Skip to main content

WE LOST! Yes, we lost the Colorado recall election on Tuesday, September 10, 2013, setting a precedent in Colorado history. John Morse (D) will be replaced by Bernie Herpin (R) and Angela Giron (D) will be replaced by George Rivera (R). The first recall in Colorado history was a 50-50 win for the NRA. The Colorado recall effort began by targeting four state Senators, but the organizers failed to get enough signatures for two of their targets. It was estimated that less than 20% of registered voters went to the polls yesterday. Official totals will be added to this diary when they become available.

Morse and Giron, along with a a majority of their colleagues, stood up to the NRA and voted with a majority of their colleagues to pass some gun reform laws. And now they have been "punished" at the polls, just like some Kossacks predicted. We acknowledge that we lost. We welcome those who need to tell us "I told you so" to come on over and tell us exactly that, as we cry in our beer and figure out what to do next.


Angela Giron (D. CO) & John Morse (D. CO) Vow To Keep Up The Fight, We Should Too

by poopdogcomedy

John Morse (D) & Angela Giron (D)

I'd like to thank both Senators Morse and Giron for sticking up for what's right.  They may have paid the price last night but the war with the NRA is far from over.  Now it's time to figure out what happened.  

…Continue reading poopdogcomedy's excellent summary Angela Giron (D. CO) & John Morse (D. CO) Vow To Keep Up The Fight, We Should Too

Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: Democrats lose two Colorado recalls; de Blasio Nears Primary Win

by David Nir

• CO Recall: In a devastating result for Democrats, two legislators who supported new gun safety laws, state Senate President John Morse and state Sen. Angela Giron, both lost in recall elections spurred by the NRA and gun activists on Tuesday night, Morse by less than 2 percent, Giron by 12. Morse will be replaced by Republican Bernie Herpin; Giron's seat, meanwhile, will be taken over by another Republican, George Rivera. Both Herpin and Rivera have to go before voters next year, and both seats gave Barack Obama about 58 to 59 percent of the vote in 2012, so they won't be easy holds for the GOP. But last night's results show just how badly Democratic turnout dropped in these unusually timed, off-off-year elections.

For now, Democrats' 20-15 edge in the Senate has been whittled down to a precarious 18-17—and the NRA and their allies will crow about what this means for proponents of gun regulations. Conservatives have talked about ushering in a "wave of fear" among Democratic lawmakers nationwide, but more immediately, they might attempt another recall to try to take control of the chamber, since Republicans clearly benefit when holding elections in non-presidential years. This falloff in enthusiasm in years not divisible by four is probably the biggest electoral challenge Democrats face nationwide right now, and these recalls, if any good is to come of them, should spur the party to seriously address this major problem.

When I was searching through Daily Kos for the articles about the DC v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) Supreme Court decisions I found this lovely diary by Kaili Joy Gray. She was one of my favorite front page writers. Even though she no longer writes for Daily Kos, we still have her unique blend of snark and seriousness to draw upon as we seek to understand post-Heller gun rights, specifically which state and local laws are consistent with the individual right to keep and bear arms as articulated by the current Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald.

While I don't agree with all her arguments, I found some of her arguments compelling, and included her diary in our first Glossary of Resources.

Kaili's top 5 reasons, "Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment"


       No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.
       No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.
       No. 3:  It's not 1776 anymore.
       No. 4: It's not like you can use it anyway.
       No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.
We are a new group, barely three weeks old. Conceived as a study group, we seek to understand current gun laws and policies that are consistent with Heller and McDonald. We are in an experimental phase where some states have passed new strict laws and other states have repealed laws or passed new laws that expand the individual right to keep and bear arms. Hundreds of state and local gun laws have been challenged and are percolating up through the lower courts. The vast majority are being upheld.

We can not ignore the political reality, however, of this third rail topic. Please join us below the fold for discussion of Kaili's five arguments and how they might explain the Colorado backlash and last night's recall election results.

RKBA: Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment


by Kaili Joy Gray (Oct. 6, 2009)
Liberals love the Constitution.

Ask anyone on the street.  They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization.

I know liberal couples who give each other pocket size copies of the Constitution for Christmas.

Ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they will invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence.  They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process."  It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."
There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, the former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

So.

Liberals love the Constitution.  They especially love the Bill of Rights.  They love all the Amendments.

Except for one: the Second Amendment.

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check at the door their ability to think rationally.  In discussing the importance of any other portion of the Bill of Rights, liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies.  They can talk about the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

So why do liberals have such a problem with the Second Amendment?  Why do they lump all gun owners in the category of "gun nuts"?  Why do they complain about the "radical extremist agenda of the NRA"?  Why do they argue for greater restrictions?  
Why do they start performing mental gymnastics worthy of a position in Bush's Department of Justice to rationalize what they consider "reasonable" infringement of one of our most basic, fundamental, and revolutionary -- that's right, revolutionary -- civil liberties?

Why do they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote Democrat?  Why are they so dismissive of approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns?

And why is their approach to the Second Amendment so different from their approach to all the others?

Well, if conversations on this blog about the issue of guns are in any way indicative of the way other liberals feel, maybe this stems from a basic misunderstanding.

So, allow me to attempt to explain the Second Amendment in a way that liberals should be able to endorse.

The Daily Kos Firearms Law and Policy group was founded last month by LilithGardener, OregonOak, Glen the Plumber, and Joy of Fishes. Some of us have been versed in firearms law for many years while others have never owned or handled a gun. We published a Glossary of Resources to make it easier for everyone to find answers to their questions and support their opinions with primary sources of firearms law and policy research. If you find gun jargon confusing you are not alone. This Glossary of Gun Terminology from Handgun Law may help you find the right words.

To add our diaries in your stream, go to our group blog Firearms Law and Policy and click on the little heart. To join us send us a Kosmail.

Courtesy Kos

Please argue your case the way Wee Mama illustrated in her excellent diary, Make Your Case , attempt to win over your opponent the way akadjian laid out here, and join us for collaborative discussions like this and this.

UPDATED: Thu Sep 12, 2013 at  7:38 AM PT:

Colorado is a Schiznit points out some reasons in Why Colorado Lost Two Democratic Senators

David Nir reports this morning that we could have seen it coming, except we didn't because an experienced pollster discounted their own results.

• CO Recall: Following Tuesday's recall elections in Colorado, where two Democratic state senators were turfed out and replaced by Republicans, PPP's Tom Jensen revealed something very unusual. It turns out that he took a poll of ex-state Sen. Angela Giron's 3rd District over the weekend, but because he didn't believe it yielded accurate results, he decided to sit on it. Even more unusually, Jensen then chose to reveal the data after the fact, because it turned out to be dead-on.

… Continue reading David Nir at Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: Thompson vows to press on, but pressure mounts to concede

Fri Sep 13, 2013 at  9:51 AM PT: Diary analyzing voter turn out by Kos: More on Colorado recalls and voter turnout.


Originally posted to Firearms Law and Policy on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:00 PM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and notRKBA.

Poll

Why did voters recall Colorado state Senators Giron and Morse?

13%14 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
32%33 votes
4%5 votes
3%4 votes
12%13 votes
11%12 votes
0%0 votes
5%6 votes
3%4 votes
11%12 votes
0%0 votes

| 103 votes | Vote | Results

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

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

?

More Tagging tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (22+ / 0-)

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

    by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:00:14 PM PDT

  •  Colorado Recall Happy Hour @ 5-7PM - Join Us! (7+ / 0-)

    Colorado Recall Happy Hour @ 5-7PM - Join Us!

    bottles of beer
    Lost Election Special - $2 Bottled - Draft Beer by the Pitcher only $6!
    The Firearms Law and Policy Group will hash over the Colorado recall this afternoon beginning at 5PM EST. Please join us, as we let off some steam as we cry in our beer.

    Open Thread - WE LOST! "Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment"

    The Daily Kos Firearms Law and Policy group was founded last month by LilithGardener, OregonOak, Glen the Plumber, and Joy of Fishes. Some of us have been versed in firearms law for many years while others have never owned or handled a gun. We published a Glossary of Resources to make it easier for everyone to find answers to their questions and support their opinions with primary sources of firearms law and policy research. If you find gun jargon confusing you are not alone. This Glossary of Gun Terminology from Handgun Law may help you find the right words.

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

    by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:01:34 PM PDT

  •  Diary reads like you're gloating about (5+ / 0-)

    a Democrat losing an election.

    •  Not gloating, Not at all nt (8+ / 0-)

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

      by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:09:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Think of it as an invitation for the (7+ / 0-)

      "I told you so" crowd to come on over and get the "I told you so" out the way, so we can get on with life.

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

      by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:12:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK Lilith (14+ / 0-)

        I told you so.

        Doesn't make me feel any better.

        Liberals need to understand that there are many people in this country who are socially liberal and natural fits with the Democratic Party yet will vote against them over this issue, period.

        People are welcome to argue with me over whether it makes sense or not, and they can insult those people all they want, but it is what it is.

        I had very little doubt how the Colorado recall would come out because I live only one state over and I know the mindset of people who live in this area. Hunting and guns are as much a part of their lives as families and the 4th of July and pickup trucks.

        I believe there is a way to address gun violence in a comprehensive way but starting out with anything that smells like "gun control" will cause them to shut down. They want no part of it.

        I wish that people could have listened thru the ears of 2nd Amendment supporters to people like Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel as they preached and down talked and insulted gun owners. Especially Lawrence, it was disgusting. So condescending. And don't get me started about here...

