Civics Far-right Intellectual Violence Gun Fetishists Republican Party Terrorism Wingnuts

Fox Touts Strong Voter Turnout In Colorado Recall

Modern Day Colorado.

Modern Day Colorado.

Gun nuts in Colorado are currently on the march, heading to the polls to try to recall two state senators who had the audacity to vote for expanded background checks and limited clip capacity.

In what is Colorado’s first legislative recall, State Senate President John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron will face the maniacal wrath of the Fox News mob that has been forming lines since early voting precincts opened up on Friday. Sort of like a stairway to collective dementia. Next stop: Tuesday!

It’s worth pointing out that since the mass-shooting in Aurora, Colorado, state representatives who openly debated and voted in favor of sane gun control policies have been bombarded by right wing nut jobs who’ve been sending in vividly morbid death threats and threats of rape and torture.

Because nothing says “Freedom and Liberty!” like murder, torture, and rape.

When you don’t show up, they win.

  • David Bagdasarian

    I’m certainly glad that this left wing nut whose choice of words dismays an American. Since when is implementing the constitution a rally cry for socialists and communists? Oh yeah, since his royal hinny barry and his cabal of fascists took power. What’s next? Sharia law in Kolorado? I can see it coming.

    • muselet

      Is there a point to your incoherence, or has your caregiver just left her laptop where you can get to it?


  • I heard a story once, about a rapist in Houston who targeted single mothers with babies. He would break into an apartment, rape the woman, tell her when he was going to come back and rape her again at a later date, and threaten to kill her baby if she didn’t comply. He also threatened to kill the baby if she called the police. One woman, after being raped by this man, didn’t call the police. She went out and bought a gun. She left her kitchen door a little bit open at the day and time he was expected back, then sat at her kitchen with the gun, waiting for him to come in. When he did, she shot and killed him. I thought the city of Houston should pin a medal on her.

    In east Texas a couple of years ago, there was a rapist targeting (very) elderly women living alone. I hoped those elderly women had guns and would have loved it if one of them had killed the man.

    But how would a gun help a woman on a college campus? Senator Giron has likely gone over that talk in her head many times. It was emotional bullying to have a woman who had been raped talking about how she thinks she wouldn’t have suffered being raped if she had had a gun. I have to wonder just exactly how that would play out. It’s understandable that she would imagine herself having prevented it, and imagine herself being safe from future rapes; but is it realistic?

    A better response than statistics about guns would have been to ask her how she would convince the police, much less a jury, that the man she shot/killed was a rapist if she had shot him? Women who are raped by a stranger who left evidence are unlikely to see him convicted. Unless the man was a serial rapist who could be identified by DNA, the onus of proving it was self-defense would be on her. And if the man were a popular athlete?

    I don’t see how a woman can identify a rapist as a rapist, before he overpowers her while she’s strolling the campus. Should women pull a gun on any man who’s making her nervous or fearful?

    • Schneibster

      I would back carefully away from any woman who indicated to me that she felt threatened by me, whether for rape or whatever else. I have a great respect for the claws and teeth of a 100 pound monkey who thinks I’m threatening her. I would prefer not to be stomped, gouged, kicked, bitten, or otherwise attacked because she felt threatened. A pacifist display seems more likely to work to me.

      If I put my hands up and back away, chill. It will be fine.

    • Christopher Foxx

      One woman, after being raped by this man, didn’t call the police. She went out and bought a gun. She left her kitchen door a little bit open at the day and time he was expected back, then sat at her kitchen with the gun, waiting for him to come in. When he did, she shot and killed him. I thought the city of Houston should pin a medal on her.

      No. She should have called the police and had them waiting in her kitchen.

  • Poor, poor scared little boys. So afraid that they’ll soon be outnumbered by the non-whites.

    Utterly pathetic human beings.

  • Schneibster

    And always the one-word message:


  • muselet

    There’s a movement that’s sure all that glitters is guns
    And they’re voting a stairway to madness.
    When they gets there they know, if the stores are all closed
    With a word they can get what she came for.
    Ooh, ooh, and they’re voting a stairway to madness.

    There’s a sign in their hands, but they want to be sure
    ‘Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings.
    On Fox News on TV, there’s an anchor who yells,
    Sometimes all our opinions are stupid.

    Ooh, it makes me wonder,
    Ooh, it makes me wonder.


    (with apologies to James Patrick and Robert Plant)

    And the caption on the picture is perfect!


  • missliberties

    John Morse is a pretty level headed dude. The dems should be able to win this, but if they don’t it won’t be because they didn’t try.

  • Schneibster

    What would be amusing would be if someone followed up and sent the names and posts of people making murder, torture, rape, and other terrorist threats to the FBI so they could be put in the database as unstable so they can’t buy guns any more.

    Poetic justice. 😀

    • There should be a whole lot of well-publicized arrests to get the point across that rape and death threats are not protected speech.

      • Schneibster

        Oh, I think blocking them from buying guns would make the point much more effectively. In a few instances, where the threats are credible, I can see it, but I doubt there are many and I think most of them will turn out to be someone the victim knows.

        The only times I think such threats should be taken seriously are where there is actual stalking, or threats to a public person, or credible threats to a private citizen. It’s necessary not to overreact, no matter how great the temptation.

        You’ll recall I’m a bit of a hothead. I’m really trying to reform. I’ve become quite conscious of its effect on my cred.

        • Rape and death threats are not protected speech. Now that a whole lot of people think it’s o.k. to send rape and murder threats, and to walk around in public with high powered rifles on their shoulders (to show that they’re trustworthy (of course)) the expression of wanting to be torturous and lethal, and demonstrations of the power to be lethal (but you can tell they’re restrained because they haven’t opened fire) is going too far. We have a right not to be threatened.

          Sending an e-mail with a rape/death threat is just as threatening as sending snail mail with a rape/death threat, especially when the recipient is a public figure who can easily be located. Like Gabby Giffords. Are we supposed to not take threats seriously? What does it say about our society when we don’t take threats seriously?

          • Schneibster

            Like I said I’m wishy-washy. I don’t think there’s a point where these things shouldn’t be investigated. I think there’s a point beyond which they’re ridiculous. Some dumbass in Oregon isn’t a realistic threat if you live in Florida. But I think the dumbass in Oregon is a candidate to be blocked from buying weapons if it threatens people in Florida. See what I’m saying? That’s a civil procedure and the threatener has to spend hir money to defend hir threats, and it’s not gonna work; nobody has the right to make terroristic threats. Removal of this person’s gun privileges seems fair.

          • O.K. How would you deprive that person of the legal right to own a gun, without having charged him/her with an act of violence to begin with?

          • Schneibster

            We were talking about taking away gun privileges due to mental or emotional incompetence demonstrated on the Internet.

            This is an administrative procedure. I’m not sure why you think any criminal or civil law applies.


  • formerlywhatithink

    Reading some of those comments in the linked article has lead me to believe that if the gun fetishists were serious about keeping guns away from people with mental problems, the NRA would be leading the race to make sure they can’t buy guns because they clearly have anger management and other mental issues. But this is the NRA we’re talking about.

  • Let’s hope it’s sane people showing up.