Slog
News & ArtsThursday, March 21, 2013
Guns The NRA Now Knows That the Governor of Colorado Has Balls
Posted by Charles Mudede on Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:37 AM
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper signed some of the toughest gun legislation in the country into law on Wednesday. The measures set ammunition magazine limits to 15 rounds and eight shot gun shells and expand background checks on firearms to sales and transfers between private parties and online purchases. It will also require gun purchasers to foot the bill on the checks. The laws go into effect July 1.
When I say someone has balls, my meaning is always this: Because balls are, to use an expression by ODB, as fragile as eggs, to show you have them is to show you have the guts to make yourself vulnerable. Balls are not made of steel.
3
@ 2, I'd say that's beside the point here, given both our state's history with guns and the gun lobby's power. It's remarkable that that happened here, as opposed to Connecticut.
A better question is, Will Hick still be governor? He's still extremely popular and the local GOP has absolutely nobody on the bench to go up against him. (Word is that Scott Gessler, our bungling and discredited Sec'y of State who won't be seeking a second term, is the guy who drew the short straw.)
Will the Dems still control either chamber of the General Assembly? I can easily imagine a tidal wave of NRA money for Republican candidates, unless other states follow Colorado's lead and dilute the reaction. Will they try to influence the governor's race, or is that still too lost of a cause?
A better question is, Will Hick still be governor? He's still extremely popular and the local GOP has absolutely nobody on the bench to go up against him. (Word is that Scott Gessler, our bungling and discredited Sec'y of State who won't be seeking a second term, is the guy who drew the short straw.)
Will the Dems still control either chamber of the General Assembly? I can easily imagine a tidal wave of NRA money for Republican candidates, unless other states follow Colorado's lead and dilute the reaction. Will they try to influence the governor's race, or is that still too lost of a cause?
4
@2
You keep repeating that but you never say what part is unconstitutional. It's known in the business as FUD.
You keep repeating that but you never say what part is unconstitutional. It's known in the business as FUD.
6
As a liberal, and someone who has and wants nothing to do with the NRA, this is very disappointing. Chipping away at the autonomy of the American People while ignoring the deeper social issues that cause our children to want to murder each other is disgusting facade of a solution.
This really isn't the NRA vs Everyone Else, as much as the Stranger would like to frame it that way.
This really isn't the NRA vs Everyone Else, as much as the Stranger would like to frame it that way.
7
#4 - anything that slightly inconveniences Mr. 5280 is automatically unconstitutional. After all, the founding fathers were very clear about wanting all americans to have 40-round clips (or magazines, or whatever the hell gun fetishists like to call the thing that holds the bullets.) They were cool with armor-piercing bullets, too. I'm pretty sure it's in the second amendment.
8
@ 6, nobody believes you're really a liberal, no matter how often you repeat that. 5280 has a more legitimate claim to that label. (Not that he wants it, but he actually... you know... holds forth liberal opinions on other subjects. You haven't.)
10
@6: "while ignoring deeper social issues that cause our children to want to murder". you & 5280 must get your topic-derailing talking points from the same emails.
in case you weren't aware, america doesn't give a flying fuck about "deeper social issues" that aren't abortion. institutional racism, poverty and the drug war may be a contributing factor to urban homicides, but as far as vets shooting themselves, husbands killing their estranged wives, and schizos amassing arsenals, it's got fuck all to do with it.
how, exactly, do universal background checks "chip away at (our) autonomy"?
in case you weren't aware, america doesn't give a flying fuck about "deeper social issues" that aren't abortion. institutional racism, poverty and the drug war may be a contributing factor to urban homicides, but as far as vets shooting themselves, husbands killing their estranged wives, and schizos amassing arsenals, it's got fuck all to do with it.
how, exactly, do universal background checks "chip away at (our) autonomy"?
11
I'm glad they expanded the background check laws. I don't know how they plan to enforce it though. I'm guessing they're probably not going to enforce it at all.
The magazine limit is pointless.
The fact that they call this "tough gun legislation" only serves to remind me that current gun laws and current gun legislation proposals are pathetically weak.
