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%
December 21, 2018 07:21 AM UTC
37 Comments
We are watching helplessly as the early stages of what Lenin described as the "withering away of the state" unfold. It is not pretty.
Social Security checks will still go out in a government shutdown, as will veteran's benefits. However, it may be difficult for new retirees to get certified. Thus spreaketh Social Security Administration.
Impacts — no budget for:
Current guesses are about half of the employees are considered "essential," so they will need to work and will eventually get paid — but who knows when. The other half can hope Congress and the White House will follow the precedent of paying employees who were not essential — but who knows. Nearly all contractors who work for the Departments and agencies will not get paid. [Labor costs for future contracts will price in the uncertainty.]
I have not seen anyone explaining how the Secret Service will be able to pay for hotel rooms and golf cart rentals to cover the Trump vacation to Mar A Lago. Presumably, the Government's credit is considered good, so those working can run up a tab on their credit cards and the Trump Organization can bill, but recognize it won't get paid immediately.
If the "Trump Shutdown" becomes the "Trump Golf Vacation," the Republicans are going to have a hard time holding the line. Initially, all of Washington will get blamed for the shutdown and the dysfunction that caused it. But if Trump starts playing golf (adn lets face it, how long can he hold out?), it will be really bad for the Republicans.
I kept thinking of that photo of Chris Christie sunbathing at the closed beach as New Jersey had a state government shutdown. We will eventually see Two Scoops playing golf at Mar-A-Lago.
On a semi-related matter, the GoFundMe campaign to raise money for the wall is now at $12 million. Another $4,988,000,000 to go and they will have his $5,000,000,000.
Vermont Red Flag law now used on innocent 3rd parties. It's just common sense.
What could be less biased than a website named "Truth and Guns"?
I don't really see a problem with the confiscation of guns from the relative. The young men had a clear plan to shoot a specific individual at their school; the guns they planned to use were in the relative's possession. It says that they were "locked up", but gun safes have combinations which are sometimes shared, and sometimes relatives like to show off their collections, bond with their young kin over guns and shooting, and are reluctant to believe that deadly weapons can be used to actually cause death. I have some experience with this.
If police had been able to confiscate the guns from Adam Lanza's mother, her life and those of 26 children and teachers would have been spared. She was supposed to have them "locked up", too.
The statute could be tightened up to require proof that the guns are locked up; better yet, require "Smart guns" that can only be fired by the registered user. And license them like cars. Require insurance and big penalties for misuse.
No doubt, the young men were expelled from school and had some legal consequences, too. Boo hoo. I'd much rather read about that then about another school shooting with multiple casualties.
When denuded of all the falderal and flummery, the hardcore ammosexual position essentially boils down to, "Regular and repeated mass murders are a small price to pay for me to do as I goddamn jolly well please vis-a-vis firearms." That sort of bone-deep sociopathy is 100% reason-impervious.
Bone-deep sociopathy? It is something more basic. These folk are generally men who are insecure about the size of their endowment. Big powerful firearms make up for the small, dysfunctional gun nature has cursed them with.
Truth and Guns….
You know who else knows the truth about guns? Tom Sullivan. And Tom Mauser. And Emma Gonzalez. And David Hogg.
They know more of the truth about guns than these wackos who have a fetish for firearms.
Looks like Emma and Hogg have been outvoted….Stoneman Douglas arming teachers. Apparently they DO know the truth about guns….
Now, now, Negev…don't be jealous of kids who've actually been through the kind of action you only pretend at.
1. The commissioners will allow teachers to volunteer to carry guns — they aren't arming teachers.
2. I wonder who picks up the insurance tab for teachers with guns on campus. No mention if the burden will fall on the district, the school, or the teachers.
3. Next time there is a vote of the population in the area, I'm betting there are some of those commissioners who lose their job.
Oh my goodness. Well hopefully, dozens of domestic violence gun deaths in states that don't have red flag laws will compensate for the inconvenience in this one case which appears the judge exercised his judgement in preventing a gun death in Vermont.
Let's hear it for Negev and callous gun profiteering!
For more info please check out: https://everytownresearch.org/issue/domestic-violence
I didn't see an "innocent third party" in that article. I saw a relative with the guns the kid wanted, and the kid said he knew how to get them.
Exactly. Why Negev thinks this or an earlier similar news clip from Gunz Ferever.com persuade anyone (not just on this site) is beyond me.
So if the neighbors kid saw your hide-a-key stash and told his buddy at school he was going to steal your car and mow down the school band, you are ok with the police confiscating your car?
The situations are not comparable. They would be comparable if I invited the neighbor kid in, bragged about my hide a key stash, and invited him to test drive my car. If I gave him the key or let him drive the car without having a license to do so, and he committed a crime with it, yes, the police would be justified in confiscating my car, at least temporarily. They would have to do so for evidence, anyway.
