The Gun Nuts Pushing Recall Are The Ones Who Should Have Guns Taken Away

[TheMastersNemesis]

They are too stupid and dangerous to own one.

[otohara]

1. Get Ready For Secession in CO Over Guns

I hope the the two districts who voted yes tonight consider joining them.

[davepc]

2. Why do you want pro Obama districts to ceede from CO?

State Sen. President John Morse's SD-11 is 33.2 percent Dem, 25.1 percent Republican, and 41.7 percent other. President Barack Obama got 61.2 percent of the vote, but Morse got just 50.6 percent of the vote in 2010. And Republicans have a plurality of "super voters"—those who voted in 2010, 2011 and 2012 elections in the district.

Sen. Angela Giron's SD-03 is 45.2 percent Dem, 22.9 percent Republican, and 31.9 percent other. President Barack Obama got 59.7 percent of the 2012 two-way vote, and Giron got 55 percent of the vote in 2010. Democrats have a solid advantage in "super voters", 14K versus 8K Republicans.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/10/1237859/-As-we-wait-for-Colorado-recall-results-here-s-some-trivia

[otohara]

3. They Won't Be Blue After This

We were sure Angela would win tonight - turns out she lost more than Morse.

Where were these Democrats today?
Even pro gun Democrats should care more about life vs fucking guns.

[CTyankee]

29. Or you can pull a fast one and change the rules by not allowing mail in ballots in this effort...

kinda puts a damper on your political thesis...so sorry...

[coldmountain]

4. We need to make Zimmerman the posterchild of pistol owners

[John_Carter]

6. It didn't work when he was relevent...

... and it doubly won't work now that he is beyond his 15 minutes.

[CTyankee]

31. I agree but you'll hear nothing but crickets from our gun enthusiasts on HIM!

Zimmerman? Whozat??? Never heard of him...

[rl6214]

40. He was YOUR poster child for gun control

His 15 minutes of fame are over.

[CTyankee]

43. Oh, his infamy will live on...

He's not winning any converts to your side...

[rl6214]

48. His infamy may live on but

Our "side" never claimed him as representing 'us'. Your side gave him that designation. We don't care that his 15 minutes of fair are over. In fact most of 'us' are glad to see him over and done with. At least I am.

[CTyankee]

49. Of course you are "glad" to see him over and done with. Only he clearly ISN'T, is he?

He just keeps on keepin' on, reminding people of who he is and what he did. Sorry, but you guys have him tied like an anchor around your necks, not our side. You can't control his bad behavior, unfortunately for you...sad, that...

[Turbineguy]

5. It was a victory

for savagery.

[gtar100]

7. But tonight they sleep soundly in their beds, safe from the hoards of liberals who might otherwise

force clean drinking water, clear skies, safe food, affordable health care, free higher education, equal justice for all, and economic prosperity on them. They've got their guns to give them satisfaction now. Who needs all that other crap when you have the power of a gun.

[badtoworse]

27. They sleep soundly having reminded their legislators whom they represent

What does that other stuff have to do with RKBA?

[gtar100]

37. It all comes as a package. Republicans do not support any of those issues. They are all about the

money. Hallelujah the guns are safe from libruls but it's not the only issue on the table and probably the one that will least effect our standard of living *and* our freedoms. Republicans will fight against any and all legislation to curb pollution in any form, they will support any efforts by the oil and gas industry to frack wherever they want and completely dismiss out of hand any and all environmental studies, they will defund public education at the drop of a hat, they will do anything their highest bidder wants, and the last thing they will do is represent the interests of people.

So you saved yourself from the inconvenience of gun registration, background checks, and safety classes. But now you get representation for the real purpose republicans have in mind... full corporate control over all issues. Profits before people every time. That is the hallmark of republican representation.

[badtoworse]

50. There are plenty of Democrats that support RKBA

It's unfortunate that the party has apparently forgotten 1994

[gtar100]

62. Hey, I support the right to keep and bear arms too but not indiscriminately.

The RKBA appears deathly afraid of losing their right but there have been no proposals to take that liberty away. Only to do, in my opinion, sensible measures to deter criminals from so easily getting them. I'm waiting to hear a solid proposal from gun rights advocates on how to do that. But apparently the only option they are willing to settle for is nothing, no measures at all to deter irresponsible people from gaining access to guns. Our current murder rate and gun violence statistics show exactly how that's working out. It would be more honest if they'd simply say unequivocally that they don't give a shit about people dying if that causes them an inconvenience with their right to own guns.

