democracy, this is attempted mob rule, bought and paid for by the nra and associated nutters.

If Colorado doesn't want recalls why did they create a legal regime for having one?

nutters have been doing?

What difference does that make? It's my understanding that some citizens in Colorado are attempting to recall their state legislator in accordance with applicable Colorado state law. I don't see that as a threat to democracy but as it's very essence.

Let me ask you a question or two. Did you support the attempted recall of Republican legislators in Wisconsin? If so, why was that a valid action and this is not?

and be aghast at the hatred evinced by the nutters who freaked out at what LEGITIMATELY ELECTED officials did, with voter approval. goes both ways, you know.

then again, since you do not live here, you do not have to live with the consequences of what these "exercising their democratic rights" nutters are doing here.

For example, I find the title of this thread typical of the FUD tossed around by gun haters.

Here's a theoretical question: can a gun nut who supports the rights of those who commit violent crimes against women over law-abiding female citizens really be a liberal? That's a very odd notion of liberalism.

Shouldn't you consider that disconcerting? Oh damn. There I am thinking I should actually have a right to live. Silly me.

the gunners in the previous recall was "a legitimate expression of democracy"? or the fact that many housebound, or disabled people, amoung others, were not able to vote? or the fact that these recalls are costing the citizens of this state so much money that is needed elsewhere (you know, for things like dealing with fires, floods, hundreds of miles of damaged roads, thousands of lost homes, etc., etc.)

You did not live through Columbine and Aurora. I did.

I have lived here in Colorado all my life. What Morse, Giron and Hudak has done is reasonable and sane.

Magpul has not pulled out six months after the fact. They are now selling 15 round magazines like hotcakes.

Most of the sane voters here in and nationwide support complete background checks.

Do you?

what was the disconnect? Does the issue really generate much passion on the pro-gun control side?

I'd imagine many women in Texas who are being threatened to have their right to choose denied may think "democracy is messy" merely trivializes and minimizes those to whom rights are in fact, being denied, and may feel the the legal course the men of the GOP are taking is a wee bit more than "disconcerting".

R's are using recall elections to change valid election results just because they didn't win. They know that the percentage of people that will show up to a recall election is very low and that most people don't pay that much attention to them. So all they have to do is make sure to get the word out to their voting block and they are able to recall a Dem and get an R elected as a replacement.

So you're getting a changed election result done by something like 13% of the people. And, it's not because the person did anything wrong, it's just because R's don't like losing. So they can just keep having recalls until they like the results. That is absolutely NOT the essence of democracy.

And who pays for all these special elections?

I just saw a segment on this, must have been on Maddow, not that long ago.

I'm shocked that anyone here could possibly call such a painfully obvious abuse of the system "democracy".

who were collecting sigs. they got really mad when I asked where they were from, absolutely furious when I would check out their license plates, and almost incoherent with rage when I asked if they had no objections to children being killed by the dozens with guns.

Recalls.

abide having to do sane things like register their damned guns, or not have endless rounds of ammunition for things whose sole purpose is killing. recalls bought and paid for by hate-filled outsiders who indulged in lies, fear-mongering and hysteria to get their way. yep, a really valid election result.

The gun radicals in this senate district want to overthrow the results of the last election.

Perhaps not violently at this stage, but they are "rising up" against the regular process of government.

Recalls are allowed by law. The state constitution was enacted by democratic process and the subsequent laws regulating recall elections were passed by duly elected representatives.

I can't help but think people are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Democracy includes the judicial branch, and the courts have ruled that felons and those with restraining orders don't have a right to access to guns--even when they use them to commit violence against women, the part of the human race the gun lobby clearly wants to see eliminated, as these measures demonstrate.

So much for law abiding gun owners. The gun lobby and their lackeys work to ensure every felon and criminal has unfettered rights to guns. The entire enterprise is pro-criminal. Justifying this is beneath contempt.

The only thing I've seen from the pro-RKBA is that women should feel empowered to defend themselves.

this new law made some changes to make it easier to enforce but it was already law. I doubt this was the singular issue that triggered the recall - if the law went away it would still be illegal for DV offenders to own guns

That would be the corporate gun lobby and misogynists.

Last edited Thu Oct 24, 2013, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

by making sure violent felons who target women have unfettered access to guns. That's an interesting conception of democracy you have. Many would call it femicide. It truly is horrifying when women think they have a right to breathe air. Leave it to the gun lobby to make sure that is done away with.

Please show where those protecting the right of women to defend themselves petition for felons to own guns.

I do not understand this warped mentality that says women.with violent abusers are allowed to A) take their best chance in a fist fight B) get a worthless piece or paper or C) shut-up and take it like a good girl because NRA-BLARBLE!!! All these stupid laws accomplish is to leave women like Amanda Collins defenseless.

there was a sidebar that said the party may ask her to step down so they can appoint someone else to the seat. do you know anything about this?

It is a legal process but it is being abused. It is a hateful mob of gun owners who did not get their way on gun safety. I have been on the protest line and ID myself as a Vietnam Era Vet. It seems to make no difference in that I have gotten more one finger salutes in one day than I ever did since I returned from Vietnam 45 years ago. These people and their supporters have NO respect.

