Dudley Brown Spikes The Ball

As only the classy Rocky Mountain Gun Owners can. Additional commentary not needed:


76 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. nota33 says:

    I think most would agree with me on here when I say Dudley Brown is worthless scum. Supporting limitation on firearms make you anti-gun? To these radical gun nuts, if you don't share their extreme views when it comes to guns, you are labeled anti-gun. Hey Dudley, the laws are still in effect and democrats still control the legislature! 🙂

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      Which pretty much makes our Counsellor Fladen anti-gun, wouldn't you say?  He did make the mistake of actually admitting (something for once) that he personally doesn't own a gun.  What good is it to these nutters if you say you're "pro-choice," when you have never made the proper choice . . . ?

      Nope. Fladen's only hope now is a very quick trip to the nearest shoot-em-up emporium — a Desert Eagle might be a good start towards covering some of those inadequacies.  Your future electorate is watching, shyster!!

  2. bullshit! says:

    Just fucking odious. Let's please try to keep this away from the gun violence victims and their family members, okay?

    Probably already too late.

  3. nota33 says:

    All of the gun violence victims supported Morse and Giron. Most of these gun nuts have never personally been affected by gun violence. These gun nuts are vile extremists.

  4. nota33 says:

    Victor Head is still an unemployed plumber who ran to his grandma for money. Hey Victory, John Morse might be unemployed, but you are to. 😉 The gun laws are still laws of the land.

    • jmatt12 says:

      Unemployed?  The only person saying Victor Head is unemployed is the now unemployed John Morse.  News coverage clearly indicates that Victor Head owns and operates a plumbing business with his brother that they took over from his brother.  Don't let facts get in the way of a good sour grapes rant, I guess.

  5. dwyer says:

    I have told you guys, over and over, again,  the Repubs are SMART.  They may well be everything else you call them (and me, when I dare to question the party line).  They are winning.  They were outspent in these recall elections and they WON.  I don't like it.  But calling them names or repeating the old, old, name calling, won't change the outcome.

    • ClubTwitty says:

      Over and over. And yes, the Dems got recalled.  But you have more often been wrong with your dire predictions it seems to me.  Not to say Dems shouldn't be learning from all this. 

      But I don't see them 'winning' in the grand sense.  I see movement the other way, not say there won't be back and forth, there always is.  Optimist: someone who doesn't see taking one step forward and one step back as a disaster, its more like a cha-cha. 

      • ClubTwitty says:

        'them', being the right.  I don't see trends in their favor.

        • ajb says:

          And it's 2 steps forward, one step back, CT. We're not where we started. 

          • ClubTwitty says:

            I'm not saying its something to ignore.  I'm saying its not a cause for handwringing (which is predictable from certain quarters) but a call for working harder and adjusting some tactics.  I still think the board favors Dems, or rather disadvantages the current GOP in the state.  Not to say they couldn't begin to do better, but I am not sure that's where this will lead or what this signifies.   Don't agonize, organize and all that. 

      • dwyer says:

        I thought that Romney was going to win.  I was wrong.  I noted that.  What are the other times I was wrong?  

        • dwyer says:

          I thought that Tancredo might have a shot because he was polling so high, coming in at the last minute. Buck was ahead or neck and neck with Bennet until his disasterous appearance on Meet the Press.  The dems took the top two positions in 2010, but the repubs took the down ticket.

          • ClubTwitty says:

            I appreciate where you are coming from, but I think that you tend to view things a bit pessimistically.  Not just winner/losers in particular races.  I think the GOP's move toward extremism, and its continued inability to push back against crazy, is of more long term consequence to Colorado's politics than last night's recalls.  And I think that advantages CO's Dems. 

            • dwyer says:


              In the long run, you may be right.  In the short run, the republicans are winning major bsttles. I am not going to be a bystander or a "cheerleader."  The reason that I say the dems have lost.  Is so a winning strategy can be developed.

              1) First of all, the dems have to admit that they lost two nationally important races that may inhibit elected officials from addressing many issues that the right wing doesn't want them do, because the right wing has demonstrated the ability to eliminate the terms of two duly elected officials.  But, if the dems somehow want to pretend that this is not important, then nothing is going to change.

              2) The second thing to do , after admitting a loss, is to figure out why people voted as they did.  Ask them.

              3) The third thing to do is to figure how what the strategy that the repubs used that worked and what the dems did that did not work…(let me suggest robo calls from Climton…meh._

              4) The most difficult thing to do is take information from #2 and #3 and figure out how to win in 2014.

              to me, this is very important,..hey, if it is not important to you…that is your call…..just don't waste time talking about my

              "hand wringing"….

