture, guess, or suspect what the official GOTP stand on the right to choose is. There is no need for conjuring up possible slippery slopes. They state it themselves as fact with absolute clarity. Their goal is to take the right to choose away. 

                  So you most certainly don't have the right to tell anyone that it's an established fact that Dems want to take away your guns. That would be conjecture, not fact, and you would be sacrificing all credibility to make such a claim.

                  I, on the other hand, can safely say that it is the official position of the GOTP that the right to choose should be abolished without sacrificing any credibility because that is a well substantiated fact. It's what they say themselves. They're quite proud of it. 

                  If you still can't see the difference between conjecture and established fact than I'm sorry. I really can't help you. All I can say is it's such a perfectly obvious distinction it really shouldn't have required even this much explaining. So this will have to be my last attempt. 

                  2. I think I get it now, I am just a bit confused. How is it you require empircal evidence and hard facts for you to consider the association between these two issues, yet when presented with hard facts and empirical data to disprove the measures the left have taken in the gun debate, they are pushed to the side for emotional and theoretical speculation?

                    I would suggest, that the so called "low information" voter or involved parties in the gun debate see it different than you, and find the gun control issues a real, tangible threat to their understanding, therefore making your preface to comparison, irrelevant. 

                    And to quote our next president "what differences does it make?"

                    The fact remains that whether you, I or the gallery here see it as a real threat to the right to bear arms, the gun nuts do. So you don't have to think its real. You don't have to believe them. But you do have to deal with the actions they take in an effort to prevent these issues from happening to them. The loss of Morse, Giron, Hudak? That was real. That was over guns. So if in fact this whole gun control thing is a meager, common sense, warm fuzzy way for dems to illustrate how they care for the children, somebody needs to be working on the message, 'cus its not getting through in the proper fashion. 

                    1. Did you ever look at the hard facts I sent you a link to a while back? Showing some of your sides's hard facts were pretty soft? But I digress. Back to the point.

                      Look we can trade facts and stats and people can believe whatever they want and, yes, the gun nuts beliefs can do harm but that doesn't make those beliefs facts.

                      Sensible people, like you, shouldn't grant them credibility equal to the credibility deserved by those dealing in established fact, such as the openly stated goal of the Republican Party to take away the right to choose, and shouldn't pass conjecture along as being on the same footing as established fact. Not if you want other sensible people to grant you credibility.

                  2. Duke, I am curious – what would it take from our government for you to feel threatened? 

                    Is there anything that a government could do that would force you to fight, against all odds, for what you believe in?

                    1. Negev,

                      I would feel threatened if martial law were announced. I would feel threatened if the government raided and took over all media outlets and announced that it was illegal to wear a yellow shirt or to publicly hold up 4 fingers (see: Egypt). I would feel threatened if I were ordered to carry my papers everywhere I go on pain of imprisonment. I would feel threatened if I were not allowed to speak my mind on this blog.

                      Since all of these conditions currently exist in this country…I should feel threatened. Is that right? Well, I guess you are just way ahead of me in the paranoia game, Negev. Last time I looked, this was still a free country…a democratic republic. As soon as believe that condition is over, I will pick up my guns and join you. Not until.

                      Lay off the action-adventure movies for awhile..

                    2. negev, you're saying the 5 passed Laws rise to the level of "forcing you to fight, against all odds, for what you believe in"?

                      Are you kidding me? 

                      That's so utterly idiotic sounding I don't know where to start. 

                      I'll try though. What "against all odds" are you referring to? If it's that a Democratic Majority in the Colorado Senate passed 5 Bills after they were originally sponsored and passed in the House, that's the way a representative Democracy works. The rep's vote on legislation, if the "majority party" gets enough votes, the Bill passes. Then the Governor signs the Bill into law.

                      If I missed your "against all odds" meaning, please clarify.

                      Is this like the defense of the Alamo? Or like Duke suggested, are you still feeling the vibe from "Red Dawn", another actioner.

                       

                    3. Is Negev still indulging his fantasies of "rising up" against a government he doesn't agree with?  Who, exactly, will he be shooting at? 

                    4. Oh and that fighting against all odds thing, negev? What fighting? What odds? They're exercising their right to free speech and to mount campaigns and recalls. Nobody is rounding them up and jailing them. Nothing in the way of bravery is being demanded of them in their pursuit of their goals. At all.

