Skip to main content

CO state senator Hudack resigned rather than face a recall over her vote on gun control.

I guess this allows the Dems to pick her successor and retains control of the senate in our hands. I sure do wish she'd stop talking about guns though. Even on the way out she had to chime in. Good that she's got the big picture but jeesh, time to switch the subject.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/...

I drove down through her district last weekend and saw pro and anti activists collecting signatures in front of a few strip malls. Lot of people with signs. I'd forgotten about it to tell you the truth. It was thought that the number of signatures would be too high for a recall, I guess not.

Lots of issues in front of our legislature of late, more important than what is at heart a social issue.

I think Hudak's district is mostly the burbs of Westminster and Arvada.

Gun control not a winning issue in Colorado.

Originally posted to ban nock at DKos on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 09:23 AM PST.

Also republished by Colorado COmmunity, Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), Shut Down the NRA, and Firearms Law and Policy.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (25+ / 0-)

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 09:24:00 AM PST

  •  It's still open for debate whether gun safety is (8+ / 0-)

    a good or bad issue in Colorado. Wait until a real election, not an off year when-nobody's-looking election.

    If the pro-gun folks can make their case on the merits and out in the open in front of the majority of the electorate in 2014 and 2016, then sure, the case will be closed on whether gun safety is too much of a third rail or not.

    It seems that it wasn't in Virginia.

    •  gun safety is much different than gun control (18+ / 0-)

      gun safety is what we teach our kids in hunters ed. Appropriating that name to use for firearms restrictions is just making things worse. When someone says gun safety unless they are teaching kids afternoons and weekends, I know what they want to do is take everyone's guns.

      So be aware that when you use that term, I, and many many Coloradans hear you say you wish to take all our guns.

      And you get recalls.

      “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

      by ban nock on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 09:39:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  to many gun-rightists, there is no difference (12+ / 0-)

        You make the equivalence yourself, by trying to say that only hunter safety courses and their ilk are proper safety regulations.  It's not gun safety to require you to lock your weapons up when they're not in use -- especially if you have children in the house?  It's not gun safety to require background checks on ALL purchases to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  

        There are lots of compelling safety issues out there which do not infringe on your right to keep and bear arms, but which make everyone safer by having them enshrined in laws.  If you are not able to see that, then you are part of the problem.

        •  Myself, I have trouble seeing how anyone (10+ / 0-)

          could object to a law taking guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, or requiring background checks for firearms purchases, but then, I'm not a "Colorado Native."  I just live here, and hope someday to wipe its dust from my shoes.

          Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

          by corvo on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 10:08:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You obviously live in an urbanized area (7+ / 0-)

            You can bet that those isolated farms and ranches throughout rural Colorado have a LOADED rifle or shotgun where the farmer can get to it quickly (probably leaning up behind a closet door or some such).  By loaded, I mean a full magazine and none in the chamber.  It isn't for two legged predators, either, because those are a very minor worry.

            The urban/rural divide is a huge one.  Keeping firearms from domestic abusers won't elicit objections, but not being able to give a shotgun to a relative without the government being involved isn't thought of kindly.  Rural folks see the problems with guns as a "city problem" because violent gun crime is so rare out in the country, and rules restricting firearms by number or type are a political loser.  

            •  heh. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jedennis
              Keeping firearms from domestic abusers won't elicit objections, but not being able to give a shotgun to a relative without the government being involved isn't thought of kindly.
              Even if that relative has been found guilty in a court of law of domestic abuse, apparently.

              Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

              by corvo on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 01:38:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your comment illustrates something else (6+ / 0-)

                Something that is different between the urban and the rural.  Out here in the sticks folks have a real sense of personal responsibility.  We have a responsibility to not only ourselves but to our neighbors and our community.  And, for the most part, we know those who are part of that community, we know what our neighbors are doing and we will help them if they need it, knowing full well that they will do the same.  We know who the good people are and we know the bad boys, too.  We even publish names in the local paper!  

                Being from the city, you just cannot understand.  Do you even know 10 people that live on your block?  You can make jokes about the rural people being married to their cousins, but around here it isn't that far from the truth.  There are a heck of a lot of families that have lived in this area for over 100 years, and I'm not even talking about the Native Americans, some of whose families have been here, literally, for centuries.  

                The urban/rural mindsets are at odds with each other.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that rurality is a panacea.  There is a heck of a lot of prejudice and just plain bigotry out here, and you cannot ignore the tribalism that exists, which creates a feeling of the rural "us" and the city "other".  It works in the reverse, as well.

                •  I notice you didn't even address (0+ / 0-)

                  the substance of my comment, instead making scattershot accusations and assumptions regarding neighbors and incest.

                  I would really hate to think that represents "rural values."