        I've posted before that it took me years to get some of my friends to vote Dem and even tho it won't change a damn thing immediately in this state it was a start. It took just a few months of "gun nuts" talk to undo what I had worked so hard on.

        "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

        by high uintas on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:36:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's 50-50 (5+ / 0-)

          The NRA targeted 4 senators and managed to recall 2 of 4 targets.

          That's statistically identical to a coin flip!

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

          by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:46:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The first two recalls in the history of a state (4+ / 0-)

            that has never had so much as a successful recall petition isn't a tie.

            It is bizarro-level absurdity to try to spin it as such.

            You  can't be serious.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:30:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Morse and Giron voted with a majority of their (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              enhydra lutris, FogCityJohn

              colleagues. How many were there? How many Colorado Senators stood up to the NRA? 4 were targeted, and only 2 were recalled.

              You can spin it any way you want. I'll be sticking to the simply math of it.

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

              by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:28:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Math, you say? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Angryallen, notrouble, Neo Control

                137 years=0 recalls.
                0.5 years after gun bill=2 recalls.

                District registration: +15 Democratic advantage.
                Presidential election: +19 for Obama.
                Spending advantage: 6-to-1

                Boy. Great Job, Lilith.
                I'm certain the party is every bit as impressed as I am.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:01:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Except every senator (0+ / 0-)

            Up for recall, was actually thrown out of office.  That's 100%

            •  That's like saying you made a clean sweep . . . (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber

              at the Olympics because you entered and won two events.  You're ignoring the fact that you didn't even compete in all the rest.

              If you try to unseat four senators, and you only get two, that's 50%.  Are we supposed to think the recall effort was more successful because the NRA and its buddies couldn't even muster enough signatures to qualify for recall elections in the other two districts?  That really is twisted thinking.

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:51:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But on game day (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose

                There were only 2 competitors in the state wide battle.  Both of them lost when the entire constituency was allowed to participate.  That's not even addressing the fact that the loss  occurred after their own teammates, in large numbers, sided with their opponents.

                •  A sports metaphor? How about football? (0+ / 0-)

                  Isn't your argument like resetting the playing field AFTER a team has made first down.

                  In this metaphor the NRA has the ball. Their candidates are the ball they are trying to move across the finish line. CO senate is the end zone.

                  Your argument is like reporting touchdown success, as a percentage of attempts, by only counting those that started from 4th down on the 20 yard line.

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

                  by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 05:06:16 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Um, the entire constituency ... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener

                  was allowed to participate in the signature-gathering efforts for the other two senators, so I'm not sure what point you're supposed to be making.

                  In addition, the NRA and its allies took a pass on trying to unseat most of the senators who voted for the legislation they find so objectionable.  (Four is not a majority of the Colorado Senate.)  

                  So they didn't even bother to try to recall the vast majority of those voting for the bill, then they failed to get enough signatures in half of the recalls they did attempt, and then they manage to recall two senators, one of whom they knock off by a few hundred votes.  Not to mention that this occurred in nearly perfect Republican conditions -- a special, off-year election in which voters were denied a popular form of ballot access (mail-in voting).  And you're calling this a 100% victory?

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 01:07:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Checking our math (0+ / 0-)

              As you know statistics and numbers can be used to support arguments. We all know of examples where math has been misused to imply scientific certainty.

              Many people don't bother to check the math, but it's so important to do - as a matter of habit.

              Thank you for stopping by and checking our math!

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

              by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 04:59:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  You may have missed this part of our profile (3+ / 0-)
          To advocate effectively for repeal or passage of firearms legislation we must first know and understand current law and policy, and how both are implemented, where we live. There is enormous variability across the country; the relative utility/relative risk of firearms is different on a 500 acre ranch in Montana than for a 1000 square foot apartment in New York. State and local laws reflect that diversity.
          I grew up with guns, and I support the right of states and local jurisdictions to address local risks and local needs.

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

          by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:51:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No (5+ / 0-)

            I really did read your profile when you first started this group. You said upthread that you want to give the "I told you so" crowd a chance to get it out of the way, so I figured I'd oblige.

            I understand what you are doing here and support it. I was merely stating my case, where I stand on this issue. While I agree that there is a difference between urban and rural areas I don't believe you can parse the 2nd right in the Bill of Rights by geography.

            "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

            by high uintas on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:00:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It is a real conundrum (3+ / 0-)

              If we believe in a universal right to self defense, which I do, that right exists no matter where you are in the world.

              There is a tension for me between expanded RKBA and restrictions on RKBA that includes the fact that there is no 2A right to create a menace with a gun.

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

              by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:06:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree and it is difficult (6+ / 0-)

                I believe that it would serve us well and help to solve some of the issues that people bring up if we would get serious about addressing structural problems that we as a society choose to ignore. Drug laws and fixing the lack of affordable mental health facilities would cut the incidences of gun violence in half.

                "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

                by high uintas on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:15:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why arent you happy, guns win nt (2+ / 0-)

                  nosotros no somos estúpidos

                  by a2nite on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:29:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I'm curious about assisted suicide laws (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  high uintas, enhydra lutris

                  I don't know much about them, but have read that when it became legal, suicides went down. What they observed was that when suicidal people had a chance to to talk with their doctor, they often found other solutions or alternatives that they could not see when they were in the throes of their wish to die.

                  There are more suicides than there are homicides, but the former are harder to talk about. I think that gun deaths are traumatic for the survivors, no matter if it's a homicide or a suicide.

                  And yes, our drug laws need major reform. I'm not in favor of funneling more people into the for profit prison system.

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

                  by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:35:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I really don't know when it comes (3+ / 0-)

                    to changing laws on suicides. We had a gun suicide in our family, my grandfather. It is shocking and disturbing. I still do believe that many of the suicides each year come from the chronically depressed and those who see their lives as hopeless. And as in the case of grandpa, addiction issues.  

                    Addressing their problems would have to help, IMO. We spend a lot of money in this country on foolish things when we could be elevating the lives of it's citizens.

                    I'm afraid that there will still be George Zimmermans out there tho' and it's those people who are the root cause of so much pain and horror. I have no idea how to fix them.

                    "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

                    by high uintas on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:44:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Are you boycotting the Democrats too? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          That's what I want to know.  Because if you're another one of the RKBA folks who's so offended that the Democrats would support even the mildest gun regulation that you're going to sit on your hands in the next election, then you have no credibility.

          There are lots of issues beyond gun regulation, and we won't make any progress on those issues if we let the Republicans take control at any level of government.  So I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by Lawrence O'Donnell, but if you're going to sit passively while the GOP takes over, then you're probably on the wrong web site.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:34:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Spot on - sitting out is a vote for going backward (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FogCityJohn

            I've voted for candidates whose economic policies I don't like, because sitting out an election is not an option in our house. Sitting out an election, is essentially a vote for going backward.

            "Your vote is precious; almost sacred! It is the most powerful non-violent tool we have to form a more perfect union." Rep John Lewis, DNC 2012

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

            by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 05:13:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Oh hell no (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, Kasoru

            As I said I have been working in my red state to convince people that the Democratic party is where they belong and they won't take their guns away. The framing of the background check and magazine limit didn't help my cause, neither did all the people yelling at anyone who owned a gun.

            I am a lifelong Democrat. I have never voted any other way, I'm a straight ticket girl. Because of the redness of my state I have never had my vote for the President count, but that doesn't keep me from trying to change things.

            You made assumptions about me that were insulting and wrong. I've been at this web site since Oct. of 04 don't tell me where I belong, you owe me an apology. I have never advocated not voting or not voting for Dems.

            Oh, and btw, I don't own a gun, never have. I happen to believe that the entire Bill of Rights is important, not just the parts that someone picks and chooses.

            "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

            by high uintas on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 08:18:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Gun ownership is not a litmus test for credibility (0+ / 0-)

              Thank you for this:

              I am a lifelong Democrat. I have never voted any other way, I'm a straight ticket girl. Because of the redness of my state I have never had my vote for the President count, but that doesn't keep me from trying to change things.
              No thanks for this:
              Oh, and btw, I don't own a gun, never have.
              Gun ownership is not a litmus test that gives anyone credibility to speak on gun rights. Neither is lack of gun ownership proof of cluelessness about gun rights or gun violence.

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

              by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 08:30:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Kitchen Sinking the Bill of Rights (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FogCityJohn

              No thanks for this:

              I happen to believe that the entire Bill of Rights is important, not just the parts that someone picks and chooses.
              I've seen this implicit accusation so often I coined a name for it. None of our constitutional rights are absolute. All of our rights have various restrictions, especially when competing rights must be balanced.

              It's a hollow argument to accuse others of not caring for the Bill of Rights just because they want to tighten our extremely loose gun laws.

              What do you think about the challenge to Georgia's CCW law? We covered it last week in OPEN THREAD w Poll – Are Some Rights More Equal Than Others?

              Again, it's the dogs that don't hunt bark which require some attention, and in this case it's an argument which the Supreme Court [in January 2013] decided not to hear, implicitly affirming that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable gun control measures.

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

              by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 08:43:57 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Last paragraph is quoting Adam B's diary (0+ / 0-)
                Again, it's the dogs that don't hunt bark which require some attention, and in this case it's an argument which the Supreme Court [in January 2013] decided not to hear, implicitly affirming that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable gun control measures.

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

                by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 08:52:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Where have I said no reasonable (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener, Kasoru

                  gun control measures? Where?

                  You mentions litmus tests, I'm going to bring up Rorschach tests. You look at my comments and fill in the blanks. You think that I stand in a certain place and then like FCJ make assumptions based on your own prejudices.

