Guns N’ Recalls

There is a great deal of national significance being attached to the recall of two Democratic state senators in Colorado Tuesday.

As The New York Times put it in an article Wednesday, the successful recall of Senate President John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron “gave moderate lawmakers across the country a warning about the political risks of voting for tougher gun laws.”

We continue to believe that recall is a tool voters should use only to remove people from office who are seriously negligent in performing their duties or are engaged in official misconduct. It should not be employed to punish elected officials for their political or ideological views, as was clearly the case with Tuesday’s recalls.

Be that as it may, the proponents of the recall legally organized the petition drive to get the recall measures on the ballot. And they successfully persuaded a majority of voters in Morse’s Colorado Springs Senate district and Giron’s Pueblo district to support the recall, despite being outspent overwhelmingly by opponents of the recall.

The two recalls are likely to change the tenor of next year’s legislative session in Colorado, even if it won’t change the overall power structure. Although Morse and Giron will both be replaced by Republicans, Democrats will still have a majority in the state Senate, albeit a small one. There will be 18 Democrats and 17 Republicans in the Senate when the Legislature convenes in January. The Democrats’ majority in the House won’t change.

But don’t expect the Democrats to be as aggressive in pushing a liberal legislative agenda next year as they were this year. Having seen what happened to Morse and Giron, and weighing their own re-election odds, it’s likely Democratic leaders and rank-and-file members will be cautious in what they advocate.

Morse and Giron, with help from fellow Democrats, can thank their own political overreaching for contributing to their downfall Tuesday. They pushed a slate of gun bills that many observers, this newspaper included, believed would do little to prevent mass shootings while ignoring Gov. John Hickenlooper’s call for new legislation to focus more on mental health issues related to guns.

Also, they worked hard on other measures that angered people in rural parts of the state — from adopting new alternative energy requirements for rural electric cooperatives to seeking an end to the death penalty to proposing new rules that would further restrict hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas drilling.

While those items weren’t at the heart of the recall of Morse and Giron, they have been mentioned by recall supporters. Additionally, they are a large part of the reason that several counties in northeastern Colorado will have a secession vote on their ballots this November.

Whether the recall success will translate into broader election victories for Republicans next year is unclear. But, at least in the coming year, it won’t result in the Legislature overturning the gun laws that prompted these recall efforts. The Democratic majority will see to that.

In any event, we hope Tuesday’s results won’t make recall elections an attractive option every time some political group disagrees with the actions of state lawmakers.


COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1


I believe recall is entirely appropriate when politicians act like the words “shall not be infringed” are not part of the 2nd Amendment.
One of the elephants in the room that leftists won’t discuss is how the decades long race-dividing tactics of race mongers of the Jackson-Sharpton ilk have succeeded in creating a generation of entitlement-minded, proud-of-ignorance-and-violence, white-hating, “gangsta”-culture black youth who not only wreak havok in the black community, but go around beating up and/or killing white people just for something to do. Of course, no demographic is a monolith, but the MSM completes ignores black conservative thought on this subject. And of course, any white who dares to bring up the obvious is automatically dismissed and demonized by race manipulators and collectivists as “racist.” Hopefully, one of the hottest spots in hell is reserved for such anti-intellectual-honesty, anti-free-speech, anti-public-discourse reprobates.
Here is the collectivists’ dilemma: the criminally dishonest economic agenda, fraudulent debt-as-money fiat currency, high unemployment, false promises and “if you don’t want to pay more taxes so I can have more ‘freebies’ you’re a racist” political/polemical tactics just make the violence worse, which, in turn, exponentially increases many individuals’ desire to possess guns for self-defense.
Although lovers of individual freedom can’t afford the luxury of relaxing for even one split second, from a political point of view, the core substance of the gun-control argument has already been dispositively decided. Increasing numbers of women and old people want guns for self-defense. High capacity magazines constitute the best chance for successfully defending against multiple attackers, such as a gang of thugs breaking into your house or attacking you on the streets. That’s not merely my opinion, it’s a self-evident tactical fact attested to by tactical experts who say things like, “if you live to the first reload, statistics say you will survive the gunfight.”
The recall of Morse and Giron should not only serve as a warning to Democrats, it should serve as a warning to Republicans that if they don’t repeal the Democrats’ arrogant in-your-face legislative attacks on the 2nd Amendment ASAP, the possibility of recall might very well apply to them too.

Wow, talk about racist and angry!  Where did this come from? Sure as hell not about recall and gun control ideas.  Please explain why we need 30 round magazines, why background checks are so invasive, and why mob rule should become judge and jury?

Chill out.

Even “conservative” Mark Levin’s new book “Liberty Amendments” doesn’t talk about all the things necessary to be HONESTLY discussed to successfully create a peaceful and civilized society prosperous for all. It does discuss the idea that it was the Founders’ intent that the U.S. Constitution be a clearly worded two-party (government & subjects) specific-performance contract, not susceptible to being unilaterally misinterpreted by one of the parties (government) to that contract for the personal gain of the officeholders and their supporting cronies, patrons, benefactors and acolytes. Article V provides the proper due process methods for changing the terms of the social contract.
There are those who have developed a “living constitution” theory of the social contract, which means that officeholders get to do whatever they please unless a majority of any given electorate can vote them out of office. Recall is one way of doing that.
There are those who believe recall should only be used in the event of violations of criminal statutes by officeholders. In contrast, there are those who believe recall is appropriate when officeholders professionally skilled in deception and manipulation deliberately unilaterally violate the clear terms of the specific-performance two-party contract to achieve some given agenda.
The current dishonest monetary and tax structures exist to hide one salient point no wannabe-clever demonizer will ever openly discuss: the unequal protection of law which exists between the buyers and sellers of labor. When an employer pays an employee $10 for an hour of labor, both the employer and the employee experience a gain and a loss. The employer gains $10 worth of labor and loses $10 worth of money. The employee gains $10 worth of money and loses $10 worth of labor. The $10 of money and the $10 of labor are necessarily of equal value in the eyes of both the employer and the employee or the exchange would not have been made voluntarily. It is a zero-sum nonprofit exchange. Yet the employer’s loss is tax deductible as an item of overhead and the cost of doing business. The employee’s loss is fraudulently calculated/ignored by government as being zero, having no value, and is not tax deductible. Clearly, that is discrimination which has no rational connection to any morally legitimate government purpose, and therefore amounts to unequal protection of law. Of course, no court will subject that question to strict constitutional scrutiny.
Neither “leftists”, who need to steal (via “taxation”) the labor/money of others to supply “freebies” for their voters, nor “rightists” who don’t seem to mind government-increased profits from the labor of individuals less politically astute than themselves, are willing to openly discuss such ideas with any degree of intellectual honesty. Instead, they deceptively refer to constitutional rule of law and strict adherence to written social contracts as “mob rule”.

Page 1 of 1




TOP JOBS
Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2015 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy