FUCK THE NRA, the gun-nut wing of the Republican Party.

[madinmaryland]

Ousting good Democratic representatives in the state of Colorado.

FUCK THE NRA.

[onehandle]

1. They expected to unseat four. They only got two.

They failed and will fail harder in the future.

[Llewlladdwr]

11. Do you have a link for that? nt

[onehandle]

16. Here...

Last edited Thu Sep 12, 2013, 01:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Gun nut activists initially sought to recall four Democrats they perceived as vulnerable, but only collected the required signatures to challenge Morse and Giron.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/colorado-recall-results_n_3903209.html

[Llewlladdwr]

20. Thank you.

So out of the two districts where enough signatures were collected both were recalled. Interesting...

[Mojorabbit]

25. Perhaps the constituents of that area spoke via the vote.

Would not happen where I live but...

[Llewlladdwr]

28. I believe that that's exactly what happened Mojorabbit.

I'm at the point where I'm enjoying watching the anti-gunners melt down over this.

[onehandle]

41. The Koch Brothers thank you for your support of their elected Democrat recall effort. nt

[onehandle]

38. Low turnout. The dumbest people in America seem to show up for those.

Last edited Thu Sep 12, 2013, 10:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Overwhelming smart people who show up faithfully.

Which is why Democrats win with higher turnouts.

See 2010.

[pintobean]

64. I show up for every election

Don't you? I would assume that most DUers do. Are we "the dumbest people in America"?

[onehandle]

80. I said that inartfully. Fixed it. nt

[wild bird]

109. If that's true,

then why didn't the smart people show up for this recall?
We could have won if the so called smart people had shown up, so it would seem to me that they are the dumb ones, they let a couple of Republicans replace Democrats.
That was really smart.

[GalaxyHunter]

114. Link is broken.

[onehandle]

122. Fixed it. nt

[GalaxyHunter]

125. Thank you!!

[MotherPetrie]

2. K&R

[NYC_SKP]

3. The voters ousted them. Recall opponents outspent the NRA side by almost than 5:1

You give the NRA too much credit and miss the bigger picture.

No figures on unreported support in this battle but recorded support yields this:

Opponents of the recall outspend supporters by almost 5:1.

And that effort failed.

The voters have spoken. It's time to be scientific about violent crime and look for cures to the causes and not employ bandaid feel-good gun laws that don't really help.

In this instance they hurt Democrats. I don't want to see more Democrats defeated.

Colo. recalls show risk of supporting gun control

By COLLEEN SLEVIN and MIKE BAKER
The Associated Press

DENVER -- Democratic voters in Colorado helped remove two state senators of their own party who voted for tighter gun control — an ouster that was both intensely local and a national test of what can happen to lawmakers who support gun restrictions in battleground states.

The well-organized activists who sought to recall Senate President John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron got the backing of gun-rights groups such as the National Rifle Association. It turned out they didn't need much assistance because voters were already so incensed by passage of the gun-control package.

Democrats, who maintain control of the Legislature, said the losses were purely symbolic. But they could be a sign of things to come in 2014, both in Colorado's governor's race and in scores of other political contests around the country.

After last year's mass shootings, Colorado was the only state beyond Democratic strongholds New York, California and Connecticut to pass gun-control legislation. Gun-control measures died in Congress, as well as Minnesota, Oregon, Washington and Delaware.

Outspent by about 5-to-1, recall supporters cited a big anti-recall donation from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to make one of their main points — that Democrats controlling the state Legislature were more interested in listening to the White House and outside interests than their own constituents.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/09/11/3619764/2-colo-lawmakers-ousted-in-gun.html#storylink=cpyhttp://www.miamiherald.com/2013/09/11/3619764/2-colo-lawmakers-ousted-in-gun.html

[madinmaryland]

5. Eventually, the NRA, gun-nutters, and Gun Industrial Complex will lose. Unfortunately, the GIC

and the MIC and the Corporate Complex are running this country and are hell-bent on creating more death for profit in this country.

[NYC_SKP]

7. With climate change and pending water and food shortages, I think we'll all go down together.

I'd be able to agree with you if all other things were likely to stay the same, but I think trends in resources and geopolitics suggest that concern about guns will be eclipsed by concerns about other more urgent matters.

It might not be a widely held view, but it's what I genuinely feel will happen.

[99Forever]

8. How much did the Koch brothers spend?

(Time to run and hide, gunlover.)

[NYC_SKP]

9. I believe that it has not been reported.

I think I read that unknown sums were provided to both sides and we won't know until later what they were and who provided them.

What is that about run and hide, gunlover?

What an odd thing to include in your reply.

[2ndAmForComputers]

52. Of course not. It'd make your side look bad and that victory you're celebrating less than perfect.

[NYC_SKP]

81. Wow. As if there are sides and as if I had control over campaign spending laws.

People who operate without facts and reason end up looking really goofy to the rest of the world.

And then they wind up having office holders removed from office.

This is one of those cases.

The constituents have spoken.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. Morse had his off-the-books contributors as well, including MAIG.

Which probably did more harm than good.

[Abq_Sarah]

12. A lot of Democrats in western states own firearms

A. Lot.

If certain Democratic lawmakers demagogue and demonize us, they shouldn't expect us to save their ass when the recall rolls around.

[wild bird]

13. And that's what happened here.

Democrats either stayed home or voted in favor of the recall, especially in Ms. Giron's district, which should have been a safe district.

[NYC_SKP]

14. Absolutely true. The gun ownership = right wing idea is bullshit.

Most good progressives I know understand that while we need to develop cohesive laws around gun ownership and use, we also need to protect the right to keep and bear arms.

There's just a particular contingent, not a majority but a very vocal minority, who push a certain narrow agenda.

It's really not successful and actually backfires more often than not.

[Mojorabbit]

26. I don't get it either

Every progressive I know but one has some sort of arms. The rhetoric gets really old.