We are now fully engaged in trying stop the nullification and character assassination of a fine Senator with over 30 years of public service. The electorate spoke a year ago and these people do not respect either the flag or elections. They are a pack of liars in what they are saying about our Senator.

Ironically, the signed sponsor of this recall called us all a bunch of "brown shirts" on the David Boyle show today. No surprise because Boyle is a local RW hack. I consider what this supposed leader said an insult because Evie is Jewish.

These thugs will go to any length to have their way. Ultimately they want to abolish the gun safety bills passed in the last legislative session. People need to refuse to sign this recall. It is a phony recall because our Senator only did her job. These recallers disrespect democracy. Only 13% of the voters down south decided the recall. And our Secretary of State did all he could to rig the election. He is our Blackwell.

These people are gun extremists supported by the NRA. They want guns on campus, for rapists, abusers and no background checks when we have had two horrendous massacres in Colorado. And as I said before unless this nonsense stops here it will go on to other parts of the country. And BTW there are plans to recall 2 or 3 more of our Senators over the same issue next spring.

It won't stop unless we smash this fraudulent recall attempt. These people are mean and hateful people. They are not the kind of people I want to even be around. After my two days of protest on the street I find them completely disgusting human beings.

This recall is just another way to have never ending continuous elections until they get their candidates in. I saw John Morse on TV this evening. He was gracious about it but he was targeted and screwed because they gamed the process and sent out PAID canvassers after the grass roots attempt began to fail. And we have discovered at least one canvasser who is not telling people what they are signing. The meme that the recallers were outspent is a damned lie because Bloombergs money came in only that 34 days of the recall. The NRA and hidden money were spending money from the previous March. And because the money coming in is SECRET they probably put up to a million dollars on that recall. But we will never know because it is SECRET money.

As far as the other poster goes they are completely ignorant of what they are talking about. They are probably a troll.

registration forms. She was busted red handed. Couldn't that happen again?

The rumor is he allowed some bad signatures on the recall lists.

And yet someone forged her name on the morse/giron recall petition.

I'm waiting to kick out our ethically challenged asshole named Gessler who has no business being a SoS.

who was completely useless as an appointed city council member, and now. . .

oh, once I saw that statement about hatred, I remembered having seen similar from that poster before.

Has someone lined up?

Is Morse's district include Manitou Springs area? Only liberal oasis in the sea of red down there.

rest of this county.

I'd be surprised if they were...

My knowledge of western areas around Colorado Springs is limited.. Ask me about western areas in Denver, and I'll tell ya

But in 2004, I found a Coloradans for Howard Dean somewhere in Sedalia on the highway. I had heard about it, and drive out in the middle of nowhere to find it and take a photograph. Alas, that photograph is long gone.

... to lump all veterans into your word salad.

Democracy... What's the deal with that?!

Plenty of states have those laws already, and there's no problem with them.

I'm going to guess that it's because of the laws on magazine limits and the other stuff that was passed post-Aurora. Stuff that is generally viewed as useless, pandering legislation, or as a symbolic shot in a culture war.

More details would be appreciated.

But if it's because of magazine limits, then you have to ask yourself "was limiting magazine capacities worth losing the state legislature to Republicans?"

a clue. but, nice try.

What gun-control laws did Colorado pass in the wake of Aurora?

Okay, looks like it was a universal background check law, and the magazine-capacity limit.


So, the OP's title was incorrect and inflammatory. "If you're against background checks, you're for pedophiles and rapists and wifebeaters to own guns" is a gross mischaracterization.

I'm going to take a risk and say it was the attempt to ban so-called "assault weapons" in Colorado earlier this year, combined with the magazine-capacity limit that did pass, that triggered the pro-gun people to recall two lawmakers that voted for those bills.

people whose agendas are so obvious. but, as I said to another, keep trying, I seriously need the laughs.

Fortunately, now there's a group here for that.



I thank you for being polite.

...enforced those laws would be a plus. Maybe defunding the one that arrests people for making mistakes on a 4473 and facilitates the transfer of firearms to foreign drug lords and using that money for something constructive would be a good idea.

It's called the law:

Why so much anger toward this woman?

I for one dislike government wasting money enacting redundant, confusing and/or even contradictory laws and measures.

This article in the Daily Record highlights a bit of popular disdain:

that sees women's lives as inconsequential in comparison to gun totting rapists, batterers and murders. When misogyny is made lethal by guns, women die, which is clearly the goal. Yet more evidence that the gun lobby represents evil itself.

...in our differences of opinion on the GC/RKBA topic. I'm not sure which issue you're pursuing here but I'd be happy to discuss anything with you that you care to articulate.

On another topic I, personally, don't like the idea of recalls. IMHO the only lawful recourse to a lawfully elected official should be impeachment.

not you.

their weapon taken and used on them. The conclusion was that being armed did not help in a rape situation. The witness was a ringer and the RW could not handle the fact that the witness was wrong about being armed helped prevent assault. In fact having a gun often made matters worse.

