Misinformation Reigns As Gun Safety Laws Take Effect

(Bumped up for the holiday weekend by popular demand – Pols)

7NEWS reports:

Ammunition magazine limits and universal background check requirements are set to take effect in Colorado on Monday, even as county sheriffs fight to overturn the new laws in court.

But after months of tense debate among state officials, the signature pieces of Colorado Democrats' gun control legislation are moving from abstract to tangible.

Some gun stores already are stocking smaller magazines to comply with the 15-round limit. [Pols emphasis] And in the coming months, the public will see how the expansion of background checks to private and online sales will work.

Ever since the passage of landmark gun safety legislation this year in the Colorado General Assembly, we have tried in this space to sort out fact from fiction as gun right supporters made wild claims about what these bills would actually do–and local media generally repeated those claims without question. Today, as these laws finally take effect, the public continues to be grossly misinformed by local press on their true effects. Much of this appears to be the result of one man, Dave Kopel of the right-wing Independence Institute, who simultaneously acts as the media's "expert" on gun policy while he leads the lawsuit against these new laws.

This weekend, a story in the Denver Post by Ryan Parker, who we have already called out for uncritically reprinting gun lobby falsehoods, took the misinformation to a new level: 

At the Firing Line gun shop in Aurora, assorted guns are marked with red tags reading: "Not for sale after June 30." [Pols emphasis]

"We can sell the gun, but we won't be able to sell the magazine with it, so what's the point?" store manager Richard Taylor said…

A preliminary injunction hearing for parts of the law banning high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds — including the "readily converted" language, which could apply to removable base plates — is set for July 10.

"Parts of the (magazine ban) law are so vaguely written, sheriffs are unsure which magazines are legal and which are illegal," Kopel said.

For starters, this latest story from Ryan Parker totally ignores the technical guidance memo from Attorney General John Suthers on the magazine limit law, which very clearly interprets the bill's language, and puts to rest the nonsense about "removable baseplates" and which magazines would be "designed to be readily converted" into a high capacity magazine. And as we've said over and over, in every state where magazine capacity has been limited–Colorado is not the first state to enact this–compliant magazines are available. The claim from Kopel's boss Jon Caldara that "guns in Colorado will never be able to get a magazine again," which Kopel has never been asked to justify, is simply not supported by the facts. Yet here we have the state's newspaper of record subsidizing it!

We reported in early June that Gov. John Hickenlooper has requested a temporary injunction binding enforcement of the magazine limit to the terms of the AG's memo, which is all that proponents want. Again, nobody wants the draconian, speculative interpretations of this law suggested by opponents to be the standard. But Parker omits this as well, and only reports that Kopel is seeking an injunction to halt enforcement of the law entirely.

Saturday's Denver Post ran Parker's story on the front page, with a photo of a row of AR-15 type rifles labeled "not for sale after June 30th." But the truth is that compliant magazines are available for every one of those guns, and AR-15s are still legal for sale today. In short, the Post's front page Saturday amounted to a wholesale deception of its readers. The omissions and factual errors are so pervasive that they truly appear to be intentional. The only purpose we can identify for this story is no incite anger among gun owners and supporters of gun rights, while omitting all of the details that would mitigate that anger. To say this is not journalism is an understatement.

We can't tell you why the Denver Post's newsroom has chosen to so egregiously misreport the gun safety debate this year, but it is increasingly undeniable that they have an agenda other than objective journalism. The Post's editorial board has been a moderate voice in the debate over gun safety legislation this year, and has fact-checked some false claims from the gun lobby that the newsroom has missed. Meanwhile, as we've discussed, the Post's newsroom, led by avowed conservative political news editor Chuck Plunkett, has drilled on factual errors and gaffes by Democrats in multi-day feature stories–yet allowed opponents to claim basically any crazy thing they want without any kind of equivalent fact-checking. Each of these incidents generated its own isolated criticism.

With this latest round of front-page misinformation, it's time to suggest that it isn't "isolated."

85 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. JeffcoBlue says:

    +1 Pretty much what I've been saying for two years. Proud to be on Plunkett's block list! The Post is going to hell under Plunkett, and this isn't the only reason. Remember the Tom Clements story? 

    Denver Post attempt to politicize Clements murder backfires

    Here's the proof of Plunkett's right wing cred. He was an opinion writer before he went to the newsroom. And he's a crazy rightie through and through.


    I think Plunkett has decided it's time for Democrats to get their comeuppance, and he's going to dish it to them. There's too much to be unintentional…

  2. Davie says:

    As shocked as I was with the story itself, the picture of that array of heavy weapons (they weren't all AR-15s) stunned me.  5 million Coloradans, and the number one priority of the GOP is getting these in the hands of exactly whom?

    Affordable education, quality affordable healthcare, and good paying jobs don't matter — just tell me where can I get my own Stinger Missile.

  3. Negev says:

    Yeah, they overlooked the largest factual error of all, that one that suggests magazine capacity limitations somehow will hinder a killers intent……just sayin'

    • bullshit! says:

      Hey thanks! What this discussion needed was another dumbass non sequitur. The Post is doing its job with you.

      Are you proud to win by lying and condoning lies?

      • Negev says:

        Another? I thought I was the only one. Did I win something? The lie here is the belief that this law is effective. No matter how you read it. The right will call it an infringment and the left will call it "common sense" and everyone will call everyone names like dumbass to feel better about themselves, and none will sit down, take a deep breath, and think this thing out. I will submit to you limiting the number of rounds a killer has at the time of such a horrible event is a failure no matter what the number. Too little too late. If you find 15 rounds reasonable, I have 15 people that would beg to differ. If I could suggest attempting to tackle this problem perhaps 4 or 5 steps prior to this last ditch feeble effort, you may get a higher success rate. Are you gonna tell me when the next tragedy hits and the attacker is tackled after shooting 15 people you will call this effort a success?


