Colorado Democrats lose recall elections over gun-control votes

[pondwater]

We'll be seeing a lot more of this in the future. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/10/colorado-gun-rights-backers-gun-control-activists-/

[Fau Teixeira]

i generally don't support gun control legislation

i do support repealing the 2nd amendment

and then outlawing private ownership of any firearm

[Landshark]

i generally don't support gun control legislation

i do support repealing the 2nd amendment

and then outlawing private ownership of any firearm

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

[Phishfan]

I can't believe that Colorado legislators were so out of touch with the general population. Hopefully we can see some of the more liberal Republicans take notice as well. It would not hurt to see some more middle of the road rather than pushing of everything to the fringe like both parties are trying to do.

[Spider-Dan]

This might not be apparent from the article or the original post, but for those keeping track on the scoreboard:

Colorado state Senate, pre-recall:
21 D/16 R

Colorado state Senate, post-recall:
19 D/18 R

So before the recall, Dems had a majority (but not a supermajority), and after the recall, Dems have a majority (but not a supermajority).  The will of the people be done!

Of note: gun advocates attempted to recall 4 Democratic state senators, but on two of the four, they were unsuccessful in getting enough petition signatures to even force a recall election.  The outrage of the Colorado electorate seems somewhat exaggerated.

When the 2011 Wisconsin state Senate recalls similarly resulted in the GOP losing some seats (but maintaining control), was that a harsh reprimand on the anti-union principles of conservatism?  Was it an indicator of a tide of voter retaliation across the republic, against any man who would attempt to weaken our unions?  Or was it an ultimately meaningless circlejerk?  I leave it to the reader to decide.

[pondwater]

^^^ Regardless of what they say after the fact, I'm pretty sure that the politicians that lost their jobs don't think that it was a circle jerk. That's what happens when you ignore what the citizens want and proceed to limit their rights by creating laws through fear mongering and disinformation.   

[pondwater]

i generally don't support gun control legislation

That's a good thing.

i do support repealing the 2nd amendment

This has to be a joke or something. The chances of that happening are so remote that I can't even believe that you took the time to type it. Good luck to any politician that votes for that. Even hardcore democrats would run from that one. You can dream though.

and then outlawing private ownership of any firearm

You are aware that what you are proposing would probably lead to a civil war and half the states trying to succeed from the union?

[Fau Teixeira]

You are aware that what you are proposing would probably lead to a civil war and half the states trying to succeed from the union?

Not if we're able to repeal the 2nd amendment first . .that by definition indicates a massive support for what i've proposed by enough people your scenario won't come to pass.

And it's not a joke. I challenge you to demonstrate a current negative impact from what I've proposed.

[pondwater]

Not if we're able to repeal the 2nd amendment first . .

Who is "we"? Are you secretly the member of some extremist group that we don't know about, lol.

that by definition indicates a massive support for what i've proposed by enough people your scenario won't come to pass.

That massive support that you dream of doesn't exist and probably never will in this country. Most people in this country support the 2nd amendment and recognize it's importance and significance. Regardless of what the media stooges tell you.

And it's not a joke. I challenge you to demonstrate a current negative impact from what I've proposed.

Taking away someone's rights in itself is a negative. Not to mention the lack of self protection from the criminals that will still have firearms and other weapons at their disposal. How are you going to protect yourself, your wife, and your children(if you have any of these things)? What about people that are heavily invested in firearms and ammunition? Think of all the money people have invested, I assume their interests won't be grandfathered in with your "ban 'em all" laws. What about people who shoot competitively or as a hobby. What about the firearm and ammunition companies that will lose money? What about their employees that will lose their jobs? What about their shareholders that will lose money? What about the impact that it would have to national security? Don't you think that there is a reason that we have never been invaded and probably never will be? And finally, repealing the 2nd amendment would set a precedent that our rights are negotiable. As far as I'm concerned our rights aren't negotiable and that's what makes this country the best country in the world. Is that enough negative impact for you?

[Phishfan]

^^^ I am a gun owner and supporter but you honestly think private gun ownership is what keeps a foreign military from invading the US? That is absurd.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

What about the impact that it would have to national security? Don't you think that there is a reason that we have never been invaded and probably never will be?

Actually we have been invaded, both by Mexico and Canada, although not recently. 

There are two reasons that other countries haven't invaded us and it has absolutely nothing to do with private gun ownership -- namely the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean. 

[pondwater]

^^^ I am a gun owner and supporter but you honestly think private gun ownership is what keeps a foreign military from invading the US? That is absurd.

Absurd? Not when you look at the numbers. We have enough firearms to arm every citizen and the world knows it.

The defense forces of the United States are reported to have 3,054,553 firearms.

Police in the United States are reported to have 1,150,000 firearms.

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000 to 310,000,000. The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in the United States is 101.05 firearms per 100 people. In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 178 countries, the United States ranked at No. 1.

[Phishfan]

And that has what to do with keeping an invading military out? As Hoodie pointed out the Atlantic & Pacific have quite a bit to do with it. Also, the guns owned by the majority of Americans would have little effect on the firepower needed to defeat our own military and invade this country. Private gun ownership is a large number but has absolutely nothing to do with homeland security from an opposing military.

Also, I can't help but notice you throw in military as well as police facts while our topic is actually private gun ownership.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 178 countries, the United States ranked at No. 1.

Yes, US is number one.  Serbia is #2.  They have been invaded recently.  Not far down the list is Iraq #8.  Didn't prevent them from being invaded either.  

Your side arm isn't what keeps other countries from invading us.  The Navy is.  

[EKnight]

If our "rights" are not negotiable, why are there so many constitutional amendments? Why was slavery abolished? Why were women allowed to vote? We don't have "rights" in this country. Anyone who believes that we do should familiarize themselves with Japanese-American internment camps in the 40s. 120,000 US citizens were locked away and told they had no rights whatsoever simply because they were Asian. Now, explain to me how that can actually happen in a country that has "rights"? Rights aren't rights if they can be changed or taken away. They're suggestions at best. -EK