More good News !Two anti gun Co libs recalled

[Mac1958]

.

Personally, I don't think this was an appropriate use of the recall process. They didn't break any laws, they weren't found in compromising positions with farm animals. They just voted -- after being duly elected -- in ways that some folks didn't like.

The problem here is that we now have opened Pandora's box: Do elections mean nothing now? Are we going to see a permanent, ongoing string of recall elections every time a politician votes on something? Holy shit, our political process is fucked up enough as it is, this will triple the gum in the works.

.

 

[martybegan]

.

Personally, I don't think this was an appropriate use of the recall process. They didn't break any laws, they weren't found in compromising positions with farm animals. They just voted -- after being duly elected -- in ways that some folks didn't like.

The problem here is that we now have opened Pandora's box: Do elections mean nothing now? Are we going to see a permanent, ongoing string of recall elections every time a politician votes on something? Holy shit, our political process is fucked up enough as it is, this will triple the gum in the works.

.

Pandora's Box was already opened by the public unions and thier progressive democratic cronies in Wisconsin with the recalls there over perfectly legal actions.

 

[Seawytch]

.

Personally, I don't think this was an appropriate use of the recall process. They didn't break any laws, they weren't found in compromising positions with farm animals. They just voted -- after being duly elected -- in ways that some folks didn't like.

The problem here is that we now have opened Pandora's box: Do elections mean nothing now? Are we going to see a permanent, ongoing string of recall elections every time a politician votes on something? Holy shit, our political process is fucked up enough as it is, this will triple the gum in the works.

.

Those of us in the Election business love that mentality though


Job security

 

[Mac1958]

.

Personally, I don't think this was an appropriate use of the recall process. They didn't break any laws, they weren't found in compromising positions with farm animals. They just voted -- after being duly elected -- in ways that some folks didn't like.

The problem here is that we now have opened Pandora's box: Do elections mean nothing now? Are we going to see a permanent, ongoing string of recall elections every time a politician votes on something? Holy shit, our political process is fucked up enough as it is, this will triple the gum in the works.

.

Pandora's Box was already opened by the public unions and thier progressive democratic cronies in Wisconsin with the recalls there over perfectly legal actions.

Agreed, and I should have included that example too.

I don't think this is a healthy situation.

.

 

[jon_berzerk]

.

Personally, I don't think this was an appropriate use of the recall process. They didn't break any laws, they weren't found in compromising positions with farm animals. They just voted -- after being duly elected -- in ways that some folks didn't like.

The problem here is that we now have opened Pandora's box: Do elections mean nothing now? Are we going to see a permanent, ongoing string of recall elections every time a politician votes on something? Holy shit, our political process is fucked up enough as it is, this will triple the gum in the works.

.

that is one way of looking at a recall

the other is the people have a right to fire their reps

for performance they do not approve of

 

[Old Rocks]

military grade weapons that are of no legal use

You have no idea what you're talking about. "Military" weapons include auto/burst capability. Care to name a single incident in which such a firearm was used by a civilian to kill innocents?

And standard semi-auto AR15s are most certainly excellent platforms for legal use, including varmint hunting, hog hunting, 3 gun shooting competitions, and of course, home defense.

Sorry you're all butthurt over the democratic process in Colorado, but that doesn't make your lies less obvious.

Absolutely work well in cleaning out crowded grade school classrooms, shopping malls, and firemen answering a fire alarm.

 

[Edgetho]

It's a great day when people like this can buy guns again...

Not to worry, the Theater companies are putting up short film on what do do if someone shoots up the place.

Get rid of gun free zones.
Then you have no targets for these nuts.

Mass shootings never happen at a shooting range!!

That's because shooting ranges are usually members only, dumbass.

They are? I've never run into one of those, although I'm sure they exist.

ALL of the ones I've been to are either pay-to-shoot or at State facilities.... Who also charge a nominal fee (the State-run ones are often manned by butt-heads).

I used to go with some of my buddies every now and then. Not anymore.

I consider a gun a tool. And once you're proficient with that tool (I am) then what's the point in continued practice?

Now, if I'm out in the boonies camping and no one is within a few miles, I/we might set up some targets and pop off a few rounds at them. Gallon Plastic Jugs re-filled with colored water (Kool Aid) make a nice show when you hit them with a rifle round from a few hundred meters.