        • bullshit! says:

          Yadda yadda, the boilerplate gun nuts case against the mag ban is not at issue here, it's the factual errors in the Post story. But you're happy about those because they work for you.

          Are you proud to win by lying and condoning lies?

          • Negev says:

            I am wondering what exactly it is I won by lying and condoning lies? You do know that all polititions lie, right? You can tell when thier lips are moving? You saw the Obama voter fraud conviction, right? And, lest I forget, the Bush WMD lies, right?  

            You suffer from selective comprehension, and it negatively affects your ability to  reason. Instead you lash out. Its OK man.

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      But it might hinder their killing spree you know having to stop and reload.  Maybe in that amount of time you will be able to escape the carnage and not be another victim whose gets a bullet through the front of your face.  Juat saying.

  4. Curmudgeon says:

    So, if you can still buy an AR-15 and play soldier of fortune, or zombie slayer, or guy-with-at-least-an-average-sized-penis, what the hell are you whining about?

    • bullshit! says:

      If Brophy gives up his 30 round mags, he'll realize that he has had a microphallus problem most of his life.

    • Negev says:

      I am glad you thought my penis was at least average sized from your perspective. My whine is because now I have to drive 20 minutes to cross the border to get my unmarked, untracable and impossible to determine manufactured date magazine. Don't you get it? I would think it would be considered a extreme inconvenience to a mass killer, who may even rethink the whole mass murder thing because of it. Such a hassle. You guys are making it so hard to be a lunatic fringe nowadays I may just start selling weed at a drive through.

      Seriously though, no whine. No problem. I bought enough magazines to last 3 lifetimes, and put them in a revocable trust, so they will be in the family for generations. Hell I bought mags for guns that don't even exist yet. You? If I were you I would be pissed.  


      • horseshit GOP front group says:

        Stay on topic Negev.  We're here to talk about your penis.

        • Negev says:

          Sorry I got busted for going of topic last time, and I misread the Libardt rule #4…

          But on topic – Technical guidance does not supercede written law.

           Every magazine can be "readily converted" – even so called "compliant" magazines

          You cannot identify a mil spec AR magazine by manufacture date, so a 5 round ar magazine owned before today can legally be "readily converted" to a legal by current law 30 round magazine, and assume all physical appearance of a post ban, illigally converted magazine and you could never tell the difference. 

          This misinformation is due to the abosolute clusterf*ck verbage in the law. If the readily convertable verbage does not say what it means, then why is it in there? If the illigal transfer verbage is so tame – where do my magazines go when I die? You coming over to pick them up? If private background checks are not a pathway to registration/confiscation – how will know if I did a private background check or not? How do you check?

          All of this, when looked at as a whole, stinks. It does so little to protect the populace and so much to gain "control" that it makes folks like me, who are in fact middle of the road, wonder WTF these guys were thinking?  



          • roccoprahn says:

            So, I'm just wondering. Why do you need a large cap mag?

            If you're just making the point this is a society in which you should be free to purchase unlimited cap mags, ok, but I'm just wondering, what is your reason for the 30 round mag?

            Our home protection is the 226's little brother, the mosquito. Lots of reasons, 10 round Mag, .22 long rifle rd, if God forbid the dog and I didn't engage a home intruder before critical mass, the rounds are good to go for the intruder, but won't penetrate our walls go through the neighbor's walls,  etc. Deadly accurate, and in the hands of a headsup, prepared, qualified home owner with 500-600 hours in home defense training, more than you'lI ever need.

            I've read many guys like you, and I can't for the life of me figure why the automatic weapons systems large cap mags get you hard.

            I did do a combat tour in Vietnam in '69. I never felt the need to posture, fist pump, chest pound or bloviate since I came back. I saw what the 7.62, the .223, the .45, the 50 caliber can do to a human being. 20 20 mike mike, M26 frag too. I've never……..that's never encountered a situation in civilian life in which a semi automatic weapon was even remotely needed.

            Did you serve? (Remember the Stolen Valor Act before you reply)

            I ask, because increasingly, I find the real "defenders" of the current bastardized version of the 2nd Amendment are "tough guys" whose balls dropped AFTER they are no longer eligible for military service. Draft dodgers from my day and before, guys without the testicular fortitude these days to defend this wonerfull nation. limbaugh, tancredo, nugent, boyles, young republicans, etc.

            You know, the red base.

            • Negev says:

              Well, for starters I did not serve. I do thank you for your service. My need for a 30 round mag is most likely very different from others. I am a competition shooter, in 3 gun events. If you have ever seen this event, it is a high speed, heavy movement event, and you shoot lots of rounds, very quickly. In the rifle event the competition is won/lost over a reload. So, I know your first reaction is so what its a silly sport why so glum… well, I don't hunt, I would never kill for sport, I respect and honor human life and would never hurt an individual for any reason. I don't carry a firearm, nor do I "pump my chest" or "bloviate" about guns. I enjoy the sport, it gives me a feeling of accomplishment and energy that I can no longer get from more physical sports (I was a downhill ski racer and motocross racer, I no longer bounce) and most importantly, I don't hurt anybody in the process.

              It may be difficult to understand, but to me, banning high capacity magazines is like banning shocks on bikes to mountain bikers or poles to skiers- you do the sport a disservice, you make it difficult or impossible to complete on a national level,  and punish people with no ill intent in order to make yourself feel better –  and when it is done with no reguard for the facts that historically show it is not effective, well, that makes it worse. 

              • Duke Cox says:

                 I am a competition shooter, in 3 gun events. If you have ever seen this event, it is a high speed, heavy movement event, and you shoot lots of rounds, very quickly.

