Jackson Jambalaya

I didn't see a meltdown on that video. What I heard was that the Republican disenfranchisement campaign worked in that election in Colo. And the Repub. front group the NRA spent a gazillion dollars to beat a state senator who favors the radical idea of establishing universal background checks to help prevent felons and crazy people from buying guns. God forbid the government stop a felon from exercising his purported Second Amendment "rights!"

The anti-recall forces (pro Morse/Giron) outspent the recall advocates by 8 to 1. God forbid you ever take off your blinders and get the story straight.

Meltdown may be a bit harsh, but she definitely lost it making excuses on BS conspiracy crap.

Donna Ladd (aka 11:28) can lie all she wants, but as the CNN anchor stated, MAIG and some Hollywood interests dumped money into Colorado and outspend the NRA by a factor of 8.

11:28 is a liar. If the NRA spent a gazillion, then Bloomberg spent eight gazillion, and that's still more than the NRA, even in the world of left wing idiot revisionist math.

I would assume you have Donna Ladd's IP address so you can identify her comments. It appears she and her cohorts are conspiring to flood this site with negative comments. At least they are following you closely!

Lemme get this straight, the side that was outspent 8:1 knew where to vote and the mega-bucks liberals couldn't figure out how to vote?

I am impressed that CNN actually called her hand on the BS lies.

Can't blame the interns when they look for a little action. When it comes to interaction with the online audience the JFP is on life support.

Republican voter suppression in Colo. is a fact. Google it like I did if you don't believe me. You'll see how they effectively killed voting by mail, which a huge number of Colo. voters utilize. Voter turn out was "astronomically low" in the recall election.

Y'all know Repubs. They can't win a fair fight in Colo., so they rig the game.

And talk about hurting a fellow. Donna Ladd? Comparing me to that delusional nut job is a low blow indeed!!

"astronomically low". Nah. You're exaggerating. Plus, Democrats in Giron's district hold 2:1 edge in registrations. Gun control just doesn't sell. So y'all blame suppression or racism or some other hackneyed reason. To explain away that you don't get it. Gun control doesn't sell even to Democrats.

Your right, 5:22 a.m. How dare anyone try to keep guns out of the hands of felons and lunatics! Wait, 90 percent of the American people favor universal background checks? So the 10% fringe, helped along mightily by the NRA, stops this common sense law?

I pity anybody who can't see how wrong this is.

I can't figure out if this clown is really this goofy or simply a conservative acting goofy to make liberals look bad.

So Google is the new arbiter of truth?! Yikes!

That 90% quote again, so funny. Felons and lunatics can't have guns anyway, and this lady lost in an election where the pro-gun forces were outspent 8 to 1. The democrats are just mad democracy worked for once.

Well...I don't know where some of you get your information.

I didn't know who was accurate so I went to look and looked at Colorado local news sources ( including FOX) figuring locals would be the most accurate.

There was not 8 to 1 spending. NRA gave 300 grand and Bloomberg 350 grand initially and it didn't change in a margin anyone could rationally consider definitive.

The former police chief lost by less than 1% of the vote and this lady lost by 6%.

And, yes, there was a court challenge mounted by the recall folks that screwed up the mail in ballots which traditionally are a big part of voting in a state with wide open spaces. And, this lady's district had more people who voted by mail- in ballot. Could find the actual percentage but mail-in voters are registered as well so THAT was a dumb point to make.

And, I'm someone who is fine with the legally blind people who are capable having a gun but think it insane to let all blind people including those who are deaf have a gun.

I see why this lady was frustrated with the reporter trying to sensationalize and characterize rather than report, but hardly a meltdown.

I'm frustrated any time gun control comes up. The arguments on both sides end up being so extreme as to be ridiculous.

Gun "control" doesn't sell because it makes no sense. Study after study shows that gun control does not reduce the number of crimes committed with guns because the criminals are not going to abide by laws, background checks, etc.

Gun "control" is only control of those who are normal law abiding by those willingly dismissing the inalienable right to defend oneself.

And no, 90% do not support universal background checks. Even the ACLU is against it and threatened a class action lawsuit.

September 15, 2013 at 12:11 PM = didn't look very hard

Thanks, 12:11 p.m. for taking more time than I did to study the NRA spending issue, etc. Perhaps you can hold 12:04 p.m.'s hand and explain what universal background check means. He just declares as a fact that "felons and lunatics can't have guns anyway," not understanding that both can walk into most gun shows and buy any gun they want with no check of their background.