I don't get these guys (and gals) that stand 30' feet from a target, grasp the pistol with both hands in their best TV Cop Show imitation and slowly fire round after round at a bullseye target.

If you shoot someone that's 30' away from you.... You probably gonna have a problem with the Law. Plus, I don't like the two-handed grip on the pistol. Never did. Sure, it's more accurate but I still don't like it.

If a private citizen has got to use his/her gun, it's probably going to be in a panic situation at close range... 10' or less and you may very well only have time to get one hand on your pistol or you may have the other hand busy doing something else.... Like holding on to something or someone.

Practicing with both hands is okay, but NOT practicing with one hand is not.

Just my $.02 and worth less than that

 

[Mac1958]

.

Personally, I don't think this was an appropriate use of the recall process. They didn't break any laws, they weren't found in compromising positions with farm animals. They just voted -- after being duly elected -- in ways that some folks didn't like.

The problem here is that we now have opened Pandora's box: Do elections mean nothing now? Are we going to see a permanent, ongoing string of recall elections every time a politician votes on something? Holy shit, our political process is fucked up enough as it is, this will triple the gum in the works.

.

A senator is elected to represent the people who elected him or her.

If that senator votes against his employers( his constituents ) wishes, they use the recall process to fire that senator.

It's called accountability.

that is one way of looking at a recall

the other is the people have a right to fire their reps

for performance they do not approve of

I understand, I get it, but I think this will make our political process even shittier than it already is. Non-stop political campaigns, non-stop ads on radio and teevee, non-stop shouting from partisan ideologues.

Oy.

Every two years was bad enough. If I didn't have to follow politics as part of my profession, I would tune out right now.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Not as much money as Bloomberg dumped on them, but we'll just overlook that...



Of course, those laws would NOT have stopped Holmes, but we'll just overlook that too...

Actually, Holmes would not have been able to buy a 100 round magazine, and he would have undergone a background check under these laws.

Of course, much simpler solution.

When a Holmes or a Cho or a Lanza kills a bunch of people,

then you allow their families to sue the gun store and the gun manufacturer for damages.

Betcha once that happens, they will make DAMNED sure those guns don't end up in the wrong hands.

The gun didnt malfunction, thus the manufacturer cannot be sued.

Check out the Tobacco Settlement. The Tobacco companies paid out a shitload of money even though there were no "manufacturing" issues.

They were held to account because documents leaked proved that they were intentionally marketting their products to children.

The gun companies are intentionally marketting to the Lanzas and Holmes of the world, with NO responsibility for what they do.

Hit them with their first 8 figure lawsuit, you'll be AMAZED how quick these assholes start self-policing.

 

[theHawk]

It's a great day when people like this can buy guns again...

Not to worry, the Theater companies are putting up short film on what do do if someone shoots up the place.

It will be a great day when known wackos are locked up in looney bins and can't hurt anyone with any weapon, and progressives won't have a reason to attack our Constitutional right to own a firearm.

 

[JoeB131]

It is good news. A clear message to the anti gun nuts like Bloomberg. And as expected, the libs are already spewing their ridiculous rhetoric.

So the gun whacks picked the two weakest politicians they could find and dumped a truckload of money on them...

Not that the sensible laws passed after the Holmes Massacre will be overturned. No politician wants to own the next James Holmes.

The Holmes massacre was 100% caused by liberal gun free zones.
You know, those places ordered to have a policy refusing customers who lawfully carry arms.
Mass shootings never happen at shooting ranges.
Wonder why?

Hey, wasn't that Navy SEAL sniper shot at a gun range by his friend?

So much for that theory.

People get shot at gun shows, too, guy.

 

[JoeB131]

It's a great day when people like this can buy guns again...

Not to worry, the Theater companies are putting up short film on what do do if someone shoots up the place.

It will be a great day when known wackos are locked up in looney bins and can't hurt anyone with any weapon, and progressives won't have a reason to attack our Constitutional right to own a firearm.

If he was a "known whacko", he shouldn't have been allowed to buy a gun to start with.

That was what the law was trying to do.

Oh, wait. can't have that. The gun companies need to make a profit.

 

[martybegan]

Actually, Holmes would not have been able to buy a 100 round magazine, and he would have undergone a background check under these laws.

Of course, much simpler solution.