                Is there some other purpose for this kind of competition than to simulate and stimulate training for combat?…just asking?

                • Negev says:

                  Well, its a sport.  I don't know about combat training, but you do learn gun handling skills not typically found in an average civillian shooter. Its governed by the International Practical Shooting Confederation, with competitions worldwide. Visit http://www.ipsc.org for details.  

            • Gray in Mountains says:

              Rocco-would you remind Negev how any rounds the M-16 mag held when you used it in true "competition"?

              • roccoprahn says:

                The magazine held 20,but to save the spring it was best to load 18. We'd typically run 180 rounds, 10 mags in an operation. About every 3rd round was a tracer. Any more than that you'd risk wrecking the barrel.

                We're talking M16 here. .223 tumbler rounds.

                I found electrical taping a second mag to the bottom of the loaded mag, up side down, was not a good idea. Better to draw from the web gear. Expended mags just went in the cammo blouse pockets.

                The M16 was a good weapon, but tended to jam infrequently on fully automatic. The selector switch allowed for semi, and that's where I kept it.


                • yameniye says:

                  For those keeping track of weapons development, the M16-A1 is what we used in the Vietnam era.  It could jam and make your day crappy.  The jamming problem was handled in the M16-A2 which does not have the full automatic which blew through a mag on one pull.  It will do bursts of 3 rounds on a pull.

      • Curmudgeon says:

        Why would I be pissed?  I don't need a 15+ magazine.

        I can shoot straight. 

        • Negev says:

          Rocco is this the "tough guy" you were referring to? He can shoot straight. If we are talking about needs, I can think of a lot of things many of you don't need, but respect your right to have them. I have seen very few women that "need" an abortion, but I respect the right for them to have one if they chose to. This whole idea of rights or restrictions granted by the level of need does not sound right to me. If your willing to allow the government to determine what you can have based on need, someday you too may be in my position – 

          I am still astonished that people will stand up and yell for every right under the sun, demand privacy, freedom, speech, abortion, marriage, due process – and then it comes to guns and they don't care what happens, because they don't need them.  


          • Curmudgeon says:

            I got no problem with guns, Negev…they're tools. I lugged around enough of them, every day of my own years in the military (peacetime, never saw any action aside from a few bar fights) to learn that that is all they are. Tools. Tools with one very specific purpose. They're not holy symbols of Freedom and Liberty. And people who get too wrapped up in them are damed silly bastards.  You're equating your "position" of not being comfortable with anything less than 16 rounds or more with basic human rights. That's not just silly. It's damned silly. 

            I can't wait for you to start plagiarizing Martin Niemöller with "when they came for my 30-round magazine, I said nothing…." 




            • Negev says:

              I would submit to you that if these tools were designed for the one very specific purpose I think your suggesting, they are incredibly ineffective at that use. With over 3,261,725 estimated AR pattern rifles in America today, the "specific purpose" you mention must not be killing people. 

              And I haven't equated my "position" with basic human rights. You have. What I am saying to you is that magazine capacity restriction for the sake of public safety is a time tested, proven failure. And the wording, no matter which side your on, or how whoever is lying about its intent (trying to stay on topic here) is not going to change that. So if you feel safer because of this, you sir are the damed silly bastard.


              • roccoprahn says:

                Again, why have the majority of these individuals purchased automatic weapons systems?

                It ain't for home defense, for sure.

                There's no such thing as an extended fire fight in your house, long barrel weapons, smoke, ear drums shot, eyes watering, total panic, kids in the house, holes in the walls, multi intruders, the whole Sylester Stallone scenario. It's asinine to even contemplate movie style home defense needs for the assault rifle.

                Perfect weapons system:

                1. Small caliber hand gun, 500-600 hours training by everyone that's assigned to use it. Mind set is discharge of the weapon is last resort, after everything else.

                2. Dog or dogs. There are currently 2800 MWD canines in the US Military. 600 currently combat assigned, 200 are retired each year, many go to the homes of handlers, many are available. Not just German Shepherds and Malinois, but many other large breeds. Schitzund is also available. Fact is, the dog barking will end the invasion before it begins. And should the intruder gain access after the barking, you've called 911, are alerted, and ready. 3. Locked doors, windows, points of entry.

                4. A plan. Know the solid brick walls, where the kill zones in the home are, where a missed round doesn't hit a family member.

                While it's true every non military experienced American male that saw Zero Dark Thirty sees himself as a fully trained SEAL Team 6 operator, fully capable of black op's, rescuing his kids by rappeling down to the main floor, and placing every shot from his HK416 exactly where it should go, that' not the case.

                Automatic weapons systems in the hands of people that don't train is dangerous.

                That's just common sense.

              • Curmudgeon says:

                To be truthful, I don't feel any more or less safe.  While I'm unqualified to judge anyone else's perception of me as a silly bastard, I can attest that I'm not wetting my pants over the lack of a 15+ magazine. I can still walk into any gun shop and pick up an AR-15 or better (and there are plenty better…what's the deal with the Armchair Warriors' fascination with that thing, anyway? It's a mediocre weapon at best). As a matter of fact, I can load myself up with as many weapons as I can afford.  So, no, I don't see a problem, yet.

                Who are you arming against, anyway? And what is it about a 15+ round magazine that makes you feel so much safer than 15?



          • Diogenesdemar says:

            Well, you got that right at least . . . 

            "… because they don't need them."  Thanks for that admission.

            And, no, I don't care that you and your buddies can't have your bazookas, your backpack nukes, your A-10 Warthogs, and your ricin distilleries . . . because you don't need them either (… but don't just stop there . . .) AND the potential devastation from misuse is too great — something that a civilized society can't really afford, and certainly can't tolerate.