The magazine limit is pointless.
The fact that they call this "tough gun legislation" only serves to remind me that current gun laws and current gun legislation proposals are pathetically weak.
12
@10 First, you are closeminded and weird. Second, background checks might not be a terrible idea, depending on how they are implemented, but I don't think creating a government database of gun owners is a wise idea.
I'm with Urgutha that magazine limits are pointless. In order to have any real impact on lives-lost gun legislation would have to be so severe that it would be unconstitutional and destabilizing.
I'm with Urgutha that magazine limits are pointless. In order to have any real impact on lives-lost gun legislation would have to be so severe that it would be unconstitutional and destabilizing.
13
@9, because you're a one-topic hardliner and it's well known that interested parties send people who pretend to be ordinary citizens to spread propaganda on blogs.
Until you prove you're a liberal, nobody is going to believe you.
@ 11, do you recall how the shooting of Gabby Giffords and other people at her event went down? Loughner was stopped only when he had to reload. It doesn't take a genius to realize fewer people would have been shot if he had a smaller magazine. Maybe that girl who died would still be alive.
Until you prove you're a liberal, nobody is going to believe you.
@ 11, do you recall how the shooting of Gabby Giffords and other people at her event went down? Loughner was stopped only when he had to reload. It doesn't take a genius to realize fewer people would have been shot if he had a smaller magazine. Maybe that girl who died would still be alive.
15
@9
"Why? Because I support don't support gun control?"
No. Because it is easier to try to dismiss anyone who disagrees by claiming that the reasons they disagree are somehow tainted.
Background checks are useless at the state level and by themselves.
At the state level:
Criminals will just go to a different state to buy guns.
But if you propose implementing background checks at the federal level you annoy other people here.
That is because those people are more interested in getting laws passed than in reducing gun-related crimes.
By themselves:
Straw buyers don't do background checks on their customers.
Background checks could be useful as a tool for prosecuting straw buyers but they would, again, have to be implemented at the federal level. And the agencies enforcing it would have to set up "stings". And limit plea-bargaining in such cases.
The problem with passing such a law is that it is usually tied to a "gun registration" or "gun owner registration" law.
"Why? Because I support don't support gun control?"
No. Because it is easier to try to dismiss anyone who disagrees by claiming that the reasons they disagree are somehow tainted.
Background checks are useless at the state level and by themselves.
At the state level:
Criminals will just go to a different state to buy guns.
But if you propose implementing background checks at the federal level you annoy other people here.
That is because those people are more interested in getting laws passed than in reducing gun-related crimes.
By themselves:
Straw buyers don't do background checks on their customers.
Background checks could be useful as a tool for prosecuting straw buyers but they would, again, have to be implemented at the federal level. And the agencies enforcing it would have to set up "stings". And limit plea-bargaining in such cases.
The problem with passing such a law is that it is usually tied to a "gun registration" or "gun owner registration" law.
16
My liberal bonafides are well established, and I own a gun, and I really like the CO law. WA already knows I own a gun- I had to go through a background check when I bought it. Gun show guys need to be covered by the same law.
Why the fuck don't we, who live in a much more liberal state that is permenantly controlled by the more "progressive" party, already have a law like this?
Why the fuck don't we, who live in a much more liberal state that is permenantly controlled by the more "progressive" party, already have a law like this?
17
@13,
Or maybe he'd just have brought another gun.
It's a stupid, reactive, knee-jerk law. Next, someone will do a mass killing with 14 bullets and they'll pass a law saying 14 round magazines are illegal. Then a 13 bullet killing will happen... and so on, and so on. It's like the idiotic policy about removing your shoes at the airport because this one guy one time tried to blow up his shoes. Reactive, knee-jerk, feel-good bullshit.
If people actually fucking cared about "saving lives" from gun violence the first and most important law would be to ban all pistols. Period.
Big clips, "assault weapons," bullet limits, etc. are all meaningless unless you get rid of pistols.
