Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Gun Report: September 11, 2013

Posted 10 months ago on Sept. 11, 2013, 12:54 p.m. EST by grimwomyn (35) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

For the first time in Colorado’s history, two lawmakers state have been recalled. The reason? Their support for stricter gun control measures.

John Morse, the state senate leader, and state senator Angela Giron were ousted Tuesday night in an effort that drew outgoing New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a champion of tighter gun restrictions, and the National Rifle Association. Morse, along with his fellow Democrats, had passed laws limiting ammunition magazines to 15 rounds and requiring universal background checks on all gun sales and transfers.

“I’ve grown up in the age of Columbine and the Aurora theater shooting, and John Morse has stood up to the N.R.A.,” Sachin Mathur, a freshman at Colorado College, told the Denver Post. “He did what was right.”

“I’m a little perplexed,” Giron said during her concession speech, “but this is what I know: I know that I have not one iota of regret from what I voted on.”

Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, sees hope in the face of this defeat, pointing out that, until recently, there hadn’t been an organized, well-financed push to challenge the N.R.A. “What we’re seeing is a thaw,” he said. “But it’s going to take time.”

Here is today’s report. http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/the-gun-report-september-11-2013/?smid=fb-share&_r=0

101 Comments

101 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 months ago

Two dollars and fifty cents per signature for professional petition circulation, yielding 1,000 more than needed. Phase 1

http://www.firearmsforcolorado.org/

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

Because I'm vilified for mentioning ALEC, or the Koch's, let alone the NRA.

I'll let the truth speak for me.

"It is a travesty that most Americans are unaware of the despicable machinations Republicans resort to in their drive to advance their special interests’ agendas in the states, and their ignorance and lack of interest is playing a major role in democracy’s demise. The GOP are giving the nation an indication of how far they will go to subvert democracy to protect the real powers behind the conservative movement; the National Rifle Association, the Koch brothers, and the American Legislative Exchange Council. On Tuesday two democratic state legislators in Colorado were recalled in a confluence of lies, voter suppression, and fear-mongering because they supported background checks for gun purchases and renewable energy standards the NRA, Koch brothers, and ALEC would not let go unpunished."

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/09/12/alec-koch-brothers-show-subvert-democracy.html

It's not really about the 2nd amendment, it never really was.

ALEC, destroying Democracy, one State at a time.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2033) from Cornelius, OR 10 months ago

Absolutely right!

This was a Grass Roots revolution like the Tea Bag Taliban was! Also funded by the Kochs.

And think of what the Kochs and friends are doing (bribing, manipulating, USURPING DEMOCRACY) with this secret bank: http://occupywallst.org/forum/exclusive-the-koch-brothers-secret-bank-it-gets-wo/

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

Sssshhhhh.

Don't you know that pointing out the activities of the Koch's and or ALEC, is considered "partisan"?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2033) from Cornelius, OR 10 months ago

Just as bad as Chasing Unicorns for the GOP.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

Hush now. We're expected to point at the puppets, not the puppeteers.

Kind of like this here forum.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2033) from Cornelius, OR 10 months ago
[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

That's not in 4/4, you subversive you.

How do you expect the average troll to figure it out?

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2033) from Cornelius, OR 10 months ago

What happened to the post on Miley and the Church Ladies??

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

It's 15mins was up?

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2033) from Cornelius, OR 10 months ago

FUCK the 15 minutes, it was Banned?!??!? It had more to do with what was NOT made a scene than Miley!!! RW HATE and LIE with IMPUNITY!!!!!!!

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

I wasn't trying to piss you off.

I have no idea what happened to the post.

I do know that since the forum went live, links to amazon are auto banned.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 months ago

Replying to your PM here as I can't reply to it there.

FOSH - I didn't do anything with it. Perhaps someone(s) else didn't like your BS post and complained about it? Perhaps someone(s) else thought your low regard for women was disgusting.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 months ago

this may be good news as the people discover their government can be recalled

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

Hmmmm,

You should check out Wisconsin and Michigan.