            Please tell me that for every responsible frustrated competion bang-bang-shoot-em-upper like yourself, there aren't 1,000 other semi-sentient Rambo wanna-be's in this State — you can't!!  Further, those that "know" they "need" that 30-Round-equipped-AR, "know" that the real reason the "need" that firepower is because of all of those other combat-equipped-AR-owning yahoo jerk cowboys they've seen in the gun store and at the shooting range. 

            Perhaps if we could together weed out those other 999, you could keep your toys — and, granted ,maybe that's the conversation we should be having.  But you're all slippery-slope-can't-be-bothered-to-engage-in-any-discussions-of-responsible-controls-my-cold-dead-hands-an-AR-in-every-home-NRA-deluded . . . . so that conversation never gets joined.  Pity.

            • Negev says:

              The sad reality to your comments is those 999 yahoo jerk cowboys you refer to never hurt anybody. Its the wack job, democrat non gun owners who go off the reservation and make the real gun owners look bad. Every mass shooter in recent history has had several things in common:

              1. Democrat

              2. Never owed a gun before thier spree killing

              3. Not a member of the NRA

              4. Passed a background check

              OK so lets marginalize republican gun owners that are members of the NRA – that does not make sense. (I am not a republican, nor an NRA member)

              And, if you read this page further than your post I can be bothered with discussions of responsible control. The problem is your not able to get past the fact that these controls are irresponsible and ineffective. 

              Now, I can sit here all day and tell you that, and I doubt you will ever change your mind – but the bottom line is when the next lunatic comes out and shoots someplace up – what are you going to do?

              On the same note I can discredit the current laws all day long it won't do any good with you – but before you write this conversation off as deluded, perhaps we can find a solution. 

              My suggestion is that we have to focus on mental health. Two nutjobs can do a private sale background check and pass just as easy as every other nut job that passed from a store. There has got to be a way to get detrimental health records into the "system" that gun sales utilize for background checks. Until this occurs no progress will happen. This would mean giving up some rights to privacy in the public sector – by everyone – because you can't say its just current gun owners who can go bad – my question to you is are you willing to give up HIPPA and your confidential medical records in an effort to save the children, or is that right too sacred to surrender?


              • ClubTwitty says:

                How tall are you?  I'd wager every criminal in the last 40 years was in the same height range as you.   Go ahead, tell me how tall you are and I'll prove it. 

              • roccoprahn says:

                I'm going to require you give me your source re: "Democrat"," first time gun owner", etc. All of 'em, please.

                glenn beck? nugent? (shit his pants to dodge the draft), cunningham?

                Any way, what's your source?

                • BlueCat says:

                  Don't hold your breath. He can't possibly provide legit sources for his load of crap.

                • Negev says:

                  Well, you got me a some of this. Apparently the info I read on  them all being democrats has been debunked as a myth. My appologies for that gentlemen I stand corrected. But in finding this out I also found none were republicans, which is really the point, once you take out the gaff, so sorry. 

                  Here are the sources for the gun purchases and legal passing of background check. Please note that Adam Lanza did not own the guns he used, but killed his mother to get them, which were legally purchased, but not included as she was not the shooter:

                  Aurora – guns bought in May- Shooting in July


                  Oates said Friday night that Holmes had purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet. He purchased his four guns
                   at area gun shops, the first of which, a Glock, he acquired in May at Gander Mountain, a national chain of outdoor retailers. 
                  Six days later, he went to a local Bass Pro Shops to purchase a shotgun. Between the two stores, over the next two months,
                   he would also buy the AR-15 and the Remington. “Background checks, as required by federal law, were properly conducted,
                   and he was approved,” Larry Whiteley, a Bass Pro Shops spokesman, said in a statement.

                  Gifford – Gun Bought in Nov – shot in Jan

                   The Washington Post reported late Saturday that Loughner purchased the gun Nov. 30 from the Sportsman's Warehouse in Tucson.


                  VA Tech – Guns bought in Feb – Shooting in April

                  Seung-Hui Cho ordered the first gun – a .22-caliber Walther – on Feb. 2, 2007, online at http://www.thegunsource.com.
                   The Web site is run by TGSCOM, the same company that sold two Glock magazines to the ex-student who killed five
                   on the Northern Illinois campus last month.



                  We know the Columbine shooters got their weapons through a straw purchase,where a legal purchaser buys the guns for them – the were not old enough.

                  Lanzas were not NRA members:


                  And while I lack sources that confirm the rest, I think you and I can agree if they were, we would know about it. I urge you to provide data that contridicts my statement on NRA membership. I have already eaten crow once, so I encourage you to prove me wrong. 





                  • Gray in Mountains says:

                    Don't know about his NRA membership, but Oswald bought his Manliccher Carcano through an NRA discount. The shooter at TX fro the tower and the DC sniper were both ex military as was Oswald.

                    I a presently an NRA member of longstanding but not likely to renew next October when I expire. I shoot regularly with numerous weapons. I would not call your competitions "sport" anymore than I would call kite flying which likely includes far more physical activity though  if it is a "sport" , so what.

                    I do own a few 30 rd mass murder magazines. I consider them, as well as the weapons they go with, as toys. Both my AR and AK came with much smaller mags as "standard equipment". None of the other 20+ guns have greater than 8  round capacity

                    • Negev says:

                      Dude, thats so last century… I remember seeing that in black and white. If it takes that long to get something done we got nuthin to worry about!

                      I will let Tiger know about that sport requirement too…next lifetime I will take up ham radio and HO trains mmk?

