Skip to main content

View Diary: First TV ads hit in Colorado recall, financed by extreme 'gun rights guru' (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  ... a few more words, the NRA is not advertising (0+ / 0-)

    it because they are afraid they might lose - and if they do, it will be HUGE news and the curtain is drawn back on them to reveal just how weak they really are.

    •  Oh sure, orchestrating the first two recalls in (0+ / 0-)

      the 137 year history would just ruin the NRA.
      How much weaker could they possibly appear than accomplishing that, amirite?

      Great argument.
      Really.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 05:32:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Frank, man, you've got a hard head - this is how (0+ / 0-)

        elections work:

        1. Ballots are printed, campaigns are waged
        2. Votes are cast and counted
        3. A winner is declared

        For the last friggin' time - you won't know the results of the vote until Step 3 is completed. We are at Step 1 now. Try to be patient.

        If the winners are Morse & Giron, or I'd wager just Morse or Giron - the NRA loses, BIG.

        •  This is how history works: (0+ / 0-)

          There has never been a single successful recall petition in the entirety of Colorado's 137 year history.

          The unprecedented just happened.....and then it happened again.

          And somehow, you think the NRA is hiding its funding to these unheard of accomplishments, because it would show the NRA to be weak....

          I honestly can't get enough of this particular theory.
          Please, do continue.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 05:58:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They barely got on the ballot - you'd think with (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber

            all the unprecedented outrage we keep hearing about, they'd have twice or three times the number of sigs to get the recall moving.

            But no, instead they had to forge signatures, include dead people and people outside the district, AND enlist the executives of a major local newspaper to help them wage a media war against against Giron.

            The NRA doesn't want to be associate with that because it stinks to high heaven. They doubly don't want to be associated with it, because if they lose, their bubble has burst - ie, ding, dong the witch is dead.

            Otherwise, why aren't they trumpeting this so called "unprecedented, historical" event of major consequence?

            •  "[The NRA] doesn't want to be associated with it" (0+ / 0-)

              Well sure; what could be worse than forcing the first....and second recalls in CO history?

              Boy, Morse & Giron has got 'em right where they want 'em!
              What could be more embarrassing than succeeding ar the first...and second recalls in 137 years of CO history, amirite?
              (Hint: being recalled).

              Great plan.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 05:57:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Frank, your a gun lobby troll, no two ways about (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero

                it, you can't possibly keep repeating yourself and think you're making a real point.

                It's that, or you're drunk, because you seem to have a hard time grasping the point of this thread - yes, the NRA does not want to be associated with it because a) the way in which the recall was initiated, ie, signatures from dead people, people outside the district, forgeries, et al, and b) if they lose (and there's a good chance they do) they want to be as far from being seen as supporting the recall as possible, because then they'd have to own it, loudly and proudly.

          •  I assume you're all for selling guns to minors? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber

            Freedom for 18-21 year olds to buy guns, right? Don't want to take liberties away from innocent Americans:

            In a Monday court filing, the National Rifle Association asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a 1968 law that prevents licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to people between the ages of 18 and 21.

            The NRA, along with two nineteen-year-olds, aims to overturn the federal law that restricts the sale of handguns and ammo to anyone under 21 years of age. While individuals between the ages of 18 and 21 cannot obtain a handgun from a licensed dealer per the law, they can still obtain a gun through other channels. The law also does not prevent individuals between 18 and 21 from obtaining shotguns and rifles.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (59)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Elections (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (25)
  • Texas (23)
  • Rescued (21)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Environment (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Education (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Politics (17)
  • Racism (17)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site