Only those that the Koch's want recalled, get recalled.

It's all about where the "invest" their fortune.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 months ago

@ $2.50 a signature 10,000 signature is $25,000

exponentially cheaper than campaign ads

plus the one and one promotions of the signature collectors

plenty of people who need jobs ...

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

You seem to have missed my point.

Recalls failed in both of these Koch infested States.

BOTH are losing jobs because of it.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 months ago

I only read colorado

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

No wonder you can't find a job in California.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 months ago

is it snipe day ?

I don't run conservative petitions

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

Must be.

I got sick of gun nutters the last time they fed their puppets.

[-] -3 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

Awww. Please don't go and kick your dog or something cuz of anything I might have said.

I really just cannot understand how a staunch leftist (you call yourself a "liberal", right?) can be anti gun, other than the fact your Leftwing elite masters want the country disarmed. What's liberal about trying to deny a significant segment of our population their civil rights? I really just cannot understand You might really want to do some soul searching.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

So you're one of those gun nutters then?

Just as I suspected.

Under what other nameplates have you promoted the gun death agenda?

Did you think Zimmerman was innocent?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 months ago
[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

I'm still trying to figure how being pro gun death, makes someone a "civil rights activist".

I wanna read the paraphrased Ted Nugent bullshit.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 months ago

I wanna read the paraphrased Ted Nugent bullshit.

Careful that stuff can rot ones mind.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

He's just another crazy man from Waco................:)

[-] -2 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

Being a civil rights activist is hardly being a "nut". Makes no sense to me how a so-called liberal can be against gun ownership.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 months ago

Liberals are outgoing - less likely to be paranoid like a libertarian/conswervative or corp(se)oRATist ( ya know - cause how they screw people ).

[-] -2 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (418) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 minutes ago

That's nice. Why do outgoing people try to deny others their civil rights?

You should direct that question to Boner or Bitch or the GOP in general or or or

You did mean leaving office? Well it really doesn't mater. Never Mind.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

Do you really think that made sense? You tell me that leftists (there is nothing LIBERAL about anything you and Shoes espouse), you tell me leftists are outgoing. I ask why outgoing folks deny civil rights and you go off on Republicans. Are you saying that "Boner" and |"Bitch" are leftists? Guess you could be if by "Boner" you mean Oboner, and "Bitch" you mean Pelosi, or Killary?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 months ago

Hey being outgoing does not mean you can't be a puttz like Boner or the rest of the GOP/Corp(se)oRATist/libertarian leadership. Boy how dim are you? I mean those assholes had to be outgoing to run for office - Right?

[-] -2 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

That's nice. Why do outgoing people try to deny others their civil rights?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 months ago

That's nice. Why do outgoing people try to deny others their civil rights?

You should direct that question to Boner or Bitch or the GOP in general or or or

You did mean leaving office? Well it really doesn't mater. Never Mind.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

How does being a gun nutter, make you a civil rights activist????

[-] -2 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

Technically, there is no such thing as a "gun nutter". There are, however gungrabber nutters but you must know that since you appear to be one.

The right to keep and bear arms IS A CIVIL RIGHT, BUT you KNOW that, too.

With as many guns as people in the States (> 300 million) and 11-12 k gun deaths a year, I am sure you can do the math about how dangerous gun ownership in this country is. There are so many zeros after the decimal point I can't count them. To try and revoke the civil rights of more than 1/3 of this country over gang violence, YES GANG NOT GUN violence is Orwellian. But, you KNOW THAT too.

My guns have never tried to leave my house to commit a crime. I highly doubt any gun used in a crime was out on its own. But, you know that, too.

So why do you have such a hard on (or whatever it is you can do that resembles one) over gun ownership?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

I don't have a problem with gun ownership.

I have a problem with pro gun death, nutters, like yourself.

As I type this there is yet another formerly "civil gun owner" shooting lots of people in DC.

Then there's also guys like terrible Teddy and Mr. Beck, who call for shooting all liberals, and I'm sure there's even more of those on late night AM radio.

