Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
74 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Gun Nuts Pushing Recall Are The Ones Who Should Have Guns Taken Away (Original Post) TheMastersNemesis Sep 2013 OP
Get Ready For Secession in CO Over Guns otohara Sep 2013 #1
Why do you want pro Obama districts to ceede from CO? davepc Sep 2013 #2
They Won't Be Blue After This otohara Sep 2013 #3
Or you can pull a fast one and change the rules by not allowing mail in ballots in this effort... CTyankee Sep 2013 #29
We need to make Zimmerman the posterchild of pistol owners coldmountain Sep 2013 #4
It didn't work when he was relevent... John_Carter Sep 2013 #6
I agree but you'll hear nothing but crickets from our gun enthusiasts on HIM! CTyankee Sep 2013 #31
He was YOUR poster child for gun control rl6214 Sep 2013 #40
Oh, his infamy will live on... CTyankee Sep 2013 #43
His infamy may live on but rl6214 Sep 2013 #48
Of course you are "glad" to see him over and done with. Only he clearly ISN'T, is he? CTyankee Sep 2013 #49
It was a victory Turbineguy Sep 2013 #5
But tonight they sleep soundly in their beds, safe from the hoards of liberals who might otherwise gtar100 Sep 2013 #7
They sleep soundly having reminded their legislators whom they represent badtoworse Sep 2013 #27
It all comes as a package. Republicans do not support any of those issues. They are all about the gtar100 Sep 2013 #37
There are plenty of Democrats that support RKBA badtoworse Sep 2013 #50
Hey, I support the right to keep and bear arms too but not indiscriminately. gtar100 Sep 2013 #62
This message was self-deleted by its author Koko Ware Sep 2013 #68
Man, did you misread my post. Unless you meant to respond to the person gtar100 Sep 2013 #69
A couple of points in response badtoworse Sep 2013 #70
This is the first I've heard of gun owners wanting changes in laws for their benefit. gtar100 Sep 2013 #71
What I would want in exchange? badtoworse Sep 2013 #73
Regarding the politics of this recall, I think the issue is more complex than two reps getting their gtar100 Sep 2013 #72
No reasonable person supports threats of violence in a political process badtoworse Sep 2013 #74
But pro gun Dems are a shrinking minority coldmountain Sep 2013 #65
If it was that simple, why did they change the rules on the mail in balloting? CTyankee Sep 2013 #47
What difference does that make? Both sides were subject to the same rules. badtoworse Sep 2013 #52
It's a voter suppression tactic, designed to get the minority a win. CTyankee Sep 2013 #54
I didn't follow it closely enough to know whether it was legitimate or not. badtoworse Sep 2013 #57
the facts in this case are pretty clear. CTyankee Sep 2013 #58
AWBs are risky propositions for Democrats aikoaiko Sep 2013 #8
That's what the NRA keeps telling us SecularMotion Sep 2013 #9
And rational democrats. aikoaiko Sep 2013 #10
And election results. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #11
And trolls. SecularMotion Sep 2013 #14
troll on dear, SecMo. aikoaiko Sep 2013 #20
Only if you consider outing NRA shills as "trolling" SecularMotion Sep 2013 #21
Is that what you think you do? aikoaiko Sep 2013 #23
Please explain the mechanism by which citing election results is shilling. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #25
Bill Clinton is an NRA shill? oldhippie Sep 2013 #32
No - that is what election results keep telling us. nt hack89 Sep 2013 #12
Bloomberg outspent the NRA 6:1 rl6214 Sep 2013 #42
Sadly, it wasn't even an AWB. sir pball Sep 2013 #60
This argument is perhaps the weakest in favor of gun control. Bazinga Sep 2013 #13
Bullshit TheMastersNemesis Sep 2013 #15
Apparently. Bazinga Sep 2013 #16
Well played Fla_Democrat Sep 2013 #33
And I see you started early. Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #39
You are right warrant46 Sep 2013 #24
They Come From The Same Element That Is OK Attacking The Vulnerable. TheMastersNemesis Sep 2013 #34
I understand where you are coming from warrant46 Sep 2013 #46
People who endorse self-defense want to keep people vulnerable? Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #55
This lack of self-awareness goes to 11. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #28
Nice. Your humanity is overwhelming. aikoaiko Sep 2013 #30
I'm pretty much in favor of a universal RKBA; but I'm thinking TMN shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #56
The irony meter...is asplode! Lizzie Poppet Sep 2013 #35
Who are you saying can't be reasoned with? Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle. badtoworse Sep 2013 #36
And another bunch of baseless accusations. rl6214 Sep 2013 #44
This message was self-deleted by its author wild bird Sep 2013 #59
Nicely-stated. Welcome to DU! n/t appal_jack Sep 2013 #17
Great post. (n/t) spin Sep 2013 #18
At least in NH, the gun huggers make a convincing argument Mopar151 Sep 2013 #19
PPOTD... ileus Sep 2013 #38
Nice job. So much repeating the same, and wanting a different solution. Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #41
Sour grapes. They were smart enough to win the election. badtoworse Sep 2013 #22
Apparently they were also outspent by Bloomberg et al 6 to 1 warrant46 Sep 2013 #26
What's worseforus Democrats is we had our troops out door-to-door. Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #45
Gun control should be dropped as a priority by Democrats badtoworse Sep 2013 #53
"Guns" didn't appear in the national Democratic Platform before 1968... Eleanors38 Sep 2013 #64
... rrneck Sep 2013 #51
They used peaceful, legal, democratic process. GreenStormCloud Sep 2013 #61
Gee...if only we consulted you before every decision. NaturalHigh Sep 2013 #63
SAdly, they own Congress Yandorio Sep 2013 #66
And ordered to move to Wyoming or Idaho Koko Ware Sep 2013 #67
 

otohara

(24,135 posts)
1. Get Ready For Secession in CO Over Guns
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 03:03 AM
Sep 2013