I think the charge for me would be aiding and abetting a crime, or contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or abuse from a person in a position of trust (since I’m a teacher) or something along those lines.
If the relative gave the kids guns and they committed a crime with them of course mama that's accessory to murder but that's not what happened:
Aiding and abetting, contributing to the delinquency, or abuse from a person of trust would be crimes committed by this relative and they would be detained.
Gosh … gun seizure.
Also identified, even in the Guns Appreciation article, as the police acting to "temporarily remove firearms from the home from which one of the youths was going to access guns."
How temporary? Long enough for the owner to devise some additional security? Long enough for the teens to be adequately controlled? Any problem with the gun owner showing up to court and getting the guns back?
Geez, Negev, is it even possible you could come up with a more absurd argument?
Hopefully, your Russian monitors are doing an occasional quality control check to find out if you are really worth the few rubles they are squandering on your silly posts.
What Genghis said above…
Das vadanya
Please, elaborate on what you find absurd. Are you failing to see value in the 4th Amendment as well as the 2nd now? Ignore your rights and they will go away. You, not so much. Can't wait to see you bitchin online how the 1st is outdated since you got dial up.
Focus, Negev, focus. The 2nd Amendment was written in the context of a sparsely populated frontier nation still needing individuals to fend for themselves with muskets and single-shot pistols. And men were expected to form into state and local militias if foreign invaders breached our borders.
We now have standing armies and professional police forces to shoulder the bulk of that burden. Guns are now predominantly a recreational toy, despite their vastly enhanced lethality. They all should be strictly licensed and controlled, and if used simply for recreation, designed with safeguards and lowered lethality to reduce death and injuries.
That your livelihood depends on opposing the above doesn't make your arguments any more sensible or convincing.
That is awesome Davie did you just make that up? Nearly the exact opposite of the documented intent of the Founding Fathers with exceptional focus on the fear of a standing army, which was of course a major contributing factor to the 2nd. I urge you to provide any citation you can muster up to support your perverse interpretation of the context of the 2nd. I'll link to and handful of quotes by the authors to illustrate just how much your personal opinion deviates from reality then we can get into who's convincing who.
I am curious now just for the comical value how you interpret the 4th Amendment and how it relates to the issue at hand?
I will make a fortune when you ban guns. If my livelihood depended on it I would donate to your cause.
Let's go ahead and entertain the 2nd Amendment fantasy for a moment. So, Negev, you and your stalwart Middle Aged Militia are going to take on the firepower, technology, and training of a hostile power, or even worse, that of our own military? Gonna need more than bump-stocks and high-cap magazines, you dig?
Negev must live for "Red Dawn" and "Diehard" to come true in real life
You make a lot of sense there Curmy you seem to have a firm grasp on logic and critical thinking. I would hope at some point you would harness this power and analyse the notion that laws stop criminals and someday see the conflict in this rationale.
You do however seem to assume the military would be against the stalwart MAM (ewe I like it) when, constitutionally speaking, they are most likely against you. How many sheriffs have enforced the mag ban?
Who said I'm against the 2nd Amendment? I'm in favor of it. I say, own as many weapons as you want to make you feel safe. Just don't pretend you and the MAM are doing anything for our benefit. The whole idea of your MAM (or, if you like…Pudgy Platoon?) making a brave stand is amusing to anyone who knows anything about modern warfare.
Negev, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. My recitation of history above is not an interpretation of anything. If you don't agree that in the 18th century the US was a sparsely populated nation, etc. then your lack of reading comprehension skills would explain a lot, I suppose.
Read this:
Show me a citation along the lines of "The right to bear arms is so you can fend for yourselves and fight an enemy that comes to our shores" by someone during that time and in the "context" you have conjured up. Ya not gonna find it.
"This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." Well, luckily, we don't need a substitute for a standing army, do we? You kinda missed that part.
If you want to dispute this, you'll have to get the school boards across the nation to rewrite the history books:
And in the cities of the time, it was not the norm to carry either a musket or a pistol upon one's person (unless in your warped view of history, you think duels were a common everyday event for all 21 and older gentlemen).
Here's a quick refresher in case you forgot (or never knew) what life in the 18th century was all about. My ancestors came here in the 17th century and fended for themselves and joined the militia a hundred years later to fight (and die) for their families and their newborn nation's future.
You and your ilk have disgraced their sacrifice and perverted their legacy.
… and the best possible security against it, if it should exist…. You kinda missed that part.
Oopsie…
Shootin' blanks again, are ya, Nev?
Our resident ammosexual gun sucker needed an extra few hours to ransack through his RMGO-supplied talking points, and that's all he could come up with…
Tee he he!
Negev, you're pretending warfare hasn't changed in well over 200 years? Back in A. Hamilton's time, an actual militia would have been plausible security against the actions of a standing army; the weaponry and training available were similar enough. Not so these days. Not even close. So, while I fully support your right to bear arms, I laugh my ass off at your justification for it.
It must be Thursday