The difference, is that I'm not calling for your death, I'm calling for some common sense.

and really? It sounds more like your the one who needs a dose of Viagra.

So where is the common sense among gun nutters?

Where is their call to end the gun violence?

Were are their calls and threats to end the tyranny in Michigan?

There are none.

You have nothing that wasn't told to you by the NRA in the first place.

[-] -1 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

Kinda. Not all states have recalls and POTUS can only be impeached.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 months ago

Bush can be tried for war crimes

[-] 0 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

As can Obumbler

[-] 0 points by broncoze (-126) 10 months ago

This was pretty despicable. A polling organization deciding to not release their data because they didn't like the results. That kind of manipulation is scary

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/321677-ppp-suppressed-colorado-recall-poll

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/09/reflecting-on-the-colorado-recalls.html

[-] 0 points by broncoze (-126) 10 months ago

Bloomberg alone spent $350,000 in CO. Was that a despicable machination to advance his own special interest?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

You missed all that voter suppression stuff. Kinda like you didn't read a word of it.

LOL

zilla, jerking his knee. It's his best thing.

[-] -1 points by broncoze (-126) 10 months ago

I saw the voter suppression stuff. Angela Giron freaking out and basically saying her voters were stupid even though her opponents managed to figure out how to vote and total turnout was around 70% of what is was in 2010. Evil stuff that.

You didn't answer my question. You wouldn't be shirking would you?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

How much was spent by the NRA, the Koch's and the SPN, and all the rest of those?

Voter suppression is the way of their world, whether you notice it or not.

[-] -1 points by broncoze (-126) 10 months ago

Not sure of the numbers, but the other side spent more.

You are still shirking my question. It's a yes or no question. Flip a coin if you are pressed for time, but quit shirking. Shirking is as shirking does. A shirk in time saves shirk. Shirk shirk shirk shirk shirk.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

Not but's, asshole.

How much?

Include all that's been spent already, in all states, ALEC included.

[-] -1 points by broncoze (-126) 10 months ago

Give me a minute. "all the rest of those" is vague so I'm going to have to do a lot of searching. In the meantime, answer the yes or no question I asked you first. Stop shirking. Shirking makes baby jesus cry. Every time you shirk a kitten dies. Let he who is without shirk cast the first shirk.

Seriously. Stop shirking and answer this question.

"Bloomberg alone spent $350,000 in CO. Was that a despicable machination to advance his own special interest?"

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 months ago

Michael Rubens Bloomberg February 14, 1942 (age 71) Boston, Massachusetts, U.S. Political party Democratic (Before 2001) Republican (2001–2007) Independent (2007–present)


I would say he has his own agenda - and that would be - His Wealth.

[-] -1 points by broncoze (-126) 10 months ago

I'm a little worried we are going to miss him when he's out of office. When NYC took a financial hit, whenever the government had to cut support to certain agencies or non profits, a private organization would quietly step in and cover the loss through donations. Guess who was behind all of those private organizations. People bitch about sodas but he helped a lot of people by doing that and kept a lot of non-profits afloat

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 months ago

Yeah - I wonder how his private army will fare?

[-] -2 points by broncoze (-126) 10 months ago

Read this to learn about his "army". It could also be titled "Why NY is not Detroit....Yet"

http://nypost.com/2013/06/23/ilence-was-golden/#ixzz2X0UrAGVW

"Facing the post- 9/11 fiscal crisis his first year in office, he won cuts to city spending on cultural programs. That April, Carnegie announced that $10 million from the not-so-secret donor would go to 137 organizations. One of them, Flushing Town Hall in Queens, had had to cut its hours due to budget cuts. Thanks to its generous patron, it was able to restore them.

Such rescues became a Bloomberg hallmark. In 2004, Donor Anonymous gave $500,000 to help reopen the Dance Theater of Harlem. Presiding at the reopening, the mayor took no bows but let his aides spread the word. A year later, Ballet Hispanico reported it had kept its own doors open thanks to $100,000 from the same secret patron."