[Llewlladdwr]

21. It's my understanding they aren't "real" Democrats then.

"Real" Democrats support authoritarian policies that are proven to be losers.

Just ask Bill Clinton...

[Mojorabbit]

164. Same thing in the south. nt

[HolyMoley]

4. If the "good Democratic representatives" had chosen more wisely

with regard to their gun control votes, they wouldn't have found themselves in this mess.
Simple as that.

Actions have consequences, and it has little or nothing to do with the NRA.

The NRA didn't "oust them"... the voters did.

[madinmaryland]

6. No. The NRA and the gun-nutters hi-jacked and ousted duly elected representatives.

It has EVERYTHING to do with NRA and those that has fetishes with their guns.

[wild bird]

10. No, the voters in those districts ousted them.

The problem was that Dems didn't show up in Morse's district and Dems helped to defeat Giron, which should have been an easy win for her, considering it's a blue district.

[madinmaryland]

18. No. The NRA ousted them. Without the influx of the NRA and Koch brothers money, they would not hav

been ousted. Who initiated the recall? THE FUCKING NRA and the Gun Industrial Complex. Is that who you are defending??

Apparently so.

[wild bird]

23. The NRA did initiate it,

but they were outspent by a margin of 6-1. Money had nothing to do with this.
I'm not defending anything, I'm just stating fact. The voters ousted these 2 Democrats, not the NRA.

Why didn't Democrats come out and vote against the recall? And in Ms. Giron's district, which is blue, why did she lose by 12 points despite outspending the opposition by a margin of 6-1?

You may not like the results, I am deeply disappointed that more Dems didn't vote to defeat this recall, but the blame lies squarely with the Colorado Democratic Party for not getting people to the polls.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. Save your breath-some people only hear what they want to hear...

[wild bird]

31. I know, but I tend to be pretty tenacious.

I understand the anger, but the anger is directed in the wrong direction.

[DanTex]

39. Those spending numbers don't include your friends the Koch Brothers.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you knew that and are simply lying, because I can't imagine that you wouldn't be aware of something this basic...

[hack89]

42. So what was all this secret money spent on? We know it was not TV or radio ads.

what else can you spend millions on to swing an election and not have it noticed?

[DanTex]

46. What part of "undisclosed" do you not understand?

I have no idea why you think the money wasn't noticed. Sure, the right-wing press where you apparently get your news probably didn't mention them, but virtually every article about the recall I've seen mentioned heavy involvement from AFP. The fact that you choose not to notice something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[hack89]

47. To influence the voters that money had to be spend on tangible things

like TV and radio ads. Since we know that it was not spend on TV and radio ads, what was it spent on?

It is not a hard question.

[DanTex]

49. So the gun blogs are saying they didn't spend money on ads?

You should probably check google before believing what you read there. For example:

Americans for Prosperity, the group funded by the Koch brothers, is also very active — it’s running the most aggressive field operation against the two senators, though it doesn’t have to report what it’s spending because it is technically only “educating” voters about the senators’ positions, not explicitly advocating for their recall.

According to the group, it has 70,000 members across the state, and its canvassers have made 5,000 phone calls and knocked on more than 3,500 doors. AFP’s literature doesn’t actually mention guns, but it portrays Morse as Bloomberg’s stooge. AFP also has run radio ads against Giron and is considering more. “We’re willing to invest some significant money,” a spokesperson for AFP’s Colorado chapter told the Colorado Springs Independent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/08/30/2016-republican-hopefuls-flock-to-koch-backed-conference/

Then there's also things like print ads, distributing flyers, phone calls, GOTV, etc. Not living in Colorado or working for AFP, I can't give you the breakdown.

Hmm. I wonder if this problem you have with the truth is related to your inability to figure out whether or not you are an NRA member? Could this be a pattern?

[hack89]

51. We know they spent about $400k. That will buy all those things you mention.

We are talking about the other millions that you are fixated on.

The issue is was the pro-recall side significantly outspent by Bloomberg and all the other outside money. The evidence says yes.

[DanTex]

53. Are you just making this up as you go?

Or are you simply afraid to post any links support your claims because you don't want anyone to see where you get your news?

I mean, after calling Koch involvement a "conspiracy" and then claiming that there were no AFP ads run, your credibility is somewhere below zero.

[hack89]

55. You are the one making unsubstantiated comments about millions of dollars.

I just thought you had some hard evidence. I should have known better.

[DanTex]

59. Where's the link about the $400k? So you admit you just made that up? I'll have to bookmark this!

Find me a post where I mention a specific dollar amount.

The whole point is that the AFP money is undisclosed, meaning nobody knows exactly how much they spent, or on what. I hoped I had made that clear by using the word "undisclosed" over and over again...

The official fundraising numbers reported by the campaigns do not account for all the money spent, because of heavy undisclosed involvement from third parties like AFP. I'm sorry if this shatters your illusions that a low-turnout state senate recall election in Colorado "proves" that Americans really don't want gun control, but I suggest you probably want to face reality.

[hack89]

60. Is KOS ok?

Democrats dramatically outspent Republicans. Combined, Democratic-aligned groups spent $2.3 million, while GOP-aligned groups spent just $482K—$361K of that directly from the NRA.

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

[DanTex]

62. LOL. Again, those are the official numbers which *do not* include the unreported amounts spent

by AFP and other third party groups. Is this really so confusing?

[hack89]

65. So you pull a number out of your ass and that is all of a sudden a undisputed fact?

Which side do you think spent more? How much of the anti-recall money was unreported? There was a shit ton of money flowing into the state - both sides had to benefit, don't you think?

[DanTex]

68. What number? The only ass-pulled number is $400K, by you!

Yes, there was a lot of undisclosed money, and it was a low-turnout election with an angry gun nut minority. That's my whole point. Hardly proof that "Americans don't want gun control".