          • BlueCat says:

            I would add that those who are less pessimistic than you are and, at the very least, correct as often in these matters and usually correct more often when we judge things not to be as bad as you claim them to be, get really tired of hearing what silly naive, blind little Pollyannas we are. We get tired of simply stating that evidence suggests we're not entirely doomed or that a GOP win in this race or that isn't absolutely guaranteed or that we don't take, as a given, that the public will necessarily go along with everything Rush and Fox say and recommend, then having you tell us that makes us mindless cheerleaders.   

            That's why many of us tend to dismiss your views as those of an obsessive doomsayer. So you're not wrong 100% of the time?  Big deal. The rest of us aren't either and mainly have a better record on that score. 

    • nota33 says:

      True, they won these recall,but besides that, they aren't winning. CO's legislature is controlled by democrats. Only 2 of the 4 recalls were successful and that was mainly because of low voter turnout. The republicans are not winning in CO. Yes, they won these two recalls, but that is about it.

  6. notachanceatall says:

    Please spare the pearl clutching Col Pols. You can't tell me that you would not have been doing some grave dancing of your own today if the results had been different. The votes were tallied and the people spoke. Democracy in action, deal with it. 

    • nota33 says:

      Yes, the gun nuts did speak in a low turnout election. That is what the gun nuts do because most of them are republican and single issue low information voters. 🙂 In 2014, we democrats will speak when we re-elect Hickenlooper and make sure both chambers are democrat controlled like how they are. If mail ballots were used, the republican would have been crushed. 🙂

    • Not with tombstones, on an election that dealt with death by gun violence. No.

      That image is tasteless.

  7. Duke Cox says:

    I am shocked and saddened by this result. Was the absence of mail-in ballots a deciding factor, or are there just that many radical righties in those two districts?
    either way…there is much work to do.

    • nota33 says:

      Mail ballots obviously played a big role in this. Democrats need to start turning out or the radical right will unfortunately continue to win elections. The radical righties are outnumbered in both districts, but if you don't get the turnout, the radical righties win.

    • BlueCat says:

      Saddened but not shocked. Surprised by how wrong all the trackers were about Giron but was only momentarily shocked when I checked back in last night.  Morse actually got closer to turning back his recall than I would have thought. 

      Chin up, though. This isn't enough to accomplish the goal of scaring all the gun law supporters into changing their positions. The two steps forward one back observation is apt. The general direction is not in the wingnuts favor. Dems still hold the majorities this morning and the new gun laws are still in place. Nobody's guns have been taken away and the background check provision remains extremely popular statewide, polling better than almost anything ever does.

      When they're through dancing on those graves, they'll find nothing fundamental in Colorado's political equation and trajectory has changed much in their favor after all the fuss. Yep, Dems need to do a better job of taking yahoos seriously and correcting their lies much sooner and more aggressively.  But we aren't going back to being a red state either. Deep breaths. We aren't doomed. 

      • BlueCat says:

        Once again, I did nothing that should have changed the spacing at the end. Very annoying.

      • nota33 says:

        I agree, Colorado is no question leaning blue or it's blue already and I don't see it going back to red. Democrats need to take these motivated radical gun nuts seriously in elections. These gun nuts are obsessed very much with guns and they turn out to vote. We democrats outnumber them, but we need to turn out to vote. That is the main thing.

  8. Gilpin Guy says:

    Overlooked was the shooting death in Colorado Springs of a pregnant woman by her divorced husband.  It is a sad day to reflect on the fact that gun violence in our communities persists without any consideration of the victims.  Morse and Giron might no longer be senators but the fight goes on to help make our communities safer and their efforts will not be in vain.

  9. TiffRifle says:

    It's so sick! They intimidated voters in Pueblo West all day yesterday. Filming cars as they drove into the parking lot of vote centers. Large men in white t-shirts with guns on them approaching voters as they walked through the parking lot. Gathering like a group of thugs in the parking lot outside the vote center…BUT they were at least 100 feet from the door of the vote center, so it was "ok" and nobody "could" do anything about it. 

    • Hawkeye-X says:

      They should be placed under arrest for interference with a lawful process.


      Gun nuts would find themselves without guns rather rapidly if the state bother to enforce their laws. Police should be arresting the gun-nuts who have their guns out in public like assholes that they are.



