We chose Georgia to be closer to family. Whoops! Now were stuck in a state voting to allow guns everywhere, even by those who may have mental health issues instead of Colorado where curbing gun violence is taken seriously.

We'd love to have you. We have our share of nutters too, though. After all, this is still the Wild West in certain people's minds.

The NRA is the lobby for the gun industry. They make huge gains by telling the teabirchers that the scary black Muslim president is going to take their guns and their country. Trust me, I know these fools.

Hope you enjoy it -- you certainly are a welcome addition with that smart post!

Gun crime will go down and there will be no more rampage killings in the state.

Right?

Think I'll dust off my 8 track John Denver

My rep assures me this is just the beginning.

and the privatization and take-over of public education by corporate deformers?

to take the corrupt deforms of the corporatocracy down.

Paying attention to state politics rather than obsessing over the Presidency pays off!

We have 2 Democratic senators that can't wait to cut Social Security benefits. My democratic congressman, (Perlmutter) agrees with them. And don't forget about Governor Frackenlooper. Don't be fooled, most Colorado democrats are NOT progressive.

Happy, happy, joy,joy, thread.
everything is OK
Happy, happy, joy, joy

Few Democrats are as liberal as I am, but I think both senators are competent as it Perlmutter and I don't think they'll cut social security benefits. Watch Andrew Romanoff take on that fool Coffman in 2014. now, there's a real liberal.

But dang, them GOPers can make it hard to take them seriously!

2014 is going to be a very interesting year in Colorado. And I couldn't be prouder to be a native!

I predict even more will lose their seats over their absurd display last night.

legally liable for damages failed....

Works in progress. Enjoy the win today, more to come.

Both are about political wins against "gun nuts" and "gun culture", as opposed to good lawmaking and public policy.

Thank goodness SOMEONE speaks in their defense!

Far more than non-gun owners.

The Republican Party is imploding. Do you really want to re-energize them with ineffective legislation passed by Democrats only looking for a 2014 campaign edge and a fundraising letter bullet-point?


If you're willing to pass useless legislation simply to strike a blow in the "culture war" then you're no better, or different, than the transvaginal ultrasound people.

Which is how we got where we are. Polling shows overwhelming support for various weapon regulations, and despite the NRA we are putting reasonable controls in place

is to hit them in their pocket book. Unfortunately, they are realizing record profits this quarter compared to last year

to see a lot of good union manufacturing jobs disappear. Who do you think works in those factories?

the weapons that were designed for use only by the military.

"Weapons that were designed for use only by the military", are not an issue, nor are they the subject of the gun debate in any way.


That being the case, one can only ask - What are you talking about?

Several of those who gave testimony couched the discussion in "no one needs these outside the military." Had you paid attention -- or were you actually here for an earnest discussion -- you'd know that.

But please, continue. Your position on these matters is fascinating.

You're free to change your own words, and move your own goalposts, but these particular words aren't yours to change, and they are quite specific:

"Weapons that were designed for use only by the military"

Keywords being "designed for use only by the military".


Perhaps you should concentrate on understanding the meaning of those words, rather than trying to change their plain meaning, and insinuating that I am not here for earnest discussion.

Earnest discussion, robb, means acknowledging falsehoods, even when that acknowledgement comes at odds with your position, rather than attacking the person - Me - that points out those falsehoods.

So make it clear, to everyone thats going to read this, whether You are interested in earnest discussion, or not.

I wasn't questioning the "testimony", I was responding to the words of another poster. If I had meant the testimony, it would be crystal clear, that thatis what I was referring to.

Then again, using those newfangled quotation thingies, quoting another poster, tips off most people who are earnestly interested in discussion, as to what someone is referring to, and calling into question.

Others, not so much.

Which part of the OP or the testimony for that matter, establishes as fact (opinion just doesn't cut it) that any of the firearms or accessories in question, are "designed for use only by the military."


Good luck.

Finally, some clear air on this.

If you want to call it that.


There are some proposed gun-control laws that are reasonable and effective. There are some that are not reasonable but that are created by politicians for political gain.

Feinstein's new assault-weapons ban is one of them. It is designed to "do something". It is designed to give the appearance of progress, of "taking on the gun lobby", and to give its supporters a positive public image and, by extension, positives press and an influx of campaign funds. I can prove this quite simply: in her proposal, there is a two-page list of specific semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines that are exempted from being defined as an "assault weapon", as well as a general statement that legalizes any semiauto rifle fed from detachable magazines as long as they don't have certain cosmetic features.

I am for reasonable and effective gun laws. However, after Newtown, the knee-jerk reaction was to re-institute a national ban on assault weapons. This was despite the fact that there has been an AWB continuously in effect in Connecticut since 1994, and the gun used at Newtown was not an "assault weapon". It was a Connecticut-legal semiautomatic rifle.

Pointing this out got me called a RW troll, a gun-worshipper, a child-killer, etc.

A ban on protruding pistol grips is not reasonable or effective.

There are gun control laws that I am for that the GOP is not, but I'm sure it's more fun waving the tar brush at me.

And tech-spec quibbling with gun control advocates in the immediate wake of a child slaughter.

Yeah, I can't imagine how you ran into trouble with that plan. You're the real victim here, why can't people see that?

How's that drone program going? Do you support Obama's appointee for Attorney General?


Do you support facts? When a gun nut is factually correct, will you admit it?

It would certainly seem quite an accomplishment, and one that at least briefly would set him apart from the rest of his kind.

But even if I found him at first amusing, at the end of the day I'd feel just a bit sad about the whole encounter. And I surely wouldn't seek the bear's expert opinion on designing the next Tour de France.