Not that I'm advocating getting rid of pistols, I'm just saying it's the only thing that would truly make a difference.
Or maybe he'd just have brought another gun.
It's a stupid, reactive, knee-jerk law. Next, someone will do a mass killing with 14 bullets and they'll pass a law saying 14 round magazines are illegal. Then a 13 bullet killing will happen... and so on, and so on. It's like the idiotic policy about removing your shoes at the airport because this one guy one time tried to blow up his shoes. Reactive, knee-jerk, feel-good bullshit.
If people actually fucking cared about "saving lives" from gun violence the first and most important law would be to ban all pistols. Period.
Big clips, "assault weapons," bullet limits, etc. are all meaningless unless you get rid of pistols.
Not that I'm advocating getting rid of pistols, I'm just saying it's the only thing that would truly make a difference.
18
@ 17, but he didn't. Although having to change guns probably would also have given them the opportunity to stop him... thus you support the case you argue against.
Let's keep to the facts, and away from slippery slope fallacies, please.
Addressing most gun crime will mean addressing economic disparities and a host of other issues that most liberals want to see addressed already. But addressing mass murder means limiting or banning the items that make mass murder easy to commit.
Let's keep to the facts, and away from slippery slope fallacies, please.
Addressing most gun crime will mean addressing economic disparities and a host of other issues that most liberals want to see addressed already. But addressing mass murder means limiting or banning the items that make mass murder easy to commit.
20
If people whine this much about background checks and restrictions on magazine size there is no way anyone is going to attempt a ban on pistols.
I don't know about clip size, but background checks work. They may not save every single victim of gun violence but they save some of them, they are fair, and they have broad support, so this is how we address gun violence. It's a place to start.
I don't know about clip size, but background checks work. They may not save every single victim of gun violence but they save some of them, they are fair, and they have broad support, so this is how we address gun violence. It's a place to start.
24
Mmm. Close enough for me. The magazine limitation is so poorly-written that it effectively bans almost all guns (at least when read literally). I think they could be in trouble on that.
As you see, let's see how it goes.
As you see, let's see how it goes.
25
@12: coming from you, i'll take "closeminded and weird" as a badge of honor.
i note that we agree that the background checks were acceptable, and the magazine limits were pointless (except as a source of schadenfreude).
can you tell me why, specifically, creating a government database of gun owners is a bad idea? does that "infringe" on the RKBA? if so, how? does it "infringe" on our rights that we register our vehicles?
i don't believe you can articulate a logical objection. impress me.
i note that we agree that the background checks were acceptable, and the magazine limits were pointless (except as a source of schadenfreude).
can you tell me why, specifically, creating a government database of gun owners is a bad idea? does that "infringe" on the RKBA? if so, how? does it "infringe" on our rights that we register our vehicles?
i don't believe you can articulate a logical objection. impress me.
26
Max, the difference is that there isn't a long history of governments confiscating peoples' cars once they've been registered. Sadly, there are many, many instances of that happening with guns, and it has almost always ended badly. Think Hitler.
27
@ 5280 - If you get pulled over with a bunch of unpaid tickets, you will get your driving priviledges (and perhaps your car) taken away, so your analogy doesn't hold water. Try again, please.
28
Um, no, you're the one who's missed the point. Sorry.
There's a big difference between a government confiscating one scofflaw's car and it seizing every gun owned by every citizen.
There's a big difference between a government confiscating one scofflaw's car and it seizing every gun owned by every citizen.
29
What about the government confiscating a scofflaw's gun? How does your analogy get from zero to Hitler so quickly?
30
@28: The government says it's illegal to drive your car recklessly or over the speed limit. You do that anyway, your driver's license is taken away. The government says you can't put certain kinds of magazines in your guns. You do that anyway, your guns are taken away.
The difference is that you agree with driving laws but not with gun control laws. You don't get to decide which laws are valid and which aren't.
The difference is that you agree with driving laws but not with gun control laws. You don't get to decide which laws are valid and which aren't.