                  On the other hand, you do seem to have some awareness of who the real natives are -- contrary to most Coloradoans (urban as well as rural).

                  Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

                  by corvo on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 02:35:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Over your head (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Tom Seaview

                    The actual substance of my comment was all about your comment.  It does appear that nuance is something quite beyond your ability to comprehend.

                    •  The only "actual substance" is (0+ / 0-)

                      that there was nothing, but nothing in the recent legislation that would've prevented you and yours (excluding anyone who had been convicted of domestic abuse) from owning all the guns you wanted to.  You could even own all the ammo you wanted to -- you were just limited to the amount you could purchase at one time.  Unless you expect to be attacked by several dozen wild animals in a short period of time, I'm failing to see how that's unreasonable.

                      But you know that.

                      As for your "urban values" versus "rural values" business, I'm unimpressed.  Plenty of city folk have reason to want to pack heat too, don't you know, so while "rural values" folks are good at picking off legislators who don't toe the NRA line, there are plenty of urbanites among them -- and the "rural values" secession movement seems to have failed miserably.

                      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

                      by corvo on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 05:47:19 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Interesting way to define (0+ / 0-)

                  personal responsibility.  

        •  Just to play devil's advocate (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk, CarlosJ

          Until Heller, there was a handgun ban in DC.  It didn't seem to lower the murder rate.  Proponents of gun control simply claimed that the guns were being illegally trafficked from across the river in Virgina.  

          However they never made any serious effort to trace serial numbers and locate these purchasers for prosecution.  

          We already know how to reduce crime (clean up lead paint and tetryl lead) and gun control proponents persist in trying to ban guns.  Your approach to reducing murder is like failing to remove the pump handle.  

          I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

          by DavidMS on Thu Nov 28, 2013 at 10:22:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But I'm not calling for reducing murder (0+ / 0-)

            I'm calling for laws which require people to become safer, more responsible gun owners.  We already see that, left to their own devices, there are way too many irresponsible gun owners out there.   We also have way too many people getting guns who shouldn't.  I'm all for requiring registration of guns and having the government involved from beginning to end of ownership just as we already do for cars.  The biggest obstacle to legislating gun safety is the belief that simply owning a gun makes you a responsible citizen.  Gun violence encompasses much more than just murders and suicides after all....

      •  Let's have a good, open debate and put it (7+ / 0-)

        to the majority of the electorate - not hide behind recall elections and in legalese behind the scenes.

        Come out in the open and lay out your case to the electorate and let the issue be decided.

        That's all anyone can ask.

        •  One puts the Bill of Rights to a vote? (5+ / 0-)

          That's worked so very well in the past.

          •  Yes - what are you afraid of? (0+ / 0-)
            •  Then you're in favor of... (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ER Doc, ban nock, Tom Seaview, DavidMS, oldpunk

              ...a majority of people restricting the rights of a minority, just by voting on it.

            •  There is a history of voting on rights in America: (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ban nock, oldpunk, Kasoru, CarlosJ

              Jim Crow was imposed by voters.  

              In the German Basic Law, certain rights are declared inviolable.  http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/...  This, to me is the correct approach.  

              I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

              by DavidMS on Thu Nov 28, 2013 at 10:51:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes true - and then Jim Crow was rolled back (0+ / 0-)

                by voters. Thanks for making my point - the way to settle this is through our Democratic process.

                •  False. Entirely false. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose
                  Yes true - and then Jim Crow was rolled back by voters. Thanks for making my point - the way to settle this is through our Democratic process.
                  No, Jim Crow was never voted on. The Brown vs. Board of Education USSC decision, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were not results of a majority vote on anything. Not only can you not just rewrite history to pretend that systemic racism was undone by the same majority that perpetuated it, you can't just ignore and insult those that fought, bled and died to make change happen by pretending it was the will of the voters all along. If you think this kind of dishonesty helps your cause, then by all means continue to employ it. I'm sure treating people like they're too stupid to read history will work out just fine.
                  •  Interesting Merty - if voters want Jim Crow so (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LilithGardener

                    badly, why don't we have it?

                    •  Interesting WSO (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose

                      I just told you why we don't have Jim Crow laws anymore. You still haven't mentioned when the electorate got to vote on them. I wonder why that is.

                      •  Who appoints SC justices? Who VOTES for the (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        LilithGardener

                        person who appoints SC justices? Who confirms SC justices?

                        Do I need to spell it out for you?

                        Furthermore, if the Jim Crow lovers felt their Constitutional rights were infringed on (Gee, where have we heard that one before) why didn't they vote for politicians who would appoint judges who would support to over turn those legal decision, you know, like the GOP appoints judges to over turn Roe v. Wade, Voting Rights, etc.?