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 months ago

pat pat pat - there's a good lap dog - pat pat pat

You admire the shithead who stomped on the rights of the people to protest?

pat pat pat - Oh what a good lap dog U R - pat pat pat

[-] -2 points by broncoze (-126) 10 months ago

Strange question. Is Planned Parenthood part of his private army?

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/bloomberg-donate-250k-planned-parenthood-article-1.1016157

Now that I look back at it, your original statement was pretty weird too. How did giving money to CO support his agenda of his wealth?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 months ago

pat pat pat

[-] -2 points by broncoze (-126) 10 months ago

You are never funny, whether you try your own jokes or steal others. Stop trying.

http://img.izismile.com/img/img4/20110106/640/some_hip_grandmas_640_10.jpg

Also, you shirk questions. I don't mind, but shooz is just going to lose it

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 months ago

pat pat pat

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

Take your time.

I'm sure you'll figure it out in few hundred years, or so.

Besides, why would you have something against someone spending money to lessen the affects of the pro gun death crowd?

I know I don't.

[-] 0 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

The plumber vs. the billionaire By: Rich Lowry September 11, 2013 11:08 PM EDT
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=C500D903-42AE-4D3B-A6BD-0CADAA701425

Michael Bloomberg is the mayor of New York and a media mogul who weekends in Bermuda and whose net worth is an estimated $27 billion. Victor Head runs a plumbing business with his brother in Pueblo, Colo.

The two clashed from a distance Tuesday in the Colorado gun recalls, and Head gave the billionaire a righteous drubbing. The defeat of two pro-gun control Colorado state senators in recall elections sends a message that should be heard all the way back on the Upper East Side, and maybe even in Hamilton.

It wasn’t too long ago that Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns was supposed to be the great equalizer in the gun debate. For too long, the National Rifle Association had dominated with its big dollars and its fierce commitment to its cause. Bloomie would change that. Or so we were told.

This was before dozens of mayors quit the organization, some of them explaining that it had dawned on them that the group wasn’t against illegal guns so much as for making more guns illegal. And that was before the Colorado recall. The vote reinforces the failure of gun control in Congress earlier this year, with the extra sting of a direct populist rebuke.

The gun control measures at issue are relatively mild, certainly compared with what gun control advocates truly want. Colorado limited magazines to 15 rounds and imposed background checks on private transactions. Nevertheless, it was a career-ending vote for the two targeted Democrats.

The recallees, state Senate President John Morse of Colorado Springs and Sen. Angela Giron of Pueblo, weren’t fighting on hostile territory. In terms of registration, Morse’s district is split three ways among Democrats, Republicans and independents. Giron’s district is much more favorable, a heavily working class and Latino area that has been a Democratic stronghold forever. President Barack Obama carried it by nearly 20 points in 2012.

It was always thought that Morse, who has alienated all sorts of people besides gun rights advocates, could go down, and he did by 51 percent to49 percent. That Giron would follow him and by a larger margin, 56-44, was shocking.

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz waved off the defeats with the usual explanations. She said the Colorado recalls were the result of “voter suppression, pure and simple,” and pinned the blame on the NRA and the Koch brothers.

It is true that the recall didn’t have Colorado’s accustomed voting by mail and turnout was low, but it was a free and fair election in which people could go to the polls and vote their preference. That’s generally what we consider democracy. Were the circumstances unusual? Well, yeah — no one has ever been recalled before in Colorado.

As for the NRA and the Koch-backed group Americans for Prosperity, they certainly played in Colorado. The pro-recall forces were still badly outspent, by as much as 8-to-1 according to some estimates. Bloomberg wrote a personal check for the anti-recall side for $350,000.

Victor Head is not writing those kind of checks. Months ago he set out on what has all the hallmarks of a classic story of taking on City Hall.

He told my National Review colleague Charlie Cooke about it the other day. Head, a Pueblo native, was working as an auto mechanic in Wyoming when his father fell ill. He returned home to help his brother run his father’s plumbing business. When they heard that Colorado was going to adopt new gun control measures in the wake of Newtown, Conn., Head initiated what would become the recall with that most fearsome of political weapons — some fliers.