                      They love to swagger and make dark threats about 2nd amendment solution and against legislators. Now if they actually took up arms against the might of the US military, that would be real fighting against real and insurmountable odds but I see no evidence a single one of them has the balls to do anything braver than leaving bullying, threatening, racist, messages (for which they apologize and beg to be excused on account of their passion when caught) for duly elected legislators they disagree with, mainly women, sometimes mothers of murdered children.

                      More self aggrandizing delusional nonsense from the same people who like to call themselves.. ooooo… The People (please think of a cool theme tune here) of the Gun. Look out folks. If we tough, hardy, courageous People of the Gun don't get our way at the ballot box or in court we're gonna whine so loud your ears are gonna ring. And we really, really mean it. Really.

          3. Don't know how but this originally posted at the very bottom, but here it is again:

             So if I have this straight, you are comfortable with me making the argument that the legislation is not effective. You also grant that the argument for the slippery slope is relevant. Therefore, in order to make the legislation effective, one would conclude further, stricter legislation was inevitable, thus supporting the slippery slope.

            Based on that rationale, really, what difference does it make what the current legislation is? Its the end game that fuels the fire, on both issues. 

            So, when the right comes at you with meager at best, un intrusive, hardly noticable anti abortion legislation – do you take it on the chin or do you fight?

             

            2. Given the amount of crime that continues to exist, one could argue that criminal law in general is not effective (at preventing criminals from committing crimes). And I think most of us would argue that we have gone down that slippery slope too far – and that, absent political pressure to do so, we ourselves wouldn't have done it had we been in power.

              That doesn't make all criminal law bad or wrong – it just means that we must be vigilant of going down the slope to the point where it actually impacts our rights.

              And on that note: I will state right out that every law the Radical Reactionary Right has passed in recent years to oppose abortion has chipped away at the actual rights of women: mandated unnecessary (painful, sometimes harmful) procedures, scientifically unsound time limits and potentially damaging waiting periods, requirements for clinics that are unnecessary and often hard to meet. And that doesn't count the scare tactics and violence conducted "on the side" with only half-hearted objections that has severely reduced access to safe abortions and erected barriers to meeting some of those legal requirements. Your argument starts from a false equivalency.

              1. I would submit to you that your last paragraph could be slightly reworded:

                And on that note: I will state right out that every law the Reactionary Left has passed in recent years to oppose gun rights has chipped away at the actual rights of gun owners: mandated unnecessary  procedures, scientifically unsound restrictions and potentially damaging waiting periods, requirements for dealers that are unnecessary and often hard to meet. And that doesn't count the scare tactics and violence exploited "on the side" with only half-assed solutions that has severely reduced access to firearms and erected barriers to meeting some of those legal requirements. Your argument starts nearly equivalent.

                1. Could you show us how  access to guns has been severely reduced? Because the only change in access I've see lately is blanket bans in cities such as Chicago being over-turned and modest legislation that doesn't impose anything more severe than, perhaps, minor inconvenience on anyone. 

                  Whether or not some of these new measures prove to be effective remains to be seen but you're going to need some back up for your claims that they impose anything severe.

                  Sorry but you continue to use a combination of apples and oranges and hyperbole to defend whatever point it is you're trying to make here. It's getting to feel a little pointless.

            3. Rocco no reply button under your post… 

              No, I am not suggesting these laws are worth fighting against all odds.

              What I see here is that Duke has made it clear that fighting the govt would be foolish, however there is a breaking point for him, after which he has made it clear he would fight against all odds.

              To my suprise the threshold level was incredibly low. I would in fact find making yellow shirts illegal a reasonable and modest request, with no undue duress to the general public or even those who favor yellow shirts.

              I also find the restriction from an internet blog mildly intrusive, however does not restrict the right to free speech, because you don't really need a blog to exercise that right.

              And really, what harm is it to need to provide ID at all times? If you have nothing to hide, what negative effect does it have?

              So what I see is that Duke is prepared to fight the government against all odds for things I find modest and reasonable, while he considers me a fucking idiot for the desire to fight the same government for things he finds modest and reasonable.

              Now, if I were Duke, I would do everything in my power to stop the yellow shirt from being banned. If legislation came up to ban blue shirts – I would fight it – if a definition of shirt began with color and size – I would fight it. If I was promised there were no further actions to be taken after the law to make yellow shirts a little harder to come by – I would FIGHT IT.

              Not because the laws were modest and reasonable, but because I don't want to fight against all odds to wear a yellow shirt. 

              But apparently Duke does. 

               

              1. Ok, you attacked Duke, juxtaposed  "papers" with ID, so on and so forth, but you dodged my question.

                You asked Duke his "threshold' re:what it would take for him to fight the government against all odds for "what you believe in".