                      DC sniper gun was apparently stolen by Malvo, and he was a peace loving Muslim out to create a race war:

                      One of Malvo's psychiatric witnesses testified in his trial that Muhammad had indoctrinated him into believing that the proceeds of the extortion attempt would be used to begin a new nation of only young, "pure" black people somewhere in Canada.

                      John Allen Muhammad's goal in phase one was to kill 6 white people a day for 30 days (180 per month).

                      In phase two Muhammed planned to kill a pregnent woman, a Baltimore police officer, and then launch bombings to create as much havoc as possible in the Metro area. 

                      In phase three, Muhammad would recruit young black boys like Malvo at "YMCAs and orphanages" around the country, for his own private Black Nationalist Army. 


                      Malvo described how John Allen Muhammad intended to train all these boys with weapons and stealth, as he had been taught. Finally, after their training was complete, John Allen Muhammad would send them out across the United States to carry out mass shootings in many different cities, just as he had done in Washington, D.C. and Baltimore.

                      And as a result of Malvo's testimony, Muhammad's Black Nationalist and radical Islamic connections have been revealed as much stronger than originally reported.


                      This is not my opinion, but your logic would suggest that you and rocco fit the profile more than me – perhaps we should take those toys before you hurt someone – (I had to do that man I say it jokingly)


                    • Curmudgeon says:

                      and, the longer he goes on, the more we learn about what Negev is really all about.

                    • Curmudgeon says:

                      By the way, it's also common practice to provide links to the source of cut-and-paste posts, like yours:


                      It provides context, and an even clearer picture of what someone's about.


              • Diogenesdemar says:

                If you're suggesting that any person be required to release all of their medical records for review prior to, or in conjunction with, the acquisition of a firearm . . . well, I personally think that's a damn fine suggestion!!   When do we get started??!!??

                (And just so we're clear, I'm not a Democrat; I do own several rifles, shotguns and handguns; I have had a CCW permit since years before Colorado became a "shall issue" state; and I have been a past NRA member, although not for several years now, and likely never will be again.)

                • Negev says:

                  I do believe it is the highest common denominator of mass killers and has had absolutely no attention.   

                  • Diogenesdemar says:

                    Let's get LaPierre on the horn and seal this deal today, huh???

                  • roccoprahn says:

                    You're attributing the mental states of most of the shooters as "lone nuts, acting alone".

                    And yet you are seemingly taking John Muhammed as a rational thinking and perfectly lucid indiidual, whose actions definitely are racially motivated. Perfectly sane, just a black guy that hates whites. No mental issues, just another Muslim on a Jihad.

                    It fits perfectly into the playbook of the NRA dealer/carnival huckster that just sold you your latest automatic/semi-automatic weapons system…..what, about $3500.00 or so?

                    The grift goes like this:

                    If it's a white guy that's responsible for the deaths of the 22 elementary school kids, the firearms industry lights up the Vietnam era draft dodging coward turned kill 'em all "patriot" lappierre trots him out there with the message "Circle the wagons! The gun grabbers are gonna use this as an excuse to take our guns! Buy (operative word……..BUY) all the guns and ammo ya can before the black President bans gun sales, and the "gubmint" freezes the ammo supply"!

                    Now if the shooter's ANYTHING but white, different wording, same message……….Circle the wagons! Obama's negro army's begun the massacre! The gubmint's gonna take our guns, and we'll be defenseless! Buy (operative word……BUY) all the guns ya can and stock up on ammo 'fore the stores get closed.

                    Yeah, the NRA's a cynical, pantloading organization, laughing at the goobers that buy into the con, while getting rich off them.

                    But, judging by the response, even by you, here, the marketing people behind the firearms manufacturers, the people that pay lappierre's and the pants pooping draft dodger turned toughguy nugent's wages, are very good at their jobs.

                    You're the proof.

                    • Negev says:

                      I think we are all a little dumber after that post. DC sniper was a whack-job – more so than most. 

                      And your grift rant is pathetic. Where were you when the 1,256 black kids were murdered in 2009? 

                      The truth of the matter is that its only when a bunch of white kids die that you seem to give a shit.

                      And just as the right has Nugent, Lapierre, and other tools/stooges, the left has Biden (just shoot a shotgun throught the door) Bloomberg the nanny with his MAIG (child molesters, racketeers and drunk drivers) who push the same grift shit (Boston bomber was a shooting victim) to you – and you buy it. 

                      What is necessary to make change is that both sides see past this so-called grift and do something that WORKS. The answer is social, economic, and environmental,  not regulatory, prohibitive and technical. 

                      So you want to save kids? By that I mean ALL kids not just white kids in upper middle classes – remove the incentive to pull the trigger because the vast majority of gun deaths occur with less than 3 shots, and you ain't gettin revolvers we both know that. 

                      Or we can do the same shit we have been doing for   the last 20 years and hope this time the outcome will somehow be different….





          • BlueCat says:

            The lack of yelling is probably because, no matter how many times you say otherwise,  people still have the right to have as many guns and as much ammo as they want and there are no more restrictions on their second amendment rights as on any others.

            Now as for the yellers, I have a Colorado rancher friend who doesn't own anything that isn't still perfectly legal, never went hunting with an especially high capacity magazine in his life, who is busy ordering all the ammo he can get his hands on because rightie wacko media tells him the government is trying to buy up all the ammo so it just won't be available anymore. Gets stuff delivered  regularly to stock up. Great gun lobby sales technique. That's all the NRA  is, the lobbying arm of the industry. The profits of those they serve is their only concern and, lucky for them, hysterical and gullible suckers abound.

  5. roccoprahn says:

    There's no reply ability after negev's last burp.

    So now you care about Chicago? And you even want to change the social economic and environmental factors involved in this? The gun nut turned humanist?