                  You try to put words in my mouth. I didn't accuse anyone of not caring for the B of R. I was explaining why I stand where I do on this issue, I wasn't casting aspersions on others.

                  Over the years since the war on drugs started I have watched the 4th amendment be shredded and diminished to the point where it is almost unsavable. The NSA stuff doesn't phase me, I've been talking about the facility in Utah and posting links to it here for over a year. No one cared.

                  What about Free Speech Zones? Do you think that is a reasonable restriction? I give a shit about the Bill of Rights.

                  As to guns I support background checks and intelligent magazine limits, not stupid ones where a number like 7 or 9 is pulled from someone's ass. Look at the most common magazine used and base it on that.

                  Make the background checks worth something and modernize them. No one should be denied a gun in a state where medical marijuana is legal but that is how it would be now. If we are going to pass laws make them more than band aids or something that is just written to make gun owners pay for being who they are.

                  I was complaining about the language that has been used while discussing regulation measures. There were  people who were demeaning gun owners, Democrats, the liberal media like MSNBC and here at DKos.  

                  Taking about people who have never done anything wrong as if they are ticking time bombs or nuts tends to gain enemies and I want to grow the party. After Sandy Hook I was accused of being a child killer for support the 2nd. A thought crime I guess.

                  I actually thought I was having a conversation with someone (you) who was not far from where I stand but when push comes to shove you defended the person who insulted and misinterpreted me and told me I don't belong here. I was here before either of you knew about the place.

                  I debated joining your group because I want to build coalitions between gun owners and Dems to bleed people from the NRA (an organization that I'm on record as hating. They are the worst thing that ever happened to gun owners, IMO) I don't know if you would treat me as your enemy or potential ally.  

                  "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

                  by high uintas on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 12:07:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If the shoe dosn't fit, don't wear it (0+ / 0-)

                    That phrase "I care about the whole bill of rights has been asserted so many times in gun diaries, in opposition to reasonable regulations.

                    I apologize if I misunderstood your meaning. The case I linked to was all about balancing the 1A, the 2A, and private property rights. I sincerely wanted to know if you had a chance to look at it.

                    I think we all care about the whole bill of rights, and that there is a lot of tension surrounding how do we balance expression of individual rights with the duty of the state to reduce crime and preserve the rights of others.

                    The phrase "I care about the whole bill of rights," has become simultaneously cliche and also somewhat loaded with implied accusation of others' not caring. Maybe that was not your intent.

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

                    by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 12:49:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That wasn't my intent. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener

                      I was merely explaining why I would join a group of 2nd Amendment supporters, why I would find common cause with them. BTW, with only a couple exceptions all of RKBA are dedicated liberals.

                      Kvoi has been active in local politics and like me is on a quest to educate gun owners that the party that is pro choice and liberal on social issues isn't out to get them and take their guns away. It kills me when I read comments advocating just that. Thank gawd President Obama is smarter and more open than some of his party.

                      "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

                      by high uintas on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 01:35:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Your voice is welcome in our diaries (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    high uintas

                    but I don't parse commentors as allies or enemies, or as senior or junior members of Daily Kos.

                    I'm a relative noob and am not responsible for unfair accusations made by others in the past. Neither are you; you are not responsible for others who have accused me of not caring about the whole bill of rights.

                    I hope you'll visit and comment whenever our diaries are of interest to you.

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

                    by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 12:53:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm reccing for sincerity and hope you'll (0+ / 0-)

                    review the comments to which you are reacting.

                    By my reading there was a prominent, and generic IF in FogJimCity's comment. I'm not aware of any statement by you that you personal would ever sit out an election, so my comment including John Lewis's speech was responding to those who assert that they can't vote for Dems for one reason or another, be it gun regulations or Obama sux in some other way.

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

                    by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 01:47:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  This is a straw man. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener, high uintas, Kasoru

                No one, and I mean no one, here is arguing that the 2nd Amendment precludes any and all regulation of firearms or their use.

                However, regulations that unreasonably restrict access to arms, restrict firearm ownership/use to the rich and powerful, or bans commonly owned firearms are an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment.

                Any law that serves as an obvious precursor to the aforementioned (e.g. registration before confiscation) may not in itself be unconstitutional, but neither does opposition to such laws conflict with support of other, good faith regulations.

                I am fine with FFA's being required to issue background checks. I am not fine with magazine restrictions. This does illustrate any inconsistency on my part, which your post seems to suggest.

                •  *this doesn't illustrate... N/T (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  high uintas
                •  Hello Neo (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Neo Control

                  Thanks for stopping by.

                  There are 5 or 6 points in that comment, so I'm not sure to which point your "This is a strawman" comment applies.

                  This seems to be the kernel for a lot of people:

                  However, regulations that unreasonably restrict access to arms, restrict firearm ownership/use to the rich and powerful, or bans commonly owned firearms are an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment.
                  Do you think the problem is that reasonable people can disagree about what "unreasonably restrict" means? I responded to this idea earlier, here.

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

                  by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 01:39:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hello. I was referring to the opening: (0+ / 0-)
                    No thanks for this:
                       I happen to believe that the entire Bill of Rights is important, not just the parts that someone picks and chooses.
                    I've seen this implicit accusation so often I coined a name for it. None of our constitutional rights are absolute. All of our rights have various restrictions, especially when competing rights must be balanced.
                    No one is arguing that the 2nd Amendment is absolute or beyond regulation. Not even the NRA. The wording of your comment, a rebuttal of an argument that wasn't being made, constitutes a Straw Man.

                    The portion you quoted suggests, to me, the assertion that many of the previously discussed regulations and restrictions are born out of a desire to limit firearm ownership for it's own sake- to satisfy an ideological bias, rather than a public need.

                    There are a wealth of public statements made by many current champions of gun control to justify this suspicion- to say nothing of statistics showing modest, if any, reduction in violence expected for this increased burden (very low instances of crime involving semi-automatic rifles; very few shootings involving the firing of more than three shots.) The poster you quoted appeared to be alleging bad faith.

                    However, as I mentioned in my reply, this suspicion of bad faith (and bad policy) regulations does not imply or require the belief that all firearm laws are unconstitutional.

                    That's why I threw the Straw Man Fallacy flag.

                •  Like I said above (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener

                  I do support magazine restrictions but I don't want them to be onerous. 20 shot magazines, maybe? I leave it to gun owners to judge when magazines become unwieldy and over the top. (I chose 20 because that is the size of magazines used by friends who target shoot.)

                  "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

                  by high uintas on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 01:42:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  We've been leaving it to gun owners for awhile now (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    high uintas, FogCityJohn

                    and that doesn't seem to be a workable policy position any more.

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

                    by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 02:46:09 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Why not? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      high uintas

                      Over 90% of homicides involving firearms are committed by felons. People unable to own a firearm already.

                      The vast, overwhelming bulk of gun crime will not be affected in the slightest by policies targeting people like myself, with no criminal record.

                      Such individuals have a very good track record.

                    •  If you take the NRA types out (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener

                      and deal with just sport shooters and hunters why not listen to them on what they think would be a workable magazine restriction?

                      I came up with the 20 shot magazine because of this Wiki article. I would limit on the high end rather than the low end because the vast majority of gun owners are just out there, target shooting or hunting and having fun.  

                      I don't automatically assume that gun owner X is going to go off and shoot someone. It rarely happens if you look at the numbers and magazine size doesn't matter in cases of suicide.The crazed mass killer is going to go for what he/she wants regardless.

                      BTW, this is one of the longest back and forths I've had here. I want to thank you for moving to a place of conversation rather than snarky comebacks. I've had my fill of them and I imagine you have, too.

                      "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

                      by high uintas on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 05:08:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I realize that sounds contradictory (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        LilithGardener

                        mr.u told me they use a 20 round magazine. I looked it up in Wiki because I wasn't sure I remembered right and low and behold that is already a limit in some state.

                        But, my wording....doh

                        "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

                        by high uintas on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 05:15:50 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  One argument is that smaller magazines (0+ / 0-)

                          could be defeated by just carrying more magazines, but I don't buy that rebuttal.

                          I'm not sure what is reasonable, or what is feasible. Seatbelts were thought unreasonable at one time too.

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

                          by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 05:43:31 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Magazine size is not a one-size-fits-all thing. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        high uintas

                        Literally.

                        The standard size of a magazine can range from five rounds for a shotgun to fifty rounds for a rifle.

                        In any case, why the desire to limit magazine size? The vast majority of fatal shootings in the United States involve fewer than three rounds fired. Then there's the fact that magazines are a simple, durable good, and there are already millions of offending magazines present.

                        So you are considering a regulation that is both ineffective and unenforceable. Why?

                        •  For me the argument that (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Neo Control

                          super large magazines contributed to the death count in shootings by allowing to shooter to just keep on going makes sense.

                          I'm not sure that passing a law is going to help that tho' and that means I'm going against one of my first rules: Don't pass useless laws.

                          So on one hand I see the logic in the fact that shooters are stopped when they have to reload and on the other hand I know that a determined criminal will find a way.

                          Might as well err on the side of potential saving of life. The impulse killer won't have a monster magazine readily available.

                          "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

                          by high uintas on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 07:06:20 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  My rebuttal (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            high uintas

                            Has a few points:

                            1. Large Magazines aren't a prerequisite for mass shootings. In the VA Tech shooting, most of the victims were claimed by a pistol with a ten round magazine. He just carried multiple magazines with him. Large magazines are not required for mass shootings to occur, or have a high number of fatalities.

