BOULDER | Republican presidential hopefuls don’t take the debate stage in Boulder until tonight, but plenty of groups are lining up to tell the GOP candidates what they ought to say.
Among those are relatives of the 12 people killed in the July 2012 Aurora theater shooting who are rallying to push lawmakers to take a tougher stance against gun violence.
The group, along with survivors of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Conn., is rallying as part of the group Everytown for Gun Safety.
Erin DaCosta, Colorado chapter leader for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America — a group under the Everytown umbrella — said she is glad to see more people talking about gun control, but she wants to make sure the issue isn’t passed over by the GOP candidates.
“We want to hear the Republicans talk about it, we want it on their agenda,” she said.
She said her group is made up of moms, dads, and others for whom limiting gun violence is the most important issue in the coming election year.
“We are representing a group of single-issue voters,” she said.
While gun-safety measures such as background checks and limits on high-capacity magazines often receive majority support in polls, they are less popular with Republican primary voters.
DaCosta said there are still issues where those voters will back gun control, particularly when it comes to expanded background checks.
“It’s common sense that you don’t want a gun in the hands of the mentally ill, a domestic abuser, a violent felon,” she said. “It’s those kinds of people that we want to keep guns out of the hands of.”
Tom Sullivan, whose son, Alex Sullivan, was one of 12 killed in the theater, said he hopes the group’s presence can make sure the country’s gun violence is an issue in the presidential race.
So far, Sullivan said, the comments from the GOP candidates about guns have been disappointing. Sullivan said Ben Carson’s comments about a bullet-riddled body being an easier sight to see than someone losing some of their rights to own a weapon was especially offensive.
“We just have to continue to be out there in front of them, let them see the faces of the people that are effected so they don’t forget our loved ones,” he said.
Other pre-debate events started Tuesday, when former Interior Secretary and Colorado native Ken Salazar joined other Democrats to urge the candidates to talk about climate change and land protection.
Other groups are planning press events leading up to the CNBC debate Wednesday evening. Some groups are talking about Latino voter registration, and others are talking about reproductive rights. National debates give activist groups a chance to grab media attention while reporters are in town to cover the debates.
Colorado’s marijuana industry is participating, too. A cannabis industry group is offering dispensary tours Wednesday for reporters who haven’t seen Colorado’s marijuana industry up close.
— The Associated Press contributed to this report.
“While gun-safety measures such as background checks and limits on high-capacity magazines often receive majority support in polls, they are less popular with Republican primary voters.”
Maybe because first off, it’s not a “safety measure”, it’s a restriction.
Second off, we already have BGCs, with less than 2% of firearms used in a crime (source was DOJ survey of about 203K inmates) obtained from “gun shows”, Republicans know that the “UBCs” aren’t geared toward the actual problem!
Magazine restrictions are a “feel good” measure, that don’t address the problem, and aren’t easily enforceable. Not to mention, it’s plain WRONG to restrict the ability for someone to defend themselves, while letting police be exempt.
Then, Liberals talk about “registration”, when any intelligent person can figure out that registration doesn’t prevent crime at all!
I wish it were a simple, easy to understand problem, with a simple, easy to implement solution. It’s not, and I’ve yet to hear ANYONE explain to me how adding more laws to restrict law abiding citizens will prevent this type of casualty.
It’s like adding a second stop sign at the intersection.
How are expanded background checks a “restriction” for law-abiding citizens? An overwhelming majority of Americans support this (gun-owners, non gun-owners, democrats, republicans) as this law can further help keep firearms out of the wrong hands (“bad guys”), while not affecting law-abiding citizens.
First off, UBC (expanded/universal) are not an actual problem. We don’t have people obtaining firearms from private individuals to go perform a mass shooting. Current mass shooters obtain their firearms after passing a BGC from an FFL (dealer).
Second, if it reduces in ANY WAY to keep a person from getting a gun, either financially, or by time, or by effort, it’s a restriction. I didn’t say is was an elimination, it merely restricts the ability; “slows it down”. I should not have to travel to the police department to buy a gun from an individual, pay some “BGC fee”, then travel back in “x” amount of days, especially when I already own several guns.
I’m only explaining that I shouldn’t HAVE TO. I would definitely agree to performing a BGC on an individual if I were selling one, and it didn’t feel right. Hypocritical, I know, but that’s the beauty of a private sale. You make up your own “rules”. Do I travel to him, or does he travel to me… etc.