Your facts are FACTS, and my facts are _facts.


It feels good to have a kind of person that you can denigrate at will, doesn't it? Especially when doing so will get you the cheers and accolades of others, right?

Thank goodness they have at least one advocate.

I had thought DUers were more sophisticated than that, but I guess not. Not after I was told that gun owners need to keep their own in line.

Well, at least now you know why so many people enjoyed hating Muslims and Arabs after 9/11... positive reinforcement and social approval. After all, AMERICANS were the real victims, right? And those darn Muslims should be keeping their own in line!


And your weekly posting... you do realize that you diminish all other social problems when you classify things simply as "gun violence", right?


Domestic abuser shoots wife... gun problem. Not domestic abuse, of course.

Drug dealer shoots drug user... gun problem. Not a War on Drugs problem, of course.

Drug user shoots store clerk... gun problem. Not a War on Drugs problem, of course.

Bankrupt father shoots family... gun problem. Not an economic problem, of course.

Man rapes woman at gunpoint... gun problem. Not a sexism problem, of course.

Again, I don't understand why you're not being recognized as the real victim in the gun debate.

If only there was some kind of association that could leap to the rescue and defend the maligned, misunderstood and hounded-to-near-extinction gun nut.

Alas.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, though. I should be used to it by now, seeing as how the gun control proponents love to "know" gun owners and their views and opinions. It's how I found out I owned an arsenal of AR-15s to take on the federal government and restore America to it's white, Christian, male heritage. Until that time, though, I just masturbate to it several times a day after reading a few pages from "The Turner Diaries" or watching "Red Dawn". And that I carry a pistol for the express purpose of legally killing a non-white person one day. If I'm lucky, I'll be able to kill two or three of the fuckers!



If you experience joy at laws passed to make gun ownership more onerous solely because you think the law strikes at gun owners culture or whatever, then you're supporting persecution. You can rub a little salve on yourself perhaps, telling yourself that "hey, it will save lives". Bush and Cheney have a whole closet full of that salve; see if they have any they'd like to give you.

Unfortunately, we need it to build more crosses.

It was boring when BushCo was flogging 9/11 victims, and it's boring now.


Must be nice, having a blood-drenched trump card you can throw out whenever you want to.

Obviously, there are other factors involved. Everyone recognizes that it is not only guns that cause gun violence. The difference is that pro-gun people stubbornly insist that guns do not, or can not possibly play a role, so we should ignore gun availability and only try and address non-gun causes.

How many times has a pro-gunner insisted that "a person dedicated to commit murder will kill regardless of weapon choice" or "someone who really wants to commit suicide will find a way", ignoring the fact that most murders are not committed by people who really want to commit murder, and that most suicidal impulses are temporary, and access to a gun often means the difference between life and death.

The fact that a domestic abuser shoots his wife is both a domestic abuse problem and a gun problem. Without the gun, the wife would likely still be alive. Similar with all of those examples. By all means, address domestic abuse -- nobody is saying that we shouldn't do that. But we should obviously also address the guns as well.

The big difference is there is no "domestic abuse lobby" that is insisting that we do absolutely nothing about domestic abuse, because domestic abuse doesn't kill people. But there is a gun lobby that insists that we do nothing about guns, despite very strong evidence that guns play a role in both homicide rates and suicide rates.

over and over again when bested on the facts in a debate on DU by those of us who oppose the NRA and support sensible gun legislation and policies.

The last one is political posturing.


Of course, none of these will deal in any way with mass shooting events, but will almost certainly save far more lives than a ban on protruding pistol grips.

against it, they whine and carry on like a baby. It's about time something (anything) has been done to regulate firearms in the insane environment that only rednecks feel is absolutely necessary for any kind of freedom whatsoever.

The paranoia surrounding this is just mental illness like any other kind of paranoia.

So get over it.

Because that certainly isn't me, and I doubt it's anybody else on DU.

and was very pleasantly surprised at just how progressive Denver is. I was there as part of a festival of gay and lesbian choruses and it was clear when we were on buses or the street that we were there for that and to a person we were treated with respect, politeness and dignity. I loved every second I was in Denver and would move there in a heart beat if the need arose.

Colorado!

thanks Robb

I wish great stories like this for every state.

Cheers Colorado!

nationwide as soon as we get the majority in the House!

It is a great comfort to those of us in the progressive movement to know that our grandchildren will live in a country with sane firearms laws and policies, like Canada and Great Britain.

We have to work very hard in a purple state with lots of Repubs but sometimes it pays off! It's only because we have elected a majority in both houses of the legislature that there's any chance we will actually pass some reasonable gun laws. Unfortunately, one of the good restrictions to keep guns off college campuses written by my rep and senator has been shot down by the gun guys who used the "fact" that it would be sexist because college women wouldn't be able to defend themselves. They convinced about l% of the students and faculty that carrying guns on campus would be a good idea but as usual money from the gun manufacturers spoke louder.

one being my state senator Randy Baumgardner, a dumbass yahoo who whoops it up with ALEC and the private prison industry. His claim to fame was wanting to introduce a bill last year similar to Arizona's 1070, but he didn't do it. Luckily our state rep is good. Our congressional district includes Boulder, which pretty much out votes the dominate Republicans in my county, so we luck out there.
That said, I sure am glad to see progress this year at the state level. They will also pass a marriage equality bill along with gun legislation, and I don't care what anyone says, it's not just "feel good" laws. These are real restrictions that can absolutely make a difference. We've got to start somewhere.