  10. Negev says:

    I think opening your arms to some of the not so nutty gun rights people may expand your base. This vote was won/lost by the unaffiliated gun owner vote which had little choice but to vote for the recall based on the left's depiction of gun owners as nuts. I think with background checks, fees for them, and in- person ccw training the majority of the population would be content. I think (just my opinion) that when the magazine capacity came in it really tilted the scales, insulting a wide array of middle of the road,  politically, leaving these gun enthusiasts  only to fall to the dark side.  

    Just my opinion not trying to stir the pot its just a shame there is no middle ground.

    • We have limits on automatic weapons and have for decades. The magazine limit is distasteful largely because people have made inaccurate claims about it – you can still go down to Cabela's and buy a Glock 17 with the 10-round magazine.

      Hunters by-and-large aren't interested in having magazines with more than 15 rounds. Same with target/sport shooters. These are the moderate gun owners; many of the members of this board are gun owners themselves and wholeheartedly support the entire suite of bills passed this year.

      • Negev says:

        When you identify the definition of moderate gun owner by the number of rounds they want to carry you fuel the division.

        Look, I am not here to fight… I am all about rights, womens rights, gay rights, gun rights…. you know, Constitutional rights. When I am told I don't "need" more than 15 rounds by the same people I back in abortion and gay rights, I stop, think, and realize, that as a heterosexual male, I don't "need" an abortion. Nor do I "need" any gay rights. If its every man for himself I regretfully say I no longer have your back. And if that is single issue voting, I urge you to garner those voters to your side, and the Dems would be unstoppable. 


        • BlueCat says:

          Where are you on the background check component?

          • Negev says:

            I am all for it. I have had multiple background checks, and I insisted that any gun I sold transfered to the new buyer via a background check YEARS before this legislation…

            Here is where they f'ed up: First, the fee. Now in and by itself, no biggie, pass it on to the buyer, but – the legislation – the one requiring the check, not the fee, mandated that FFL's were required -by law- to not charge more that $10 for the service. Well, the background check is 10 bucks itself, so, in effect, they required gun dealers (who buy the way make very little profit per gun) to net zero on a transaction that is 3rd party and hold full responsibility for the paperwork for 20 years.

            Now, who cares, right? Its gun money fuckem. Well, they are not REQUIRED to accept private sale transactions. They don't have to do it. And they don't. They make $35 bucks transfering uzi's bought off gunbroker 20x a day. Why would they bother. 

            More importantly – why the hell would the Dems write in such an absurd stipulation to a bill that otherwise seems so "common sense"? Well, from my perspective there could be 2 reasons. One, they are so fucking stupid that the expect those money hungry gun nuts to transfer guns for free, or, that making the process so financially unfeasible it will halt the flow private transactions with violating some gun nuts perceived "rights"

            I tend to believe its the latter. No offense its better than being fucking stupid, right?

            Wherever you are, any town, any place in CO – Call your gun shop. Call ALL your gun shops.  Ask them how many private guns sales they have done. My county has done 0. Thats none. Yet the newpapers still have guns for sale, and they seem to sell, or they just remove the ad after a few days, or something.

            Now the law has brought the private gun trade underground, the exact opposite of its intent, and far, far worse for the general population than before, because guns "with no papers" are now a hot commodity, and worth more. Lots more. And now more people want them. Lots more. 

            All over regulating the profit for the service they required. Note again this in not the background check fee bill, we are talking HB-1229.  Is there another service in CO that the government dictates how much you can charge for it? Just wondering…..



            • There's a case to be made that private sales listed in the newspaper should be followed up with a records check by the state enforcement agencies… No background check, then there had better not have been a sale.

              • Negev says:

                Yep… then the message boards, then the forums, then the costs rise, and the fee goes up…. all that stuff you said was not going to happen …. "first they came for my…." slippery slope stuff you called us nuts for thinking…



                • The goal IMHO isn't to catch everyone; it's to get enough people using the system so that it becomes acceptable and demonstrably easy. Right now I think it's safe to say that people are reacting poorly.

                  At some point it crosses the line between private gun sale where someone is just trying to sell their gun, and a black market gun sale where people are actively avoiding the background checks. That's an already existing problem and a different one than you're envisioning.

                  You probably haven't read my posts over the ages – I'm rarely in favor of anything "over the top", especially when it comes to civil liberties. I certainly don't condone the invasion of the police into private forums (i.e. interfering with freedom to associate and assemble) without cause.

            • Negev says:

              withOUT violating some gun nuts perceived "rights"… sorry typing to fast…

            • BlueCat says:

              If you want your concerns to be taken seriously you might try dropping the hysterical presentation. Especially since you appear to be on the same side as Dems on many issues.