[hack89]

71. Says a lot when Dems can't motivate their voters - would NRA ads make you stay at home? nt

[DanTex]

74. So you're just going to forget the whole $400K number you fabricated? Pretend that never happened?

Don't worry, I've got it bookmarked, in case you need a reminder:

hack89 (22,958 posts)
51. We know they spent about $400k. That will buy all those things you mention.

We are talking about the other millions that you are fixated on.

The issue is was the pro-recall side significantly outspent by Bloomberg and all the other outside money. The evidence says yes.

[hack89]

56. "Democrats have run 2,346 of the 2,490 ads aired in the campaign"

How is that even possible with all those millions of secretly spent dollars?

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

[DanTex]

63. Including the ads that were not officially part of the campaigns?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3652704

[hack89]

69. Says a lot when Dems can't motivate their voters - would NRA ads make you stay at home?

all those ads and Dem voters gave a collective yawn.

[DanTex]

72. In this case, yes, there was an enthusiasm gap.

And that matters a lot in low-turnout elections. This is one way in which a motivated minority can trump the way of the people. And all the special interest money didn't hurt either.

[hack89]

75. And yet all that special interest money didn't help the Dems.

lets say for the sake of argument that both sides spent the same amount - that would indicate that voter enthusiasm was a bigger factor than money.

[DanTex]

77. Like I said before, there is an enthusiasm gap.

I won't deny that. In fact, I don't know any Dem who denies that fact. On gun control especially, but even on other issues, the Dems are less enthusiastic, and even though their positions do well in opinion polls, the teabaggers turn out to vote more, because they are angrier. And this is especially important in a special election which is not part of a larger national election, where only the really motivated voters turn out.

And then there's voter suppression, which there are some indications of here.

[billh58]

106. The incessant NRA

lie that "the Democrats are coming for your guns" which is reinforced by NRA apologists and supporters (including some DU Gungeoneers) has had the desired effect. Tell a lie often and loud enough, and many people will start to believe it.

Those Democrats who stayed home are victims of that lie, and most likely did not want to vote against a Democrat but also did want to take a chance that the NRA lie might have even a smidgen of substance. Not voting is always the easy choice for those who do not want to take a stand, or are otherwise intimidated by their Republican and right-wing neighbors and "friends."

You are correct that the NRA Tighty Righties and Tea Baggers are angrier than most Liberal Democrats, and it shows up clearly in the diatribes from the very vocal minority of gun worshipers who tend to lose it when their devotion to guns is shown in a bad light. This cold-dead-hands mentality appeals to Libertarian right-wingers and Tea Party radicals alike, and unfortunately a few Democrats who believe the NRA lies and promote the unfounded fear of tyranny and "confiscation."

Enacting sensible gun control regulation which upholds the spirit of the Second Amendment in this country begins with destroying the manufactured lies of the NRA and their far right, neoconservative financial supporters -- the Koch Brothers, ALEC, and the gun manufacturers (AKA "arms dealers&quot . Liberal support of MAIG, The Brady Campaign, VPC, and Americans For Responsible Solutions (Gabby Giffords) will help to achieve this goal of spreading the truth about the insidious gun culture in this country.

[wild bird]

107. My friends?

Read my posts, you'll see that I'm pretty much pro gun control.
Lying? I have 2 words for you, they begin with F and O, figure it out.

[DanTex]

111. I don't know where you stand on gun control.

If you were actually unaware of the outside influence by groups whose spending is not reported and thus doesn't show up in the totals you report, then I apologize for calling you a liar.

But, understand that the gungeoneers have been intentionally omitting the Koch Brothers' involvement in order to claim that the result of two low-turnout elections with heavy special interest involvement somehow "prove" that the "people" don't want control and the Dems should just capitulate on this issue.

[wild bird]

115. Apology accepted.

I rarely post in the RKBA group, my favorite group is GCRA.

Statistics and Information
Account status: Active
Member since: Wed Aug 21, 2013, 09:05 AM
Number of posts, all time: 308
Number of posts, last 90 days: 308
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 195 posts in the last 90 days (63% of total posts)
Favorite group: Gun Control Reform Activism, 39 posts in the last 90 days (13% of total posts)
Last post: Thu Sep 12, 2013, 10:00 AM

[billh58]

119. Impressive. n/t

[wild bird]

124. NSA? nt.

[GalaxyHunter]

116. exactly! n/t

[Llewlladdwr]

24. Yeah, Morse and Giron's support for feel-good-but-do-nothing laws...

had nothing to do with them being recalled. Nothing at all.

[pipoman]

37. Ever lived in these areas of Colorado?

It ain't Maryland...

[Lizzie Poppet]

91. Bullshit.

The NRA is a blight on the nation, but this recall happened because the voters in those districts wanted it to. Democracy's like that...

[TheDeputy]

136. It is about control.

Gun control is about control. Simply. It has nothing to do with crime, except to those who don't understand criminal behavior.

[The Straight Story]

15. Maybe if we stopped painting the 50 million gun owners in this country as lunatics

We might not find ourselves in such a position - especially when 99% of them are not using their guns to harm others.

Any other time when you paint an entire group based on what a tiny few do we call it bias or stereotyping, which progressives usually are against.

In this case it is ok to foment hate and fear, but when the rw uses the same tactic we call BS on it. Either it is ok or it is not.

[madinmaryland]

17. Maybe if thethe 50 million gun owners in this country didn't paint themselves as lunatics,

then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

BTW, the NRA and their whole gang has been using fear and hate for years. Where have you been though-out that?

Also, please do not compare gun-nutters and the NRA to the 99-percenters. Thanks.

[The Straight Story]

19. Uh

the 99% are the number of gun owners who don't use their guns in an unlawful way, which is something like 49 million people.

And out of all those gun owners there are a lot of democrats.

So why do we only focus on the few? The reason is pushing an agenda and trying to evoke emotions in people to react based on what the few do (kind of like the rw does with muslims, and we condemn that when they do it because the principle involved in doing so is just plain wrong).