He printed and distributed them to local gun clubs to make people aware of an upcoming town hall meeting for Giron. Head got dozens of people there, but he felt Giron short-circuited the discussion. At the next town hall, he again handed out fliers to build a crowd, but this time Giron ruled that the discussion was to be exclusively about mortgages and barred Head from the room.

Head still got Giron to agree to hold one more town hall before the vote on guns, and this time roughly 1,000 people showed up. If Giron didn’t realize then that she had a populist revolt on her hands, she needed to be in a different line of work — and now she is.

What so got under Head’s skin, the sense that his representative wasn’t listening to him, added fuel to the recalls more broadly. Morse limited debate on the measures in the Senate and turned away people who wanted to testify. It was a notable act of high-handedness in a body that, as Dave Kopel of the Colorado-based Independent Institute points out, usually has limitlesss patience for citizen input. “It’s one thing to lose,” Kopel writes of the gun control debate in the Legislature. “It’s another to thing to lose when you didn’t even have the opportunity to present your reasoning.”

After Tuesday, that’s not a problem. The anti-recall side can make excuses, but it used to be clear-eyed about the stakes. In an interview with The New Republic a little while ago, Giron explained, “For Mayors Against Illegal Guns, if they lose even one of these seats, they might as well fold it up. And they understand that.”

Score one for the plumber.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

This should be banned.

You don't have permission to reprint it.

Aside from the fact that it's right wing bullshit.

The question that needs to be answered here, is what was the name of our previous puppet?

[-] -2 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

So tell me Shoes. Is OWS a movement for the 99% who are tired of the outsized influence of money in politics (the recent recall in CO is a darn good example of the Bloombergs and OFA's of this country throwing money in something really not their business....OFA is a very interesting BIG MONEY creation, that you seem to be ok with, but I digress) Is OWS a movement to take our country back by the people that no longer have a voice in govt, or is OWS some sort of astro turfed, tea party clone for the Democratic party?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

What did you say the name of your previous puppet was?

I want to know what your comments were in all the threads I've already posted on the subject of money in politics.

I want to know what your comments were in other threads on the subject of gun death.

Like so many others, events in Colorado didn't happen in a vacuum.

So It's important to know what the name of your previous puppet was.

[-] -1 points by broncoze (-126) 10 months ago

Don't expect shooz to answer. He lives his life like there's no tomorrow and all he's got, he had to steal.

He's shirking with the devil.

[-] -1 points by JPB950 (2254) 10 months ago

The money in this particular election seemed to be irrelevant. Money would probably be irrelevant in most elections if voters would make an effort to become informed. The bigger problem, for me, would be that there was participation by a minority of registered voters in both counties.

On the plus side it does show that an activist can organize a segment of the population and make changes through the system. This is something OWS could have done, had they pushed their message through selected candidates.

[-] -1 points by broncoze (-126) 10 months ago

"Nearly $368,000 from committees collecting donations in favor of the recalls came from outside of Colorado, and about $147,000came in the form of itemized donations from within the state. By contrast, those against the recall received about $1.5 million from within Colorado and about $1.5 million from outside the state. "

"Anti-recall groups have raised $3.1 million while pro-recall groups have raised $266,231"

Help me narrow this stuff down. Were the NRA, the Koch's and the SPN anti or pro recall?

[-] -3 points by broncoze (-126) 10 months ago

So you're cool with out of state parties using machinations to advance their own special interest as long as you like the interest. If you don't like the interest, then the machination becomes despicable. Am I right? You're still kinda being Papa Shirk here.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

Assumptions from a guy who doesn't know shit from shinola?

From a guy who never provided a single germane comment in those threads where I actually talked that?

Foolish statements from a dedicated troll?

I can't help the fact that you are pro gun death, just because you like being contrary.

It's the way of the troll. It's the only way you know how to be.