              There was nothing rude in my simple query, after all. I don't recall saying, for instance, OK moron so are you an idiot about background checks. too?  Had that been the case your  choice of presentation styles would have been quite justified. Just a thought.

              • Negev says:

                These are not my concerns. They are the unintended consequences, and I do appologize for the rant. They should however be your concerns as the law you back as "common sense" and "reasonable" is in fact counterproductive to its intent, and most likely more of a problem than a solution.  

                I did not mean to be rude, to you. Sorry. 

        • Do you "need" a rocket launcher? An M-16? If the limit was 17 rounds and Glocks weren't affected, would it have mattered?

          In the end, it really is every man for himself in a way: no two people have exactly the same views, and we're sure to differ now and again.

          I say this every election season, and I'll say it again here: voting is a responsibility – a responsibility to choose the best option from those available, so that our government will be guided by representatives picked by the informed opinion of the voter. Don't vote? Then don't gripe – you failed to participate. If you think your protest non-vote is helpful, well I think you're wrong – you failed to tip the scale toward your ideal candidate. And if you personally decide that that single issue – magazine capacity limits – is enough to turn your back on the rest of the things you say you support, then you are the single issue voter you're complaining about.

          • Negev says:

            I strongly believe that if the mag capacity limit was 30 rifle and 17 pistol none of this would have happened. 

            And, I do say this this with a heavy heart, I am now a single issue voter. 

            • So – why? What tips this over the edge for you?

              • Diogenesdemar says:

                2 bullets, apparently . . . 

                  • Diogenesdemar says:

                    OK, right, half a magazine — so anyway, and I promise to play nice here for a moment . . . 

                    Are you saying that you're turned by that legislation you mentioned, because it was simply ineffective and unnecessary — or, because you feel you lost some fundamental right or liberty as a result?  I can kind of see the former, although to me that's a bit like debating dancing angels and pin heads.  If it's the latter, honestly — as a gun fancier and frequent shooter myself — I just don't see that I lost anything at all in any of this legislation; what am I missing?

                    • Negev says:

                      With the utmost respect I believe the opinion that the legislation is acceptable simply because you haven't lost anything is what your missing.  

              • Negev says:

                I think the tipping point for me was when it was clear that every and all piece of legislation rammed through this year concerning gun control was premised on the Aurora and Sandy Hook tragedies, yet when put to the test, none would have prevented either from happening.  


            • Wong21fr says:

              I have to agree with this assessment.  If the magazine limit was not enacted, the blowback would have been far, far, far less.

              The 15-round limit was ill-conceived, abritrary and, ultimately, pointless.  All it is doing is driving magazine sales out of gun stores and into private transactions, internet purchases, and the drive to a bordering state.  It does nothing in terms of reducing gun violence and is merely a lightening rod for dissent.

              It was the biggest case of overreach, probably the only one, in the whole gun control push.

            • BlueCat says:

              If you're as smart as you seem to be, Negev (after the desert?) you'll eventually grow out of being a single issue voter, whether for the sake of 2 , 15, or 100 bullets.  

              • Negev says:

                The unfortunate reality is I believe I have just grown into it. Ever vote for a pro-life Dem?

                • BlueCat says:

                  Governor Ritter, but he made clear pushing to change law or overturn Roe v Wade was not a priority and, in this way, made himself acceptable to the base who strongly supported him on most other issues.  

                  Ken Salazar, but many Catholic Dems,  including Ken Salazar, are personally against abortion as an option in their own lives but do not feel that they have the right to make that faith based choice for others. 

                  Everybody I know is pro-life. I don't apply that term to those who are anti-choice.

                  Here's the thing, though. I don't have to be single issue when it comes to anti-choice because being anti-choice goes with a whole constellation of positions that I oppose. I have never encountered an anti-choice candidate who supported all or most or even much at all of the rest of the economic, foreign policy and social policy positions that I support. If I ever did, I'd have to re-evaluate but that eventuality is extremely unlikely.

                  Your mix of views puts you in a position where it's likely that most or all who share your view of this particular gun regulation as anathema, strongly support lots of other very important stuff that you firmly oppose and oppose much of what you support.

                  I doubt that this is the thing that's going to most affect the quality of your life or anyone else's so making all of your voting decisions based on the magazine capacity issue alone will likely put you into cutting off your nose to spite your face territory. Not to mention the inconvenience of the whole lying down with dogs, getting up with fleas thing.

                  I can't help but think that, at some point,  a smart person like you might want to make some sensible adjustments to your priorities.


                  • BlueCat says:

                    I don't know why this silly spacing thing keeps happening.