[Lizzie Poppet]

93. If all 50+ million gun owners were "lunatics," there'd be millions and millions of shootings.

There aren't. As has been pointed out time and time again, a very, very small minority of gun owners commit crimes with their weapons. Tarring all of us with that brush is as inane (and bigoted) as blaming all black people for that community's high crime rates or blaming all Muslims for terrorist acts.

[GalaxyHunter]

118. So true, it's horrible that some people here can't come to terms with it...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

57. Here's the problem:

There's a shooting. A mass shooting. At an elementary school. 27 people dead. Including 20 first graders.

And what do we see in the weeks following this horrific, horrific event?

Long lines at gun shows. People clamoring for bullets. Gun stores sold out of AR-15s (the exact gun used in the shooting).

I'm sorry, I've got every right to question the judgment or even sanity of people whose reaction to Sandy Hook Elementary massacre was that.

There's something pathologically wrong with those people if that's their first thought after Sandy Hook.

[Lizzie Poppet]

92. I think you're misunderstanding that reaction.

The huge boom in firearms-related sales after Sandy Hook wasn't a reaction to the shootings themselves. It was a reaction to a reaction. Or to a predicted reaction, really: the very predictable calls for extreme gun control measures hadn't happened yet...but no one who hadn't been sleeping under a rock for the last 50 years would have failed to anticipate them. Preempting such measures (for all the unlikelihood of their passage) isn't hard to predict or to understand.

Those calls for extreme measures also played a huge part in the failure of reasonable, useful measures like universal background checks and mandated secure storage. Not as big a part as the execrable NRA, but a significant part, nonetheless.

[pintobean]

94. It's kinda like

something big going down in the middle east. Everyone goes and fills their gas tank because they know what's coming.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

147. No, I understand them perfectly.

I'm not saying thousands of gun enthusiasts rushed to gun shops and gun shows because they wanted to emulate Adam Lanza. I know very well the reason for all those long lines and gun and ammo shortages was because all these gun enthusiasts were all so scared that they wouldn't be able to buy all those AR-15s anymore. Apparently, the act of shooting an AR-15 gives off such an awesome release for them that they could not bear to be without.

That really doesn't excuse it. It's irrational behavior. In my mind, it is a mental defect. It's a hoarding disorder, gun hoarding. And there's a disconnect with society there, that somehow restrictions on the purchases of certain types of weapons is somehow far greater a tragedy than the mass shootings that were carried out with the help of such weapons.

Think about it: After December 14, 2012, was there magically an exponential spike in home invasions and armed robberies that somehow necessitated or justified a mad rush on the nearest gun shop or gun show? The answer, of course, is no. Gun enthusiasts, most of whom already have multiple guns, were so threatened and insecure that maybe, just maybe, they couldn't buy even more guns than the ones they already had.

They've relegated guns to some sort of frivolous commodity. The stated necessity for stockpiling them is simply because they can. None of this makes sense, especially considering the extraordinary gravity of what a gun really is and what a gun really does.

I'm sorry, but if a week after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting you find yourself in line at a gun show because you just need to have that AR-15 before they go off the market, even though you might already have two other AR-15s at home, there's something seriously, seriously, seriously wrong with you. I don't believe I'm broad brushing on that, either.

[Abq_Sarah]

165. Actually, the BAN EVERYTHING!!!!!

Reaction was irrational. The "let's portray all firearms owners" as lunatics was and is irrational. The continued attempts to "sound reasonable" while attempting to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens in order to force a change in their behavior is indicative of anger and control issues that could probably be addressed by a good therapist.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

167. I don't know of a single public official calling for a blanket ban on all firearms post Sandy Hook.

For that matter, very few people on DU actually advocated for such a measure. Most people, including myself, know that simply not to be practical.

The fact that gun enthusiasts sought to strawman gun control proponents into claiming they were advocating for a blanket ban on all guns only further speaks to their own irrationality.

But they're your problem, not mine.

[Hoyt]

84. Maybe if gun owners truly acted "responsibly" by backing laws against proliferation of guns, toting

Last edited Thu Sep 12, 2013, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)

in public, etc. But they won't. Even our Democrat gun lovers celebrate millions of new guns sold each month, more folks toting in public, celebrat every time someone gets shot (even when shooting wasn't necessary), etc.

And I'm just talking about those who survive posting gun crud here. Go to freerepublic, facebook gun pages, gun forums etc., and you will find what the majority of gun lovers say -- things like "Guns will help us enforce right wing, libertarian ideology; Zimmerman gave Traygone what he deserved, Martin was a thug; anti-liberal crud; anti-government crap; racist crap; bigoted crap; I'm a tough ass and you better stay out of my way when I'm packing crap; Australians are communists for passing tough gun laws in 1996 crap; screw society crap; and worse."

To keep the few gun lovers here in all the arms they can afford, we have to allow a bunch more dregs of society to arm up. Ain't worth it. While we dick around, another 100 million guns will flood the market here over the next decade. Sooner of later, we are going to need to deal with this issue.

[GalaxyHunter]

120. We must outlaw gangs!!!!

[Hoyt]

127. Yea, but this kind of crud ain't "comparable."

JT Ready -- US "Border Klan"

[wild bird]

129. These guys are more dangerous than, say, MS-13?

How about the Bloods? Crips? Latin Kings?
One's just as dangerous as the other.

[Hoyt]

134. Actually not. But the gun cultist fearmongers try to promote that.

Gangs can be dealt with.

Right wing gun fanatics are a more serious danger long-term, directly and indirectly.

[wild bird]

138. You're telling me that these so called militia nuts are more dangerous than the street gangs

I named?
Ok, here's a question for you, how many people have those militia nuts shot or shot at?
Now, how many people have these street gangs shot and killed/injured?

I would bet that it's a hell of a lot more than those militia idiots.