                            2. Millions of magazines already exist, and will exist after the ban. Even if there was a nationwide effort to confiscate magazines, in an attempt give a ban teeth, rounding up pieces of plastic that can fit in a cargo pocket is impossible. To say nothing of the political backlash that foolishness would conjure. Without confiscation, supply will remain where it is now: Millions upon millions upon millions in private hands.

                            3. Mass shootings are not impulsive. Sandy Hook, Aurora, V Tech and Columbine were all planned well in advance of the event. If we accept that, then your point about an impulsive shooter not having a drum mag handy falls apart. A potential shooter will either purchase a large magazine, or he will practice, as Cho did, with smaller ones until he or she becomes proficient.

                            and finally:

                            4. Catering laws, and limiting freedoms, based upon the actions of the insane is foolish. Gun policy should not be dictated by a very, very small number of sick men. No law will protect you from such people, so why would you support punitive actions against those of us who aren't criminally insane, for the small chance of a "potential" reduction in the death toll of a hypothetical future event?

                            In a nutshell: Any ban would be ineffective in reducing supply. A determined mass murderer will still be able to acquire what he needs. Mass killers have proven themselves capable of killing dozens without such tools, regardless. Finally, this whole line of discussion is counter productive because we should not limit civil rights based upon the actions of the insane. We'd end up with no rights left whatsoever.

                          •  I understand (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Neo Control

                            which is why I said what I did about passing useless laws.

                            One point, isn't it possible that even tho shooter X plans he still is not that sharp of a tool and doesn't know how to get his hands on a lg magazine?

                            Magazine size seemed to be a true north for many people who want some regulation. I know that some of the people who are ranting just hate guns period but some are genuinely looking for a way to put the breaks on these kinds of massacres.

                            I wish that they would look at societal structural problems with the same intensity, but....I guess I'm tossing a bone. Go ahead and pass it, those things will still be out there but you can feel better about it.

                            I don't know, I just want to turn their attention to what I believe are better solutions and to do that we have to make them feel like they did something.

                            Craven? Yes.

                            "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

                            by high uintas on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 07:40:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I understand your desire to appease and move on, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            high uintas

                            however there are a couple major flaws with that approach:

                            First of all, we are discussing a right guaranteed by the Constitution. While not absolute, a great threshold should be met to justify curtailment. "This is useless, but I hope it allows you to focus on other issues," does not meet such a threshold. Even many supporters of this restriction, such as yourself, acknowledge that it will do next to nothing but make certain people feel better. We should not curtail rights to satisfy people's feelings.

                            Second, if this law is almost worthless, ask yourself why it remains the "true north" of the current effort to curtail gun rights. Why expend so much capital for something that will accomplish so little? The answer in my mind is: Because it polls well. I see it as quite craven: Attempt to pass whatever is popular. Acclimatize the population to various bans and onerous regulations- using each tragedy to justify further restriction, until firearms, if still legal at all, are nothing more than toys for the rich and powerful. Several leaders of the "Gun Safety" movement were foolish enough to speak their minds before, and there is no indication they have changed them.

                            They should not be given their bone. They will not focus on root causes, because, for many, a reduction in crime is not the goal. A reduction in gun ownership is.  

                          •  You know, you are right. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Neo Control, Kasoru

                            Every damn thing you wrote, I am being an appeaser and it isn't pretty. I take it back, I don't support something that in the end will be useless.

                            I can't help but believe you are right about the other issue you wrote about, they won't focus on real solutions because they are so fixated on the almighty gun.

                            They won't stop until they think they have rid the world of them despite the evidence that it will never happen.

                            "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

                            by high uintas on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 09:08:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thank you for understanding and listening. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            high uintas

                            I'm glad I was able to make you consider and understand my point of view.

                      •  I've been trying to understand the law, (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        high uintas

                        current gun laws, for many months now, for example. We founded this group to have more conversations like this, and this one from 6 months ago: http://www.dailykos.com/...

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

                        by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 05:40:20 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Note the question mark. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener

              As well as the use of the word "if."

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 12:56:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I'm certainly not gloating :( nt (4+ / 0-)

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

      by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:14:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I added this paragraph to the intro to (4+ / 0-)

      clarify your point and my reply.

      Morse and Giron, along with a a majority of their colleagues, stood up to the NRA and voted with a majority of their colleagues to pass some gun reform laws. And now they have been "punished" at the polls, just like some Kossacks predicted. We acknowledge that we lost. We welcome those who need to tell us "I told you so" to come on over and tell us exactly that, as we cry in our beer and figure out what to do next.

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

      by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:35:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Definitely a turnout issue. (7+ / 0-)

    I don't know where the majority of Coloradans stand on the gun issue between where the Repubs that were elected stand, and the Dems they are replacing were, but apparently the NRA did NOT outspend their campaigns.

    While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:17:00 PM PDT

  •  I voted for we didn't turn out (8+ / 0-)

    the vote for them.
     

    It was estimated that less than 20% of registered voters went to the polls yesterday.
    That's disgraceful, isn't it?
    I guess we had bigger fish to fry.
    What with Snowden and Greenwald and NSA and all.

    Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

    by JoanMar on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:28:37 PM PDT

    •  There were several FP diaries on the recall... (6+ / 0-)

      ...and we raised tens of thousands of dollars in support of the recall targets. But the field work in those two districts failed. When it comes to state legislative districts, dropping in a bunch of outsiders doesn't work. It needs to be local. We needed a better way to encourage higher turnout with local volunteers. Not an easy matter in an off-year election, much less a special election in an off-year in which one of the key voting methods—vote by mail—was hamstrung. Giron may not have been able to win at all, but the few hundred votes Morse lost by could have been made up by better door-to-door and telephone GOTV. I don't think Daily Kos can be blamed for that.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:55:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wasn't really blaming DailyKos (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        as much as I was blaming "progressives."
        Myself included.
        I didn't make a call on behalf of either senators.

        Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

        by JoanMar on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:31:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What can we expect from the (4+ / 0-)

    Firearms Law and Policy group that we haven't been seeing in the RKBA diaries?

    •  You can look at all the discussion in the diaries (5+ / 0-)

      that we published so far, including yesterday's profile of Dr. Greg Dworkin and the United Physicians of Newtown.

      Hundreds of laws have been challenged since Heller and are gradually percolating up to SCOTUS. We are interested in studying actual Court decisions to inform our opinions about which regulations are constitutional restrictions on the RKBA and which are likely to be overturned.

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

      by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:38:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So the group doesn't take a more-or-less (4+ / 0-)

        unified position on gun legislation one way or the other?  You'all aren't advocating for a yea or nay, more exploring the constitutional, legislative, and electoral dimensions?

        I'm curious because this is a tremendously emotional realm.  I have always been far more easily persuaded by the argument that gun control is a political loser than by any of the other stuff I hear from gun enthusiasts or 2nd amendment advocates.  That is to say, I've found the idea that we can do more, make things better for a larger swath of people, rally and organize and join better, if we back-burner a wedge issue like this.  But of course, it's not an easy and arguably not a morally defensible thing to do.  Er, arguably by some of us anyway.

        •  all politics is local (7+ / 0-)

          In CT the right thing to do was obvious. 12-14 changed a lot of things and a lot of minds. Not all, by any means.

          But to me, it's not a red or bpue or purple state thing so much as a population density urban rural thing. That's why there needs to be some understanding of how others see this.

          "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

          by Greg Dworkin on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:15:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There are some interesting decision as (3+ / 0-)

            state laws percolate up to SCOTUS.

            We included this gem by Adam B,in our glossary What gun control does the Second Amendment allow?

            Hundreds of laws have been challenged. Most are being upheld in the lower courts. It might be awhile before SCOTUS gives us any real guidance. In the mean time we can look to the lower court decisions and try to understand the legal theories argued in those cases.

            More than 60 gun cases have already made it all the way up and SCOTUS declined to review them. In our open thread last week we looked at one of them, from Georgia.

            OPEN THREAD w Poll – Are Some Rights More Equal Than Others?
            Again, it's the dogs that don't hunt bark which require some attention, and in this case it's an argument which the Supreme Court [in January 2013] decided not to hear, implicitly affirming that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable gun control measures.
            Adam B had chosen a good metaphor; the dogs that didn't bark.

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

            by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:32:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  That's right on your first point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          enhydra lutris, Glen The Plumber

          We are not motivated by a unified ideology on gun rights. We seek to help ourselves and each other to understand current law, as it exists in the state where we live. There is enormous variation across the country. You might enjoy some of the references in our glossary such as this gem by Adam B, What gun control does the Second Amendment allow?

          Hundreds of laws have been challenged. Most are being upheld in the lower courts. It might be awhile before SCOTUS gives us any real guidance. In the mean time we can look to the lower court decisions and try to understand the legal theories argued in those cases.

          You might like to take a look at our open thread last week.

          OPEN THREAD w Poll – Are Some Rights More Equal Than Others?
          Again, it's the dogs that don't hunt bark which require some attention, and in this case it's an argument which the Supreme Court [in January 2013] decided not to hear, implicitly affirming that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable gun control measures.

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

          by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:28:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I doubt you'll find folks here insisting that (4+ / 0-)

      they have a right to carry on somebody else's private property against the owner's will and hurling invective at those who disagree with those kinds of positions, for starts.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:06:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Depends on the private property. (4+ / 0-)

        Most folks toss off the "someone's private property" comment without considering that there are two wildly different types of private property. There's your house and then there's the local general store you own.

        If it's your personal private home property, I'll say that you have the right to admit or eject whomever you choose.