                Keep in mind, the context was how hot you are about the gun safety regulations, and the topic was/is how intrusive to you as a firearms owner yet ineffective re:reducing gun violence you see those laws as..

                So no matter what the change of subject might entail, that was the matter at hand.

                You never told me what you meant, and now you're saying the legislation doesn't reach your threshold for revolt. So I don't know if you're dialing and walking back your original inference, or what you meant by the question.

                What did you mean?

                1. Duke had stated that not "As soon as I believe that condition is over, I will pick up my guns and join you. Not until.", indicating to me that there is a point in Dukes mind that fighting the government is justifiable. 

                  What he presumed is that he would have guns to pick up.

                  It's the "not until" part that is disturbing. Will Duke make any effort to preclude his threshold issues from occurring? How far would he go to prevent the against all odds battle? Would he vote against his perceived aggressor? Would he protest when he wasn't in the majority? Would he combat any effort towards what he saw as threatening to his beliefs?

                  Now, in terms of the new gun laws, the new legislation is not an open order to take away our guns, clearly we can agree on that. We also have discussed that they really do very little to stop the mass shootings they were forged on, and in fact do not address any of the real issues whatsoever. Many would suggest they go to far into the 2nd Amendment, and others would suggest they don't go far enough.

                  We also see, in other states and countries, the "next wave" so to speak, of the gun "safety" laws, which have been, over time, implemented after magazine restrictions, "universal" background checks and other "modest" and incremental regulations. We see countries like the U.K. and Australia prohibit, ban, and confiscate firearms over mass shootings less catastrophic than those which happen here (I do feel every shooting is equally catastrophic), and we see legilators implying, suggesting, and implementing small "safety" measures in legislation.

                  This is a slippery slope. You don't have to believe it, condone it, or accept it, but for a moment, take your "threshold issue" and substitute it in the equation. Is it abortion? Free speech? Yellow shirts? 

                  What would you do to stop the against all odds battle?

                  If you put it in that perspective, you have to give the gun nuts credit. Logic would dictate that if the Pro gunners were as violent as the anti gunners say they are, there wouldn't be any anti gunners left. (I stole that quote from "spock")

                  The pro gun groups that have fought against these bills are taking a proactive stance in and effort to prevent the unthinkable for what they believe in. You would too if your have the moral compass Duke has. The fact you don't agree with it is inconsequential at the moment, but when it comes time for you to fight for your "threshold" issue, it may appear to have been a more worthy cause. 

                  Now, you won't see me fighting the goverment. But I will sign a petition. I won't be screaming "wolverines!" as I spray a tank with a contraband weapon, but I will argue with a bunch of those who find the cause rediculous. Hell, you will find me standing next to you in your protest on most occasion unless your a Nazi or a Priest.

                  That saying "ignore your rights and they will go away" is true. You need to stand up for what you believe BEFORE its taken away. 

                   

                   

                   

                  1. We see countries like the U.K. and Australia prohibit, ban, and confiscate firearms.

                    and they have become totalitarian, Marxist states as a result. I guess that proves your point.

                    Reasoning with a zealot is like pissing in the ocean…you can do it all day and there will be no noticeable effect.

                    1. Oh, no, those countries do not prove my point – that would be Turkey, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China, Guatemala, Uganda, and Cambodia.

                      Agreed on the zealot thing. Hey, can I have your yellow shirt? You really don't need it anymore. The government will provide. 

                  2. If you could communicate in something other than over the top People of the Gun hyperbolic terms you wouldn't find nearly so many here finding your remarks ridiculous. Sorry. Grown ups have a hard time taking such grandiose hyperbole seriously and quickly stop looking for a point of agreement when presented with that kind of juvenile silliness.

                    This is hardly a Give me Liberty or Give me Death moment. I don't see anyone threatening your People of the Gun with death and I don't see any of them volunteering to risk so much as a broken finger nail in the cause. 

              2. It's really pretty simple Negev.

                Democracy still works. I have been a part of it. Sensible gun legislation is not a slippery slope to tyranny. Government is not the enemy…it is the solution.

                Maybe I am wrong…but, I know you are.

                1. Agreed. Sensible gun legislation is not a slippery slope to tyranny.

                  That does not mean its not a slippery slope. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect.

                  We have agreed that the new laws have not culminated in a significant effect, and in fact fail to produce any semblance of significance.

                  Logic would suggest to gain significant effect would require additions of relatively small reasonable legislation.