[Hoyt]

149. The militia nuts, and those that aspire to be, accumulate weapons. Some traffic in weapons.

(I would not be surprised if you are a defender of Randy Weaver, who trafficked guns to the Aryan Nation)

They roam the borders. They are prepared to shoot people in the event of a disaster. They envision themselves taking control of the government, etc.

Gangs are pretty easy for most of us to avoid. I get they are useful for folks promoting more guns, in more place, through fearmongering.

I am not overly concerned about gangs. I'm concerned about more guns being manufactured, thus increasing likelihood of guns ending up in wrong hands. I am also concerned about the yahoos depicted above, the Zimmermans, stand your ground laws, guns in bars, etc.

[DanTex]

140. That's not even close to true.

Gangs account for about 12% of our murders. Our homicide rate is 3-4 times the average of developed nations. Even if we had no gangs at all we would have a far higher homicide rate. And keep in mind that we're not the only nation with gangs.

http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

[The Straight Story]

112. Maybe people just don't like do nothing laws, like the new ones abortion - ultrasounds, etc

To people on the right those seem reasonable and don't prevent someone from getting one.

But we object to it.

Offer up some sensible regulations, not based on emotion (OMG that gun "looks" scary to me ban it! Oh, it is really the same gun in different package as others? Does not matter, I don't like it's look and those people don't need choices in guns! me me me) and that may actually do something helpful. Banning magazines that are 15 rounds vs 10 when it only takes a second to swap out offers no real solutions but it makes people feel better (and removes, ever so slowly, that choice we pretend we value in America but really don't).

We get IT. You and others hate guns and gun owners and you spout off all you can in emotional ways because others don't hate them enough for you and therefore won't give you the power to force all your new laws on them (though, oddly, I don't hear people pushing for new funding to implement the laws we already have on the books...naw, that would actually make sense and do something and not increase the power of people).

You wanna know what is scarier than 1% of the gun owners using their guns in a negative way? 1% of voters who want to ban things based on their personal and emotional respsonses - from smoking to guns there is always someone out there who had a bad experience and now wants everyone to pay for it.

[GalaxyHunter]

123. This explains it all!

from smoking to guns there is always someone out there who had a bad experience and now wants everyone to pay for it.

[Hoyt]

132. Then, let's do away with "do nothing laws" -- ban all semi-auto rifles and most public toting.

Campaign like we did with cigarettes to change perception of gun lovers.

I am not for banning guns based upon looks -- ban all semi-autos takes care of that. I do believe that people attracted to the menacing looks, have serious issues and should be restricted in the accumulation of guns and use of guns in our society.

If we merely restricted the kind of weapons BS depicted below, purchases by immature gun lovers would be cut by more than half --





Gun cultists need to start acting responsibly, rather than just talking about that they are "responsible."

[wild bird]

137. Ban all semi auto rifles?

Would that include the rifles like the Marlin 10-22 .22 cal. rifle?
Why do you want to cede control of the govt to the repukes? Because that's what would happen.
I'm no fan of guns, but your proposal is not in the realm of reality.

What about the millions and millions of semi auto rifles in circulation already? Are you of the opinion that people would just willingly turn them in? Or are you more in line with confiscation?

Instead of proposing a draconian, unworkable ban, how about something that would actually be workable?

[Hoyt]

150. Don't care about guns in circulation already. I do care about another 100 million in the next decade

Why keep kicking this can down the road. We need to adopt laws like Australia had the guts to enact in 1996.

You need to take a long-term view. If we do nothing, it will just make it tougher. Maybe their will be no identifiable results until 2035. But why wait until then, so that it's 2065 before results would materialize.

Doing nothing is not an answer, except to those who don't care or profit monetarily or psychologically from more friggin gunz.

[wild bird]

152. Ok, that's a fair and good point.

And you're right, doing nothing about guns is a losing proposition.

But let's be honest here, there's no appetite on the federal level for anything like you propose, not now, not in the foreseeable future.

[Hoyt]

153. Cool. In the 1960s, there was no appetite to restrict on smoking either. But today . . . . . .

[wild bird]

155. You're right.

It's going to take at least another couple of generations for attitudes to change towards firearms.
Sadly, I won't be around to witness it.

Good talking to you.

[Abq_Sarah]

166. The people who scream the loudest about banning semiautomatics

Generally don't know anything about firearms, period.

I could put a Marlin, lever action .45-70 down on a table next to an Ar-15 and most of the anti-2nd group would swear that the AR-15 was more powerful.

[The Straight Story]

139. And yet most people with guns that look like that do no harm at all with them

So you want to ban sport shooting as well? What about revolvers that can hold 6 rounds? Go back to muskets because you don't like semi-auto anything?

The problem is not the majority with guns, it is the minority - and those are the issues we need to address and it is not about the tools they possess it is about the why's of what they do.

We all own knives but everyday I see someone stabbed by them on the news, a girl in my hood was killed with one two years ago this October - during a fight with another teen girl over a boy. We don't blame access to knives as the cause, we blame the person, look for a reason, etc.

[Hoyt]

161. Actually shooter, I would like to see people using revolvers. That too would help put an end to

Last edited Thu Sep 12, 2013, 05:38 PM - Edit history (1)

the gun manufacturers gravy train. They are not sexy enough for gun cultists to buy more and more gunz.

Yeah, we own knives, and some murderer in China killed 28 people or some such crud, but fact is, gunz kill a lot of people and make it easier to do so. People walking around with guns in their pants, kill people -- as long as we are citing an incident or two as proof, Zimmerman is a good example. That little POS would never have gotten out of his car without a gun.

[The Straight Story]

162. Shooter?

Have not shot in a long time, don't own a gun so makes it kind of hard to do.

People walking around with guns in their pants - already illegal unless you have a ccw, no new law needed there. Illegal to harm others, shoot them off in most city limits, etc.

Ok, so for less than 1% of gun owners (whether illegally owning them or not) it makes it easier for them to harm others, why should the other 99% be punished for that? If we apply that reasoning in this circumstance why not others dealing with other items?

