At the tail end of last month, Colorado’s Democratic House Majority Leader sat down for a pow-wow with Tim Caffrey. Who he? Mr. Caffrey’s a [just say] NOCO. A Northern Colorado Progressive who views the recall campaign targeting pro-gun control candidates as a hangable offense [paraphrasing]. Mr. Caffrey’s YouTube interview with Dickey Lee Hullinghorst garnered all of 3,163 views in the last nine days. In fact, we would’ve missed it entirely if not for theblaze.com story highlighting Ms. Hullinghorst’s antipathy to armed self-defense. My favorite quote . . .

“The thought that the only way we can protect ourselves is to wield our own weapon is completely absurd and an argument that I absolutely discount as frivolous.”

See what she did there? No one’s saying a gun’s the only way to protect yourself. It’s the best way in certain life-or-death-or-grievous-bodily-harm situations. So . . . best to have one really. Any one. And it’s best to observe that Constitutional prohibition on government interference with the right to keep and bear arms. Not that  Hullinghorst doesn’t pay lip service to the concept . . .

“None of the bills we passed will take anyone’s gun away,” Hullinghorst assures her sympathetic host, marginalizing the fact that the law she and her colleagues passed limits Colorado residents’ ability to defend themselves with firearms equipped with standard capacity magazines.

Which elicits the money shot: “I don’t know very much about this . . .”  Hullinghorst interjects into her justification for the mag cap limit—which hoists itself by its own petard by failing to understand that James Holmes’ large-capacity magazine prevented more slaughter by jamming.

Politicians. You get what you pay for. And you pay for what you get.

71 Responses to CO House Majority Leader: Armed Self-Defense Is “Frivolous”

  1. “The thought that the only way we can protect ourselves is to wield our own weapon is completely absurd and an argument that I absolutely discount as frivolous.”

    Wrong.

    The idea that the only way we can protect ourselves is to call a government office and hold for assistance is not only morally repugnant,but dangerous to the public good.

    Go ahead and quote that ,folks.

      • That makes me sick. I think I would want to kill a few people, starting with the 911 operator and perhaps ending with some of her state congress, if not all of them.

        • NSA, write it down. full measure wide and death. remember the old marines just stand and fight.
          Most retreat, much is nothing done. Good marines step forward to shoot out the white of the eye.
          shoot last , use old knife to cut neck line vertical, but survive you must.
          No Guns, No Ammo, komikalifornia 2013

        • Every time she said “it’s unfortunate”, I wanted to yell, “Yeah, it’s unfortunate she had a cell phone instead of a gun.”

        • And gee, wasn’t that just excellent advice to call the Sheriff – Monday – and even get a restraining order? Because an OFFICIAL piece of paper is VERY effective at stopping ex-boyfriends with a warrant out for their arrest and a desire to rape and beat you. “It really is a good thing she didn’t have a gun, because the ex- would have taken it away and used it on her.” Well, yeah, if he was still standing after she emptied it into him.

          Call 911 and die.

  2. So, per your own synopsis, Dickey Lee Hullinghorst does NOT think armed self-defense is frivolous. As you quoted, the argument that armed self defense is the only means of keeping harm from one’s self is what is frivolous. And as you said, no one is making that argument. I’m disappointed in this headline. It’s sensationalism and just plain wrong — I expect that from a liberal rag…not this place.

    • It may not be what she said, word for word, but I bet it’s what she meant. And even though nobody is making the argument that weapons are the only means of defense, they are the only practical means when everything else fails. So in this case, I think the headline is valid.

      • You contradict yourself when you say “[guns] are the only practical means when everything else fails” — That “everything else” is what she is talking about. Again, she isn’t arguing against armed self defense. She is, however, taking the utopian view that the law will maintain order and ideally there wouldn’t be the need for armed self defense. Yes, I’m sure she (and others like her) really do see armed self defense as unnecessary (since The State will take care of us all), but that’s NOT what she says in her interview.

        • “The thought that the only way we can protect ourselves is to wield our own weapon is completely absurd and an argument that I absolutely discount as frivolous.”

          It reads to me that she finds the thought of the use of a (any) weapon in self defense an absurd and frivolous argument. I fail to see what nit you are picking to argue this point.

          Quotes given off the cuff in an interview, especially by politicians and especially when being interviewed by a compatriot, are often less than grammatically precise. I think she got her anti-gun, anti-any weapon point across fairly succinctly. She has obviously never been faced with any self-defense situation in her own life or she would not be so pig-headed and foolish.