                        I guess I will have to spell it out - we live in a Democracy, voters decide who the legislators will be and those legislators create the policy and laws and appoint the judges to rule on those policies and laws. Hence, voters overturned Jim Crow.

                        •  Just like I figured (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          FrankRose

                          It becomes "the will of the voters" even though it was never put to a majority vote of the electorate. Even though the majority of the electorate viciously resisted desegregation to the point where grade-school children had to be escorted past ax handle-wielding thugs by the National Guard. Even though the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 led to the party shift between Republicans and Democrats, and to the Southern Strategy the GOP employs even to this day.

                          I do have to congratulate you though, I didn't know how you were going to top the ludicrous sockpuppet accusations and claims that I've been comparing anything or anyone to Hitler. But this, this definitely qualifies as the silliest damn thing I've read today, if not this entire week. I don't think I could get pure ahistorical gobbledygook like this without setting up a drilling rig on Glenn Beck's head. You have a good rest of your night now and savor the victory you're no doubt all ready claiming.

                          •  King of the blog tonight! Biting, biting, stuff. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            You're still wrong on gun safety, however.

                            But don't let that stop you from penning those wonderful soliloquies. I'm sure you make your parents proud.

                          •  ... Oh, and I think I caught an error in your (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            logic, or more likely just a lazy oversight - "majority of the electorate viciously resisted"

                            What you meant was a majority of the electorate in the South. I don't think people were "viciously resisting" in California or Washington, New York, etc. Unless I missed those chapters in American history - "The Klan Does Manhattan"

                            So, in reality, a minority of the entire electorate resisted viciously - of course, your soliloquy wouldn't have the same flair for the dramatic and then it would start to unravel, so I get it, I understand the reason for the stretch.

                          •  You did miss those chapters. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            And I'm not surprised. You spend more time on mockery than anything of substance. Here's a few pages off the top of my head.

                            Kkk Exhibit Recalls Disquieting Side Of Town's Past -- Astoria Once Was A Klan Hotbed

                            Why Philadelphia?

                            Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism by James W. Loewen

                            Oregon and Idaho have been hotbeds of KKK and white supremacist activity for longer than you and I have been alive. So has Northern California. And "sundown towns" could be found in almost every Northern state, with some continuing to bar non-whites until the 1980s or later. The idea that racism is something that was only ever prevalent or powerful in the South is unsupported by historical record. And you still can't point to a majority vote that passed either of the landmark pieces of civil rights legislation, despite your twisting.

                            I realize you think you're being clever here, but you're really not. This is not an opinion I hold that you're free to mock. This is decades of documented history you're pretending never happened. Honestly, I'd urge you to stop but the fact that you're sitting here trying to whitewash the history of racism in the United States to make it look like the majority of whites in the US just woke up one morning, decided segregation and racism were bad and took to the voting booths singing hymns of brotherhood, all in the name of supporting your ludicrous idea of putting a civil right to a popular vote is far better than the usual "yer just an NRA nut gun psycho" drivel. It gives anyone reading this exchange a very clear view of what lengths you'll go to in the name of your crusade. It shows them how unimportant their struggles are to you and how worthless the accomplishments of their heroes are in your eyes. You'd chuck them all just to try and shore up your arguments. So please, give us more. Show everybody exactly what you're willing to erase just to "win".

                          •  A lot of assumptions, Mervy - you can't be so slow (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            to think everything a person knows can be put into a few blog comments.

                            So then, you're holding on to that "majority viscously" thing?

                            If that were true - the majority of the U.S. electorate - how in the world could Jim Crow ever be ended? There wouldn't be a politician who could act to stop it because there would not be the "will of the people" to base that decision on. Believe it or not, politicians do act on the basis of political power, ie, can they make decisions that will have political support - wow, what a concept. Kennedy and Johnson did what they did because the knew a majority did not viscously oppose Jim Crow.

                            So, you got it entirely wrong.

                  •  ... by the way, you and FrankRose have a very (0+ / 0-)

                    similar tone to your comments - am I crazy, or you guys one in the same? Or, maybe sit next to each other in the cubicles at NRA HQ?

                  •  And one more thing, my question is a set up (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LilithGardener

                    to the next point, which is the logical conclusion of why voters ended Jim Crow. I'm curious to see if you can figure it out - it's staring you in the face.

      •  Thinking that those who favor gun safety laws (8+ / 0-)

        want to take all your guns away is not rational.  But congrats to the NRA for getting folks to believe that.  It still blows my mind how even the most basic, incredibly popular measure (universal background checks) has become a toxic issue for many elected officials, and it's all about the NRA.

        They have a very unhealthy grip on our politics, especially in a state like Colorado, but in many other states as well.  PPP did a poll before the Giron recall that correctly showed her losing by 12 points, yet found that voters supported the background check law by 41 points.  And her district was evenly split on the high-capacity magazine ban, despite all the money the NRA poured into the recall.