    You need to check yourself, read that rant you just posted. Think about why things are the way they are. You're the problem. And the entire goober ilk that you represent. The people too busy to defend this nation, but with enough time on your hands to go para military. The conservative diaper stain. The fox news lemmings. "America……….love her, just don't have time to defend her".

    Your 4th of July assignment is to research "filibuster", and relate it to the US Senate since January 2009.. Next, go to US House of Representatives legislation proposed since January 2011.

    Don't post untill you've done your work.

    When you get back, I'll need a full explanation on the "3 shots and you ain't gettin revolvers we all know that" garble.

    Step away from the Jim Beam while firing the M16 into the air or into the sand box today.

    Also, next time you post, que the accompanying Deliverance banjo music first. It fits.

    • Negev says:

      I am 2% of the problem. And I don't care about Chicago. But if we continue down this path Colorado will be exactly the same…its realism not humanism.

      Happy 4th. Thanks for your sevice. 

      and reminding me to get the wiskey…

  6. mamajama55 says:

    OK, so it seems it's the norm here to establish one's gun bona fides: I was married for 12 years to a Vietnam vet, so learned to target shoot, was fairly good at it. I own guns, don't use them, prefer a shotgun for home defense, don't know or care about the caliber – I've had the same shells for years. I also have dogs that bark loudly enough to cause testicular shrinking in the average burglar, hopefully, and communicate with my neighbors. So that's my home defense system, and it seems adequate to me.

    That's out of the way.   So Negev can still practice his dubious competition sport with the new Colorado gun laws in place. However, if it turns out that he can't, but some people can keep breathing because violent or careless people couldn't get guns or big magazines, Negev should suck it up and find a new sport. Small price to pay.

    I didn't see anyone on here posting about mental health issues, although most of the mass shooters had severe mental health problems. This is something I have experienced in my family, ( my ex and my daughter), and I can tell you that there is jack squat out there to get a potentially violent, insane criminal off the street for any length of time, and jack squat for therapy or treatment if they are institutionalized. I'd provide links, but mine are on the BBQ. My own family members have happy endings, or at least they are now medicated and in therapy, but that is not true for most of the uninsured.

    The new gun responsibility laws are a minimal start. No, they will not make Colorado "safe". We need a comprehensive approach, including mental health care, free, low cost, and readily available.

    • Negev says:

      I did mention the mental health issue in the above posts, I know its buried but its in there – I don't see how anyone can call the new laws "common sense" when it lacks any effort to identify documented nut jobs via the new "universal" background check. Is this like a kumbuya moment or what?!

      And rest assured, I can still practice my dubious sport – don't change the laws for me, it is a small price to pay to keep some people breathing. On that note, the number of people who die from dog bites each year is remarkably close to those killed with a high capacity magazine. Perhaps you may want to reconsider the whole pooch idea – after all, its a small price to pay, right?

      I do however think you and I are seeing the same picture here, so thanks for your input. If more people saw the root of the problem we may get somewhere other than far left and far right. 


      • Gray in Mountains says:

        Mentally ill folk are far more likely to be victims than predators. Odds of an attack by a mentally ill person are something like 1 in 14,000,000.

        Do I read above that you believe you are protecting me and others?

        • Negev says:

          Odds are you will be more likely to die by being struck by lightning than in a spree/mass killing. Banning lightning would save more lives. It's preposterous, I know…

          And, no, you do not read that I am protecting you and others. I think what your reading is a partial quote from mamajamma, which she notes that restricting magazine capacity is a small price to pay if it keeps "some people breathing".

          And I agree. It is a small price to pay. Its the "IF" part I question. 

      • ClubTwitty says:

        Can I put you on the 'suspected nutjob' list?  And where do I report that?

      • Curmudgeon says:

        How, exactly, is playing a live-action version of a shooting video game "keeping some people breathing"? 

  7. Gray in Mountains says:

    I worked for decades in mental health. We used to have a pretty good mental health system in this country but we spent 40 years destroying it with a parasitic health insurance system and well meaning civil libertarians. Our system now is more inadequate than it has been since the 1930s

    • mamajama55 says:

      Gray: There are civil liberties questions when we discuss public safety vs. caring for mentally ill people – hard questions. My own experiences with 72-hour mental health holds for public safety is that the profit motive trumps public safety or concern for the well being of the ill person- if the mentally ill person is uninsured or indigent, they will be kicked back out onto the streets with no follow up plan or treatment, after only 24 hours if that. Both private and public hospitals and treatment facilities do this. They just don't have the funds or mandate to do anything else.

      So when do the civil liberties of the mentally ill person trump the interests of society? If they haven't committed a crime, but are a credible threat to become violent? If they just "disturb" normal daily life, or make people uncomfortable, right now, what society does is charge with vagrancy or disturbance of the peace, and lock up in jail. Jail provides no mental health treatment – this probably is a change from 40 years ago- a change as the prison system has transitioned to a for-profit model.

      Compounding these questions are the lack of funding for all community mental health services. Stout Street clinic in Denver, for example, used to have walk in psychiatric services for homeless mentally ill people. Now, they don't. And no one else does, either. Jails jail people  – guess what they do with suicidal or delusional, disruptive people ? They are put in solitary confinement so as not to disturb the other inmates. No treatment, no medication, no therapy – those services exist in jails, but are scarce. One psychiatrist per population of 200-1000 is typical.  So you can imagine what a week in solitary does for the typical depressed or delusional person.

      Mass shooters are rare – you're right about that, Gray. Mentally ill people are much more likely to be victims than perpetrators. Now, however, we at least have a law that says gun buyers have to pass a background check. If someone has been "adjudicated" as mentally ill, they won't be able to buy a gun. I don't know, but I suspect that "adjudication" is rare in the mentally ill population.