33
@ 28 - You said in comment 26 "the difference is that there isn't a long history of governments confiscating peoples' cars once they've been registered.", and I was pointing out that (once again) you were wrong, and trying to sell talking points that don't hold water. Peoples' (sic) cars do get confiscated. There's a long history of it. So do - please - tell me how I am missing the point about your comment in 26.
34
@33, Too late, he's already checked out and it's all our fault for not listening. I know I'll think twice before questioning the validity of a Nazi analogy ever again.
36
@13, There is some evidence that his gun jammed, most likely due to his ridiculous 33 rd magazine and he was trying, unsuccessfully, to clear the jam.
Personally, I don't understand the fixation with high capacity magazines - the argument, as I understand it, is that if you carry concealed, you're likely to only have 1 or 2 extra magazines, and therefore want as high capacity magazines as possible. Whereas, if you are planning an attack, you can have as many magazines/firearms as you can carry.
However, extremely high capacity magazines have proven to be unreliable as well as bulky/heavy..etc.
Personally, I don't understand the fixation with high capacity magazines - the argument, as I understand it, is that if you carry concealed, you're likely to only have 1 or 2 extra magazines, and therefore want as high capacity magazines as possible. Whereas, if you are planning an attack, you can have as many magazines/firearms as you can carry.
However, extremely high capacity magazines have proven to be unreliable as well as bulky/heavy..etc.
37
@36: speaking as a gun nut shill, I can also tell you another unintended consequence of magazine limits when it comes to pistols - if you formerly had a 9 mm with 15 rounds, and it's now illegal, there's very little reason not to move up to a .40 caliber or 10mm etc, which are significantly more destructive, since the gun size is the same. The tradeoff between capacity vs power is an old one.
I know this will get shouted down very quickly, but trust me, that is how it works. Same thing applies with rifles. Sorry.
I know this will get shouted down very quickly, but trust me, that is how it works. Same thing applies with rifles. Sorry.
38
You guys DID miss 5280's point.
He said the government could use registration to ultimately confiscate all guns from all people, not just the scofflaws, everybody.
The car analogy would be the government using car registration to take away all cars from all people, whether they were criminals or not.
That's where the Hitler thing came in, because the Nazi party used gun registration to locate all the guns and take them away from everyone (as far as I know).
Yes?
I'm not taking sides here, I'm just saying I think that was 5280's point and I don't think you guys got it.
He said the government could use registration to ultimately confiscate all guns from all people, not just the scofflaws, everybody.
The car analogy would be the government using car registration to take away all cars from all people, whether they were criminals or not.
That's where the Hitler thing came in, because the Nazi party used gun registration to locate all the guns and take them away from everyone (as far as I know).
Yes?
I'm not taking sides here, I'm just saying I think that was 5280's point and I don't think you guys got it.
40
No, I got his point. I've heard it made by others before. I think it's absurd and paranoid to compare the US today to WW2-era Germany, even in this context.
41
Yeah, it is pretty paranoid and absurd.
However...
If I were head of government and I was planning to place myself as dictator, the first thing I'd do, very first thing, is disarm the citizens as much as possible. I mean, it is a logical first step because it serves to make you stronger while at the same time not tipping your hand too much - You can say you're doing it for whatever reason you want, but the end result is an easier takeover.
That's probably why countries that have had government takeovers have almost always done it as one of the first steps. I'm not comparing the U.S. to WW2 Germany... now and then are two totally different situations... but it's not like we're some kind of magical country that will have democracy forever no matter what. ANY country is vulnerable to power grabs and corruption. Anyone who thinks they're invincible is naïve.
Anyway, yeah, it's a pretty far-fetched crazy idea. Still, it's always something those in power do before they go for more power, so gun control simply makes people sit up and take notice.
However...
If I were head of government and I was planning to place myself as dictator, the first thing I'd do, very first thing, is disarm the citizens as much as possible. I mean, it is a logical first step because it serves to make you stronger while at the same time not tipping your hand too much - You can say you're doing it for whatever reason you want, but the end result is an easier takeover.