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

davepc

(3,936 posts)
2. Why do you want pro Obama districts to ceede from CO?
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 03:09 AM
Sep 2013
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

(24,135 posts)
3. They Won't Be Blue After This
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 03:19 AM
Sep 2013

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

(63,879 posts)
29. Or you can pull a fast one and change the rules by not allowing mail in ballots in this effort...
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:30 AM
Sep 2013

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

 

John_Carter

(15 posts)
6. It didn't work when he was relevent...
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 04:55 AM
Sep 2013

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

CTyankee

(63,879 posts)
31. I agree but you'll hear nothing but crickets from our gun enthusiasts on HIM!
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:31 AM
Sep 2013

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

 

rl6214

(8,142 posts)
48. His infamy may live on but
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:40 AM
Sep 2013

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

(63,879 posts)
49. Of course you are "glad" to see him over and done with. Only he clearly ISN'T, is he?
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:45 AM
Sep 2013

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...

gtar100

(4,192 posts)
7. But tonight they sleep soundly in their beds, safe from the hoards of liberals who might otherwise
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 04:56 AM
Sep 2013

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

(5,957 posts)
27. They sleep soundly having reminded their legislators whom they represent
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:27 AM
Sep 2013

What does that other stuff have to do with RKBA?

gtar100

(4,192 posts)
37. It all comes as a package. Republicans do not support any of those issues. They are all about the
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:10 AM
Sep 2013

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

(5,957 posts)
50. There are plenty of Democrats that support RKBA
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:47 AM
Sep 2013

It's unfortunate that the party has apparently forgotten 1994

gtar100

(4,192 posts)
62. Hey, I support the right to keep and bear arms too but not indiscriminately.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:21 PM
Sep 2013

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.

Response to gtar100 (Reply #62)

gtar100

(4,192 posts)
69. Man, did you misread my post. Unless you meant to respond to the person
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:52 PM
Sep 2013

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

(5,957 posts)
70. A couple of points in response
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 09:08 AM
Sep 2013

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

(4,192 posts)
71. This is the first I've heard of gun owners wanting changes in laws for their benefit.
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 03:19 PM
Sep 2013

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

(5,957 posts)
73. What I would want in exchange?
Mon Sep 16, 2013, 03:30 PM
Sep 2013

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

(4,192 posts)
72. Regarding the politics of this recall, I think the issue is more complex than two reps getting their
Sat Sep 14, 2013, 03:38 PM
Sep 2013

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

(5,957 posts)
74. No reasonable person supports threats of violence in a political process
Mon Sep 16, 2013, 03:33 PM
Sep 2013

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

CTyankee

(63,879 posts)
47. If it was that simple, why did they change the rules on the mail in balloting?
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:39 AM
Sep 2013

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.

CTyankee

(63,879 posts)
54. It's a voter suppression tactic, designed to get the minority a win.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:58 AM
Sep 2013

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

(5,957 posts)
57. I didn't follow it closely enough to know whether it was legitimate or not.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:04 AM
Sep 2013

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

CTyankee

(63,879 posts)
58. the facts in this case are pretty clear.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:08 AM
Sep 2013

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

(34,153 posts)
8. AWBs are risky propositions for Democrats
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 06:41 AM
Sep 2013

Bill Clinton warned us about that in his memoirs.

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

 

rl6214

(8,142 posts)
42. Bloomberg outspent the NRA 6:1
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:35 AM
Sep 2013

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

sir pball

(4,737 posts)
60. Sadly, it wasn't even an AWB.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:24 AM
Sep 2013

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

(331 posts)
13. This argument is perhaps the weakest in favor of gun control.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:13 AM
Sep 2013

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

(10,602 posts)
15. Bullshit
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:19 AM
Sep 2013

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.

 

TheMastersNemesis

(10,602 posts)
34. They Come From The Same Element That Is OK Attacking The Vulnerable.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:42 AM
Sep 2013

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.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
55. People who endorse self-defense want to keep people vulnerable?
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:59 AM
Sep 2013

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.

aikoaiko

(34,153 posts)
30. Nice. Your humanity is overwhelming.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:30 AM
Sep 2013


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.

Response to TheMastersNemesis (Reply #15)

Mopar151

(9,973 posts)
19. At least in NH, the gun huggers make a convincing argument
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:37 AM
Sep 2013

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.

warrant46

(2,205 posts)
26. Apparently they were also outspent by Bloomberg et al 6 to 1
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:25 AM
Sep 2013

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

(18,318 posts)
45. What's worseforus Democrats is we had our troops out door-to-door.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:37 AM
Sep 2013

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

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
53. Gun control should be dropped as a priority by Democrats
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 10:52 AM
Sep 2013

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

(18,318 posts)
64. "Guns" didn't appear in the national Democratic Platform before 1968...
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 05:55 PM
Sep 2013

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.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
61. They used peaceful, legal, democratic process.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:46 AM
Sep 2013

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

(12,778 posts)
63. Gee...if only we consulted you before every decision.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 02:34 PM
Sep 2013

What a wonderful world it would be.

Fortunately, constitutional rights are not subject to your opinions.

 

Koko Ware

(107 posts)
67. And ordered to move to Wyoming or Idaho
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:55 PM
Sep 2013

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

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Gun Nuts Pushing Reca...