          The further argument that a firearm/pistol is the best defense when everything else you might try fails is also obvious. IMO.

        • No, she is finding that the *argument* that armed self-defense is the *only* means of protection is frivolous. She NEVER says that having a firearm for self defense is frivolous — she is attacking those who say there’s no way to be safe without having a firearm. There is a difference, and it’s not a nit — it’s contradictory to the headline of this blog post!

        • Although, I do believe she would love to get rid of armed citizens in favor of State protection. That’s the problem with politicians (especially liberals) — they are never honest and forthcoming with their positions…always a bait and switch, hoodwinking the low-information voters and the naive.

        • Peter,

          I disagree with your assertion for a simple reason: there is no public movement that we eliminate law enforcement and have a situation where the ONLY way we can protect ourselves is to be armed.

          If such a public movement were underway, then your assertion would have merit. Given the context of the legislation that Ms. Hullinghorst passed, the context of Ms. Hullinghorst’s conversation with the host, and the context of civilian disarmament, I believe it is reasonable to read Ms. Hullingshorst’s comments as stated in this article.

  3. I really hope the good people of Colorado can turn things around before the California-Carpet-Baggers destroy their state.

  4. Why am I not surprised that she “doesn’t understand” why people are upset over these laws when she can’t even explain how these ‘do nothing about crime’ laws wouldn’t have lessened or prevented any of the events she brings up?

    Furthermore, the “gun safety” rebranding that the anti’s are so desperately trying to make stick in their own circles needs to be met with equal force from our side. We need to start associating that with our side and take the term away from them before they get 5 or 10 years down the road when the rebranded “Brady Campaign for Gun Safety” and “Mom’s Demand Gun Safety” finally gets their way. Anybody with a little more cash than I want to buy the domain names as a starting point?

  5. It is frivolous and dangerous for adults to be endorsing a comic book view of criminality and law enforcement. A policeman cannot instantly materialize at any moment to defend you from danger any more than an insane person in a joker outfit can to kill you. It is a process that takes time, time that can only be saved by cutting out the middle man and arming the victim.

  6. Typical Progressive, she can afford to pay a hired gun. maybe she should travel to Syria and straighten that Frivolous Misunderstanding out

  7. How ’bout this one from her:”As a woman, I have the right not to carry a gun and to feel safe on the streets, and that’s what we provide for in the state Legislature is for all of us in the state of Colorado — to feel safe on the streets without having to carry a gun,” said Mrs. Hullinghorst on “The Tim Caffrey Show.”
    So now we need to change the phrase to —When seconds count, a State Legislator is only (insert time period here) away. Maybe we should let her know, that as an American, I have right TO carry a gun and to feel safe, wherever I am.

  8. TO: All
    RE: Heh

    It would be interesting to see what would happen if she had a home invasion while living in her quarters in Denver while the state assembly is in session.

    When I lived in Denver, the late 80s, it took the DPD 45 minutes to respond to calls for help from my townhouse complex manager while he was being beaten up by a gang of kids who’d been trashing the complex clubhouse.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [When seconds count, the police could be almost an hour away.]

  9. None of the bills we passed will take anyone’s gun away

    I keep hearing this… but then when I go to buy a gun that I like, it is then restricted. So it is 1984 doublespeak/wordspeak. They are taking away my future purchases in lieu of my present guns. If they seek to eliminate my future purchases, and the present will eventually become the future… then they are taking my guns away.

    • Promises! Promises!

      And yet they continually disparage firearms and those who own them, as if the owners were psychos.

      On the other hand, doctors of psychology have described their psychosis perfectly…..they are clinically insane.

  10. She’s beating a strawman with this. She knows that gun owners are perfectly aware of self defense alternatives, she’s just refusing to consider the fact that when it comes to most home defense/life-or-death situations, having a firearm is the best, legal way to defend oneself.

    She’s also perfectly aware of the fact that her fringe leftist allies/financiers want to take away much more than high capacity magazines.

    Anti-gun legislation like she’s supported isn’t meant to prevent gun violence, and she knows it. If anything, it just adds to the list of prosecutable offenses. In a state that can hardly enforce the laws on the books as they are, and knowing that simply making something illegal doesn’t prevent people from doing it, she ought to know better.