When a Holmes or a Cho or a Lanza kills a bunch of people,

then you allow their families to sue the gun store and the gun manufacturer for damages.

Betcha once that happens, they will make DAMNED sure those guns don't end up in the wrong hands.

The gun didnt malfunction, thus the manufacturer cannot be sued.

Check out the Tobacco Settlement. The Tobacco companies paid out a shitload of money even though there were no "manufacturing" issues.

They were held to account because documents leaked proved that they were intentionally marketting their products to children.

The gun companies are intentionally marketting to the Lanzas and Holmes of the world, with NO responsibility for what they do.

Hit them with their first 8 figure lawsuit, you'll be AMAZED how quick these assholes start self-policing.

The concept behind the tobacco lawsuit was that they were selling a product and not telling people it was dangerous. People know guns can be dangerous if used improperly.

The gun companies are selling thier products to people who can legally buy them. Just as you cannot sue a car manufacturer for the actions of a drunk driver, you cannot sue a gun manufactuerer for the actions of a homicidal maniac.

As for the store owners, if they sold a weapon to somone banned from owning one, they should be proscecuted. Considering Lanza KILLED HIS MOM AND STOLE HER GUNS, and she was a legal gun owner, i cant see the store being held liable.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Get rid of gun free zones.
Then you have no targets for these nuts.

Mass shootings never happen at a shooting range!!

That's because shooting ranges are usually members only, dumbass.

They are? I've never run into one of those, although I'm sure they exist.

ALL of the ones I've been to are either pay-to-shoot or at State facilities.... Who also charge a nominal fee (the State-run ones are often manned by butt-heads).

I used to go with some of my buddies every now and then. Not anymore.

I consider a gun a tool. And once you're proficient with that tool (I am) then what's the point in continued practice?

Now, if I'm out in the boonies camping and no one is within a few miles, I/we might set up some targets and pop off a few rounds at them. Gallon Plastic Jugs re-filled with colored water (Kool Aid) make a nice show when you hit them with a rifle round from a few hundred meters.

I don't get these guys (and gals) that stand 30' feet from a target, grasp the pistol with both hands in their best TV Cop Show imitation and slowly fire round after round at a bullseye target.

If you shoot someone that's 30' away from you.... You probably gonna have a problem with the Law. Plus, I don't like the two-handed grip on the pistol. Never did. Sure, it's more accurate but I still don't like it.

If a private citizen has got to use his/her gun, it's probably going to be in a panic situation at close range... 10' or less and you may very well only have time to get one hand on your pistol or you may have the other hand busy doing something else.... Like holding on to something or someone.

Practicing with both hands is okay, but NOT practicing with one hand is not.

Just my $.02 and worth less than that

we just like to shoot yesterday

the grandson was almost 50 for 50 at hitting the bottom side

of a couple of pop cans

 

[Edgetho]

libturds are acting like these two were recalled because they didn't vote the way their constituents wanted them to vote on Dog Licensing or something.

WTF is wrong with you people? Seriously?

That vote was a GIGANTIC Constitutional Issue that the dimocrap politicians voted for AGAINST the wishes of their constituents.

Not a small deal, a HUGE deal.

The politicians decided they would rather suck up to their political party than listen to The People.

They paid the price and they'll probably never be successful in politics again.

But they're dimocraps, the scum of the Earth, so you can never count them out. They're like Zombies, you can't kill them by ordinary means. Even when you think they're dead and buried, they'll still claw their way out of the ground and haunt you.

dimocraps suck. Betcha they end up political appointees somewhere or in Academia if they can't win another election?

Anybody wanna take me up on that one? dimocrap scum are like criminals everywhere; they take care of their own. They have to. Omerta won't work otherwise

 

[theHawk]

That's because shooting ranges are usually members only, dumbass.

Obviously a mass murderer will abide by a "members only" rule.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It's a great day when people like this can buy guns again...

Not to worry, the Theater companies are putting up short film on what do do if someone shoots up the place.

Get rid of gun free zones.
Then you have no targets for these nuts.

Mass shootings never happen at a shooting range!!

That's because shooting ranges are usually members only, dumbass.[/QUOTE

Not in Texas. I would say at most 10% require membership.

 

[Edgetho]

It is good news. A clear message to the anti gun nuts like Bloomberg. And as expected, the libs are already spewing their ridiculous rhetoric.

So the gun whacks picked the two weakest politicians they could find and dumped a truckload of money on them...