        If voters in her district were split on by far the most controversial of the Colorado gun laws, yet they voted against her by 12 points, that illustrates how powerful the NRA is.  And indeed the NRA is still popular - +20 favorability in Giron's district.  They then parlay that influence into scaring voters that support of reasonable legislation = taking all your guns away.  That is not good for our politics.

      •  That's interesting (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CwV, jedennis, my2petpeeves

        because I "know" that there's not a single legislator in the entire United States who is running on a platform of "take everyone's guns," and that goes double for places like Colorado.

        What I'm wondering is how you "know" that "gun safety" is a codephrase for total firearm prohibition? I mean, when precisely has that been proven, other than in people's fevered brains?

        It's pretty Rumsfeldian to say that you "know" something to be true when there's no truth to it whatsoever.

    •  Calling it gun safety doesn't fool anybody (9+ / 0-)

      Gun safety is what I practiced yesterday while I was hunting.  It included not loading my rifle until I was in my hunting spot, keeping the safety on, finger off the trigger, and keeping it pointed away from me.  What Colorado did was increase gun regulations, which is far more accurate.  

      "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

      by Texas Lefty on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 09:46:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tomayto-tomahto - the pro gun folks should (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Penny GC, CenPhx, TXdem, OrganicChemist

        come out of the shadows and put their issue to the vote of the majority of the electorate. Let the issue be decided by the majority of the electorate.

        There is no point debating the merits here - it's a merry-go-round.

        Each side's job is to persuade the majority of voters who is correct about this issue.

        I look forward to seeing the NRA and Tom Tancredo make that case in 2014.

        •  "Let the issue be decided by the majority of the (9+ / 0-)

          electorate."?

          Since when do we put Constitutional and civil rights to a majority vote?

          Oh that's right, when it's the ones we don't agree with and when we think the majority will vote against them. Nice to see Republicans and Democrats can find stuff to agree on.

          As far as the merit, I find very little of merit in a law that was supported by people who claimed "high capacity magazines" served no purpose but to murder people yet specifically carved out an exception for a local manufacturer to keep manufacturing those people-murderers in Colorado as long as it was selling them in other states. I'd like someone to explain the ethics of that to me, if you can.

    •  with so many independent voters in the state (9+ / 0-)

      the democratic party will either win or lose elections in colorado based on this single issue.

      heck, i live in one of the bluest and most crime free parts of the state and i'm pretty sure that most of my neighbors own guns. that's just how it is.

      no matter how well intentioned it may be, trying to push any kind of gun legislation in this environment is politically stupid because there won't be many people jumping on that bandwagon.

      thanks ban nock for bringing this article to everyone's attention and for trying to provide some perspective to the issue.

      Yesterday is History, Tomorrow is a Mystery. Today is a gift and that's why it's called "The Present".

      by elkhunter on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 09:56:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are assuming that all gun owners will support (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CenPhx, TXdem, revsue, corvo, jedennis

        recalling/voting out those who passed sensible gun safety regulations.

        There are an endless number of examples of gun owners who support sensible gun regulations.

        The challenge in passing sensible, rational gun safety legislation is in marginalizing the extremists - the "thou shalt not infringe" "let's march in holiday parades with our AR-15s" crowd.

        Gun safety legislation is the rational, sensible thing to do.

        •  you know, i'm not part of the ar-15 crowd (7+ / 0-)

          and would agree that both better enforcement of existing laws and some kind of new legislation would be in order. it wouldn't effect me one bit. but losing elections is a much bigger concern.

          Yesterday is History, Tomorrow is a Mystery. Today is a gift and that's why it's called "The Present".

          by elkhunter on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 10:20:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't disagree - but losing elections is often (3+ / 0-)

            part of the process of getting good policy passed.

            If losing elections were taken out of the equation - what is the right thing to do?

            I think if the question is posed in that way, most Dems would say - 100% universal background checks, guns out the hands of domestic abusers, limit magazine capacity, which is what Colorado Dems did.

            Good for them. They didn't buy the BS from the NRA (nor give into the intimidation tactic) that background checks won't do any good in stopping criminals. They looked at the facts — background checks do stop criminals from getting guns, here's the proof:

            http://www.colorado.gov/...

            Little by little the NRA propaganda is being chipped away - you don't hear them claim "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" much any more - because they are being called on that BS.

            Just like the background check won't stop criminals BS.

            Bloomberg, Sandy Hook Promise, Gabby Gifford's group, Moms Demand Action, etc., are all pulling this issue and debate out into the open under some harsh sunlight - where it should be.