                  The fact that it does not lead to tyranny is not the issue. 

        4. You silly liberals with your 'stop signs.'  Don't you know traffic scofflaws are gonna roll right thru?  Can you prove, with numbers, how many flaming school bus crashes your silly 'stop signs' have prevented?  I want numbers!  No?  I didn't think so, silly liberals. 

  7. Now you've gone and done it. I'm writing a diary on the non-equivalence of the struggle for reproductive righs and the gun enthusiast's self-proclaimed fight to save the second amendment, and their own rights to bear arms.

    It did start out as just a reply to you, Negev, but this thread is getting so complex and drawn out, that I think I'll start another.

    I did read the article you cited, and it was intriguing, although much of it was poorly reasoned and had little evidence to back it.

    There are limited ways in which the two issues share some conceptual space – but only if one buys the argument that "guns are being taken away and gun ownership is at risk." I don't buy it, and I have never seen any evidence of it. You have not been able to cite one case in which a non-criminal has had to give up a single gun.

    Roe v Wade was decided on the basis of the

    "First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution grant an individual a right to privacy against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in a "zone of privacy." Thus privacy was granted to a woman's decision to have an abortion."

    So no Second Amendment involved. The Second Amendment reads:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    So just on the basis of the constitutional law that undergirds these two rights, they couldn't be more different.

    I don't really buy your or Professor Johnson's assertion that "passions" and the "right to self-defense" make them similar. I mean, some people are passionate about snowboarding.  Controlling one's reproductive system and deciding whether and when to have a child is a life-altering decision.

    The size of the magazine and precise configuration of a gun are limiting factors on a hobby.

    Then, to quote Bluecat, which is usually a good idea,

    Therefore any comparison between the right to choose abortion and the right to choose to have a gun is invalid. The GOTP has sworn to take away the former right. Dems are not proposing to take away the latter right. Two entirely different situations.

    For more detail and a more scholarly critique of Johnson's article, you'll have to wait for my diary.

        1. I know, right? Its just hard to sift through the media, and us low info single issue lunatic fringe are just simple folks, hardly able to read, yet alone comprehend the complex idiosyncrasies of the governing class. We don't know what to think of these headlines like these:

          http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/red-pill-blue-bill/2013/feb/17/poised-overturn-second-amendment/

          http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-could-nullify-the-2nd-amendment/

           

          http://www.lowereasternshorenews.com/2013/03/taking-away-our-2nd-amendment-rights.html

           

          Theres About 19,700,000 results  (0.24 seconds) to will the 2nd Amendment be taken away.

          Now I don't know how you can expect to discredit the people of the gun as stupid, low info lunitics and simutlaneously expect a political analyzation of the issue. 

          Twit – its the shadow on the wall of the cave they seem to find real. 

          1. Now you're arguing with stuff I didn't say, my pet peeve and the reason I find Elliot so aggravating. Identifying something said as not having sufficient basis in established fact is not calling anyone stupid. It is calling into question their credibility on objective grounds.

            The number of people who believe something has nothing to do with whether or not what they believe has credibility and there has never been any shortage of intelligent people lacking in common sense or who believe things based on fear, lack of access to accurate knowledge or pure faith. 

             

            That doesn't make them stupid but it removes the things they believe based on those criteria from the realm of rational debate. Which is probably why they don't but resort to apples and oranges, setting up straw men to knock down and throwing whatever they can think of against the wall in hopes that something will stick instead.  

          2. Space Alien autopsy proen via Google Search!

            "Area 51"  About 630,000,000 results (0.19 seconds) 

            It IS a Bilderberg conspiracy!

            "Bilderberg" About 2,110,000 results (0.16 seconds)

          3. Oh and one more thing. People of the Gun?  What juvenile romantic nonsense. In poll after poll people who own guns and even NRA members, along with the general majority, are fine with the very measures your People of the Gun, a self aggrandizing title this minority of gun owners has apparently chosen and one that seems a more suitable choice for a bunch of arrested adolescents than for serious grownups, are getting so hysterical about. One wonders whether they have a secret handshake or meet in tree houses.

          4. Washington Times was started by Sun Myung Moon, the cult leader/ Korean "Fuhrer" who was virulently anti-communist, and also kinda beleived he was the next Messiah. Hardly a credible source for anything. 

            Western Journalism is a far right conservative site with an agenda. Not an unbiased source.

            So since you frequent this little bubble of paranoid news media, find one…..just one…instance of a real person, not a criminal, who has lost his right to keep and bear arms. Not hypothetically, not Obama's comin' for yer guns soon, not rumors, not scare tactics. Reality. 