[-] -1 points by broncoze (-126) 10 months ago

You got a real attitude problem, Shooz. You're a shirker. You remind me of your father when he posted here. He was a shirker, too.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

Now you have to stoop so low, as to insult the memory of my long dead Father.

FUCK YOU!!!

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by broncoze (-126) 10 months ago

Let me guess. You have some kind of beef with John Delorean which kept you from seeing Back to the Future. Am I right?

PS. You're still a shirker

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 months ago

You're a pathetic multiple ID right wing piece of shit cockroach. You don't have the balls to stick with one ID.

Gee, that was fun, innit?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

Now you have to stoop so low, as to insult the memory of my long dead Father.

FUCK YOU!!!

[-] -3 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

You are absolutely a hoot! I only regret that I have but 1 shirk to share with this forum

[-] -2 points by broncoze (-126) 10 months ago

"Ask not what your forum can shirk for you; ask what you can shirk for your forum."

[-] -2 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

Hope he keeps supporting Dems.. His support is becoming the kiss of death

[-] -1 points by Narley (531) 10 months ago

This wasn't Koch, the NRA or whoever. It was the people of Colorado speaking their voice to the politicians. Bloomberg and other anti-gun interests out spent the pro-gun folks 7 to 1; and the people still saw the truth. A great day for the people of Colorado. They have made their voices heard.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 months ago

no

they voted on an issue up or down

human language can be more complex than that

[-] -1 points by Narley (531) 10 months ago

OK, they voted down the two anti-gun legislatures and replaced them with pro-gun legislatures. Is that precise enough for you? The basic message was the people didn't like these two politicians ignoring their constituents, The recent anti-gun legislation will eventually be overturned, and there's a good chance Colorado is turning into a red State.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 months ago

I do get it

the basic message is not a choice of the people

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

Spoken like a man who didn't read a word of truth.

Not surprising for a guy who still passes off the lie about the UAW destroying the big 3.

So.....You're pro gun death, but anti-war.

How does that work exactly, and why do you think it's a good day for any State that falls to Koch influence?

[-] -1 points by Narley (531) 10 months ago

The truth is Colorado voters ousted two Colorado democrat legislatures and replaced them with two republicans because of their vote on increased gun restrictions. Boom, no slant or spin. That’s exactly what happened. Do you not believe in Colorado voters should be able to determine who their legislatures are?

Here’s one for you. New Boston Research says increased gun ownership doesn’t lead to increased gun violence. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-09-link-gun-ownership-homicides.html

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 months ago

technically, those votes are by county not state

and a general election was not held so the county turn out was low

[-] -1 points by Narley (531) 10 months ago

OK, so the ones who voted get to choose who represents everyone. That's how elections work.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 months ago

direct democracy would be more practical in a state with broadband

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

Fool!

You can't even read the study.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/12/boston-university-study-finds-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide/

That's the problem with the pro gun death crowd.

they're blinded by the NRA and friends.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

And here is a write up on the cdc study Obumbler executive ordered earlier this year. Again, a link to actual study is in article

CDC Gun Research Backfires on Obama

by Kyle Wintersteen | August 27, 2013 IN the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, President Obama issued a list of Executive Orders. Notably among them, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was given $10 million to research gun violence.

“Year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it,” Obama said on Jan. 16.

As a result, a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control” was lifted. Finally, anti-gun proponents—and presumably the Obama Administration—thought gun owners and the NRA would be met with irrefutable scientific evidence to support why guns make Americans less safe.

Mainstream media outlets praised the order to lift the ban and lambasted the NRA and Congress for having put it in place.

It was the “Executive Order the NRA Should Fear the Most,” according to The Atlantic.

The CDC ban on gun research “caused lasting damage,” reported ABC News.

Salon said the ban was part of the NRA’s “war on gun science.”

And CBS News lamented that the NRA “stymied” CDC research.

Most mainstream journalists argued the NRA’s opposition to CDC gun research demonstrated its fear of being contradicted by science; few—if any—cited why the NRA may have had legitimate concerns. The culture of the CDC at the time could hardly be described as lacking bias on firearms.

