Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Second Amendment Question for Mark Udall

Since the Second Amendment is in the news, it seems fair to ask Mark Udall what his position might be on that issue.

A few factoids:

The District of Columbia sought to regulate the possession of hand guns to the point that only retired police officers might own them.

If the purpose of that law was to cut down on deaths, it was a law that didn't work. In the late 1980's the District of Columbia the law was 15 years old. At that time, D.C. was recognized as the Murder Capital of the US. Only the criminals had guns.

The Second Amendment was written at a time when the total strength of the United States Army hovered in the neighborhood of 600 to 1,000 men. The US was so weak that the British refused to honor the peace treaty requirements to abandon their forts south of the Great Lakes and were inciting Indian tribes to attack settlements.

The attorney representing the District of Columbia claimed that he took a trigger lock off a weapon in three seconds in daylight. Presumably he had the key in his hand. How far can a burglar move in three seconds in the middle of the night? If guns are to be for self protection, which the majority of the Court seemed to be arguing, are trigger locks reasonable?

The Liberals on the court clearly did not want to recognize the language of the Second Amendment as a right to have a tool with which to protect one's life and property.

Where does Mark Udall stand on the issue of Second Amendment Gun Rights? If his touchstone is Boulder as he once said, he is clearly a liberal. Is he in lock step with the liberals on the court?


absurdicus said...

Yes, just what is Mark Udall's position on the 2nd Amendment? Grumpy, do you know what a website is? I think you should since you keep writing on one. So my only assumption is you're making up things to attack Udall on yet your gun is loaded with blanks.

To wit:

"A recent decision by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals suggesting that the District's so-called "gun ban" may be unconstitutional has, in my opinion, properly clarified the more expansive reach of Second Amendment. The decision makes clear that the Second Amendment is not just a collective right to form a citizen militia, but also an individual right. Constitutionally protected gun use, therefore, includes not only recreational activities like hunting or gun collection, but also the use of guns for self-protection."

Oh yeah, you still haven't approved my comment that points out how of the 7 lies you claim I told, the only one you can prove is that my assumption of you having an SUV is wrong yet your truck is the platform for a SUV.

Ben DeGrow said...


That comment was approved yesterday afternoon, shortly after you submitted it. Be careful of making accusations that further question your credibility.

To the issue at hand, there's more to the story on Udall and gun control. As recently as 2003, he received an F from the NRA ( - congratulations on his evolution on the issue, now that he is running to represent areas beyond Boulder.

absurdicus said...

That's really interesting, because the last time I checked the comment wasn't approved. I see that it is now. Questioning credibility is pretty funny coming from you. It's also interesting you would cite a page who's main complaints about Udall are him not agreeing open up regulations on the gun industry. Because opening up regulations on the mortgage and investment industries has worked so well.

The NRA is not a gun owners rights organization. It's a lobbying organization for the gun manufacturers who try to get gun owners to go along with them.

absurdicus said...

How interesting the NRA only lets members have access to how it rates people.

A Watcher said...

Absurdicus, you are becoming absurdly annoying.

I responded to your response at 2:59 yesterday afternoon, so it was clearly approved by that time.

I don't see comments before Ben approves them and have commented on that before when I missed a Liberal and Loving It comment that had been approved for several days.

You also need to study up on your trucks before you claim that a Ford Ranger is a platform for a SUV. Do you have any idea how small a Ford Ranger is? Mine is so underpowered that I have to get in the slow lane to go up Monument hill, and that is with no passengers.

You just throw garbage out to see if it sticks. How can you be surprised that I would refer to you as part of the Big Blue Lie Machine? Campaign tactics?

absurdicus said...

"From 1991-1994 the Ford Explorer platform came with a full ladder type frame based on the tough Ford Ranger platform, an extremely tough 8.8” 31 spline rear axle, Dana 35 Twin Traction Beam (TTB) front suspension (axle diameters and U-joints are the same as a Dana 44), choice of a manual or electronic shift BW1354 transfer case with low range, manual or automatic locking hubs, and a torquey, super reliable 4.0L V-6."

I've worked for multiple suppliers to Ford. But, by all means, please continue to call me a liar.

A Watcher said...

I thought I said I owned a 2000 Ford Ranger. It is described as a "compact" truck.

Yes, when you admit in your own comment that they stopped in 1994 and then claim that my 2000 truck is a SUV frame, I have a problem with your truthfulness.

absurdicus said...

I'm glad you couldn't be bothered to look this up for yourself. The '95 to 2001 version continued from the previous with additional exterior, interior, and suspension updates. Thus, still based off the Ranger.