But my primary point on this thread is that the exchange of Democratic representatives for republicans is far worse than if you all lobbied against their bills instead of the recall. Now you... we are stuck with republicans as representatives. And they used the gun issue to get exactly that. If you care at all about the Democratic platform, you can be sure that the republicans are going to do everything in their power to destroy it.

[gtar100]

69. Man, did you misread my post. Unless you meant to respond to the person

I was conversing with. If you care to, please re-read. I own no guns, never will, and truly want regulations on ownership. And the more powerful the weapon, the more stringent the regulations. I find gun nuts abhorrent because of their obstinacy and utter disregard for human life. So, were you responding to me?

But just shoving people out the door isn't going to win any arguments either. Maybe you need to clarify your position better. Because you couldn't be more wrong about me. And you fail to differentiate between a reasoned argument, even if you are completely opposed to what another person says. There are gun nuts and there are reasonable and responsible gun owners. Better you make the distinction than to just come across as a reactionary yourself. You'll never get what you want that way.

[badtoworse]

70. A couple of points in response

From what I've seen over quite a number years, the gun control crowd is just as unreasonable and unwilling to give an inch on what they want. A lot of gun owners (myself included) would be willing to make a deal on things like magazine limits and universal backgrouind checks in return for some changes in firearms laws that we'd like to get. If you ask a gun control advocate what they'd offer for a deal, you hear crickets or some asinine statement like "you get to keep your guns". Is that reasonable?

A lot of this issue revolves around incrementalism. The gun control crowd knows it can't eliminate RKBA in one step, so the tactic is to do it a little at a time. A 15 round mag limit? In a few years, 10 and after that single shot weapons? Registration of firearms? A necessary first step to their ultimate confiscation. You get the idea. Gun owners aren't stupid and considering that the gun control crowd offers nothing for a deal, why would you expect them to agree to the first concession? We know that in a year or two, the gun control crowd would be back looking for another concession (and again painting us as unreasonable and not caring about human life for not wanting to give it). As I said, I'd be willing to compromise in the context of a deal, but that's not how the game is being played.

As far as exchanging Democratic representatives for Republicans, you left out the part about being honest with your constituents. Do you think Morse and Giron would ever have been elected if they had told the voters they favored more gun control? I sure don't and given that, I don't see a problem with voters having a second bite at the apple. In fact, I think it's a good thing if it motivates politicians to be honest with their constituents when they are running for office.

The Democratic Party needs to drop gun control as an issue. It's a hot button issue for lots of voters who will ignore those other consideration if you cross that line. Sorry, but that's political reality.

[gtar100]

71. This is the first I've heard of gun owners wanting changes in laws for their benefit.

There are already laws that limit weapons ownership - the obvious being nuclear weapons, missiles, and other heavy artillery reserved for the military. In exchange for universal background checks, mag limits, and restrictions on convicted domestic abusers owning firearms (these are the restrictions the Colorado representatives supported that got them canned), what do you think is reasonable?

Your fear of confiscation is not really reasonable given that it's not ever been brought up for serious discussion on a bill. Sure there are people who would love to see all guns confiscated from owners but since when did the extremes of an issue become the starting point of coming up with solutions to a problem. It seems to me that if there were sensible measures in place to keep guns out of the hands of people we *know* should not have them - convicted violent criminals, domestic abusers, mentally incompetent, etc. - then there would be far less outcry about the ease of access to firearms. It would protect against any movement to confiscate all guns (of which there is none - repeat, there is no movement to confiscate all guns from lawful gun owners).

So what is it you want that you do not have now that you would like to get in exchange for things such as universal background checks, mag limits, and restrictions on gun ownership for those reasons mentioned above?

[badtoworse]

73. What I would want in exchange?

I would want the federal government to issue concealed carry permits, valid in all 50 states, on a "shall issue" basis. Alternatively, I would accept a federal mandate that required all states to issue carry permits on a "shall issue basis", provided that the federal government mandated reciprocity among the states with respect to firearms permits.

[gtar100]

72. Regarding the politics of this recall, I think the issue is more complex than two reps getting their

comeuppance because they had the gall to stand up against the gun lobby. This article in Salon I think explains it well:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/12/colorado_proves_politicians_cant_fear_gun_reform/

In brief:

Despite the recalls being anomalously low-turnout affairs, the national media helped the gun lobby deliver a frightening message to politicians: Vote for modest gun control and face political death.