    But logic isn’t her forté. It’s all about emotion and pretending to do something about “gun violence” to satisfy the low-information voters.

  11. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating- this is colorado’s big chance to correct its path and send and prove that they represent the majority, not the minority. And it will provide a hard right turn out of becoming California Jr. If you live in Colorado, this recall may be the most important thing you ever do politically.

  12. TO: guy who said he fought through vietnam with a 5 round mag

    no……… no you diddnt…………. You are either lying…….or stupid.

    Jason

  13. “The thought that the only way we can protect ourselves is to wield our own weapon is completely absurd and an argument that I absolutely discount as frivolous.”

    Firstly, Who said that the only way to protect ourselves is to wield our own weapon? Where did this come from? Sources please? Secondly, if you have entrusted someone else to wield a weapon for you in your defense/protection, what if that person fails to protect you? What are you to do then? Are you to remain helpless and hapless? Sure, if someone else is protecting you that’s great – however most (basically all) of us don’t have that luxury. The cops don’t sit outside my house watching continuously for burglars or rapists.

    • I do carry alternative means of self dense, stun flashlight and and really sturdy key chain mace canister
      but the purpose of a gun is to be able to stop a deadly threat from beyond arm’s length distance.
      My 62 year old knees do not make fleeing an option, knock me down, I could not get back up by myself easily or quickly. These are not “frivolous” arguments to why I would be better served to also carry the Ruger P95 9mm 15 round pistol I own. It’s my best option for survival if assaulted.

  14. Maybe the leaders of the Sad state of CO can give out large bags of marijuana to citizens to use to wack the criminals over the head, makes about as much sense as disarming the public and telling them firearms are not good for self-defense.
    This is what you get with these leftist politicians, bad everything.

    • Maybe they can just make pot smoking mandatory for everyone in CO, all the residents will be too baked to attack each other, thus negating the need for frivolous self defense.

  15. I agree with the Colorado legislature that a gun is not the best tool for life preservation.

    When SWAT no-knocks your home and shoots you a couple times because they feel your coffee cup to be a threat, then run off when they finally get the correct address but fail to call an ambulance for you, a cellular ‘phone or medical panic fob will be of much greater use than a firearm — the bearing of which would elicit a mag-dump rather than a “mere” double-tap.

    Events startlingly akin to the condensed version above are one reason why when I look to the west and shake my head, it ain’t with longing.

    Just my two cents’ worth.

    • At some point sloppy killing of people and pets at the wrong address goes beyond a tort that the taxpayers have to buy.

    • It’s not a ‘joke’.

      They gunned down a 63-year old guy, lying in his bed armed with a can of Coca-Cola in Denver a while back.

      Another no-knock, bad address raid…..

      To Serve and To Protect My fourth-point-of-contact……

  16. This woman hasn’t a fu*king clue. With a stroke of a pen, they imposed a $10 tax on each firearm, and denied me the right to sell my nearly 100 year old Luger 32 round Drum magazines worth $1500 to $2000 each. Go back to Kalifornia!

  17. For Dickey, it’s all about the mythical concept that only exists in the vacuum between her ears, better known as “safety”. You are not “safe” or “unsafe” with or without a gun. However, if you really need a gun and don’t have time for law enforcement to arrive then you have to “rely on your frivolous gun” for self-defense. Self-defense is a non-mythical concept wherein you kill someone else who is unlawfully trying to kill you before they can accomplish the same.

    It’s “unsafe” to have adult children running around making laws, casting votes, and using force (not themselves, but law enforcement proxies as they’re far too cowardly to stand up for anything or anyone) to accomplish their suicidal goals.

    Layman’s Terminology (for politicians who are dictionary-deficient or don’t understand all the big words):

    Criminal – One who disregards or violates the law
    Citizen – One who follows the law, no matter how stupid or injurious to self it happens to be
    Law – An arbitrary, but enforced with violence, rule, regulation, or statute pertaining to a human behavior
    Law Enforcement – One who apprehends criminals and gathers evidence to assist in the prosecution of criminals
    2nd Amendment – Notional concept that states the American people have a right to possess and own weapons

    Here in the US of A, some of us believe in the notion that since we are confronted by violent armed criminals that the police are unable to stop before they commit violent crimes, we have a right to be armed and to defend ourselves as best we can until law enforcement can arrive. Now, the notion that you don’t need a gun to defend yourself against someone with a gun is quaint, but it’s kinda funny how our law enforcement officers and military don’t really bother too much with whistles and billy clubs. So, if law enforcement officers will ultimately use firearms to assist in apprehend or killing violent criminals with, what would be the chief concern about having a civilian who will be present before law enforcement arrives from doing the same? To be clear, having a personal firearm doesn’t mean Joe Citizen can write people traffic tickets or investigate murders, so what’s all the fuss about that point?