Guns have many uses from hunting to fishing to sport shooting to defense (stories of which we are not allowed to post about in GD). Millions own and use them responsibly but some only want to see the negative to continue to broad brush and paint a group in hopes that others will use emotion on the topic over common sense and logic.

[The Straight Story]

163. And then there are things like this:

Man who killed 2 mothers in drunken driving crash gets 6 years in prison http://at.wftv.com/19MgbVi

We have a slew of laws on drunk driving. Some of them are pretty well written and do help prevent more accidents - but no matter how many we have made, how low the bac goes, there will always, always, be the few who do no care.

Why not close down all bars and only allow people to drink at home? Remove parking lots from bars? Ban all alcohol over 5%?

As a society we know that we can never 100% prevent people from certain things, and we don't blame the alcohol but the people consuming it for their actions. We could, imho, punish people more harshly for causing death and harm when they are under the influence.

You can get alcohol most anywhere. Most people who use it don't cause accidents. It is at the root of more crimes than guns, especially domestic violence (yes, even ones including guns - though the guns will get the blame).

[DanTex]

141. Funny, the people who oppose the gun laws are the same ones pushing the abortion laws.

Maybe right-wing crazies are just right-wing crazies.

[The Straight Story]

142. And vice versa, people pro-choice become anti-choice quick on other things

From who you can have a beer with where to what a gun you want to buy looks like.

Both sides do it and condemn the other side for being anti-choice.

People in the middle who just want to use one principle and be consistent get labeled as libertarians, nuts, gun humpers, etc and so on.

I don't own a gun, can't have an abortion, am straight so won't be utilizing gay marriage laws - yet I can apply the same principles across the board fairly and see how people don't like being told what to do by a few people in DC (I do smoke, but rarely go to bars, so most people claim I am biased, etc, on the issue when all I am doing is being consistent and applying the pro-choice view we have, let people choose where they want to drink and don't remove choices and try to control adults).

[DanTex]

144. That's extremely simplistic wordplay. It's not an argument.

Only libertarian extremists actually believe in "complete freedom." These are the people who think that having meat inspections and medical licensing impinge on the "freedom" of people to "choose" to eat contaminated food and get surgery from some huckster.

People who want restrictions on guns aren't doing it to force their will on others, they are doing it because of the basic needs of public safety. Since you like the word, they want the "choice" of not being subjected to risk of getting shot that it a large multiple higher than anywhere else in the civilized world. The 10,000 victims of gun homicide every year no longer have any choices.

[The Straight Story]

145. Not word play and not complete freedom either

Example: Smoking. Ban it in hospitals, grocery stores, etc where people have to go to get things they need, vs place they go to for things they want (a bar - allow both smoking and non-smoking ones).

Guns: We already ban (mostly) fully automatic weapons. We have laws about their usage (can't shoot them off in parks, shoot others, use them in a crime or get harsher penalty, etc).

Abortions: We have laws regulating how they are performed and where and who can perform them.

We have restrictions already but no matter what you do there will always be that 1% who do not care what laws you make. I pointed out some time ago that when you look at most things - from pools to cars to guns, etc you have roughly between .4 and .8 % rate of death and accidents. Pool accidents and drownings, gun accidents and deaths, does not matter what it is you cannot fix things 100%, and gun misuse being at less than 1% is pretty good. Changing the magazines people use in guns won't fix that, it is a law based on emotion and not logic.

[DanTex]

151. I think all should be judged on a case by case basis based on risks and benefits.

First of all, the claim that gun laws can't help because the 1% will still go around shooting people is obviously false. For example, in the UK, there are still criminals, but they rarely shoot people because it's so hard to get a gun and the consequences are so stiff for owning one. So gun laws do work.

The question is how much do we value the freedom to own any kind gun we want with little to no restrictions such as registration, background checks, limits to magazine capacity, limits to the number of guns a single person can own or purchase in a given time period, limits to the kinds of weapons suitable for civilian usage -- restrictions, by the way, that don't prevent any law abiding citizen from owning and using a gun responsibly, but only make misuse more difficult. I agree that it's worth something, but in the face of the massive toll that gun violence takes, there's simply no question that our priorities are out of line.

We are talking about 30,000 lives per year taken by guns. Not a small amount, no matter how you try to twist around the statistics. For all the opposition to war, in terms of American lives, a whole decade and two wars doesn't come close to a single year of gun violence -- even if you exclude suicides (despite the ample evidence that guns increase suicide risk), you still have more gun homicides in a year than both wars over a decade.

[wild bird]

154. Let me make a small point here.

One of the reasons it's hard for criminals in the UK to get guns is the UK is an island nation whereas, the US is not and we have very porous borders, witness the drugs, immigrants, contraband that comes across every day.
Unless we're willing to turn our borders into something like the former East Germany, we're never going to stop the flow of illegal contraband into the country.

There are, of course, things we can do to reduce gun violence, both on the social and regulation side.

I do believe the biggest impact would be to end the phoney war on drugs, cut the budget of the soul sucking military, divert the money from both to improve our schools/education system, hire a shit load of people to rebuild the infrastructure.
And of course, there are things like the universal background check, registration of handguns, etc.

These alone would go a long ways towards bringing down the overall violence.

[DanTex]

156. There's also Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, Australia (ok that's an island)...

It's not like it's difficult to find examples of countries that have gun violence under control. It's actually hard to find developed nations that don't -- other than the US.

And when it comes to guns, porous borders have nothing to do with it. The guns don't come through the borders, they originate here in the US. In fact, the guns move in the opposite direction, from here to places like Mexico and Canada.

[wild bird]

158. All true points.

But I still believe that we can reduce the violence by some of the steps I've outlined.

[DanTex]

159. I agree with that.

By no means are guns the only are where there is room for drastic improvements.

[spin]

146. A better estimate is that there are 70 to 80 million gun owners and that might be low. ...

Ref: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#ownership

[lonestarnot]

22. Fuck you NRA! And all of your stupid bullshit!

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. Colorado voters decided to fuck Michael Bloomberg instead...