            •  shooting yourself in the foot without a gun (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tom Seaview, 43north, Kasoru
              Democrats now hold only a one-seat majority in the state senate. A successful recall of a Democrat would be enough to flip control to Republicans.
              it's not worth losing the state senate over

              Yesterday is History, Tomorrow is a Mystery. Today is a gift and that's why it's called "The Present".

              by elkhunter on Thu Nov 28, 2013 at 07:51:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  When you say "teetering" - do you mean, the State (0+ / 0-)

                Senate is still in Dem hands? Hudak resigned and the Dems pick her replacement - and that'll be the case for any other Dem who is threatened with recall. Let the NRA and gun lobby waster their money collecting sigs, and if it gets to that point, the Dem resigns, Dems keep control and then we get to 2014 and a real election, not some BS in the shadows crap - the actual entire electorate can weigh in. I like those odds.

                •  that's a wimpy way to go (0+ / 0-)

                  we need to win elections and be able to hold onto the seats without any retreat.

                  the gop is full of dirty tricks and they'll only pull another out of their bag.

                  Yesterday is History, Tomorrow is a Mystery. Today is a gift and that's why it's called "The Present".

                  by elkhunter on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 02:06:20 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Retreat? We passed gun safety legislation, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LilithGardener

                    remember - that's not retreat.

                    And sometimes you have to hand-to-hand to keep power - so be it.

                    The Colorado state GOP head told the recallers to stop and not go after Hudak - he said they would be guilty of looking extreme and overreaching, which just happens to be the exact charge they level at those who passed gun safety legislation.

                    You want to win? Drive that fucking gun wedge further into the GOP!

                    •  you're not just driving a wedge into the gop (0+ / 0-)

                      you're driving the wedge into the democrats and independents too. and you're not going to win anything that way. it's a great way to make sure the dems are on the outside looking in when it comes to developing future policy on everything, not just gun legislation.

                      choose your battles well.

                      “Orthodoxy is a relaxation of the mind accompanied by a stiffening of the heart.” ― Edward Abbey

                      by elkhunter on Sun Dec 01, 2013 at 10:15:35 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

  •  probably 20 or 50 RW radio stations in CO have (0+ / 0-)

    been doing regular pieces on this one too- they can get a lot of sigs like that- they will have the advantage. i'll bet KOA's (mike rosen etc) have been doing their part in between the broncos and buffs games.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 10:01:26 AM PST

    •  They're saying only what the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Victor Ward

      Colorado voting majority wants to hear.

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 10:08:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  they magnify the stupid, announce the effort and (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jedennis, my2petpeeves

        timing, give the NRA and advocates the biggest megaphones in the state, and get the signatures in.

        that is an advantage they have merely because the right and it's corporate sponsors have and maintain a well coordinated monopoly of public airwaves.

        that's why there there was no gun reform in CO nor anywhere else after the theater and school and other massacres that could have been avoided if those loons couldn't get assault weapons at the corner store .

        This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

        by certainot on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 11:11:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  yep, & we have a lot of refugees from other states (8+ / 0-)

      who always wanted to be a cowboy, and now that they are here they consider themselves to be part of the wild west.

      and that ain't gonna change.

      we can win voters with things like affordable health care, reasonable cannabis legislation and the like, or we can lose voters by pushing gun legislation.

      Yesterday is History, Tomorrow is a Mystery. Today is a gift and that's why it's called "The Present".

      by elkhunter on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 10:13:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gun safety laws (2+ / 0-)

    or of you prefer massacre prevention laws, gun crime laws, whatever, require a longer game than just this election or the next cycle. Marginalizing the NRA and the even-worse GOA will require a full-court press for a decade. Fortunately, the number of gun owners is steadily decreasing, and the younger ones do not share as much of the fear and hatred typical of Lindsey Graham's Angry White Guys. So it will happen, along with all of the other issues that Republicans and Libertarians are on the wrong side of.

    First, common-sense safety regulations, background checks, and scientific study of gun safety as a public health issue. Later, some form of state-level registration that the FBI and ATF can query, preferably with a safety test for the owner. I would favor taking ballistic samples from every gun, to be kept by state law enforcement wherever the gun is sold and resold.

    Confiscation, don't be ridiculous. That's right up with UN black helicopters, death panels, FEMA concentration camps, and the 9/11 false flag operation.

    Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

    by Mokurai on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 10:41:41 AM PST

    •  I prefer "massacre prevention" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ban nock

      Repurposing "gun safety" smacks of patronizing manipulation, and of the kind that leaves voters feeling their intelligence has just been insulted.  There's no conviction behind it.

      I'm also sick and tired of how we abuse the term "common sense," especially when applied to the half measures the current crop of gun control advocates push.  If you want common sense regulation, get behind a ban.  A gun is a gun is a gun, and there's no reason why any civilian should have one absent some compelling extenuating circumstances.