...the know how to or experience with driving is of no help either. In fact trying to drive during an emergency when you don't know how will generally make matters worse also.

They were mad because she exposed their witness and proved her wrong about being armed stopping rape. The stat Evie brought up was accurate.

Unless you hurt these people politically in some way and smash face them they will not get it. They are going to over run you no matter how reasonable you are. What most people do not understand is that you have to get i their face.

As I said earlier their leadership got on radio and called us protesters a bunch of "brown shirts" taking away their freedom. My reply would be yes I will take away your version of freedom. Their version of freedom is forcing their will on everyone else.

- "...mad..."
- "...hurt these people..."
- "...smash face..."
- "...you have to get i their face..."
- "...called us protesters a bunch of "brown shirts"..."

This all sounds like a bit too much emo drama. As I said upthread I think she made herself a convenient target. (weakest link so to speak)

You're better than that tired old car analogy. It is possible to be a gun owner and 2a defender and not support the gun lobby's efforts to put guns in the hands of rapists and abusers. You don't need to defend everything about guns.

For example, I support women's rights, but that doesn't mean I have to support everything every woman does. Some things are just wrong.

...I can tell you that the analogy fits.

Carrying a firearm and having little or no training/experience with one is about as useful as owning a car have no training or experience driving. But there's nothing special about the car analogy. An analogy about a airplane or a compound miter saw would work just as well.

That is the point of this OP, not your chevy.

The car analogy is completely idiotic, but leave that aside for purposes of this discussion. How does any of it justify making sure these men have access to weapons to better rape and kill women like me?

..."make sure rapists and batters DON"T have access to guns." I like that idea. As I've already highlighted, we already have such a law and I don't see the point in making an additional redundant law.

There is no law mentioned or quoted in the OP. There is a statement about rape statistics where victims have their own weapons used against them. I addressed the fact that the statistic ignores those armed rape targets who defended themselves successfully. See #59.

As I've said the proposed law is not in the OP nor is a link and I don't have enough interest to speculatively search for what may or may not be the indirect focus of the OP. It does appear that the individual in question (Hudak) misspoke or was sufficiently unclear so as to offend someone or at least have those remarks seen as offensive. If there has been a retraction, correction or restatement, I haven't seen it. If the topic here is to imply that 'the gun lobby' has as a goal ensuring that these criminals have access to firearms, I haven't seen any convincing evidence of that either.

Politicians speak for a living. There will always be the temptation for them to say something when they unprepared or to say more than they are prepared to say. It's an unfortunate situation if that's what has happened. That said I don't live there. If this person is in favor of UBCs that hasn't been mentioned but would be a step toward the stated goal.

If you don't like the idea, why do you come here and yet again defend the gun lobby? All they care about care about is making money off guns. Facts are clear: women are far more likely to be the target of a gun in the home than use it for self defense. That, is in fact, what Hudack said that drew such controversy. There is nothing the gun cultists hate more than facts.

"to pretend the gun lobby gives a fuck about rape victims is laughable" - Who did that? Not me.

"why do you come here and yet again defend the gun lobby" - #71 is my sole reference to "the gun lobby". The point of that post was me observing that this contained no specific evidence that "the gun lobby" doesn't "give a fuck about rape victims". If you have a problem with me pointing that out, make a better case. And why is the issue to vilify "the gun lobby"?

In my opinion, you prefer that folks remain unarmed and since "the gun lobby" and I and some others folks disagree with you, you find it simpler to view us all as enemies of your POV and allies with each other. The fact that some of my opinions are equivalent to the opinions of some folks who contribute to or even serve on the board of the NRA. I respect Wayne L's right to have an opinion. I didn't made it though his video address last December because A (he's rather boring) and B (he has nothing new to say). I am not an ally, defender or advocate for "the gun lobby".

The fact that there are folks here (yourself included) opposing my opinions on a number of issues from the ACA to Zoos makes me happy. Without debate and discussion an important aspect of Democracy dies. I can't stand the thought of someone working hard as Charlie Manson's lawyer but I'm glad he had one. The people of this country have two major parties that oppose each other on a number of issues. On some they agree but the debate gets people to think. MSM political news should focus more on what elected officials and candidates have to say.

In mid November of 1863 newspapers carried the text of Lincoln's speech at Gettysburg and the text of featured speaker, Edward Everett. On reading the reports in the papers afterward, Lincoln considered his short address a failure on his part and told Everett as much in a letter. Everett replied, "I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes." When will our reporters, commentators and journalists accept that certain speeches and writings of leaders say what they say and that, while it's satisfying to read of a well known journalist that agrees with us, it might mean a more to read principally what our leaders are saying and decide if they agree with us. Sometimes less is more.

...now that I'm not so tired:

The statistic ("85% Of Armed Women Who Were Raped Had their weapon taken and used on them.&quot ignores the subset of armed women who were attacked and resisted the rapist managing to avoid being raped. If you begin by looking at only the group of those citizens successfully victimized, you need to look for a common element that contributed to their victimization.

There is an FBI statistic that says of assault victims who resist with a gun are much less likely to be injured in the incident.

What's your agenda anyway?

It has been for decades.
Please link to the source for your information.