That's probably why countries that have had government takeovers have almost always done it as one of the first steps. I'm not comparing the U.S. to WW2 Germany... now and then are two totally different situations... but it's not like we're some kind of magical country that will have democracy forever no matter what. ANY country is vulnerable to power grabs and corruption. Anyone who thinks they're invincible is naïve.
Anyway, yeah, it's a pretty far-fetched crazy idea. Still, it's always something those in power do before they go for more power, so gun control simply makes people sit up and take notice.
42
@41: Rabies first manifests as flu-like symptoms. Therefore, flu-like symptoms are indicative of rabies.
43
@42,
It's just regression to the mean. The best predictor of the future is the past.
When a government bans their citizens from owning guns, what's the most common next step they take?
I don't actually know the answer to that because I'm too lazy to use The Google and then sort through a hundred thousand biased manifestos, but I'd venture to guess that "forms a dictatorship" is one of the answers.
It's just regression to the mean. The best predictor of the future is the past.
When a government bans their citizens from owning guns, what's the most common next step they take?
I don't actually know the answer to that because I'm too lazy to use The Google and then sort through a hundred thousand biased manifestos, but I'd venture to guess that "forms a dictatorship" is one of the answers.
44
When has the US gov't ever tried to take guns? Never.
When Australia "took" guns, did they become a dictatorship?
That's the past that indicates your future, Ugurtha.
When Australia "took" guns, did they become a dictatorship?
That's the past that indicates your future, Ugurtha.
47
I'm not shifting anything. You gave one example. So what. Is that the typical outcome or is it an outlier? Unless other examples are given, how are we supposed to know? That's how statistics work: multiple samples.
48
@ 47, YOU gave one example, too, and an iffy one at that. You set up the parameter, so that's how we're debating this.
But as I said, that's not how history works. History is not statistics, and American history is not rife with examples of free populations losing their rights.
But as I said, that's not how history works. History is not statistics, and American history is not rife with examples of free populations losing their rights.
49
For God's sake, don't let Sgt. Doom hear you say that, Matt. We'll never hear the end of it.
But seriously, there's been a shit-ton of encroachment of rights by the government in the last century or so (and especially more recently). I don't trust them one little bit; don't see how you can.
But seriously, there's been a shit-ton of encroachment of rights by the government in the last century or so (and especially more recently). I don't trust them one little bit; don't see how you can.
50
So you're agreeing that neither of us knows. Fine.
Statistics use data to make predictions. Data are typically historical records - information about whatever you're interested in that happens in the past. What do you think statisticians use to make predictions? They use data representing what's happened in the past. History is absolutely used in statistics.
American history is LOADED with examples of free populations losing their rights.
Statistics use data to make predictions. Data are typically historical records - information about whatever you're interested in that happens in the past. What do you think statisticians use to make predictions? They use data representing what's happened in the past. History is absolutely used in statistics.
American history is not rife with examples of free populations losing their rights.Seriously? Are you forgetting about Native Americans? Slavery? Japanese Internment during WWII?
American history is LOADED with examples of free populations losing their rights.
51
I'm guessing the three of us (Matt, 5280, and I) are the only ones slogging today because the weather sucks here.
52
I don't know if we're the only ones Slogging, but the weather certainly sucks. No argument there.
53
@ 50, none of those groups lost rights. They all started out with zero rights to begin with.
Anyway, back to history. It turns out that reports of oppressive governments seizing guns from their citizens have been exaggerated:
http://news.yahoo.com/hitler-joins-gun-d…
Regarding America, simple mistrust is pretty far from a sound reason to suspect that seizure of lawfully owned guns from law abiding citizens is around the corner, especially on the widespread scale people warn us about. It is without precedence. Not just here. It would take upheaval and revolution to make such a thing possible.
If that isn't enough, think about your average soldier. Tends to be pretty conservative. Doesn't seem likely he'd see seizing guns as part of his duty to uphold the Constitution. Same with the CO's.
Maybe you're onto something, though. Maybe this is part of a grand scheme to take guns decades from now. A plan as gradual and deliberate as the one to rob the 99% over the last 30 years. That was pretty crafty. It would take something as long term to bring about such a shift here.