      •  recced for thruthfulness (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rduran, DavidMS

        “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

        by ban nock on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 03:54:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Refreshing honesty (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose
        If you want common sense regulation, get behind a ban.  A gun is a gun is a gun, and there's no reason why any civilian should have one absent some compelling extenuating circumstances.
        At least you have the guts to say what most of your peers won't.
        •  Refreshingly stupid, don't you mean? What I find (0+ / 0-)

          truly interesting is how the gun crowd is in it's own little bubble where guns and ammo and shop talk reign.

          Have any of you idiots heard of a guy named Pope Francis? He's changing the tenor of politics and pushing the debate leftward, in other words, a ban will be in the cards in maybe 4 to 5 years and you extremists will be relegated to the dust bin of history as the NRA's useful idiots.

          Think about that one, numb nuts.

  •  Proud of John Morse: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jedennis

    Just a few minutes ago, Senator Evie Hudak resigned from the Colorado State Senate. As you are likely aware, the gun lobby was mounting a recall effort against her just as they did me. In my case, they were paying $3 a signature and in Evie’s case they upped the ante to $5. Evie resigned to ensure her replacement is a Democrat so the Republicans cannot take over the Colorado State Senate—they remain one seat short.

    I suspect that with the Republicans needing just one more seat, the recalls are not over. And that is not good news since it has recently been reported that Republicans in the Colorado Legislature intend to introduce bills in the next legislative session that will undo all the work we did to make Colorado safer from gun violence. With a majority they can pass those bills through the Senate.

    Will you help us keep that from happening by contributing $10 or more today?

    In Colorado we passed five common sense pieces of gun legislation including background checks and a magazine limit that requires a shooter to reload after cranking out 15 rounds.

    Earlier this week, the Connecticut State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Danbury issued its report on the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. In it they disclosed that the shooter used several 30-round magazines. We know from earlier reports that each child was shot at least three, and some as many as eleven times with bullets coming out of these high-capacity magazines feeding the military style assault weapon the shooter was using.

    Magpul, the manufacturer of those magazines, is headquartered in Erie, Colorado, about 15 miles north of Denver. Magpul fought our efforts to limit the size of high-capacity magazines vociferously, and declared that if the bill became law they would move from Colorado and take their 200 or so jobs with them.

    The bill became and remains law, even in spite of the recalls. And, Magpul remains in Colorado. So, now we know the truth, Magpul made the magazines that made it possible for the Newtown shooter to kill 26 people in less than 11 minutes and they were lying about leaving Colorado if we implemented common sense limits on the size of magazines sold in Colorado.

    But the Republicans will try to roll back the limits and permit Magpul to sell these magazines in Colorado. We can’t let that happen!

    Will you help us win this fight by contributing $10 or more today? We know this is going to be a tough battle, but with your help we can win it. Thank you for your kind attention. I am, as always,

    Sincerely yours,

    John P. Morse

    Former President, Colorado State Senate
    President, Americans for Principled Leadership

    •  Stunning hypocrisy from Morse (6+ / 0-)
      In Colorado we passed five common sense pieces of gun legislation including background checks and a magazine limit that requires a shooter to reload after cranking out 15 rounds.
      The part he leaves out is "unless you live in another state, because we made an exception that allows that evil Magpul company to keep making those evil 30-round magazines of child-killing as long as they're sold outside Colorado, presumably to other child-killers".

      Here's the provision from the bill that allows the continued manufacture of 30-round murder magazines in Colorado:

      A large-capacity magazine that is manufactured in Colorado on or after the effective date of the bill must include a serial number and the date upon which the large-capacity magazine was manufactured or assembled. The serial number and date must be legibly and conspicuously engraved or cast upon the outer surface of the large-capacity magazine.
      So, as long as the manufacture/assembly date is cast on the magazine body, perfectly legal to make and export high-capacity schoolkid manglers to other states. Because a manufacture date stamped on the outside of a magazine totally would have stopped Sandy Hook from happening. Morse is scapegoating Magpul when this law he's crowing about specifically exempts an in-state manufacturer of 30-round magazines as long as they follow its provisions. "Principled leadership" indeed.
      •  So true - the gun lobby has such a tight grip (0+ / 0-)

        on the electorate that sensible legislation is sacrificed to the gun gods, and Morse did the write thing - don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That's life in politics. Good for him.

        You sound like you write PR copy for the NRA.

        •  Really? (7+ / 0-)

          As I've told some of your peers, I haven't had an NRA membership for almost 20 years now. Accusations like this are just a way to shut down discussion by attacking the person when you can't argue with what they're saying.