        If it's your public-access private business property, I'll say that the law shouldn't protect you if you decide to discriminate against a segment of the public for their legally protected rights.

        Then there is the element of public subsidy through tax breaks. Remember how federal anti-discrimination concepts apply to private colleges through receiving federal funds or tax breaks? How should that precedent of logic apply to places like walmart (which allows open carry if it is part of local laws) or the infamouse starbucks open carry policy or the ikea no-guns-ever-at-all-verboten policy.

        People make a lot of noise about private property, but I have yet to see the noise include the clarifiers about which type of private property they are being noisy about.

        •  Specifically personal residences, not business (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          establishments.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:24:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I won't "hurl invective" at you (3+ / 0-)

            but if someone is concealed carrying and you don't want them to bring their gun with them IMO it's on you to tell them. You have every right to not allow a firearm on your property, but you have to make that clear to people.

            I remember reading the thread that where another poster lost his shit over the idea that it was his responsibility to inform people that guns were not allowed. I honestly don't understand why that would be a problem.

            I have an old friend who has an equally long time friend, more even, clear back to his childhood. The thing about his friend is that he is a racist. I understand that my friend won't turn his back on someone who has done so much for him in his life, that is on him. But the racist is not allowed in my house or on my property. IMO, that is on me to make that clear and I have.

            It is the same with your home and guns. Your call.

            "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

            by high uintas on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:57:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is something of a different issue, and it (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener

              isn't, IMHO, at all open and shut? I don't routinely announce everything that is a known allergen that I have been in contact with when entering somebody's house, and I don't know anybody who does. I do, of course, ask my invited guests about any food allergies when planning a dinner party, as a courtesy, but courtesy cannot ever be the basis for law.

              OTOH, if I know that I have Typhoid in a contagious stage and a neighbor calls out to me to come over and chat I'm pretty certain that I commit a tort if not at least a misdemeanor if I do and do not warn them of my condition.

              So where does bringing concealed explosives, flash bang grenades, tear gas cannisters, caustic liquids or loaded weapons into somebody's house without letting them know fit in? I certainly don't claim to know.

              If it were me, I would certainly ask the owner/host if they minded if I bring my explosives, caustics or weapons into their house, but I don't know if I have a legal obligation to extend that courtesy. However, if their kid runs over to give me a hug and dislodges and detonates the grenade or pistol, and somebody is seriously injured I think I might very well be at risk of at least a civil suit.

              That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

              by enhydra lutris on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 08:17:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you live in my state (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Angryallen, LilithGardener, 43north

                there is a good chance that the people your are encounter during the day are carrying. Not everyone, but a pretty good percentage. I looked for an actual percentage and couldn't find it quickly, approx 200k people in Utah have CC permits.

                If even half of them carry all the time then there is a chance they may be on your property at one time or another. Many carry for a reason beyond wanting to "be prepared". I know two women who carry all the time because of an abusive ex. If they came over for coffee they would not leave their gun in the car and if they did everyone would scream at them for being irresponsible anyway.

                BTW, how do you get to explosives, flash bangs and tear gas from a CC permit. That is half the problem, no reality in this discussion.

                "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

                by high uintas on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 08:39:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Depending upon my occupation I could easily (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FogCityJohn, 43north

                  have any of those things upon my person, in my briefcase/backpack, or whatever. So, we have a spectrum running from having had a p-nut butter sandwich for lunch to having explosives, etc. to having active stage typhoid. Because of the vast number of allergens, afaik there is o legal requirement to wrn others except under very narrow specific circumstances of contact with any of them. Typhoid, OTOH, will effect most people and there is a pretty clear duty to warn others when you have a contagious non-trivial disease.

                  To me the question is where on that spectrum do those other things lie, and should firearms be treated differently from say dynamite or flash bangs with respect to any legal obligation to the homeowner? Dynamite, for example, is pretty benign stuff, you can take it into the garage and hit it with a hammer. So, should the laws for dynamite and loaded revolvers be the same or different? The concealment introduces this entire new element that isn't present with something openly carried. What does one have a legal duty to disclose to those with whom one will be in close quarters?

                  That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                  by enhydra lutris on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:10:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sorry enhydra, bed called. (3+ / 0-)

                    Hell yeah we treat explosives differently that a firearm! Being armed doesn't mean packing ordnance. That whole discussion confuses the issue.

                    A CC license relates to a firearm, let's leave it at that and the first C, concealed means just that. You don't wear a sign saying "I'm carrying a concealed weapon". Open carry is different ant that freaks even more people out.

                    The whole thing boils down to the question of how concerned are you about someone who is carrying coming onto your property. If it is a big deal to you post a small sign. "No firearms allowed". Just like people put "No Smoking" on their places.

                    "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

                    by high uintas on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 08:00:21 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But the whole point of the discussion is to (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener, high uintas, 43north

                      figure out what the law is, or, if my thinking is correct, what the courts are likely to hold in cases of first impression under a wide variety of existing judicial doctrines and laws. I'll wager that you'll find far more existing law on dynamite than on pistols, and that it is a far closer analogue that communicable diseases in that it requires planned effort to detonate/discharge it.

                      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                      by enhydra lutris on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 11:16:34 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Current law in my state (3+ / 0-)

                        on where a person can carry.

                        1. A person with a permit to carry a concealed firearm may not carry a concealed firearm in any secure area. A secure area may be established at an airport, higher education institution, or courthouse. A mental health facility or correctional facility may be designated by rule as an area in which no firearm or ammunition may be transported, sold, given, or possessed upon the facility. At least one notice shall be prominently displayed at each entrance to any secure area in which a firearm is restricted. Provisions shall be made to provide a secure firearms storage area so that persons with lawfully carried firearms may store them while they are in the secure area.
                        2. A person licensed to carry a concealed firearm may not knowingly and intentionally transport a firearm into a house of worship or a private residence after notice has been given that firearms are prohibited.
                        BTW, we are a "Shall Issue" state and they are working on doing away with permits altogether.

                        "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

                        by high uintas on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 12:17:08 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Isn't that inconsistent? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      high uintas, 43north

                      That CCW permit holders have full right to not announce they are armed, but that people who don't want guns on their property are supposed to announce that they are unarmed?

                      That seems to be both unfair and unrealistic. I thought that a key argument for concealed carry is that the when criminals don't know who might be armed it makes everyone a little safer.

                      Did I misunderstand that argument?

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

                      by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 11:33:27 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't think it's inconsistent. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        43north

                        If you don't want guns on your property how do you handle it? Again, the person I was referring to in my original comment was in a tizzy because he had to set the limits on his own house. I didn't understand it then and still don't. If I don't want certain behavior on my property it's on me to set that limit, IMO.

                        "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

                        by high uintas on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 12:11:06 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Agree that it's the property owner's (0+ / 0-)

                          responsibility.

                          I disagree with any assertion that a property owner should or must post a No Guns sign.

                          I've been studying some of the concealed carry laws linked at Handgun Law. This is my current understanding. The whole idea of concealed carry is that no one should be able to tell who is carrying. Encoded with CCW laws is the privacy rights of the person who is carrying. The responsibility for concealment rest entirely with the person who is carrying.

                          Let me repeat that. If we are to grant responsible law abiding gun owners the respect they deserve and we want to respect their right to privacy, it is the person carrying the gun who has 100% responsibility for concealing it. No one else.

                          IF, through sloppiness or intent, the person carrying a gun shows that they have a gun with them and it makes people uncomfortable, it is the person carrying who has violated concealed carry law. No one else. There is only one party that bears any responsibility for the presence of a deadly weapon on public property, or on someone else's private property. That one party is the party who brought the gun there.

                          By definition, "responsible and law abiding gun owner," includes a responsibility to express one's individual right while also respecting the rights of others.

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

                          by LilithGardener on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 02:41:22 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

              •  CCW = dynamite and grenades??? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                43north

                I was willing to follow you through your thoughts but when we leap so such ridiculous hyperbole.. no.  Just no and it makes it look like you don't care to come to a solution. And I clearly remember that discussion.

                One person was claiming that they would be justified on killing a service worker- say a plumber if they were bent over the sink and a CCW printed. And the justification was they did not invite the guns so it was a threat and immediate execution was justified.

                Counter argument was that if you see a printed/revealed CCW and you don't like it- ask them to leave as 99.999999999....% of CCW will comply politely. Or post signs. But CCW wearers are not obligated to inform. Politeness- not a point being debated.  

                •  It's not about hyperbole but about trying to (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener

                  ferret out what common law principles might be applied. You are unlikely to find either statute law or common law specifically on point, there are too many dangerous things to legislate or regulate by enumeration - for example, I have friends who schlep venomous snakes and arthropods around with them. To list them all in any body of law would be an enormous undertaking, and would create loopholes for any that were missed.

                  So, if you don't have statute law and probably minimal on point case law, then you have to look to what a judge would do in a case of first impression, which is to consider what a variety of doctrines would do with a variety of fact patterns involving a variety of dangerous things.  Off the top of my head, some doctrines that could come into play would be endangerment, duty to warn, duty to notify and then any lesser, broader, more general doctrines relating to putting others at risk, especially the whole nightmare bag of tort law.

                  Likewise, you need to think of a spectrum of risks, dangers and the like. Readily communicable diseases probably go right at the top of the list, maybe with the exception of negligently stowed nitro or sarin or something, but the idea, IMHO, is to keep negligence out of any initial consideration.

                  At the other end you have the special case of allergens, unless the allergy is known, everything is a potential allergen and a recitation of everything would be unduly and ridiculously burdensome.  