I kinda doubt it, though. The 1% succeeded because millions believe in the American Way, which was how that was sold. Millions also believe in their guns, and teach their kids to believe, too. Who would find it worth their while trying to get that river to flow uphill?
And this weather can suck my ass.
Anyway, back to history. It turns out that reports of oppressive governments seizing guns from their citizens have been exaggerated:
http://news.yahoo.com/hitler-joins-gun-d…
Regarding America, simple mistrust is pretty far from a sound reason to suspect that seizure of lawfully owned guns from law abiding citizens is around the corner, especially on the widespread scale people warn us about. It is without precedence. Not just here. It would take upheaval and revolution to make such a thing possible.
If that isn't enough, think about your average soldier. Tends to be pretty conservative. Doesn't seem likely he'd see seizing guns as part of his duty to uphold the Constitution. Same with the CO's.
Maybe you're onto something, though. Maybe this is part of a grand scheme to take guns decades from now. A plan as gradual and deliberate as the one to rob the 99% over the last 30 years. That was pretty crafty. It would take something as long term to bring about such a shift here.
I kinda doubt it, though. The 1% succeeded because millions believe in the American Way, which was how that was sold. Millions also believe in their guns, and teach their kids to believe, too. Who would find it worth their while trying to get that river to flow uphill?
And this weather can suck my ass.
54
none of those groups lost rights. They all started out with zero rights to begin with.The Japanese who were interred had all the same rights of any other citizen until the government took them away. They owned businesses, paid taxes, took out loans, worked in government, etc. Native Americans were granted rights by the U.S. government to land, education, etc., and those were also later just taken away.
Not that any of that matters. You're just playing around with semantics. Who cares if they had rights or not; the U.S. government fucked with them in terrible ways. What makes you sure the government would never do that again? Especially given the recent killing of a U.S. citizen by the government without a trial or any due process whatsoever.
55
Matt, you've already let them imply that imposing restrictions on gun ownership inevitably leads to a government seizure of all firearms. That's simply not true. If Uncle Sam can restrict ownership of bazookas, he can restrict ownership of any weapon for reasons of public safety.
56
Obviously, you've never read the Heller opinion, because that's not at all what it says. Maybe you ought to do that before spouting off about what can and can't be done.
57
Post-WW1, the laxest gun laws in Germany were under the Nazis. The Nazis actually expanded the exemptions to gun permit requirements, lowered the age at which a gun could be purchased, and trebled the permit period from 1 to 3 years. It was easier as a German citizen to own a gun in 1938 than in 2013. Freedom!
58
@38 Actually the Nazis only took weapons away from those who were identified as Jewish. Hitler and his party praised "good" German citizens who owned guns. Good in this case meaning not Jewish and preferably rabidly pro-Nazi. Since very few of the Jewish people in Germany had weapons it was fairly easy to relieve them of those weapons. This is not to say that more of them should have had weapons since the Warsaw ghetto riot showed what was done when Jews (and others) fought back against the Nazis. You can shoot a soldier ( or a Gestapo or SS member) but fire doesn't care about how good of a shot you are. You can fight a fire or stop an army. You cannot stop a fire that has an army to keep you from fighting that fire.
http://news.yahoo.com/hitler-joins-gun-d…
http://news.yahoo.com/hitler-joins-gun-d…
59
@58 - to expand on your point, the Nazis didn't forbid Jewish people from owning guns through gun control legislation. They simply revoked the German citizenship of Jewish people so that the constitutional and/or statutorial rights of German citizens to own guns did not apply to Jewish people.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
GOP Congressman: We Have to Ban Abortion Because Fetuses Are Masturbating In There by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
The Wednesday Morning News by Goldy
-
Jobs-Killing Socialism Drives Seattle's Unemployment Rate Down to 4.7 Percent by Goldy
-
Less Than a Quarter of Americans Have Confidence in Newspapers by Eli Sanders
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (59) RSS