          Nobody forced Morse to "sacrifice to the gun gods". He and the other legislators made their own decision on both the law and the exception they made for a company he's now lambasting as enabling a mass shooter. By his own logic, he and those other legislators are just as responsible as Magpul. There's a huge logical disconnect between "These magazines are only good for murder, so they should be illegal" and "We'll let you keep making them here as long as you sell them elsewhere.". You can call that NRA propagandizing all you want but that's not going to change the disingenuous nature of what Morse is saying.

          •  Blah, blah, blah - no need to discuss anything (0+ / 0-)

            here, it's just a non-stop merry-go-round and talk is cheap.

            Go make your case out in public, in front of voters in broad daylight and try to persuade them to see things your way in 2014 and 2016.

            •  Yes, talk is cheap (5+ / 0-)

              When the rubber met the road, Hudak didn't believe her case was strong enough with the public to weather a recall. Despite all the talk about how supposedly Colorado voters are on her side.

              •  A recall election is not a true election - she (0+ / 0-)

                saw the GOP abusing the recall process and trying to take back power. They paid $5 a signature - you don't think they were appealing to any and all people who have an axe to grind with the Dems - not just on guns, but on ANY issue.

                You can't be that naive, can you?

                •  it sure as hell is real (5+ / 0-)

                  and the losses have us teetering on the edge of losing the state senate.

                  Yesterday is History, Tomorrow is a Mystery. Today is a gift and that's why it's called "The Present".

                  by elkhunter on Thu Nov 28, 2013 at 08:09:00 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's politics. This is about passing rational, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TheFern

                    sensible gun safety legislation - not winning elections for the sake of winning elections.

                    There was nothing radical about any of the policy passed, in fact the Colorado state GOP passed the same background check policy 10 years ago.

                    The problem lies with those wavering Dems such as the diarist who can't bring themselves to support doing the right thing and who continue to confuse people by equating gun safety legislation with gun confiscation.

                    •  that's politics&it's not about winning elections? (0+ / 0-)

                      what the heck is that supposed to mean??

                      to me it's about wishing in one hand, shitting in another and seeing which one fills up first. fantasy vs. reality.

                      i'm not saying anything about the specifics of the policy, i'm just saying it's not going to fly and the democratic party will only end up in worse shape if it pursues the matter.

                      colorado, as with healthcare the first policy should be to get our foot into the door before trying to make major changes. don't blow it while we are still a way purple state.

                      i care which way colorado goes, but it sounds like that doesn't matter to you.

                      Yesterday is History, Tomorrow is a Mystery. Today is a gift and that's why it's called "The Present".

                      by elkhunter on Sat Nov 30, 2013 at 02:01:25 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I care about kids not having to participate (0+ / 0-)

                        in "active shooter" drills at school - WHAT PART OF "WHAT KIND OF FUCKED UP WORLD DO WE LIVE IN WHEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE 4, 5, 6 YEAR OLDS ON UP HIDE IN CLOSETS AS SCHOOL TO PRACTICE THEIR SKILLS TO STAY ALIVE AGAINST A LUNATIC WITH AN AR-15 WITH 30+ ROUND CLIPS AND 100S OF ROUNDS OF AMMO" don't you get?

                        Honestly - WHAT KIND OF FUCKED UP WORLD IS THIS? And you want to sit back and let that be the status quo?

                        Fuck you.

                •  Call for an election over a right, then reject (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Kasoru, MertvayaRuka

                  the results of three elections.

                  Stunning inconsistency.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 07:38:18 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hey Frank - you're back! Welcome. I guess the (0+ / 0-)

                    call went out from NRA HQ and your answered it, well done.

                    About that recall - what's going on here is a pack of losers not getting their way, and instead of respecting the process - ie, recalling for a true indiscretion, they are using the recall as a way to gain power. In other words, they can't persuade a majority of people to see things their way in the real election, so they have to rely on underhanded, shadowy BS because that's all they've got.

                    BTW, I'm actually on the side of the Colorado state GOP, which has told the recallers to stop.

                    •  I am! Thanks for the welcome! (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MertvayaRuka

                      But about your post:

                      "instead of respecting the process"
                      There was a process. In fact, it is written in Colorado law.
                      It's called the 'recall process'. Though never used before in the 137 year history of Colorado, after your 'big winner', it has now been used three times in less than one year.

                      "as a way to gain power"
                      A way that your 'great idea' opened the door for.

                      "they can't persuade a majority of people to see things their way"
                      Not before your 'big winner'. Now, even in districts that voted for Obama by 19 points & with a 6-1 spending advantage, Democrats can't even manage to keep from losing elections in non-election years.

                      "underhanded, shadowy BS"
                      It was hardly 'shadowy', in fact it was a national fucking news story. Apparently you missed it.