    Do law enforcement officers or military arbitrarily restrict how many chances they have to kill their assailants by taking bullets out of their magazines? I think not. If you think otherwise, go ask someone else who has been in the military or law enforcement? From experience, as opposed to fanciful notional concepts bouncing around inside my skull, we didn’t arbitrarily remove bullets from our magazine out of a sense of fairness to the enemy or because someone else in our unit might accidentally, or even intentionally, be shot by someone else in the unit. Yes, I even seem to recall the general notion that more bullets was more better.

    So, after enacting this legislation, a special form of retribution against citizens who are not criminals and that will also not affect any criminal on the planet, unless criminals who execute criminal activities specifically in Colorado start respecting magazine restriction legislation in addition to laws about rape, robbery, and murder which they heretofore seem to have ignored entirely; Who are we really imposing our will upon? Who will be most affected by this legislation, criminals or citizens? How effective have laws against rape, robbery, and murder been? Perhaps we need to put more ink to paper making it really, really illegal. Then maybe the criminals will take note. Hint, if a criminal can’t read, it doesn’t matter how many special markings you make on your favorite piece of legislation, it means nothing to the criminal.

    If you were to ask a protectionist/liberal/progressive, one bullet is too many and one gun is too many. These are the people who get baked in ovens and worked to death in concentration camps because they are too stupid or too scared to act in a manner consistent with self-preservation. Some of them believe they are more equal than the other animals on the animal farm, but Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and virtually all other dictators would definitively “let you know”, so to speak, that you’re only special until someone who is “more special” than you decides that you’re not so special. Then, it’s off to the ovens, off to the gas chamber, off to the slave labor camp, or off with your head. Strangely, all those dictators mentioned were frightfully concerned with the peasants owning their own weapons and, some of them as their first acts as dictator, made sure that their peasants were disarmed, “for their own safety”.

    To our politicians who are “more equal” than us; How long before someone who is “more special” than you decides that you’re not so important and that you can be raped, robbed, or murdered at the leisure of the local criminal element who care not what laws you make because they never had any intention of following a law to begin with. The cat is out of the bag people, there are as many guns as people in this country and more than enough “high capacity magazines” to last for several lifetimes.

    Don’t feel “safe” without a gun in public, Dickey? Then don’t go out in public or carry a gun like all the other rational adults who aren’t vying for the next Darwin Award. Law enforcement officers aren’t going to get there in time to save you from your own stupid decisions. When it comes to things that can kill you, like armed violent criminals, it’s best to use logic and numbers rather than feelings and fictional concepts to determine what you will and won’t do and which laws you will and won’t write. Willful ignorance, stupidity by any other name, and irrational fear will kill you just as surely as the 16th bullet from a magazine ever will.

    • “Yes, I even seem to recall the general notion that more bullets was more better.”

      There are only two situations where there is such a thing as “too much ammunition.” The first is if you’re drowning, and the second is if you’re on fire.

    • Brian,

      I have two corrections to your layman’s definitions:
      Law – An arbitrary statute, but enforced with violence, rule, regulation, or statute pertaining to a human behavior or human identity
      Law Enforcement – One who apprehends criminals people who break laws and gathers evidence to assist in the prosecution of criminalspeople who break laws.

  18. I’m all for division of labor and understand its benefits. Unfortunately, self-defense is one of those tasks that can’t adequately be provisioned for by a third party laborer unless every citizen in the nation, criminal or civil, has a self-defense laborer assigned to him or her.

    Incidentally, and not that it matters now, but those mass shootings your state experienced are what we with logical minds would conclude is evidence that the provisioning of self-defense labor to the law enforcement officers in the affected communities didn’t work as intended. It’s unfortunate that so many people had to die and that the obvious is still not apparent to the irrationally fearful, or perhaps unconsciously suicidal, amongst us who can not through any volume of evidence ever reach the inescapable conclusion that some tasks must be handled individually.

