Hickenlooper apologizes to sheriffs on gun control

[Bailey Guns]

^^ Doubtful. The trial's over so the evidence has been heard. Just waiting for the judge to announce her ruling.

[BPTactical]

Erection year damage control.

That's all it is.

[spqrzilla]

Now that it is clear that Hickenlooper won't be a VP nominee in 2016, that he lacks any support among the various Democratic presidential contender camps (Hillary probably does not even recall his name, given concussion syndrome ...), Hickenlooper is trying to pump air back into his Colorado support.

Pathetically, frankly. He is just saying what we knew, that he was bought off by Bloomberg's cash.

[HoneyBadger]

Stupid political ploy to try to get re-elected. Hickenlooper is a piece of garbage.

[MarkCO]

Worthless, and probably damaging to him. Shows lack of leadership and gets an "I told you so" from us, maybe hurts him with the liberals as well. To say that he "did not know" means he is either lying, or his staff lied to him. I personally met with his chief of staff and legal adviser on this very issue.

When you realize you have made a mistake, you do what you can to rectify the situation. When he sponsors a bill to repeal the stupid laws, I might give him a little credit for being sorry.

[TEAMRICO]

Erection year damage control.

That's all it is.

Yup, funny how that works!

[jslo]

Great post from the timeline of Justin Smith:
Sheriffs of Colorado extended the offer to the governor to come address the gathering of sheriffs at our summer conference. This portion of the event was open to the press and was attended by both the Aspen daily newspapers and a press outlet from Grand Junction.
The governor spent about an hour with us. He made remarks then invited questions from the sheriffs. Rather than beat around the bush, Sheriff John Cooke posed the first question about the gun control measures. Sheriff Cooke framed his question around statements that Governor Hickenlooper made at an event in Weld County about being a better listener. His question was simple and direct- why didn't you listen to the Colorado Sheriffs when we attempted to share our concerns about this legislation with you? The governor extended an apology for not being a better listener during this time. He told us things were very busy for him.
I wasn't taking notes, but my recollection was that he didn't apologize for his actions, but apologized for not listening and claimed he really didn't understand the issue until afterwards.
When Sheriff Cooke pressed him about why he supported the legislation without fully understanding it, the governor explained that one of his staff members made a public commitment that he would sign it, so he was obligated to keep the promise of this staff member. I found it shocking that the Colorado governor felt more beholdened to honoring the promise of a staff member over honoring his duty to represent the citizens of Colorado.
In finishing his response to Sheriff Cooke's questions, the governor claimed that he was unaware of the opposition of the Colorado Sheriffs until days AFTER he signed the bills. The governor explained he knew of the position of the Denver Police Chief, supporting the magazine ban bill and the governor used that as his justification for believing that law enforcement officials supported the bills.
He essentially staked his apology on a claim not knowing of our position and concerns until after he signed the bills.
I hadn't planned on asking a follow up to that same topic until I heard that part of his response. So I followed up by reiterating to the governor the extensive press coverage about our opposition and the fact that somewhere around 40 Colorado Sheriffs showed up at the Capitol building to testify in opposition while only one or two police chiefs testified in favor of them. I further explained that our association president had sent a letter to the governor's office expressing our concerns and requesting a meeting. I also told him that I had personally hand delivered a letter expressing my concerns to his office in the Capitol. Given these facts, I simply found it incomprehensible that he claimed he didn't know of our opposition.
I have to tell you that I was utterly flabbergasted at the response he made. From about 10 feet away, the governor looked me in the eye and snapped "I've already apologized, what the f*** else do you want?" Now, I'm a big boy and won't pretend for a moment that it's not language that's foreign to me- but I found that type of attitude and response to be well below the dignity of the office of governor. This was a sitting governor, in a public meeting, responding to another elected official.
From what I've seen, you won't find any reports of that exchange from any of the reporters who attended. That's a shame because I believe it's newsworthy for the voters to know the attitude and demeanor of their governor during this public event.
The important thing to know is that our governor does not apologize for his support of the gun control bills, rather he incredulously denies understanding the bills and blames his staff for committing his support- obliging him to sign the bills.

[Ah Pook]

Sounds like the whistle tune is changing. The "stupidity" laws had more backlash then he expected. Gotta grease the rails for the next election.

I don't buy it.

[theGinsue]

Hickenlooper apologizes to sheriffs on gun control

Hey Hickenlooper: Take a glass plate and hold it over your head. Now drop it. Look at the shattered pieces of plate on the floor and tell it you're sorry. Did that make it all better? Using legislation to restrict law abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families has done harm to those individuals (citizens) that an apology can not undo. Fix your mistake, then we'll talk.

ATLANTA — The hundreds of gun-control protesters who crossed the Brooklyn Bridge and marched on New York City Hall on Saturday had an emotional message to deliver about recent school and mass shootings: “Not one more!”

I agree. NOT ONE MORE! Not one more honest, innocent person lost or needlessly put in jeopardy because of all of these unethical, often unConstitutional, and unsafe restrictive gun laws. Not one more life lost because someone stupidly believed that criminals and the mentally unstable will abide by the laws that honest citizens are forced to obey - creating de facto killing zones. Not one more legally disarmed citizen who has to die in terror wishing they'd had the ability to prevent their own senseless death, but were not legally able to do so. Yeah, I agree, NOT ONE MORE!

The anti's love to use posters with pictures of those killed by firearms. It's time the pro-2A side capitalized on this tactic as well. We need to start showing the faces of the victims of these over-restrictive gun laws. We need to show the faces of those killed or injured and the husbands, wives, children, siblings, and parents of the same - all because they weren't afforded the legal means to protect themselves or, in the case of children, be legally protected by an adult. The anti's want to play this game? Let's turn it around on them and show the world that if the laws weren't prohibiting the ability of the Right of self-defense, these lives wouldn't have been lost or destroyed. They say "enough"? Well damn it, so do I!

[Eric P]

blah b;ah blah, typical politician lying to the opposition.