                      "I'm actually on the side of the Colorado state GOP, which has told the recallers to stop."
                      And you handed them 3 victories.
                      Great Job.
                      But glad to see that you have already contradicted yourself about this being done some 'shadowy' group 'looking to gain power', and you have acknowledged that it is their constituents that are spearheading the recalls.

                      "what's going on here is a pack of losers..."
                      A pack of three, to be exact.
                      A pack of three that lost their jobs, thanks to you.

                      "the call went out from NRA HQ"
                      Yes. And they had to send their best for such a genius post.
                      Well played, worthy adversary.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 08:06:32 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't (5+ / 0-)

              come from here, and you have no skin in this game. It's our legislature, and we've taken a long time to get it so we have both houses, and some outsider saying "blah blah blah" really doesn't cut it.

              If you had something to contribute to the comments or the CO Democratic prospects that would be great, but "blah blah blah" is less than useless.

              Let me know when you can start helping to elect Democrats here.

              “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

              by ban nock on Thu Nov 28, 2013 at 08:49:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hey Ban Nock - looks like you called in the posse (0+ / 0-)

                to swoop in a few days after your post, sort of like the recallers who can't win a real election and have to do it in the shadows.

                And, could you do me a favor and stop saying that gun safety legislation will lead to confiscation. That's muddying the waters and lying about the intent of gun safety advocates.

                Thanks much.

                And, if you paid much attention to Colorado politics, you'd know I'm actually on the side of the state GOP, which has told the recallers to stop.

                •  ban nock didn't say it. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Kasoru, ban nock

                  The Senator that introduced the most recent gun ban, (voted on earlier this year) did.
                  "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that."--Diane Feinstein

                  "gun safety"
                  Gun safety is the safe handling of firearms.
                  What you are espousing is 'Gun Control'--' regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns '-Merriam-Webster
                  But great job accusing others of 'muddying the waters' while you are unable to use the actual definitions of words.

                  "I'm actually on the side of the state GOP"
                  You most certainly are.
                  After all, you insist on a policy that has managed to get 3 Democrats recalled.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 08:20:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Now, now Franklin - aren't you the one who (0+ / 0-)

                    proclaims its a mortal sin to take people's liberty away for anything. Yes, you did say that. Of course, you're a complete hypocrite because you claim to have voted for Obama - King of the NSA.

                    Now, why don't you just admit the gun lobby pays you to post here.

                    Actually, Ban Nock, did say that - try reading, it helps.

                    Gun safety legislation rules!!!!!

                    And, again, try reading - the Colorado state GOP has asked the lunatic recallers to stop - something about looking extreme and overreaching.

                    See, the real idiots in all of this you people such as yourself and the diarist who cannot grasp the concept of a wedge issue - FYI, IT'S THE GOP WHO IS AT WAR WITH EXTREME CONSERVATIVES OVER GUN SAFETY.

                    You morons are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

                •  Hilarious (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose
                  And, could you do me a favor and stop saying that gun safety legislation will lead to confiscation. That's muddying the waters and lying about the intent of gun safety advocates.
                  Wouldn't be half as funny reading this if so many of your "gun safety advocates" weren't either on record as wanting confiscation or if their ideal models for "gun safety" weren't all countries that actually enacted confiscation. Please continue to treat people like they're barely-conscious morons, it's a winning strategy.
                  •  I love those make em' ups - universal background (0+ / 0-)

                    checks, limits on magazine capacity, keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, requiring cancel carry permitting to be done in person - wow, radical stuff, the second coming of Hiltler or something, right?

                    Nice try again Merty.

                    Hilarious!

      •  Absolutely stupid law (6+ / 0-)

        Colorado residents can cross the border and buy 30 round magazines in sporting goods stores with no restrictions.  If they can find them, that is.  So many are being purchased that they sell out as soon as a shipment arrives.  Popular calibers of ammunition are the same.  My local stores haven't had 22 ammunition on the shelf for months, and they restrict sales to two boxes of any single caliber per person.  They get ammunition in and sell out in a matter of hours.  I'm actually surprised that tag-holders found enough ammunition to sight in and hunt with this year, because the only thing consistently available is for shotguns.

  •  Important diary - for its honesty (0+ / 0-)

    It's important to understand that when a person says that they want to elect more and better Dems they might mean something very different than you do. This is admirable for its honesty and a willingness to put one personal perspective squarely on the table.

    It appears that some believe that "more and better Dems" means we should cede the whole basket of gun rights/gun regulations to the NRA/GOP and activists judges.

    Colorado is complex, politically, as are most states, and I have nothing specifically to offer on political tactics for Colorado Dems, but a directive to "shut up and don't talk about it" doesn't strike me as appropriate on a progressive Democratic website.

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Sun Dec 01, 2013 at 04:14:43 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site