Not that the sensible laws passed after the Holmes Massacre will be overturned. No politician wants to own the next James Holmes.

And bloombitch added a ton of money of his own, and your side still lost.

Have some tissues for the crying, you facsist gun grabbing ****.

libturds FAR outspent Patriotic Americans in the recall election. It was a local issue until the outside commie groups jumped in. At that point, Patriotic Americans got in the game in order to level the playing field....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/u...at-in-recall-over-gun-law.html?pagewanted=all

While both sides campaigned vigorously, knocking on doors, holding rallies and driving voters to the polls, gun-control advocates far outspent their opponents. A range of philanthropists, liberal political groups, unions and activists raised a total of $3 million to defend Mr. Morse and Ms. Giron. Mr. Bloomberg personally gave $350,000.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The concept behind the tobacco lawsuit was that they were selling a product and not telling people it was dangerous. People know guns can be dangerous if used improperly.

The gun companies are selling thier products to people who can legally buy them. Just as you cannot sue a car manufacturer for the actions of a drunk driver, you cannot sue a gun manufactuerer for the actions of a homicidal maniac.

As for the store owners, if they sold a weapon to somone banned from owning one, they should be proscecuted. Considering Lanza KILLED HIS MOM AND STOLE HER GUNS, and she was a legal gun owner, i cant see the store being held liable.

Okay, couple of points.

Everyone knew that cigarettes cause cancer back to the 1920's. Probably earlier. The Tobacco companies were marketting to children and increasing the nicotine levels to make them more addictive. THAT'S why they were held liable and forced to comply with a bunch of new rules.

In fact, you could sue gun sellers and makers at one point. When John Mohommed went on his shooting rampage, lawsuits were brought against Bushmaster and the gun store.

Beltway sniper attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On January 16, 2003, the Legal Action Project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, on behalf of the families of many of the victims of the Beltway sniper attacks who were killed (including Hong Im Ballenger, "Sonny" Buchanan, Jr., Linda Franklin, Conrad Johnson, Sarah Ramos and James L. Premkumar Walekar) as well as two victims who survived the shooting (Rupinder "Benny" Oberoi and 13-year old Iran Brown) filed a civil lawsuit against Bull's Eye Shooter Supply and Bushmaster Firearms, Inc. of Windham, Maine, the gun distributor and manufacturer that made the rifle used in the crime spree, as well as Borgelt, Muhammad and Malvo. Muhammad, who had a criminal record of domestic battery, and Malvo, a minor, were each legally prohibited from purchasing firearms.

The suit claimed that Bull's Eye Shooter Supply ran its gun store in Tacoma, Washington, "in such a grossly negligent manner that scores of its guns routinely "disappeared" from its store and it kept such shoddy records that it could not account for the Bushmaster rifle used in the sniper shootings when asked by federal agents for records of sale for the weapon." It was alleged that the dealer could not account for hundreds of guns received from manufacturers in the years immediately prior to the Beltway sniper attacks. It was also claimed that Bull's Eye continued to sell guns in the same irresponsible manner even after Muhammad and Malvo were caught and found to have acquired the weapon there. Bushmaster was included in the suit because it allegedly continued to sell guns to Bull's Eye as a dealer despite an awareness of its record-keeping violations.

The case had been set for trial in April 2005. Bushmaster said it settled because of escalating legal fees and the dwindling amount of insurance money it had left for the case. Bull's Eye contributed $2 million and Bushmaster contributed $500,000 to an out-of-court settlement. Bushmaster also agreed to educate its dealers on safer business practices.[43]

Unfortunately, AFTER that, the NRA went to Congress and got a law passed that exempted gun manufacturers from lawsuits.

 

[JoeB131]

libturds are acting like these were recalled because they didn't vote the way their constituents wanted them to vote on Dog Licensing or something.

WTF is wrong with you people? Seriously?

That vote was a GIGANTIC Constitutional Issue that the dimocrap politicians voted for AGAINST the wishes of their constituents.

Not a small deal, a HUGE deal.

The politicians decided they would rather suck up to their political party than listen to The People.

They paid the price and they'll probably never be successful in politics again.

Actually, they'll probably be voted back in on the next election cycle when people are paying attention.

the problem with recalls is that most people dont' vote in them. Less than 20,000 people voted in one of these elections.