      In response to Negev, no, this is nowhere near adequate. It is, however, a start to common sense gun laws. Will you fight the extension of mental health funding and further defining and refining of gun laws as vigorously as you have defended magazine limits? Or will you actually act as the moderate, sensible conservative you claim to be?

      • Negev says:

        Please don't call me a conservative, I have never claimed to be a conservative, even moderate. I am a liberal. Hell one guy on this board even called me a "libtard"! You don't have to be conservative to be against these laws.

        I encourage the extension of mental health funding, and defining and refining gun laws. I urge you to use a bit more common sense in the matter and stop trying the same thing over and over again, expecting it to somehow work this time. 

        And you are sadly mistaken about the background check laws. The way it works is this: Section 11 of the background check form 4473 – part F: "have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective(which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution." with a check box for yes or no. 

        You have two choices, mark yes and don't get a gun, or mark no, and get the gun. It is 100% up to the BUYER to make this decision. There is no way before now, or now that this new gun law is in effect, to verify the authenticity of this answer. 

        So they LIE (surprise!). And nobody catches them. Nobody CAN catch them.

        So you all feel good about this law and how its gonna stop all these nut jobs from getting guns, but please don't be as suprised it fails next time around.

        Until the medical system is able to link to the instacheck, which opens many privacy issues, we are not going anywhere on the background checks.

        This is not a "start" to common sense gun laws. It is the continuation of ineffective gun laws, which does nothing but punish law abiding citizens, and I do not support it.   



        • Curmudgeon says:

          "defining and refining gun laws".. 

          Okay, like what? 

          • Negev says:

            1. Allow mental health records seamless integration into CBI instachecks. This is a no brainer, and the only  "common sense" issue lacking in background checks, and its entirely overlooked.

            2. Require a gun safety course to any individual who wishes to own a gun. There have been more guns sold in the last 6 month to people who don't know how to use them, but want them before you come for them.

            3. Remove the impending urgency to own firearms. Yeah. Dump the Scalia resonable restriction and the god given right for protection b.s. and let people at least feel as if they are able to exercise their perceived constitutional rights, regardless of your interpretation. Can you reasonably say that if Justice Scalia claimed tomorrow that abortion was unconstitutional you would be against abortion?

            4. Educate the youth. My son goes into second grade next year, but will get sex ed in 3rd grade. Firearm eduation in formative stages of life would prevent misuse in the future. I had it in a class in about 8th grade I think. I still use the basics every time I handle a gun.

            5. Take the profit out of crime. Many gun deaths are associated with the drug industry, and profit from said drugs. The war on drugs is lost. In fact, it may be cheaper to just buy all the drugs from the drug dealers with the money spent trying to catch them and just destroy it – 

            6. Make the laws reasonable – to everybody. I don't ask a white guy to write laws on racism. I don't expect a man to dictate abortion rights. I certainly wouldn't ask a homophobe to determine gay rights legislation – so don't have anti gun agents dictate firearms policy. You get people like Rep DeGette who think they know what they are talking about, only to find that really, they don't have a freekin clue. 

            We hear all this hoopla over ther sheriffs "refusal" to enforce the new laws here in CO, however we miss the difference between "refusal" and "inability". You will never know when GI magazines were made, and I am willing to bet there are a billion of them in the U.S. Get real. An officer, from his vehicle does not have the tools to track a firearm to the point of sale. He can do a stolen item search, or a serial number crime match, but to find out if an individual has performed a background check on a firearm would mean A) contact manufacturer with serial number and find transfer to distributor. B) contact distributor and track # to dealer. C) contact dealer and track # to original purchaser. D) contact original purchaser to find dealer who did transfer(that is of course if the original purchaser did not transfer it prior to July 1st legally w/o background check, or buy out of state) E) Filter through dealer form 4473 to find transfer. This process can span the entire U.S. or even the world and take 5-7 months, if everything when smooth. Yeah, good luck with that.

            7. Focus on the criminal, not everybody. Is that so hard? Right now, with a magazine over 30 rounds, I am suspect of a crime until I prove I owned it prior to July 1st (which of course is not a requirement of the law)

            The truth of the matter is that criminals break laws, so it really does not matter which law you are intent on focusing on, they are irrelevant in the mind of a killer. 


            • ClubTwitty says:

              We need people that can have a rational discussion not wingnut reactionaries that post I (me…the term used above is 'you' which refers to 'me' or 'us') am coming to 'for them.'  I'm not, we aren't, and anyone who posts shit like that immediately disqualifies themselves, IMO, from rational discussion and are put into the ABOT box. 

            • roccoprahn says:

              Just for starters, I'm forced to label you what you are at this point………a hack, quack, phony and fraud.

              Don't piss yourself, rambo, just read.

              You failed to complete……….or even start……….your holiday assignment. I specifically instructed you to reference repub filibusters since '09. Had you done anything remotely constructive since the weekend began, you'd have come across "Toomey Manchin". The redlegs……..those "2nd Amendment protectors" those "defenders of goon……er gun……… rights"  filibustered the very legislation you're screaming for..

              One group, demographic, blight on the landscape, any name you want call the republican party, stands in the way of meaningfull action to the goon/gun problem…….your ilk specifically.

              We can go point by point on your above post after you concede this, but when you fuck the first one up, your cred's pretty much shit in a bag.

              Next time you post, know what you're talking about. Word to the wise………..those gunshop lawyers don't know what they're talking about. AND………they'll say anything to sell you another 3500.00 toy.

  8. Negev says:

    Man that ABOT box sound intimidating….