    Stand up and be a man or woman, basically act like an adult capable of accepting individual responsibility, and do not ask law enforcement or the military to do things which you would not be willing to do yourself.

    From the moment we were born, it was inevitable that we would die. Would you like your death to be on your terms or on the terms of a violent armed criminal? Spend less time biting your nails over the inevitable and spend more time improving your quality of life while you are still alive. In my non-expert opinion, people who worry about how many bullets are or are not in a magazine seriously degrade their quality of life.

    In other words, keep calm and carry on.

  19. Hopefully, the elections from now til’ the 14′ midterms will punish the libtards (democrats) and show them not to mess with the 2nd A.

  20. She is a Clueless bonehead.Oh Wait a liberal ,same thing! “We are not taking away anybody’s guns” What part of ” Shall Not Be Infringed” aren’t you getting !She is Next on the recall list! She Mentions “Outside Sources” then says the NRA ,what about Bloomberg ,Dumbass!

  21. Ms. Hullinghorst said in the interview, “None of the bills we passed will take anyone’s gun away,”

    That is similar to government deciding that cars are bad and thus limiting their gas tanks to 2 gallons (which means cars would be limited to about 40 mile trips before you would need to refuel). And then say, “We are not taking anyone’s car away.”

    • Wait, what about that oft-repeated statistic that most accidents happen within 40 miles of your home? That fuel tank thing just won’t work. Oh, sorry, I was using logic there for a minute.

      By the way, I bought a book years ago called “Asphalt Nation” by some liberal dunder-head and she really WAS advocating that the government take away all the cars and force everyone to use public transportation and trains!

  22. Ms. Hullinghorst said in the interview, “None of the bills we passed will take anyone’s gun away,”

    Fixed below:

    “Ms. Hullinghorst said in the interview, “None of the bills we passed will take anyone’s gun away, yet…”

  23. You really have to hear Ms. Hullinghorst’s own words to get the full impact of her disdain for people who want to own and possess firearms and her rejection of the fundamental notion of rights.

    Most frightening, Ms. Hullinghorst’s mindset is that anything about a citizen that makes Ms. Hullinghorst’s constituents feel unsafe is a crime, subject to full force of government for removal from society.

  24. TO: All
    RE: Human Life is ‘Frivolous’

    What a concept.

    Babies, are ‘expendable’, but people able to defend themselves are ‘frivolous’.

    Anybody detecting a ‘pattern of behavior’ here?

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Defend babies Rights to defend themselves against their Progressive-Liberal Murderous Mothers……i.e., allow the Fathers to intervene!]

  25. Up until the time the first bullet flies there is always hope for diplomacy and therapeutics. After that we revert to martial laws. To destroy the advantage we as citizens have over evil and give it to those bent on evil just because you can is wrong!

  26. While I think on a certain moral-analytical level so-called positive rights are more fundamental, on a legal level of clear definition and obtainment, negative rights are more fundamental.

    What I mean is that, okay I have a right to safety. I am fine with that. It violates what is just (just and right are the same in Latin ;)) that I be attacked, or endangered. But safety is not an all or nothing thing, it admits of degrees. Nor is it the most important thing. Nor should one sacrifice living a full human life (dating, socializing, etc) merely because it would be safer to never go outside. Yes our governments have as part of their duty to repress crime, protect us from invasion, etc. But that doesn’t remove our duty and our right to take steps for our own safety. Anymore than saying that the state has an obligation to foster a healthy economy, sufficient material wealth (even if the state’s action here are more in the nature of getting out of the way) means I have no obligation to work for a living. It is far easier, in law, to speak of negative rights, what the government cannot do e.g.

    Law and order is important for safety. No doubt about that. But when one infantilizes those protected by denying them the ability to protect their ownselves in addition to whatever protection society can afford, you kinda of violate the order part of that. The state doesn’t exist to do things that the individual generally can do for himself. It exists because of those things not generally accomplishable by the individual, family or smaller community. It exists to augment the true freedom of the individual.

    Hegel speaks of that very well (one of the few things I could understand in his writing). The individual, isolated, has a certain freedom. But he has to spend most of his energy just surviving. By submitting himself and his freedom in part to a society, rules, law, he actually gains the freedom to do more (say leisure activities, learning, greater material wealth). That is the direction of an ordered society. What is “yielded” to the state is for the sake of a greater amount of freedom in another way. We do quite the opposite nowadays

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *