« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Meet John Hickenlooper, now-endangered Democratic Governor of Colorado.

I’m calling Gov. Hickenlooper endangered for a reason: he just made a rather poor life choice. You see, the fellow bowed to pressure from East Coast liberals and signed into law today an effective firearms ban masquerading as a “high capacity magazine ban.” John Hickenlooper is apparently just self-aware enough to realize what problems this is going to cause him down the line: “[Hickenlooper] said his office later today will release a “signing statement” to try to explain how the bills, particularly one that limits ammunition rounds, should be interpreted.”

If you’re explaining, you’re losing. And here’s why Hickenlooper is explaining:

A longer version of state senator Kevin Lundberg’s points here. The short version is that the legislators who constructed the ‘high capacity magazine ban’ either didn’t know or didn’t care that new ‘standard’ ten round magazines are easily convertible into larger magazines, which makes them just as subject to the new law as the larger ones. As well as the guns that need those magazines in order to operate. That means Coloradans technically now can’t buy ‘em, can’t sell ‘em, can’t even transfer ‘em to other people… in Colorado*. The whole thing is pretty much an exercise in demonstrating why you don’t let Democrats write legislation unless it’s on something that they know something about, like increasing minority unemployment**.

Amusingly, Hickenlooper thinks that this won’t hurt him in the next election:

For all of their fervor, Hickenlooper sees the demonstrators a small minority. “Not only do they not represent the middle, I don’t think they represent the Republican party. I don’t think they represent a large number of people,” Gov. Hickenlooper said.

…Oh, dear.

Oh, dear, oh dear, oh dear. There are many things that social conservatives, defense hawks, small-government types, and libertarians disagree on. The Second Amendment is generally not one of them. So, no, I’m pretty sure that the folks upset about these new limitations to their civil rights actually do represent the Republican party. And I suspect that in 2014 there’s not going to be a repeat of the [Colorado***] GOP’s 2010 internal meltdown…

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*If you think that this makes the law unenforceable, congratulations: you’re in broad agreement with more than one Coloradan county sheriff.

**Which, admittedly, is something that the Democratic party hasn’t explicitly endorsed since just longer than my lifetime. Well… on the federal level, at least. More or less.

[***Added for clarity.]

COMMENTS

  • swami7774

    “2010 internal meltdown”? Is that a typo or am I missing something? We did pretty well in 2010.

  • mearsc

    The Colorado Republican Party had a meltdown, which resulted in Hickenlooper and a series of other Democrats winning election. It was led by the Republican nominee for governor winning 11% of the vote

  • streiff

    maybe David Duke will run again, too.

  • joshinca

    Hoplophobia is the most bizarre aspect of the progressive’s cult.

    It defies all reason and evidence and even overrides the instinct for self preservation.

  • joshinca

    The real bigger picture is that hoplophobia will be the neurosis that kills the democratic party in CO and maybe in the whole country.

    We need to egg them on and get candidates that will make gun rights central to their campaigns and mercilessly hammer every democrat with the issue.

  • joshinca

    What did Tancredo do that makes you compare him to an actual KKK member?

  • freemkts

    I think they were responsible for the miserable crop of candidates in the last election.

  • Martin Knight

    On board with everything written except that I think we need to retire “If you’re explaining, you’re losing …”

    It’s not true anymore.

  • http://www.neoavatara.com/blog neoavatara

    Right now, everyone has to predict this goofball gets re-elected.

    Colorado’s GOP is a mess. First, they must focus on the top line races, and get credible candidates for them. Let them fight it out in the primaries, but then come together. They must unite behind those candidates.

    Otherwise, there is no chance to win there. And there is a lesson to be learned…if we are divided, we fall. Democrats are united, and we are not. This is the tangible result.

  • http://www.neoavatara.com/blog neoavatara

    .

  • http://www.neoavatara.com/blog neoavatara

    I agree…but do we ever learn the lesson? The states where the GOP has been united, with strong leadership, have maintained their ‘Red’ status. Those states where we lack unity, this is what happens.

    I don’t want ‘top/down’ control of the party. But lets get through the primaries and then come together. Otherwise, there will be more states like this. Until our side realizes that, we will continue to lose more and more rights.

  • grumpyKoz

    Interestingly enough, we learn recently that Tyrant Cuomo or N.Y. is ready to reconsider his magazine ban. Apparently he believes that his possibilities of matching his father’s greatness are diminishing VERY RAPIDLY, thanks to his ignorance.
    Hopefully, other states will start to move the same.
    BUT, that should not stop the voter from evicting these offenders of liberty.

  • kreplach

    Progressives saw 20 kids shot in Connecticut. They think regulations can keep guns out of the hands of the next Adam Lanza. That’s not a bizarre irrational fear of guns; that’s a perfectly understandable fear for their children. You can’t use their concern for their kids as a cudgel against them.

    Make the case that the regulations won’t do what they want, or will have unintended consequences. You need to keep making those arguments, because a majority of the public still prioritizes more gun control over more protection of gun rights.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/2013/03/13/gun-control-key-data-points-from-pew-research/

  • capeconservative

    Forget about Pew or any other poll…they aren’t worth the time to read them. Most thinking people today do what we do…screen calls…if we don’t know the caller, we don’t answer, so the results are definitely not a true picture on any position.

  • leftylurker

    To be fair, this ignore the polls idea led to some pretty surprised people last November…

  • naraht

    Part of the issue with Aurora and Sandy Hook is that most of the “middle of the road” solutions of “*that* person shouldn’t have had a gun” don’t apply. The shooter in Aurora didn’t have any legal bounds to purchasing the guns that he did and the shooter in Sandy Hook, it wouldn’t have mattered since he got them by shooting his mother. So basically the only changes that are likely to be proposed are Large Capacity Magazines/types of weapon control (by the left) and having situations where there is someone armed who can kill the shooter there (by the right).