For all that reductionism, though, there are more nuanced lessons from these elections.

First and foremost, with statewide polls showing that most Coloradans support modest gun control and opposed the recall campaigns, the elections prove that in low-turnout situations, a relatively small group of pro-gun voters can still win the day.

Additionally, with gun extremists issuing threats of violence against pro-gun-control legislators, Colorado Democrats stopped explaining why their gun legislation was so necessary. In light of that, the election results are a reminder that when politicians don’t stay on the message offensive, they quickly find themselves on the electoral defensive. This is especially the case when, as a Pew survey documented, voters who oppose gun control tend to be more motivated single-issue voters than those who support gun control.

Do gun owners really resort to threats of violence against pro-gun-control legislators?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/worst-regards-colorado-democrat-lawmakers-threats-gun-control_n_3874035.html

How is that wanting a reasonable debate? Both sides have extremists, but only one has guns to back up the violent threats.

It would seem that both sides of this issue would agree that we don't want innocent people getting killed. So let's take a step back and get away from the rhetorical arguments on both sides and figure out a way to stop it. Remember, not everyone wants to own a gun, myself included, so I would reject out of hand any proposal to require gun ownership as a way to stop violent crime (which to me is a ridiculous argument).

[badtoworse]

74. No reasonable person supports threats of violence in a political process

...and no reasonable gun owner would force anyone to own a gun, especially if they don't want to.

[coldmountain]

65. But pro gun Dems are a shrinking minority

[CTyankee]

47. If it was that simple, why did they change the rules on the mail in balloting?

The answer of course is that most Coloradans vote by mail in ballot. That had to be ignored and not allowed in this instance in order for the recall to go as they wanted it to. Nice.

[badtoworse]

52. What difference does that make? Both sides were subject to the same rules.

[CTyankee]

54. It's a voter suppression tactic, designed to get the minority a win.

Even the candidates were in the dark.

The question remains, why change the rules if you really and truly want to reach all of the voters in the recall, voters who are used to using the mail in ballots, but had the rug pulled out from under them.

[badtoworse]

57. I didn't follow it closely enough to know whether it was legitimate or not.

It's my experience that any anytime a controversial election is lost, the losers ALWAYS claim voter suppression, fraud or some similar excuse.

[CTyankee]

58. the facts in this case are pretty clear.

Coloradans expected to have mail in ballots. That was changed and there wasn't enough time to challenge it, altho I hope there will be a court challenge and a reballoting.

This is "anytime" it is one specific time with specific facts.

[aikoaiko]

8. AWBs are risky propositions for Democrats

Bill Clinton warned us about that in his memoirs.

Assault weapons bans may work in some states, but not others and certainly not nationally.

[SecularMotion]

9. That's what the NRA keeps telling us

[aikoaiko]

10. And rational democrats.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. And election results.

[SecularMotion]

14. And trolls.

[aikoaiko]

20. troll on dear, SecMo.

[SecularMotion]

21. Only if you consider outing NRA shills as "trolling"

[aikoaiko]

23. Is that what you think you do?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. Please explain the mechanism by which citing election results is shilling.

[oldhippie]

32. Bill Clinton is an NRA shill?

[hack89]

12. No - that is what election results keep telling us. nt

[rl6214]

42. Bloomberg outspent the NRA 6:1

Not to mention all the money that Gabby Giffords PAC dumped into CO as well.

[sir pball]

60. Sadly, it wasn't even an AWB.

I suspect it was mag limits more than UBCs; I know a lot more generally reasonable people who are opposed to "only" having a 15-rounder than having to get a BC. Hell, even rabid nutters get excited when a dealer or retail chain has a special price on the new shiny, even though they have to get checked out. Then again, it's all speculation on my part - I had no problem whatsoever with this law

[Bazinga]

13. This argument is perhaps the weakest in favor of gun control.

It is the equivalent of "If you disagree with me then you're stupid, so I must be right."

Variants on this theme include;

"If you even want one of these killing machines then obviously you are a psycho and shouldn't be allowed to own guns!"

"I don't want to see innocent little children die, so if you disagree with me you must want them to be murdered in their classrooms!"

"These are common sense reforms, so anyone who would disagree with them must be insane... and therefore shouldn't own a gun."

If assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, waiting periods, and universal background checks really are effective at reducing violence (and not just gun violence but all violence) then there must be more to support them than the designation of "common sense."

I don't want common sense solutions. I want exceptional sense solutions. I want legislators to investigate problems, weigh evidence, propose solutions, debate them, anticipate unintended consequences, revise those solutions, and enact effective laws that achieve specific goals while minimizing side-effects and always holding the rights of the people in sacred deference.

Anything less than open, educated debate is beneath our party. And perhaps this recall is an indication that we have not sufficiently considered the consequences of hasty legislation, and we would do well to lift our solutions above the plane of "common" sense.

[TheMastersNemesis]

15. Bullshit

I would NOT help one of these bastards if they shot themselves. The are POS to me. With NO redeeming human value. You can't reason with people who are racist bigoted and nuts.

[Bazinga]

16. Apparently.

[Fla_Democrat]

33. Well played

[Eleanors38]

39. And I see you started early.

[warrant46]

24. You are right

These people are sub-humans and deserve to be eliminated </sarcasm>

[TheMastersNemesis]

34. They Come From The Same Element That Is OK Attacking The Vulnerable.

Having served in Vietnam I see these people as no better than the Viet Cong or NVA. They are no better than the terrorists as far as I am concerned. The are NOT fellow Americans in my book.

[warrant46]

46. I understand where you are coming from

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. People who endorse self-defense want to keep people vulnerable?

Do you even consider what it is you're writing or do you just spew whatever rage-fueled nonsense pops into your mind.

The are NOT fellow Americans in my book.

In a democracy no one person gets to dictate which book rules all others. Please keep that in mind when fulminating about analogies to unitary dictatorships and religiously-motivated terrorists.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. This lack of self-awareness goes to 11.

[aikoaiko]

30. Nice. Your humanity is overwhelming.

TheMastersNemesis
15. Bullshit
View profile
I would NOT help one of these bastards if they shot themselves. The are POS to me. With NO redeeming human value. You can't reason with people who are racist bigoted and nuts.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

56. I'm pretty much in favor of a universal RKBA; but I'm thinking TMN shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. The irony meter...is asplode!

[badtoworse]

36. Who are you saying can't be reasoned with? Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle.

[rl6214]

44. And another bunch of baseless accusations.

[appal_jack]

17. Nicely-stated. Welcome to DU! n/t

[spin]

18. Great post. (n/t)

[Mopar151]

19. At least in NH, the gun huggers make a convincing argument

Every time they appear in public - That they are the people I least want to see with a gun. And I'm not talking about the guys who shoot sporting clays weekly, or the Tuesday Night Rifle Club, or the 3 deer a year meat hunters.

[ileus]

38. PPOTD...

You win the Progressive Post Of The Day.

[Eleanors38]

41. Nice job. So much repeating the same, and wanting a different solution.

[badtoworse]

22. Sour grapes. They were smart enough to win the election.

[warrant46]

26. Apparently they were also outspent by Bloomberg et al 6 to 1

In this case Bloomberg didn't help the losers in spite of spending almost half a million $$$

His condescending 16 ounce soda project apparently didn't resonate with Colorado voters

[Eleanors38]

45. What's worseforus Democrats is we had our troops out door-to-door.

It didn't work in this instance; I just hope it is not a harbinger of things to come.

[badtoworse]

53. Gun control should be dropped as a priority by Democrats

It might sell in large cities like NY and Chicago, but it's a loser almost everywhere else. That is political reality, but many here just won't accept that.

[Eleanors38]

64. "Guns" didn't appear in the national Democratic Platform before 1968...

Only after the "ghetto riots" of the 60s did the first mention of guns arise. If someone wants to grab feverishly for a prohibitionist hit, let them do it on their own locally, but don't lay elitist inability to organize a movement on the backs of Democrats trying to gain -- or keep -- office.

Blaring out bans and controls through a distrusted (and shrinking) MSM, and in platform pronouncements without any ability to make it happen is inviting attack, and preventing a widespread effort to gain more popular Party support.

Do it on your own, don't ask an institution to carry your water.

[rrneck]

51. ...

[GreenStormCloud]

61. They used peaceful, legal, democratic process.

For that you label them dangerous and want to restrict their rights. So civil rights are only for those who agree with you politically. Political opponents should lose rights? Sounds like you want a dictatorship, with you as dictator.

[NaturalHigh]

63. Gee...if only we consulted you before every decision.

What a wonderful world it would be.

Fortunately, constitutional rights are not subject to your opinions.

[Yandorio]

66. SAdly, they own Congress

Mostly Republicans.

[Koko Ware]

67. And ordered to move to Wyoming or Idaho

and take their guns with them, and banned from re-entering Colorado