CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 14, 2018 10:17 AM UTC
42 Comments
Arm teachers who are willing and comfortable around firearms.
Teacher accidentally fires gun and injures student during safety lesson
Seriously. What could go wrong? More like what couldn't?
Exactly, O nameless one. Let's take people in one of the highest-stress positions anywhere, and tell them to carry a lethal weapon around, probably loaded, in a situation in which student success depends on "relationships" and "connections" with adults.
Teachers don't have time to go to the bathroom, let alone remember to do a safety check on their weapon twice a day.
I am proud of the students from my alma mater. Go Angels!
I'm sure it will become a memorable part of the mayor/officer/teacher's lesson in "public safety" in an Administration of Justice class.
You can't make this sort of thing up.
Encouraging delinquency so students can attack constitutional rights. I hope you’re proud!
Attacking students' constitutional rights. I hope you're proud.
Moderatus:
What proposal are ANY of the Parkland students or other prominent voices in this student movement making that is an "attack" on constitutional rights?
David Hogg, one of the teen speakers from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High included several points in his statement to a Congressional hearing, including
" restoring funding for research on guns at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; universal background checks, which he called "just sensible gun reform"; and some kind of change to access to guns like the AR-15 used in the Parkland shooting, in order to "prevent these huge guns from getting into the hands of the wrong individuals." "
Please cite appropriate statute and court case that has found any of what he is backing as ‘Unconstitutional.” Or retreat back to your Republican sites for more [meaningless] points to spew.
Only Nutteranus could couch someone exercising their First Amendment rights as an attack on his
Let's keep the slaves on the plantationsSecond Amendment (subject to limitations) rights.You should be proud Moldy — look what you and your party's malevolent incompetence have started!
Also, you weigh in twice on this thread, but not the thread about last night's special election in PA-18. Why? Does it bug you? Did you make a big mess when you found out the results?
Moddy, first of all, fuck you. Second of all, your selective trumpeting of the Constitution and the rights you believe it contains is tiresome. Guess what? Students were exercising their First Amendment rights to complain about their governments' failures to protect them from life-threatening harm–core political speech protected by the First Amendment, which you reduce to describing as an "attack" on constitutional rights, presumably, you mean the rights you believe to be protected (as opposed to actually being protected) by the Second Amendment. But you do neither homework, not objective analysis. Not your thing, apparently. Third, fuck you.
They taught the children to attack the rights of their parents in the Cultural Revolution too. Worked great for the Chinese!
I thought you were pro-life nutlid. So, why do you take offense at these kids asserting their right to life?
They are post-birth now. They're on their own in Nutlid World.
So Moddy, did your good friend Representative Neville have the balls to meet with them, explain how he survived Columbine and give them some tips on how to survive the next school shooting?
Thoughts and prayers……….
Who is this 'they' you speak of Nutter?
Don’t worry, Fluffy. Some of these kids may not be able to vote come this November . . .
. . . why not give ‘em detention and firearms training at the same time? (You should maybe check with a Neville, or three, about this!?)
. . . Maybe Grantham could have ‘Stache do some community service, and teach the kids Sensitivity classes at the same time?
Perhaps, just maybe, if these kids are so willing to admit they are not responsible enough to purchase a firearm until the age of 21, we should reconsider whether they are mature enough to vote until that age as well.
But, letting people obtain a high capacity firearm without a background check is totally cool.
Just give them shit for being engaged in a way you don't like. That'll win them over. These kids react to the existential threat against their lives and safety at school and your response is: "Take away their voting rights."
I did not suggest taking away their voting rights. They are suggesting however taking away my gun rights. I understand where they are coming from, and I commend them.They however appear to agree with the new law prohibiting people under the age of 21 from purchasing a long gun, a tacit acknowledgement that they are not responsible enough to handle the rather simplistic right/wrong decision making of gun ownership. How can we expect them to navigate the complex idiosyncrasies of politics when they need government intervention to stop them from mass killing in these formative years?
So no, do not take away their rights, just postpone them until they are able to make rational decisions on their own. It seems the consensus on that, by those most affected, is 21 years of age.
I assume you are on board with prohibiting the purchase of a deadly assault rifle by "kids", aren't you? Why? I bet we agree on your answer.
Negev — same challenge as I posted above to Moderatus.
What proposal are ANY of the Parkland students or other prominent voices in this student movement making that is an "attack" on constitutional rights?