“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who oversaw CDC gun research, told The Washington Post in 1994. “Now [smoking] is dirty, deadly and banned.”

Does Rosenberg sound like a man who should be trusted to conduct taxpayer-funded studies on guns?

Rosenberg’s statement coincided with a CDC study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay, who argued guns in the home are 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder. The study had serious flaws; namely, it skewed the ratio by failing to consider defensive uses of firearms in which the intruder wasn’t killed. It has since been refuted by several studies, including one by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, indicating Americans use guns for self-defense 2.5 million times annually. However, the damage had been done—the “43 times” myth is perhaps gun-control advocates’ most commonly cited argument, and a lot of people still believe it to this day.

So, the NRA and Congress took action. But with the ban lifted, what does the CDC’s first major gun research in 17 years reveal? Not exactly what Obama and anti-gun advocates expected. In fact, you might say Obama’s plan backfired.

Here are some key findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June:

  1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker: “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

  2. Defensive uses of guns are common: “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

  3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining: “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

  4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results: “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

  5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime: “There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

  6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime: “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

  7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides: “Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

Why No One Has Heard This Given the CDC’s prior track record on guns, you may be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions.

What are opponents of the Second Amendment doing about the new data? Perhaps predictably, they’re ignoring it. President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign remain silent. Most suspicious of all, the various media outlets that so eagerly anticipated the CDC research are looking the other way as well. One must wonder how media coverage of the CDC report may have differed, had the research more closely fit an anti-gun narrative.

Even worse, the few mainstream journalists who did report the CDC’s findings chose to cherry-pick from the data. Most, like NBC News, reported exclusively on the finding that gun suicides are up. Largely lost in that discussion is the fact that the overall rate of suicide—regardless of whether a gun is involved or not—is also up.

Others seized upon the CDC’s finding that, “The U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.” However, as noted by the Las Vegas Guardian Express, if figures are excluded from such anti-gun bastions as Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., “The homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.”

The CDC report is overall a blow to the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional agenda. It largely supports the Second Amendment, and contradicts common anti-gun arguments. Unfortunately, mainstream media failed to get the story they were hoping for, and their silence on the matter is a screaming illustration of their underlying agenda. : http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/08/27/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/#ixzz2ejVoIgZg

[-] -2 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

here's a short write up of Harvard study that includes a link to the actual report

Harvard gun study concludes gun bans don’t reduce the murder rate

posted at 3:21 pm on August 28, 2013 by Bruce McQuain

In fact, it appears, bans may actually see them increase. Here’s a summary of the study’s findings:

The Harvard study attempts to answer the question of whether or not banning firearms would reduce murders and suicides. Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownership often had LOWER murder rates.

Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high. In fact, the murder rate in Russia is four times higher than in the “gun-ridden” United States, cites the study. ”Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.” In other words, the elimination of guns does not eliminate murder, and in the case of gun-controlled Russia, murder rates are quite high.

The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France – had remarkably low murder rates. Contrast that with Luxembourg, “where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.

The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world. ”Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.”

And, as the study points out, where guns are banned, murderers still find weapons with which to do their dirty work. The difference is that the victims potential means of self-defense. With guns available, one would assume their deterrent effect if not outright effectiveness in the self-defense realm would predictably knock the murder rate down. Criminals and murderers are less likely to attack if the possibility the potential victim is armed exists. Common sense 101.

The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world. ”Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.”

And finally:

Further, the report cited, “the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism.” Meaning, it’s not guns that kill people.

People kill people.

Well how about that? The study is published in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. You can read it here. Pass it around to your anti-gun friends. Point out this isn’t some right-wing think tank that pumped out the study. Then appeal to their common sense. Of course that may be difficult to do with someone who actually believes that the simple act of banning a weapon will magically lower the murder rate because without that weapon, people just wouldn’t murder each other … or something.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/28/harvard-gun-study-concludes-gun-bans-dont-reduce-the-murder-rate/ ~McQ

[-] -1 points by Narley (531) 10 months ago

Cool study. Unfortunately the anti-gun nuts aren't interested in facts. The just want to take gun away from law abiding citizens.