                    • It's weird, BC. Are you copying and pasting from another program (e.g. Wordpad)?

                      I can't see where the editor would add the code that I'm seeing in your spacing problems. I looked at the configurable styles and available options and it's not part of the editor as configured…

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Not getting a reply for you. Yes I'm copying and pasting my own way but the thing is, sometimes this happens. Mostly it doesn't. I'm not fluent enough to explain. I'm just a for dummies type that stumbles into things that work for me. No big deal, though.

                  • Negev says:

                    Well said sir. The magazine capacity is merely the illustration of the government restricting my right to choose, in capacity, that is (see what I did there?). What difference does it make how many rounds I have, I am not the bad guy. Go after the bad guy. This logic is in my opinion reasonable and those who do not agree do not appear to have the same moral compass as I, and most likely this would overflow into the remaining factors inherent to thier cause. I therefore consider it a litmus test at this point as to whether they are dealing in logic acceptable to me, or not.  

                    • And another party is performing better according to your logic?

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Well, good luck with that. Of course many of our choices are restricted and many, such as the right to blow your neighbor away because you feel like it, are forbidden altogether by our government which, in our system, is us.

                      I really should have specified that when I say anti-choice I don't mean against anybody choosing anything but specifically against a woman's right choose contraception as she sees fit, to have as many or as few children as she deems suitable to her situation and to decide whether or not to take any pregnancy to term. 

                      I don't quite get why a specific degree of limitation on this particular choice, the choice of the number of bullets in a magazine, looms so large with you. There have been various restrictions on what kind of arms you can have and where you can have them for many decades. Why you claim that rather arbitrarily opposing this restriction but not other entirely similar ones is proof of your superior moral compass is puzzling but saying so does make you sound like a naive young person on a very high horse. 

                      For the record and meaning no offense, I seriously doubt that your moral compass is a bit superior to that of others who would not choose to make magazine capacity their be all, end all, top moral or political priority. As I said, I hope and trust you'll grow out of it.

          • Negev says:

            I say this with devil's advocacy " do you need an abortion?"


    • Konola says:

      I've called some on the right "hot headed gun nuts," and maybe I should revise that position, but I've also been careful to say that not all gun owners are "hot headed gun nuts" only those who would secede from the state. I can tell the difference between a responsible gun owner and a hot headed gun nut, but that may be lost in my writing.

      Today a school in Grand Junction was locked down because a man in  neighborhood was carrying a gun. This is the second time in recent history that has happened. This is because the local "hot headed gun nuts" insist on their right to openly carry guns–they are taking them into restaurants and places like Walmart too. I belive their own actions are going to result in the community DEMANDING more responsible gun ownership.

      Be careful what you wish for…

  11. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    People want to draw major lessons from this.

    1. Guns are a single issue vote driver.  Ds want to say it isn't true, Rs want to say it isn't true–for their own reasons.  D's because they want to try to get a handle on perceied violence problems (violent crime is actually at the lowest levels in 50 years), Rs want to say it is about overreach in general so they can cut corporate taxes, regulations, access to birth control and other GOP priorities.  Neither is true.

    2. Guns don't matter to everyone.  Sure they drive some voters, but look at the turnout.

    3.  Rules matter.  In Senator Morse's race he would have won in a straight up fight.  Short window, no mail ballots, off day, low turnout.

    4. Democrats have to figure out Pueblo.  The D's are dominating the metro suburbs and doing increasingly well in the growing parts of the state, even parts that are traditionally conservatie, but Pueblo is a different story.  It isn't that the GOP is selling something Pueblo wants to buy, its just that they don't feel apart of the rest of the state's prosperity. Maybe.

  12. The realist says:

    Any thoughts yet re: the Governor's participation in the recall elections – or lack of participation – and whether that had any impact one way or another? There was some recent media commentary about the limited role he was playing.


  13. Idiot Flatent says:

    I don't see what's so offensive.  It illustrates only the first amendment  free speech of  a group dedicated to protecting the second.


    • ElliotFladen says:


      Plenty of offensive things are protected by the first amdment.  My speculation is Dudley purposefully chose this image to get you all riled up about gun violence.  That speculation isn't based on anything substantial other than a gut instinct.

  14. Half Glass Full says:

    With that image, Dudley Brown has cemented his reputation as a sick, disgusting, cowardly excuse for a man. 

  15. skeptical citizen says:

    Am confused how the tombstones have anything to do with the "social welfare" that should be RMGO's primary function as a 501(c)(4)? Please don't cite First Amendment rights. The tombstones are antisocial, not social!

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.