    While I can find about 2,240,000 additional links, I know that the first thing you will criticize is the sources, so go ahead. What I would like to be clear about is really, it doesn't matter who 'you', 'they' or 'them' are. I does not matter if it is a real or fabricated phenomenon. What matters is this issue has bumped guns sales to record highs. What matters is those people are buying them, many first time gun owners, for NO OTHER REASON than they want one before they are banned. Guns stores have pictures of our President as "gun salesman of the year" for crying out loud. Magpul sold a 3 year inventory of magazines in the first quarter of 2013. "They" are making gun salesman rich, not the NRA. Keep up the good work.



    • Gray in Mountains says:

      I opened your first link. It was just as I thought, an article about a govt doing the responsible and completely legal thing of confiscating illegally owned weapons. I wish that CO govt would do this, confiscate guns that are currently owned by felons, those convicted of DV and those with restraining orders. And, yes, those "adjudicated" mentally ill

    • Curmudgeon says:

      Actually, it does matter that this is a fabricated phenomenon; it means that all the hysterics and pearl-clutching over the perceived loss of (misinterpreted) Constitutional Rights is based on a LIE.   The people promoting that lie do get rich, including the NRA.  Or are you really that dumb, to think they're not profiting off the hysteria? 

      • ClubTwitty says:

        Why bother?  The only way people of his ilk can argue a point is to argue against a slippery slope straw man that no one is here to defend.  It’s become embarrassing to see it on display over and over again.  Colorado Pols…'You'…irrelevent links from other states.  Blah Blah Blah.  Its just bullshit. 

        • Negev says:

          Well, those "irrelevant" links from other states actually support the slippery slope idea, as they all started with magazine restrictions. Our own Rhonda Fields stated publicly that "this is just the beginning"…..so, uh, yeah. 

    • BlueCat says:

      Well at least you admit the hysteria is simply a manufactured creation by the gun lobby to sell guns. Glad you understand what all the so called citizen gun rights advocating groups really are. Hucksters.  And the ammo sales fueled by the rumors they churn out about the government's secret plan to buy up all the ammo are great slick sales pitches, too. They've got who knows how many thousands of gullible people spending more of their hard earned money than they can afford hysterically building stock piles in the face of a non-existent threat.

      So I guess we agree on that aspect of it. For the NRA and all related groups, it's got zero to do with devotion to freedom and everything to do with the bottom line of the industry they lobby for. Guess that's why the NRA doesn't spend much time advocating for shoulder mounted missile launchers in the domestic market. No amount of pitching would create enough mass demand there to be worth the bother.

      Yep, couldn't agree more on all that.

  9. mamajama55 says:


    I'm responding to your proposals for "defining and refining gun laws", as well as some weird nonsense from Fox you posted earlier.

    Proposal 1)Allow mental health records seamless integration into CBI instachecks. This is a no brainer, and the only  "common sense" issue lacking in background checks, and its entirely overlooked.

    So, I don't think anyone needs to give up their entire medical record to be checked. Too much potential for abuse there – see how military commanders have used soldier's medical records to discredit their accusations of sexual assault, for example. However, I do think that there needs to be a "red flag" notification when someone is trying to get a family member committed (as Adam Lanza's mother was trying to do), or determines that there is a real public safety risk from the person (as James Holmes' psychiatrist tried to do).  This red flag should fast-track action on the concern, including being adjudicated mentally ill, and institutionalized if necessary.

    Proposal 2, require gun safety course for anyone owning firearms – Yes. I agree. Also – anyone with children in the house needs to prove that guns are locked away from them, or that there is some secure mechanism put in place. I'm tired of reading about 3 year olds shooting their siblings because Ma or Pa were "exercising their constitutional rights". Failure to do this should be prosecuted as child neglect. (And while I'm imagining, let's imagine enough social workers and case managers and funding to actually oversee child welfare). While I'm agreeing with you, I also agree with your proposal 4,  that gun safety should be taught in schools, but as an elective. Parents should be able to opt out, the way they opt out of sex education now. I'm down with your proposal 6, to abandon the drug war as presently "fought". While we're living in utopia here, let's allocate bajillions for treatment for meth and cocaine addiction treatment for the addicts already created. The dollars could come from savings on enforcement and incarceration.

    Your proposals 3 and 5 are where you start to go off the rails, in my opinion:

     3. Remove the impending urgency to own firearms. Yeah. Dump the Scalia resonable restriction and the god given right for protection b.s. and let people at least feel as if they are able to exercise their perceived constitutional rights, regardless of your interpretation. Can you reasonably say that if Justice Scalia claimed tomorrow that abortion was unconstitutional you would be against abortion? –

    You seem to be blaming stockpiling of weapons on gun legislation, which admittedly is minimal and a "start" on gun responsibility. As you've made very clear in your posts, you consider even these minimums to  be way out of line. Your argument seems to be that, since they won't absolutely cure random gun violence, don't even attempt the cure. And you allow no responsibility for the stockpiling onto the Fox-fed frenzied paranoia about people "coming for your guns".  Nobody's coming for your guns, and you know it. Even that Dianne Feinstein quote you had has  many exceptions for existing owned guns, for hunting and sport weapons. Any legitimate and responsible gun owner would still be able to keep weapons if that legislation was signed.

    I can tell where you get your hysterical assertions by a quote you put in earlier, way back there, when you claimed that all mass shooters were Democrats. This was a lie put out by Fox and several right wing blogs.  I see that you admitted that this was not true, so I won't belabor the point.  But when you muddy your claims with crap like this, it makes it harder to have a rational and civil discourse on points where we actually have common ground.

  10. mamajama55 says:

    Oh, and one more  "refine and define gun laws" proposal: If someone hurts or kills someone with a gun, even accidentally, no more guns for him/her. So Vice Pres Cheney "peppering" his fellow hunter, accident or not – no more guns for him, and no supervising anyone else with a gun. 

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.