I'm sooo buying a new Glock 19 as my carry weapon next month. Maybe get a couple of 33 round mags. Never can tell when the Black Blocks might attack people on the street.

[-] -1 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

You should also consider joining the NRA, GOA, and/or SAF. I joined the latter 2 after Newtown and now belong to and actively support all 3. SAF does some good legal work. But maybe the Colorado recall will change the gun grabbers' calculus? It proved Bloomberg money may not be desirable.

[-] -1 points by Narley (531) 10 months ago

Thanks, I was a NRA member many years ago. But they hounded me to death wanting donations. Got tired of it and told them to get lost. The GOA might work for me. I've owned many gun in the past 50 years,

[-] -2 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

Yeah, they do generate a lot of junk mail but I figure I am doing my part to keep the post office afloat :-)

[-] -2 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

Yup, Virginia gun/crime statistics have borne that out. Gun ownership has increased and their violent crime has decreased. There have been at 2 studies released this summer (Harvard and one requested by Obumbler earlier this year) that could not tie gun ownership to violent crime. Didn't get much publicity for some reason :-)

[-] -1 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

Shoes says "So.....You're pro gun death, but anti-war".

This time you added "death" to the pro gun descriptor, making the statement even MORE ridiculous. Again, it's like saying that men who like sex are all rapists.

But, keep it up. This sort of mind bending anti gun blather is precisely why Colorado rose up against your party and why gun grabbers will not win. Unlike you, most Americans are not useful idiots

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

Can't argue there. I was merely talking about guns and unfortunately, the Dems (and Shoes) are on the wrong side of that issue.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 10 months ago

Too bad your Dems didnt stick up for our right to assemble either.

Join the largest growing segment in the United States... The Fuck-Em-All crowd.

Pandering to the elite doesnt bring change.

[-] -1 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

Yeah, I thought about mentioning Bloomberg and his treatment of Occupiers, but this thread is about gun rights, though the gun grabbers are trying to spin Colorado into some ALEC conspiracy.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 months ago

No.

Gobs and gobs of money from the Koch's and friends, is what actually happened, and if you had paid attention, you would know that support for the pro gun death crowd was only a minor part of why they pushed the recall.

They are just the convenient knee jerkers.

Those knees are the easiest thing to jerk in America.

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by zimvind (-157) 10 months ago

From OP.....Too funny..

Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, sees hope in the face of this defeat, pointing out that, until recently, there hadn’t been an organized, well-financed push to challenge the N.R.A. “What we’re seeing is a thaw,” he said. “But it’s going to take time.”

I can do no more than laugh at the left's attempt to vilify the NRA. You don't get much more grassroots than that. It will, indeed, "take time". At least another generation or 2 for the left to indoctrinate tomorrow's children against a real, genuine, citizens' organization

[+] -4 points by Narley (531) 10 months ago

I read a news story that said out-of-state anti-gun folks, including Bloomberg, out spent the pro-gun folks 7 to 1, and they still lost. This not a case of some outside gun lobby forcing an election, This was the people of Colorado speaking their mind. Thankfully the Bloombergs of the world can't buy everything.

[-] -3 points by justaroach (-143) 10 months ago

Amen, though I read the 1% elite gun grabbers outspent the rational thinking public 8 to 1. Whichever, it proved that Americans (you know, those folks that don't live in the Beltway, Manhattan, or Hollywood) understand that the rot in our country today is not guns gone wild, it's the sickness that causes someone to pick a gun up and misuse it. Not much different than using their fists or knives or any other weapon. It's the sickness that drives one human to think they are entitled to take the life of another. The tool used is not really the issue. It truly boggles the rational mind that some people choose to blame the tool and not the wielder. Of course, this misplaced blame is but a further indictment of the movement in this country to obliterate the concept of personal responsibility.