            Go.

             

                1. Where does it say you can't have a shotgun? It says your shotgun will have to meet certain requirements. You have options that will allow you to keep it. And it's new law  that might not hold up in court anyway. Even without the fantasy armed insurrection that's never gonna happen because your People wouldn't have the stomach for it. 

                  Oh the hyperbole! People of The Gun! Fighting (what fighting?) against all odds(what odds?)! But at least you did finally come up with something real. Big step in the right direction.

                    1. There is a very long way between valid concern and the hyperbole your side employs, demonizing anyone who supports any level of gun control as being an un-American enemy of freedom and glorifying themselves as brave freedom fighters, valiantly struggling on against all odds, which is utter, kid's fantasy nonsense. 

                      Less of that hyperbolic self aggrandizing nonsense from your side would make my side less inclined to be, perhaps, overly dismissive of any potentially legitimate concerns that get lost in all the juvenile hot air and blatant lies. So would fewer vile, threatening, racist messages to legislators. So would fewer excuses that those messages should be forgiven because of uncontrollable, freedom fighting passion.  I know plenty of people who feel passionate about things who would never use the vile, racist language that has been used in messages to Rhonda Field nd others to anyone for any reason. Political passion doesn't turn  decent people into racist pigs.

                      Your People of the Gun (as if they represent anything close to a majority of gun owners. They dont') seem to work overtime to make sure serious people won't be inclined to take anything coming from them, including what might be legitimate concerns, seriously. Guess what? It's working. 

                2. What BC said. This individual can still keep his or her guns, just needs to modify them.

                  Crime, particularly gun violence, has been dropping in NYC since the 1990s. 

                  In 2012, murders fell to an all time low, at 414 for the year. 2013 is on track to have fewer, with 255 murders reported so far.

                  There are outliers – gang and mob shootings. I'm sure that you'll argue, Negev, that since we can't keep illegal guns out of professional criminal's hands, then no gun regulations are worthwhile. And I'm sure I'll disagree. Because, overall, New York City is now a safer place to be.

                  Part of this must be the new gun regs. So, frankly, I'm all for them. 

                  1. Actually, gun crime has been dropping nationwide since the 1990s:

                    The new study found U.S. firearm homicides peaked in 1993 at 7.0 deaths per 100,000 people. But by 2010, the rate was 49% lower, and firearm-related violence — assaults, robberies, sex crimes — was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993, the study found.

                    http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide

                    I don't know how to do that cool link thing you do..

                     

                     

                    1. Oh wait I guess I do..

                      And I would submitt if you have to modify a bolt action .22 to keep, you have been disarmed. Get a stick or a pencil instead. 

                    2. There goes that hyperbole again. Nobody is forcing anyone to replace any gun with a stick or pencil. I'm really sorry but you can't expect to be taken seriously when you spout such hysterical nonsense.

                    3. BC I can't reply under your posts…

                      First off, I did not indend to suggest "you" were calling us stupid, in a personal sense, so I do appologize if you took it that way. 

                      And you mistake the statement against all odds in my coversation, because I only inquired to Duke what he would fight for, against all odds. I do not believe if you go through this text I ever represented myself as a freedom fighter of any sort, in fact I thought I made it clear you won't see me fighting the government.

                      I can see where you would find that hyperbole annoying. It is however a guilty pleasure of both sides. Common sense regulation, reasonable restriction, gun safety legislation and the like are similar hyperbole that makes it difficult to consider your sides position legitimate. 

                      While I agree demonizing anyone who supports gun control as un-American goes over the line, the same could be said for the insults and attacks from your side. 

                      It would be foolish of me to think these two polar opposites would meet in the middle, and I certainly don't expect that to occur.

                      I would however submit that there is a large middle ground that both sides of this argument have an opportunity to grab. This is, primarily, a political battle, and specifically here in CO, will be a hot topic next year. The candidate who will win in my opinion will be the one who garners the moderate gun vote. At this point it would be difficult to suggest a Democrat would be able to convince the masses they are pro gun, based on the atmosphere of the last 12 months, and this is unfortunate.

                      I think we have flogged this horse enough. I do hope I have not offended you, BC, personally, but Duke you can kiss my ass! (just kidding man you too are respected). You know I will be back for another round when it comes up and do my best to antagonize the shit out of you – but it is all in good will and no harm intended.

                      Happy Holidays

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

78 readers online now

Newsletter

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