And I could Google it and find several polls showing that 80+ percent to 90+ percent of Ameticans are in favor of universal background checks, but 11:56 a.m. believes that the Google search engine is run by "goofy" liberals, so what's the use. I guess if Fox "News" doesn't say something, them it must be untrue. It's hard to reason with anybody who is that delusional.


And for the record, I own about 15 guns(handguns, shotguns, and rifles). I love to hunt and protect my family and myself. I'm vehemently against any effort, which by the way, doesn't exist, to take my guns away. Universal background checks are NOT "gun control."

September 15, 2013 at 2:11 PM = frog in water being brought to boil

2:11

Umm.... No. A felon can not walk into a gun show and buy any gun he wants. Gun shows vendors are FFL holders and we have to run background checks on any individual who buys a gun, just as if they buy one from our brick and mortar store or on-line. Nice little lie you are trying to perpetuate there.

You can not find several polls showing that 80-90 percent of Americans favor universal background checks because they do not exist. You might find a poll done asking liberals or a small gun-grabbing cross-section, but I could apply the same logic and provide polls that show 95% oppose it. Another nice attempt at lying.

Universal background checks is a privacy issue, hence why the ACLU is "vehemently" against it.

You seem to be just as bad at math as you at logic. Giron lost by 12%. 56% against, 44% for. A recall election. Not just some ordinary election.

I assume you are also the numbskull who lied about the funding. NRA put in $360K. Michael Bloomberg, individually wrote a check for $350k. That's just one person.

The Denver Post states "Proponents of the recall have raised about $540,000, while opponents have collected nearly $3 million. " So, NRA spends $360K and opponents to the recall spend $3M, that comes out to being over 8 to 1.

Any more lies you want to try?

2:11 PM: And for the record, I own about 15 guns(handguns, shotguns, and rifles). I love to hunt and protect my family and myself.

Appeal to authority Fallacy.

3:40 p.m., what reality do you live in? Numerous scientific polls of all Americans show approximately 90 percent of folks support universal background checks. An ABC/Washington Post poll and a CBS/New York Times poll are just two I found. Use any search engine you want to easily find the numerous polls. You must be one of the ones who say man-made global warming is a hoax and the Earth is 5000 years old.

40 percent of all gun purchases are made with no background check. It's a fact. Use the search engine of your choice. YOU might be run the background checks(good for you), but many don't because of the gun show loophole. If you're really in the business, you know about it.

I'm glad to see you're all in favor of the positions put forth by the ACLU. Who knew an extremist Tea Bagger would embrace the commie ACLU?

And I'm not the guy who quoted the dollars raised and the Giron recall election percentages. If you had paid attention you would have noticed that that level headed person criticized one of my comments, too.

I take back the 40 percent number. There is legitimate debate as to whether the number is that high. If it's 5 percent, that's too many. There is no doubt that a significant number of gun sales at gun shows and elsewhere are made without background checks. Mississippi allows sales without background checks to be made by non-licensed dealers at gun shows, as do most states.

I take back the 40 percent number. ...

You've been winging it all along.

There is no doubt that a significant number of gun sales at gun shows and elsewhere are made without background checks.

Goodness gracious, what complete buffoons. You have lied about polls, gun shows, statistics, amount of campaign financing, elections, etc.

Here's a clue for you, Mississippi allows for private individuals to sell things to private individuals. It is still a felony for someone to possess a firearm, if they are not allowed to possess one. Those individuals are going to buy a gun on the street regardless and law enforcement can not stop it or even enforce it.

So, you propose to further restrict the law abiding and subject them to an invasion of privacy because you lie about facts to make your proposition more palatable.

Significantly more people are killed by drunk drivers than guns, where is your outcry to do background checks on private individuals buying automobiles to check to see if they are allowed to drive?

when are you going to take back the 90 percent number? You said 90 percent of Americans support universal background checks.

Now, you say a "scientific" poll was 90 percent, but didn't provide a link to such a poll or even ask who was polled.... see, in "scientific" polls, things like who was sampled, what criteria was used is all important things to determine what the poll is actually saying. Not to mention how the question is crafted.

So, no, 90% do not and it doesn't matter if 100% did. Under a constitutional republic, the individual right is more important than a collective want.