                  You very well might find some case law on venomous reptiles (I had forgotten about them), and possibly something on flashbangs, though far less likely, but in hot pursuit cases, those guys do go running around hither and yon and asking for access and all that. Dynamite would possibly be a pretty good indicator because it is highly destructive but harder than living shit to detonate, and it used to be surprisingly common.

                  As I said, I don't really have the answer. IIRC, I saw where a person was legally carrying in somebody else's house, and the household kid got their hands on the weapon and shot the owner thereof. So, is anybody culpable a) of a law violation and b) of a tort? Given the fact that it was the owner who was wounded, will any action be brought? What would be the result in CA where it is illegal to leave a loaded weapon where a kid can get hold of it? Is carrying the same as leaving or storing in such a case? More importantly, what if the kid shot somebody else, what would the law be there? Anything in the real case addressing this latter scenario would be dicta, but, in a pinch, better than nothing.

                  That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                  by enhydra lutris on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 11:09:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I don't understand this sentence - please (0+ / 0-)

                  clarify this for those who are new to that argument.

                  One person was claiming that they would be justified on killing a service worker- say a plumber if they were bent over the sink and a CCW printed.

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

                  by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 11:14:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Lillith (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LilithGardener, 43north

                    Not sure what is needed to be clarified? I don't want to get into specifics as the hypothetical situation involves another Kossak specifically. But as far as 'printing'- it's when a concealed weapon shows as an outline under a shirt, coat, jacket, etc...

                    •  That's jargon I didn't understand (0+ / 0-)

                      although I could have guessed. Discussion of gun issues sometimes seem like people are speaking a different language, a coded language.

                      Thank you for explaining that simple term for those who never owned or carried a fire arm.

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

                      by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 04:39:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  There's no "code" per se..... (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        43north, LilithGardener, DavidMS

                        simply the technical terms of art related to the subject, i.e. specific vocabulary.

                        It's a point we've made many times, that it's difficult to have a meaningful conversation with people who don't understand the subject, and don't know the vocabulary.  It's not meant a slur (as is also often accused), merely a statement of fact.

                        Just as if one were to attempt to discuss nuclear power by talking about those "atomicky thingies".  

                        Your hate-mail will be graded.

                        by PavePusher on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 06:37:51 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Agree that it's difficult (0+ / 0-)

                          and that's why I added a link to the  Glossary of Gun Terminology from Handgun Law, in our Glossary Diary, which you pointed me to some time ago. That site has been very helpful for me to understand some of the challenges CCW permit holders face when need to travel across state lines.

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

                          by LilithGardener on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:30:57 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Coded language? (0+ / 0-)

                        I don't accuse my mechanic of speaking in a coded language when he talks about how the drivetrain needs to be disconnected from the drive wheels if the truck is getting towed because otherwise the transmission could burn out.

                        Coded language? Nope. There is no secret decoder ring.

                        What there is, is google. I suggest you use it a little more often.

                        Here, try this link for illumination.
                        http://lmgtfy.com/...

                        •  There was no accusation there (0+ / 0-)

                          Simply a observation.

                          I'm a scientist and I deal with coded information of various kinds every single day. It's not possible to discuss anything if people aren't given the definitions straight up front.

                          A mechanic doesn't tell their customer they completed a tune up by only mentioning that they reset the gap without replacing any plugs.

                          Anyone with mechanical experience would know the mechanic referring to resetting the gap in the spark plugs, but most ordinary drivers would have little or no clue what the mechanic just said. So when a mechanic wants to communicate with a customer they would say that the engine only needed very minor adjustments.

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

                          by LilithGardener on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 01:36:04 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Difference between code and jargon. (0+ / 0-)

                            jar·gon
                            1.
                            special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.

                            code
                            1.
                            a system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols substituted for other words, letters, etc., esp. for the purposes of secrecy.

                            Let me use short simple declaratives...
                            You said code. Coded language.
                            Code implies an intent of secrecy.
                            You implied an intent of secrecy.

                          •  Code is ubiquitous in programming and blogging (0+ / 0-)

                            e.g. html code.

                            YMMV

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

                            by LilithGardener on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 04:32:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I was hardly speaking in fortran. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener
                          •  No, but we do write & publish in html (0+ / 0-)

                            Code is a neutral word, and in the context that I used it, anyone can see that I was asking for clarification of a term I didn't understand.

                            If some people read the same or similar words and see an accusation, that's on them, not the person seeking clarity.

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

                            by LilithGardener on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 05:16:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  No. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener

              You're talking about bringing a deadly weapon into someone else's home.  It's your responsibility, as a "Responsible Gun Owner," to make sure that is okay with your hosts.  You cannot simply assume that people will be fine with having guests concealed lethal weapons into their homes.

              This shouldn't even be a question.  I'm frankly stunned that anyone would think otherwise.

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:27:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This thread about risk and social expectations (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                high uintas

                is really important.

                There are potential social costs for disclosing that you carry concealed. And there are potential social costs for NOT disclosing that you carry concealed.

                If we have a dinner party where only adults are present I have no problem with our friends who carry concealed bringing guns into our home. I expect them to have in on their person, not in a purse, not in a bag or jacket pocket, and to refrain from drinking alcohol if they are carrying.

                But if it's a family event and there will be children running around then that is a different story. In social situations, or in any situation where attention is divided, it's far to easy for someone to forget their gun in the bathroom, or for a child to find the holster in bag with the coats.

                My partner and I don't talk about these things with our guests, because we trust their judgement. But we also expect them to respect our home.

                E.g. suppose a friend wants to bring his new girlfriend to a family BBQ and knows that she is divorcing an abusive ex, and has a CCW permit. We expect our friends to ask explicitly, if it's ok to bring her to the party, if it's ok to bring her kids, if its ok to bring her gun. We aren't in any position to assess her skills or capability, so we would say yes to her, yes to her kids, NO to her gun.

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

                by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 05:42:49 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  People who carry (0+ / 0-)

                are usually quite willing to let people know. The discussion I mentioned (and probably shouldn't have) involved someone who was just so piqued at having to state their preference in this issue, thinking that most people would automatically object to the concealed carrier.

                Here the opposite is the rule. I know people who carry and don't press the issue, neither do most of the other people they know. It's no biggie. The firearm is secured on their person and out of sight.

                "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

                by high uintas on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 08:09:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for stopping by Jay (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          enhydra lutris

          I'm glad when people pay attention to precision in their comments re gun rights. I'd love to know you think about the Georgia decision, OPEN THREAD w Poll Are Some Rights More Equal Than Others

          We discussed in last week's Open Thread. Would love to hear your analysis of the case.

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

          by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:32:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Quite a bit. RKBA is not this group. I don't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose

      know of any RKBAers who've joined this group.

  •  Only if you believe in extermination of black (6+ / 0-)

    People.

    This is another example of evil white supremacy winning.

    2nd amendment= keep the ns in their place.

    White people have the guns and own gun manufacturing.

    Gun nuts turned out, we didn't.

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:32:53 PM PDT

    •  How does that work? (3+ / 0-)

      Seeing as evil white supremacy causes murders, shouldn't Asian - Americans be murdered at a greater rate than whites?

      "states like VT and ID are not 'real america'" -icemilkcoffee

      by Utahrd on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:05:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What DoC said nt (4+ / 0-)

        nosotros no somos estúpidos

        by a2nite on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:27:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Racism against black people and Asians.... (4+ / 0-)

        .....is built on fundamentally different assumptions, and these assumptions treat Asians as human beings, but blacks as less than human.

        If you read old racist tirades about the Yellow Peril, you soon realize that although the writers think that Asians are inferior human beings with inferior morals, they don't deny that they are smart and hard-working. As the old racist jingle went, "Chinky chinky Chinaman sitting on a fence, making a dollar out of fifteen cents." The fear was that if we let them immigrate and be equal, they'd take over and we would have to live by their rules.

        The racist fear of black people, on the other hand, sees them as animals, not smarter, or harder working. You need look no further than Birth of a Nation to see what bigots feared would happen if black people ever got any power. The fear is of jungle anarchy, not a society run according to someone else's rules.

        The way the home cultures of black people and Asians were seen reinforced that difference. Asian culture was often insulted, but no one denied it existed. Indeed, a lot of people assumed that with a coat of Christian paint, it could handle the modern world just fine. But as Boaz observed long ago, few people in the United States were aware that African cultures even existed. Again the split: Asians came from cultures that the racists didn't like, but in their eyes, Africans came from the jungle, and were assumed incapable of culture.

        It's not hard to see which stereotype can more easily evolve into something less malignant. If there's someone who can make a dollar out of fifteen cents, sooner or later you're going to stop calling him names and hire him to make that dollar for you.

        "They smash your face in, and say you were always ugly." (Solzhenitsyn)

        by sagesource on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:40:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sadly the racists and the gun nuts are very hard (5+ / 0-)

      to tell apart, so you are absolutely right.

      “In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it … we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:19:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There is something to this, thogh not as rigid, (4+ / 0-)

      clear cut and uniform as your language suggests. I recall that even self-styled liberals went bat shit when the Panthers began bearing guns in public.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:13:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I suspect that if we could muster some brave (3+ / 0-)

        performance artists, to ride into town on two buses.

        Two busloads of people dressed in burkas roll into town and disembark, with AR-15 look alike rifles slung on their backs, muzzle pointing toward the ground and walked into any restaurant, there would be an uproar.

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

        by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:21:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree there (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        enhydra lutris, KVoimakas

        Tho' I have to say the first person I ever saw who "concealed carried" was my AA nephew who "carried" a small revolver in his sock. That was before Utah opened up their carry laws. I think that the rednecks here would be surprised at who carries.