David Hogg, one of the teen speakers from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High included several points in his statement to a Congressional hearing, including
" restoring funding for research on guns at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; universal background checks, which he called "just sensible gun reform"; and some kind of change to access to guns like the AR-15 used in the Parkland shooting, in order to "prevent these huge guns from getting into the hands of the wrong individuals." "
Please cite appropriate statute and court case that has found any of what he is backing as ‘Unconstitutional.” Or retreat back to your Republican sites for more [meaningless] points to spew.
Negev has never met a "gun-control" law that he likes. He'll talk around it for paragraphs at a time, but you'll never be able to make him admit that he just wants 100% free access to all guns by anyone, all the time.
And if many people die as a result, he is totally fine with it. Even 6-year-old children.
Oh mama don't be so dramatic. I'm all for background checks. You ready to ditch HIPPAA yet? C'mon, let's make progress together…..
I find "some kind of change to access to guns like the AR-15" doublespeak for banning them. That's just me. If you don't see it that way it's o.k. but then we go back to our prior argument that I believe we ended on agreeing that banning them would be the most effective manner in which to stop mass shootings that use them.
307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816 protect weapons "in common use at the time" At this point you cannot reasonably suggest an AR-15 is not in common use, can you?
So, don't take away your AR-15. But you are totally fine with a lot of people dying because you NEED your AR-15 no matter how high the body count. Your sense of entitlement towards your AR-15 supercedes everybody elses right to live.
Yawn. You must be new here. Nah, I don't NEED an AR-15 anymore than you NEED an abortion…. really – do you NEED free speech? Certainly not in fact I feel dumber just listening to you….I know, I must be really dumb now…
You cannot restrict another persons rights in order to exercise your own – that's not the way it works. Sorry man.
So, in short, yes. That is what you believe. I beg to differ. I NEED my free speech more than you NEED your AR-15. My free speech doesn't kill people.
Your AR 15 threatens my right to live. You can't take away someone else's right to exercise your own. Sorry man.
…. and I'm the entitled one….
C'mon Negev, no right is absolute. To suggest otherwise is simply disingenuous.
And yes, I do believe that you can restrict another persons rights in order to exercise your own. Those are the cases that get adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
ajb you are correct no right is absolute, however the DC vs Heller case clearly protects weapons "in common use at the time" and the individuals right to own them.
I'm curious of an example of restricting one persons rights to exercise your own? The first thing that comes to my mind is the gay cake case but I don't think it's directly comparable. Can I deny a person free speech to pursue happiness? That would be really awesome right now if ya know what I'm sayin
All the time, every day.
As for an example? Forced pooling of oil and gas.
You are effectively saying that they should not have voting rights until they are 21, thereby taking away their rights, at least until that time.
Tell me how they are threatening your gun rights. Since guns are the only thing you care about. How are these kids threatening your gun rights? How do background checks threaten your gun rights? Why is your "right" to have unfettered access to the deadliest gun you can get trump their right to live and go to school in safety?
I know you will say gun laws don't work and various other platitudes that are NRA-approved.
Not sure why, but I probably would have guessed you were over 21?
Actually, I would love to see assault rifles banned for purchase by anyone under 121 years of age. I’m not sure anyone is responsible enough to own them for personal use prior to that.
I guess that means you think American elections will need to be conducted in depends??
Absolutely, raise voting age to 21. Anybody who opposes fascism in any way must be silenced!
I know you are making a sarcastic joke, V., but you are predicting the future.
The purge is almost complete. John Bolton? Rick Perry? Larry Kudlow?
Trump is scraping the crud from the bottom of the barrel to help him destroy our democracy. He is moving with determination to undermine Congress, stuff the courts, and remove anyone who opposes him. Would he dismember his uncle and feed him to dogs in order to retain power?
What do you think?
Trump would shoot his uncle with an anti-aircraft gun to cling to power.
Alas, Negev will support him, if only because he desperately wants his own anti-aircraft gun.
You think he doesn’t have one, or twelve, already?
Not so sure he really wants one, but he’ll desperately buy one just to show you he believes no teenager is gonna’ deprive him of his right . . .
You are so right on that…..
Fuck you again, Moddy. Remember Tiananmen square? You're afraid of children, and not this administration, which just shows that you are neck-deep in the swamp with the other would-be autocrats.
duplicate