[lonestarnot]

32. The ones who voted decided to fuck themselves.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. You lot don't seem to like democracy when it doesn't produce the results you want...

[lonestarnot]

34. What is your motivation? I will not defend a position that I do not support as truth.

Your statement is ridiculous.

[DanTex]

40. And you seem to be a big fan of Koch Brothers' money influencing local elections...

[hack89]

43. Great - a Koch secret money CT.

no way it was because the voters were not happy.

[DanTex]

45. So now the Koch Brothers are a conspiracy? You guys are too funny!

I have to ask, have you paid any attention at all to politics in the last few years?

[hack89]

48. No - this notion that they secretly spend millions in this recall

that no one can show what they bought is a CT. To influence elections you spend money on certain things like radio and TV ads, consultants, GOV activities.

Show me what they bought with all this money. Simple request, should be easy to figure out.

[DanTex]

50. Did you try google? I know you really like gunz.com but they're not reallya reliable news source...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3652592

[hack89]

58. "Democrats have run 2,346 of the 2,490 ads aired in the campaign"

That's a pretty poor return on Bloomberg's investment, don't you think?

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

[DanTex]

61. Does that include the ads that were not officially part of the campaigns?

Also, you probably want to read his next sentence. It's pretty insightful, explaining the dynamics of low-turnout elections where there is a highly motivated minority.

Now if either Democrat loses this recall, it'll be further proof for my theory that TV advertising is increasingly irrelevant. But this is a special case—Republican wingnuts don't need to be told by the TV box that there's a recall. They're activated and motivated. It's lower-performing Democratic voters that need to be educated and mobilized. Thus it follows that every single Republican ad in the race has been negative, but only two of the nine Democratic ads follow suit.

[hack89]

67. It shows how low a priority gun control is to many Dem voters

it is not a thing that excites them in the long term.

[DanTex]

70. Agreed, there is an enthusiasm gap.

The hardcore gun nuts are more motivated than the majority who support tighter gun laws.

BTW, this isn't the only issue where this happens. Oil companies are more motivated to fight against emission limits than the general public is to support them. The 1% are more motivated to fight for tax cuts for the 1% than the 99% is to resist them.

This is how special interest politics work.

[hack89]

73. Which means that Dems need to learn from this when it comes to introducing gun control

they should still introduce legislation but they certainly need to be smarter about how they go about it.

[DanTex]

76. Build up more awareness of the harms of gun violence, develop more effective GOTV strategies.

The Dems have enthusiasm gap problems on many issues, particularly since Obama has become president. One reason why we've lost seats during midterms -- the GOP, at the moment, is better at motivating voters. It's about much more than gun control.

[hack89]

79. Simply respecting the intelligence of the voters

and not rushing through legislation without adequate time for debate and public input would be a good start.

You can't trumpet the moral superiority of your cause while you are passing laws behind closed doors. Long, lengthy debate certainly increases the chances of defeat but it is fair. And fairness is important to voters.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

82. Riiight. Because the Gun Lobby never rams through legislation where it sees the easy opportunity to.

And that's just one lobbyist and one state. (Unfortunately, mine)

[hack89]

83. If you want to use NRA tactics then go ahead.

perhaps you can't win by fighting fair.

[DanTex]

86. This had nothing to do with the intelligence of voters.

The intelligent voters support the gun control laws. This is about the NRA and AFP taking advantage of the stupidity and anger of a small fraction of voters who can be riled up in a low-turnout election.

If this were about the intelligence of voters, we'd have gun laws like Canada or the UK.

[hack89]

88. "People that disagree with me are stupid" Now that's a winning political message.

[DanTex]

89. It's not a political message. It's a political reality. Some voters are dumb.

That's how we end up with stuff like this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023652249

[hack89]

96. But of course people that agree with you cannot be dumb - correct? nt

[DanTex]

99. So I guess you don't think those creationists pushing Texas schoolbooks are dumb...

I guess you're one of those "both sides have a point no matter what the substance" types. Not me. Some people, and some arguments, are just dumb. The creationists in Texas, the gun nuts in Colorado, etc.

[hack89]

100. We are discussing your hubris

that neat way that your views on guns are always on the "smart" side of the line. You view yourself as some sort of gold standard by which other can be judged.

Considering you are a vocal supporter of a movement that has been consistently steamrollered for the past 20 years it must piss you off to no end that people refuse to see your righteousness.

[DanTex]

101. So now calling creationists dumb is "hubris"? Who knew?

Yes, it's disappointing and frustrating that people who deny science have such a large influence on our politics, but I don't see how you think it's hubris to call them what they are.

To be clear, I don't judge them as dumb because "they disagree with me", I judge them as dumb because their views are at odds with observable reality -- and this goes for the gun nuts as well as the creationists. If you have a better way of making these judgments, please let me know. But I'm certainly not going to change my views because of some Koch brothers propaganda campaign.

[hack89]

102. We are talking about your views on guns - please read what I actually wrote nt.

[DanTex]

104. We are talking about whether it is "hubris" to call some people dumb.

Why do you object to calling the Colorado gun nuts "dumb" and not the Texas creationists?

In both cases I am calling a politically influential group consisting primarily of right-wingers "dumb". Like I said, my reasons are not "because they disagree with me", but because their views are, frankly, dumb. I'm sure there are some people that you think are dumb, too. Does that make you hubristic?

[hack89]

105. ok nt

[pintobean]

78. So, now the mystery money

was spent on mystery ads that weren't needed.

[DanTex]

87. LOL. So now the Koch brothers and AFP are "mystery money"?

Amazing the heights of denialism that gungeoneers are capable of in order to convince themselves that the Koch brothers and the NRA truly represent the "will of the people".