        "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

        by high uintas on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 08:06:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The first person I knew to do so was likewise (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          high uintas

          black, though I strongly suspect that neither his weapon nor his manner of carrying it was legal.This was back i the sixties in CA, and CCW permits weren't handed out like candy.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 08:34:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Well, well. Let Coloradans go without (4+ / 0-)

    national sympathy during the next Columbine.  If rational regulation is too threatening to them, perhaps they are feeling up to the endless and pointless gun killings that so distinguish US culture, and if so, we should all mind our own business and keep walking and whistling.

    Building a better America with activism, cooperation, ingenuity and snacks.

    by judyms9 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:48:48 PM PDT

  •  An oft-overlooked fact about Heller (11+ / 0-)

    is that it explicitly said we could still do things like universal background checks and all sorts of measures, we just can't ban guns outright.

    So, at least if we take that ruling at its word, we don't have to tippy-toe around the Second Amendment in order to argue for sensible gun regulation. And I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the harm reduction that we want to achieve regarding guns is achievable without banning anything not currently banned.

    So long as we make this a culture war issue, we lose. This isn't like abortion, where our side and theirs are both fired up and ready to walk on hot coals to vote on the issue. The only way to make any traction here is to focus on harm reduction in ways that most gun owners can get behind. (The most hardcore fringy crazies will still call us Nazis of course, but this way we have a fighting chance at a coalition.)

    Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
    Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
    Code Monkey like you!

    Formerly known as Jyrinx.

    by Code Monkey on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:59:07 PM PDT

    •  This may not be like abortion, except that for the (4+ / 0-)

      Teapublican base it is as important as being anti-abortion or against a guy with the wrong color skin in the White House.  The base - and base they are - is quite monolithic save for a few exceptions: racist, anti-choice gun nuts.

      “In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it … we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:03:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  More than 60 gun laws have already made it (5+ / 0-)

      all the way to SCOTUS and the Supremes have declined to review them.

      In our last Open Thread we looked at one of them - a Georgia plaintiff wanted to take his guns to church. It's a very interesting question to consider.

      OPEN THREAD w Poll – Are Some Rights More Equal Than Others?

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

      by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:12:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, this. Thank you, Code Monkey. nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, Code Monkey
    •  Heller explicitly allows for licensing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      enhydra lutris

      I completely agree Code Monkey. Everyone should just sit down and read through Heller. I was pretty surprised at how the rhetoric and media portrayal differed from what is actually written there.

      First Mr. Heller was granted relief of registering his gun and obtaining a DC gun license, which includes a training requirement. But it doesn't stop there. We also have Scalia himself in Heller.

      In Heller, Justice Ginsberg articulated what "bear arms" means. Justice Scalia, author of the majority opinion, agreed with her interpretation.

      At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.
      Justice Scalia on the meaning of 'bear arms"; the bearer is ready to use the firearms in lawful interpersonal conflict.

      Having a gun is not sufficient - the bearer of arms must be ready

      I'm not a constitutional law scholar. Hell, I'm not even a lawyer, as I'm sure my fellow Kossacks can tell, ;). But I believe that the meaning of "bear arms", as articulated by Justices Ginsberg and Scalia, implicitly includes a training requirement. Having a gun, and carrying a gun is not sufficient. The bearer of arms must also be ready.

      Let me be clear. I'm not talking about the prefatory clause, "A well-regulated militia being necessary...." I'm talking about individual freedom and responsibility.

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

      by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:48:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believe Scalia was preempting the discussion of (0+ / 0-)

        "You can carry your guns wherever you want, but they must be unloaded and dissembled and locked in your pocket safe."

        The right to carry a loaded firearm, and the freedom to use it properly for defensive purposes, is what his "ready" entails.

        Not that I oppose training requirements for CWC, mind you. I am a strong proponent for safety, range and paper testing on local laws. However, I think you're misinterpreting Scalia here.

        •  You may be right, and I may be misinterpreting (0+ / 0-)

          As I pointed out I'm not a constitutional scholar and I want to consider different points of view.

          My main beef is the general idea that just putting a gun in someone's hand makes them ready to use it lawfully, without creating a menace for themselves or others.

          There is no 2A right to create a menace with a gun.

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

          by LilithGardener on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 04:36:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Sad, dissapointing, but just a setback on the way (7+ / 0-)

    to sensible firearm regulations.  The CO firearms regulations remain as law and there is no credible move to repeal them (except if you listen to the rabid NRA minions).

    Sad, but no reason to not discuss firearms regulations or to push our Congress-critters to break the stranglehold the NRA has on Congress.  Of course the only way to defeat the NRA will be to take back our congress-critters one by one - no easy fix.

    So while I am sad, I am no less optimistic that eventually we will resemble a civilized country when it comes to firearms regulations.

    “In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it … we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:08:47 PM PDT

  •  Recall elections favor the Rs (5+ / 0-)

    There are very few that we win. Gray Davis, Wisconsin, etc - all the recent ones that come to mind, we lost. This is no different.

    •  We did win Russell Pearce (3+ / 0-)

      but yes, recall elections tend to favor Repubs.  I think part of the reason why is because Repubs are more likely to want to recall officials based on simple political disagreement while Democrats tend not to vote for recalls unless real corruption was involved.  Look at Gray Davis.  Was he a jerk? Possibly.  Was he a corrupt lawbreaker? No.

      "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

      by TLS66 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:37:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting big picture perspective. (2+ / 0-)

      How many Senators voted for the laws?

      I'm not sure why some act like this was a total loss.

      At best it was a coin flip for the NRA. Targeted 4 and managed to recall only 2.

      They both fact re-election next year. We'll see if the results reflect mid-cycle/odd time of year/recall voter dynamics. If it really was their constituents punishing them, well, then we'll see that too.

      I predict they both have political futures, and it will be interesting to follow their next moves.

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

      by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:46:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It should not be forgotten that some Kossacks... (6+ / 0-)

    ...actually cheered on this loss and at least one has said he will not vote for Democrats in 2014 because of ...wait for it...the assault weapons ban. But Colorado didn't pass an assault weapons ban. Neither did the United States.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:49:14 PM PDT

    •  A majority of their colleagues votes for the same (4+ / 0-)

      laws that Morse and Giron voted for. The NRA targeted 4 Senators for recall, and only succeeded with two of them.

      It is a setback, but there is no telling how many Dems might become willing now to take a stronger stand FOR sensible reform.

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

      by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:56:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Sensible reform" is in the eye of the beholder. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener, FrankRose

        Your "sensible reform" just may be my "unconstitutional infringement."

        After all, anti-choice Republicans can frame restrictions such as waiting periods, "informed consent," and transvaginal ultrasounds as "sensible reform," yes?

        •  That analogy doesn't work (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FogCityJohn, a2nite, Glen The Plumber

          and IMO it's a weak attempt at political guilt tripping.

          I'm not relying on any legal theories pulled out of someone's religious or misogynistic dogma. I'm not interested in ideas that deny science, whether it is public health, medical, or criminology. The comparison to abortion is dependent on vague appeals to emotional comparisons that just don't work. It's not about the difference between what is sensible to you, or what is sensible to me.

          It's about what is written in Heller and McDonald. SCOTUS was not exactly clear but they did give some boundaries.

          Outright bans - likely unconstitutional (nobody, no kind of handgun)

          Arbitrary or capricious? - likely unconstitutional

          No nexus with legitimate duty of the state to reduce crime and secure public safety for all residents - likely unconstitutional.

          That still leaves a lot of room for training, licensing, registration, and prohibition from sensitive places.

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

          by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:00:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It was proposed and supported by the party. (4+ / 0-)

      Actions have......wait for it.....consequences.

      We tried to warn you.
      Don't blame me now that it's happening.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:35:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You know, there's every good chance... (6+ / 0-)

        ...that even though you will be helping elect Republicans next year by sitting out the election that those two seats will be held by Democrats again. And the laws you hate in Colorado—including the totally reasonable background check for all gun sales that the majority of Coloradans support—will remain on the books.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:57:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you are overestimating your 'good' chance. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Neo Control

          But have it your way. Optimism never hurt anybody.

          "two seats will be held by Dems again"
          Sure. After the party re-learns it's lesson & we fix the damage caused by this nonsense.

          "laws you hate in Colorado"
          You mean the one that included a magazine ban, has caused the Governor's favorability to plummet and is rejected by the people of Colorado 54%-35%?
          I know. Great job throwing that lead jacket to a drowning party.

          "you will be helping elect Republicans"
          No. That was done by those that pushed for & supported the gun ban proposed by the President & introduced to the Senate by Dianne "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it." Feinstein.
          It was just recently done by a foolish, feel-good, do-nothing magazine ban in Colorado.

          Gun Controllers: Take responsibility.
          You may as well, you're going to get it anyways.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:17:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think you believe that what happened ... (5+ / 0-)

            ...in those two districts can be replicated in Democratic district across the nation come 2014. You've made clear that you will cheer if that happens, gladly accepting the destruction a Republican win will bring. As I have noted previously, you and I are not on the same side.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:34:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I won't cheer. (0+ / 0-)

              I will be pissed.

              Gun Controllers are destroying the party, and I'm going to have to fix this fuck-up after this debacle finally passes.

              Holy shit, man; gun controllers are failing so fucking hard that they managed to lose Democratic incumbents in Democratic districts in an election during a non-election year.....all while having a 6-1 spending advantage.

              "As I have noted previously, you and I are not on the same side."
              You are correct. I am on the side of Democrats winning elections.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:48:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "I am on the side of Democrats winning ... (4+ / 0-)

                ...elections" and-I-will-do-that-by-sitting-out-2014.

                Stand-up comedy may have an opening for you.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:52:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not quite. I am on the side of Democrats winning.. (0+ / 0-)

                  ...elections and-will-do-that-by-not-infringing-on-the-liberties-of-innocent-people
                  If you had tried it my way, there would be 2 Dems in the Colorado house & wouldn't have wasted $3,000,000.

                  If you want to see comedy (dark comedy) look no farther than gun controller's attempts to win elections after promising the electorate that they will take the liberties of innocent Americans away & then the shock they have when that message doesn't resonate.

                  Sorry, MB. Maybe your vote only requires a certain letter behind the name, but my vote is more important than that.
                  All I require is to not promise to take liberties away from innocent Americans.
                  Don't worry. The party will learn, and have the utmost confidence that I will have my party back after 2014.

                  The gun controllers can have it for now.
                  Let's see what they can do with it.
                  What do you have to worry about? You're off to such a smashing start.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 08:52:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  A-effing-men! (3+ / 0-)
              You've made clear that you will cheer if that happens, gladly accepting the destruction a Republican win will bring. As I have noted previously, you and I are not on the same side.
              Frank and his RKBA buddies who are planning on sitting out the next election are not on the same side as the rest of us.  They don't give a damn about anyone else in the progressive coaliton or about what happens to issues other than guns.

              This sticks in my craw in particular, because as a gay man, I spent decades voting for Democrats who refused to support my own legal equality because they were better than the Republicans on other issues I care about, like the environment, (other) civil rights, and labor, to name a few.

              Sometimes you have to put what may be your personal priority aside, because there are other things that matter too much.  There's a lot to dislike about the current Democratic Party, but I'll be damned if I'll sit on my hands and just let the Republicans take over.  

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:14:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well....you can either stomp your feet & be in (0+ / 0-)

                utter shock that your foot-stomping isn't convincing anyone, or you can insist that the Democratic party doesn't pursue such an electoral loser.

                Don't promise to take liberties away from the electorate & then pout when they don't gleefully line up for it.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:55:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Anyone who sits out the next election is really (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite, FogCityJohn

                abandoning all the women in their lives.

                Sitting out the next election is tantamount to saying you don't give a damn if your nieces, nephews, and grandkids have access to safe, legal abortion. Its tantamount to saying you don't give a damn if women ever get fair pay, that you don't give a damn about marriage equality, that you don't give a damn about the new Jim Crow.

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

                by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 05:55:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Amen FCJ (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener

                nosotros no somos estúpidos

                by a2nite on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 05:31:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  ^^^ THIS (0+ / 0-)

        Thank you for answering our invitation to stop by and tell us exactly this. It's important that your schadenfreude have a safe outlet, and this is your chance.

        I certainly don't blame you for the Colorado results.

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

        by LilithGardener on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:26:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It didn't have to pass to make an impact. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose

      The repeal of the affordable care act doesn't even have to come up for a vote in the senate for it to have an impact on elections.

      So, it doesn't matter that neither colorado nor the us federal government passed an "assault" weapons ban. Merely the rhetoric about Dianne Feinstein "Mr and Mrs America, turn em all in" is enough to have an impact.

      You should know this, you've been around far too long to have not seen umpteen hundred examples of how merely talking about legislation has an impact on the voters.

      •  That looks a lot like "Don't talk about guns!" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, Glen The Plumber

        News flash, Jay, the country is talking about guns. There is no putting that genie back in the bottle. People are demanding that our elected representatives no longer take a passive stance.

        The "Don't talk about guns, or else!" argument is headed for the dustbin of electoral politics.

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

        by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 05:58:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't talk about "banning" guns then. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JayFromPA

          Of any variety. Or their accessories.

          It only leads to more elected Republicans and self-identifying Libertarians.

        •  Neo has it on the nose right there ^^^ (0+ / 0-)
          •  Isn't it already a bloody nose? nt (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite

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

            by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 04:16:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Is that a deflection? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener
              •  No, it's an acknowledgment (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite

                We just lost two Dem seats in the Colorado recall, didn't you hear? ;)

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

                by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 04:41:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I hear it's b/c pols didn't listen to the people. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener

                  How many times must it be said.

                  Gun control costs elections.

                  A crusade against violence is good and fine and awesome. But too often people follow the procedure "Ready Fire Aim".

                  Gun control is "Ready Fire Aim".

                  How about doing what john morse and angela giron didn't do, and AIM for the motivation that brings a person to pick up a deadly weapon such as a gun or a knife or a bat or a bomb or rat poison or a gasoline can or a razor blade or some other weapon.

                  It's not like the anime shows where objects can come to life and run around on their own.

                  So, I suppose the question TRULY is whether YOU heard what the recalls were saying.

                  It boils down to a simple statement that just about everyone can support without regard to party or ideology:

                  I feel over-managed and under-respected as a citizen.

                  Do you hear me? Are you listening? Do you even care?

                  •  Recced for conversation (0+ / 0-)

                    I've been listening plenty. I just don't agree with the math, or the logic that it's 1994 all over again.

                    YMMV

                    I am willing to acknowledge that Morse and Giron voted with a majority of their colleagues for gun laws that passed, that the NRA targeted 4 Senators for recall and managed to recall two of them. I'm willing to acknowledge that there were several factors that led to the loss of two Dem seats.

                    I will not accept the reductionist claim that it was all about their district constituents being pissed, or that they failed to represent their constituents.

                    I'm conceding we got a bloody nose. It's certainly worse than a hangnail, but at best it's a 50-50 win for the NRA on their recall effort. They targeted 4 Senators and managed to recall only 2 of them.

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

                    by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 05:26:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The problem with your 50/50 view (0+ / 0-)

                      is that it ignores the entire incumbency inertia that had to be overcome.

                      You are likely aware of how hard it is to beat an incumbent. Once a person gets into office it becomes much easier to stay in office.

                      And it wasn't the nra that targeted them. The NRA and bloomberg's MAIG jumped in after the people in those districts began the process.

                      Try this article from back before the signatures were even validated!

                      http://www.denverpost.com/...

                      The money shot: But Robert Harris, one of three men who filed the recall petition with the secretary of state,

                      Note that doesn't say the NRA filed the petition, it gives a name. Want the other names?
                      http://communities.washingtontimes.com/...

                      Take from that what you will. It's associated with a number of republicans, so I automatically have a level of distrust in its articles, but it's good for the names of the people who filed the paperwork and that sort of fact is free of value judgments.

  •  Kaili was totally wrong. (3+ / 0-)

    I wrote a diary in response called Shot Full of Holes explaining why I thought so.

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:05:33 PM PDT

  •  Gun control loses election because (4+ / 0-)

    a significant part of the population sub-set "gun advocates" is also part of the population sub-set "democrats."

    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by notrouble on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:55:55 PM PDT

    •  Nice to see you notrouble (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite

      Sitting out an election is a vote for going backward. I agree  with Rep John Lewis that our vote is our most powerful tool for form a more perfect union. Sitting out is a short-term, self-defeating political strategy.

      There is a large space in between fully supporting a Dem candidate who disagrees with you on guns, and sitting out an election to punish all Democrats for demanding action on guns.

      It reminds me of why the Amish, who are pacifists, vote republican. It requires an ability to turn away from a whole basket of important moral dilemmas.  

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

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

      by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 06:12:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The issue isn't "sitting out the election" (0+ / 0-)

        The registration advantage in (formerly) Giron's district is 2:1 in favor of Democrats, and that same ratio was reflected on election day.

        The get-out-the-vote machinery worked just fine.

        The issue is that, per PPP, 33% of Democrats openly supported the recall.

    •  David Nir reports on that today (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neo Control, notrouble, a2nite

      - our own unwillingness to put aside our preconceptions

      Other Races:

      • CO Recall: Following Tuesday's recall elections in Colorado, where two Democratic state senators were turfed out and replaced by Republicans, PPP's Tom Jensen revealed something very unusual. It turns out that he took a poll of ex-state Sen. Angela Giron's 3rd District over the weekend, but because he didn't believe it yielded accurate results, he decided to sit on it. Even more unusually, Jensen then chose to reveal the data after the fact, because it turned out to be dead-on.

      … Continue reading David Nir at Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: Thompson vows to press on, but pressure mounts to concede

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

      by LilithGardener on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 06:22:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Does The Recall Loss For Dems Mean That The (0+ / 0-)

    gun control legislation passed in CO will be overturned? If it will be overturned, then it's a win for the NRA. If the gun control legislation stands, then the NRA still lost - it doesn't matter what the recall results were. Those of us who want meaningful and sensible restrictions on gun ownership/use (universal background checks, etc.) are NOT going to be intimidated by this vote and we are NOT going away. The NRA better get used to it - this is just one battle in a long war to be waged. Since the ban on assault weapons expired, the NRA has controlled the conversation about guns and has gotten increasingly paranoid and ridiculous in their positions - the American public has finally awakened to this. Gabby Giffords, Sara Bradley, Michael Bloomberg, and their groups are waging a war with the gun nuts - they know they might not win every battle, but they are in this for the long haul.

    •  The law remains in place (0+ / 0-)

      My understanding is that the R Senators elected in the recall will face the electorate again next year, when voting procedures will be the usual procedures. Morse was term limited and would not be eligible to run again, in any case.

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

      by LilithGardener on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:02:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the update nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 08:04:39 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site