Actions With Consequences

Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado recently signed off on what are described as “tougher” gun control laws. These laws do not address the topic of assault weapons, sad to say, but they do promise stricter background checks on those who want to purchase weapons and they limit the size of the ammunition magazines. This would seem to limit the use of such weapons as the ones used in Newtown, Connecticut not long ago that fired off multiple bullets — as many as two shots per second. In a word, it is possible that the reduced ammunition magazines will also reduce the effectiveness of assault weapons, which are clearly designed to kill people and not put food on the table of a Sunday.  One can only hope. In any event, Colorado now follows New York with its tougher gun control laws and leaps ahead of Washington state and New Mexico both of which recently failed in their attempts to pass such laws. Needless to say, the Federal government is still talking about restrictions and the thinking is that after talking the issue to death they will swing and miss the ball entirely on the issue of gun control. So what else is new?

But what is most interesting in the article I read about the Colorado action was the reaction of the Republicans in that state who pledged to get even. As the article in Yahoo News tells us:

Republicans have warned that voters will punish Hickenlooper and other Democrats who voted in favor of the measures.

“I’m telling you, they have overreached, and there are going to be electoral consequences,” said Republican Sen. Greg Brophy.

And this seems to be the norm. Aside from the fact that several Sheriffs in Colorado have said they will not enforce the Colorado law (which is interesting in itself), those who profess to be protecting the Second Amendment to our Constitution insist that they will make sure those who voted for the new laws in Colorado are voted out of office come the next election. This, of course, is what happened at the Federal level in 1994 when a Democratic Congress under President Clinton passed stricter gun control laws and many of those who supported those laws were summarily defeated in the following elections. The opponents of such laws at that level, again in the name of the Second Amendment (which very few seem to understand if they read it at all) are supported by the NRA which in turn is supported by the gun manufacturers who have a not-so-hidden agenda and limitless funds and who are able to pretty much guarantee that those who support strict gun control in political offices do not hold those offices for very long. What spiteful personalities these important people have and such tiny minds as well. But this is the sword of Damocles they hold over the heads of anyone in public office who has the audacity to support stricter gun control laws — and this is why Colorado is the exception to the rule and why we are not likely to see any laws with teeth come out of the U.S. Congress this time around — or anytime soon.


14 thoughts on “Actions With Consequences

  1. knowing you through wordpress has been a gift, though it’s my loss not to be able to hear the inflections of your voice or see mannerisms that go into the live version! it’s refreshing that some people still have passion regarding right and wrong.
    here’s another ‘wake-up call’ post from south america that got my attention this morning.

    i truly appreciate the effort that goes into your posts. thanks for presenting the facts! Z

  2. If it were not for an alert roommate, we would have had a far worse catastrophe than Virginia Tech and other places in Central Florida this week. Yet, that is not the greater tragedy which is what happens every day. Colorado should be commended. The 2nd amendment is wielded like a lightsaber and gives too much credence to an argument about owning guns in a frontier time to serve as a militia. We need the GOP and even some Dems who believe everyone can own an Uzi, AK-47 or worse to start thinking like parents or at least as adults. Everyone who has a gun needs a background check. There is one advocate that says everyone who wants to buy a gun needs to get a lesson on safety and how to use it first. I think when one of these nimrods comes at you for voting for gun control – the politician should say “damn right and why didn’t you vote to stop killing people.” Sorry for the vent.

  3. The NRA warchest is actually quite small, at only $30 million. If a number of candidates spoke out against the NRA, and called their bluff, I think the consequences would be minimal at worst.

      • But I don’t see it getting to the $400million size of Karl Rove’s, for instance. And $30 million over a few state race isn’t a lot

      • Don’t you think they will hit up their wealthy friends when push comes to shove. They all seem to be in it together.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s