[pintobean]

90. I didn't claim any of that.

Your logic failed and I simply pointed it out. That's no reason to attack me and try to tie me to the Kochs and the NRA. And what is a "gungeoneer"? That's the 2nd time in 2 days I've been called that. I assume it's someone who posts in DU's Gun Control & RKBA Group. I don't do that, but you are again slandering a group of DUers. Didn't you have a post hidden yesterday for doing that?

[DanTex]

98. LOL. So are you part of my alerter following?

You guys finally got a gungeoneer-stacked jury! A real victory! 4 more and I'll have a visible transparency page! Keep on alerting!

Anyway, back to the substance of the discussion, which is the sorry attempts on the part of "pro-gun progressives" to deny that the Colorado recall was fueled by right-wing special interests, and playing down the Koch/AFP involvement as "mystery money". Sorry if you feel attacked, but this is a Democratic website, after all, so if you're going to be repeating false right-wing narratives, you're going to get challenged.

[pintobean]

103. Three more.

Laughing at your circular argument isn't right wing. You are claiming all this unreported money poured into one side and that was the cause of the recalls. Then you claim that money was spent on "ads that were not officially part of the campaigns", yet in the same post, you claim those ads aren't needed.
The fact of the matter is, you don't know if any, or how much unreported money was used. If there was any, you don't know which side got what. You are posting as if you know these things, but you admit they are unknown. Unless, of course, you have some secret documentation of the unreported contributions. If that's the case, you should share. We would all like to be fully informed.

[DanTex]

108. I'm not sure you understand how quotes work.

The idea is that the quotes are supposed to surround something the person actually said. I, of course, never said that the Koch brothers spent their money on ads -- I imagine they spent some money on ads, and some money on other things, but I don't know.

What I actually did was ask a question: whether or not ads by third parties were included in those totals. Gleeful gungeoneers like hack89 have been posting comparisons that don't take into account efforts by third party groups, which leads to inaccurate impressions. And regardless of how much you try to downplay the effect of third-party spending by calling it "mystery money", the fact remains that it is an important force in politics today, and your attempts to suggest otherwise just make you look foolish.

I don't know what they spent their money on, nor do I know how much -- nobody does except for them. However, I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but there are a lot of other things to spend money on besides TV ads, and (as Kos pointed out) TV ads may even not be a particularly effective way to spend money in this race. I know this must all be very confusing for you -- hopefully you will be able to sort it out though.

[pintobean]

110. I'm not confused

although, confusion seems to be your goal. You keep trying though; assuming that DUers are too dumb to see what you're doing is a foolish game. Keep playing it. It's amusing.

Your four more claim was amusing. The truth is only two clicks away. I guess you didn't know that.

[DanTex]

113. Sure sign of winning an argument: when the other person drops even the pretense

of addressing the substantive issues.

But keep hitting that alert button! You can't win a logical debate, maybe you can find some gun-friendly juries!

[pintobean]

121. What more can I say?

You keep talking about money that you can't prove actually exists. You may as well just take your claims to the religion group.

[DanTex]

126. Religion indeed!

Because we all know that the Koch brothers would never actually use their hard-earned money to affect political races. I guess the fact that every news article on the election mentions heavy involvement by outside groups like AFP is just "liberal media bias". Well, almost every: I guess FOX and WorldNetDaily didn't mention it, which would explain why you seem to be so surprised by it all...

[wild bird]

128. There's no doubt that the Koch Bros. have done that,

but so has Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, etc.
Millionaires/Billionaires from both sides of the political spectrum have been doing this since politics was invented, so why not condemn both sides for it?

I don't like the huge influx of money into politics from either side, it corrupts the political process, yet both sides will say it's ok for their side but not ok for the other side.
The hypocrisy in our political system is stunning to say the least.

[DanTex]

131. I tend to agree with Obama on this.

The influence of big money is corrupting, but if the Dems unilaterally disarm, then the result will be lost elections, even less chances for campaign finance reform, and more tax cuts for the wealthy, which they will then use to purchase more elections, and so on.

A major difference between our side and theirs on this is that the Dems are (generally) in favor of stricter campaign laws and more public financing while the GOP is not.

[wild bird]

133. I agree that we can't disarm, no pun intended,

but it's wrong from both sides no matter what the justification is.

[pintobean]

130. I saw the news article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023648865

[DanTex]

135. That must have been a great day for you! Shame your alerts this thread didn't work out.

Did any of them even get to 3-3?

And round and round we go...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3654431

[pintobean]

143. The article that you linked to

in your hidden post is the one I was referring to. I read it. You latched onto a small (unsourced) portion of it and ran with it, ignoring the rest and insulting any DUer who doesn't share your blind faith..

I haven't alerted on any of your posts here. Be careful; you're starting to sound like that guy that had the famous sig line.

[LanternWaste]

54. And we all know that elections are predicated only on votes rather than influence, money, etc.

And we all know that elections are predicated only on votes rather than influence, money, etc.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other...

(Insert rationalization here)

[wild bird]

35. And the voters who decided to stay home and not bother to vote

fucked themselves.
At least those that came out to vote did so on principle.

[lonestarnot]

36. Yes they did.

And I am speaking about the recall election. That's all I know about the election there. Gun manufacturers election.

[spin]

148. That's your opinion. The ones who voted for the recall would disagree with you. (n/t)

[gopiscrap]

30. My sentiments exactly!!!

[badtoworse]

44. I thought their constituents ousted them

It's what happens when you don't pay attention to what they want.

[forestpath]

66. Fuck the NRA and all its apologists.

[coldmountain]

117. Don't say things like that because you will upset the NRA/ALEC trolls

The new House leader is even more anti-gun! The reps who lost are heroes and we need to support them going forward!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

157. The who?

[wild bird]

160. Oh no, not Morlocks, not flesh eating Morlocks!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

168. :) nt

[madinmaryland]

169. This needs to be kicked, and let me say it one more time....

FUCK THE NRA!!

[malaise]

170. I'm going to Rec every

Fuck the NRA thread