Repeal the second amendment protest sign
Shutterstock

While lawful gun owners fight a daily battle against all manners of infringements on Second Amendment-protected rights, seldom do we hear outright calls for repeal of that portion of the Bill of Rights that protects gun ownership.

But that’s exactly what a recent op-ed posted at blackstarnews.com advocates for—in a convoluted kind of way—stopping the argument over gun control by repealing the Second Amendment.

Author Tom H. Hastings is the coordinator of Conflict Resolution BA/BS degree programs and certificates at Portland State University. And he writes just about like you’d think someone with such a dignified yet meaningless job title would.

Hasting’s premise is for anti-gunners to handle the Second Amendment debate differently than the current trend of passing laws and courts finding them unconstitutional. Rather than keep fighting that battle, he believes just changing the Constitution is a better method.

He advocates that gun control groups develop a BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement), thereby tying the hands of those who advocate on the side of freedom.

Hastings writes: “My choice of BATNA would be, ‘Look gun rights people, we want to negotiate common sense regulations with you. However, literally every time we pass such measures at the local or state level, you work to overcome the will of the people by challenging those commonsense measures in court, with your lawsuits, and it’s all based on the Second Amendment.’”

Uh, yeah, that’s what our freedom is based on. But for sure, Mr. Hastings, tell us more.

“So, we have a best alternative to a negotiated agreement,” he continued. “Our BATNA is that we are going to stop all other gun control work and focus all our resources on a campaign to repeal the Second Amendment. We have a template for that; the amendment outlawing alcoholic beverages was passed and a decade later that Amendment was repealed. We are either going to get your commitment to allow our democratically produced local and state laws honored or we will end our negotiations and begin a massive campaign to overturn the Second Amendment.”

Sounds reasonable. Surely there’s not more:

“We have commitments for this focus from literally hundreds of nongovernmental organizations plus many state and local governmental units that you’ve frustrated over the years,” he continued to continue. “We’ve organized these commitments from all the gun control groups you know about, plus public safety and public health organizations—including scores of local and county police chiefs and their officers—as well as healthcare workers’ unions, teachers’ unions, and PTAs. This is a nationwide commitment and we are ready.”

Sounds scary. But wait, there’s more!

“Everything else is regulated as various jurisdictions see fit, from standards for ladders to tools to children’s toys, to clothing, etc., as common sense and the voters decide,” he almost concluded. “We are going to regulate guns, too. Child toy safety law is to protect the lives of children and gun control is for the same purposes. Think this over and get back to us within the month or we begin our massive shift of people energy and resources toward our new goal.”

Hastings then wraps up the article with this assertion: “That’s how a BATNA can change the trajectory of a conflict. That’s how ‘unwinnable’ can flip to winnable.”

Hoo boy. I don’t know about you, but I’m not exactly quaking in my boots.

Still, Hastings has thrown down the gauntlet. Will any gun-rights groups choose to negotiate with him in good faith? After all, who’s more qualified to lead a repeal of the Second Amendment than a superstar Coordinator of Conflict Resolution BA/BS degree programs?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

110 COMMENTS

  1. “Common sense” is like “Democracy” or “woman.” Lost all meaning and value decades ago.

    …or we begin our massive shift of people energy and resources toward our new goal.

    Threats. What a cretin. Fuck xim.

    • And while repealing the 2nd Amendment, Mr they/them Hastings can also work on repealing those very inconvenient 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments too.

    • This doesn’t tell us what they’re going to do. This tells us to what great lengths they’re willing to go.

      • Really only two paths, massive pr campaign to try to have a chance in hell of getting the votes to change the amendment legally which may include election games to get possible but unlikely extra votes. Or some form of takeover. Either way with Tommy on this one.

        • “Really only two paths, massive pr campaign…. Or some form of takeover.”

          Actually, there is a third means.

          When presented with a proposed amendment, the Secretary of State (in each state) must certify the results of votes to ratify, or not ratify. We have the income tax because the SoS in illnoise certified the ratification, even though the actual count was for non-ratification. IIRC, the USSC declared the matter to be political, not legal, and the ratification notice remained valid.

          So, passage of a repeal only needs a sufficient number of ratification certifications (essentially one vote).

          • Here’s a thought: laws only have the power imparted to them by *force*. If your “side” is saying it’s time for mass confiscation, and mass imprisonment, you *may* want to ask yourself the relevant question: how many fool-hardy door-kickers and trigger-pullers do you really *have*, who want to die for your “crusade”? Remember the Balkans? Things became “asymmetrical“ very quickly.

            • “Here’s a thought: laws only have the power imparted to them by *force*.”

              Agree. We have only those rights we can successfully defend, via legal, or, ultimately, forceful means.

  3. Thank God for those dead white men who gave us a written Bill of Rights.

    And I don’t care that some of them had slaves. The Left supports slavery in the 21st century.

    • Harris apparently descended from a very prominent slave owner and slavery advocate. He even has a town named after him. When is she going to give her wealth to slave descendants? Why hasn’t she set an example?

      • President Trump got 14% of the black vote in 2016. Depending on whose math you use. It’s very possible he could get over 20% of the black vote in this election.

        The Democrats have awakened a sleeping giant. The number of anti-Harris videos on the internet, by blacks, can no longer be ignored.

        Democrats are terrified.

        • Chris T in KY,

          You have no idea how badly I want Harris to lose the election–and losing it because black voters pushed Trump over the finish line would be absolutely GLORIOUS!

          Having said the previous, I happened to see more Harris-for-President campaign television commercials in the last 24 hours along with a couple snippets from the Democrat convention in Chicago. Those campaign commercials and convention snippets are absolute genius and will be wildly effective to low-information voters along with emotional voters. I am now convinced that Democrats will win the Oval Office and Harris’ “coattails” will put a solid majority in the U.S. House of Representatives as well as the U.S. Senate. (And even if Democrats cannot achieve an actual winning vote count, they will simply “produce” just enough fraudulent votes in a few key precincts in a few key states to push Harris over the finish line.)

          Our nation is heading to a VERY dark period in History if Republicans fail to get as clever and ruthless as Democrats.

          • Yep. The Trump campaign focus should be on:

            1) The border/illegal immigration crisis created by Biden Harris, which was specifically supposed to be solved by Kamala Harris.

            2) The scandalous lie of no inflation, then transitory inflation, then Kamala bragging about Bidenomics, as they threw fuel on the inflation fire.

            3) The biggest scandal of our lifetime that no one is talking about: We don’t have a functioning president! Kamala has been lying about that! Kamala continues to be complicit. Why is no one talking about that?

            Of course coverup Kamala ran from a Fox News hosted debate. She’s a lying coward. That’s why she’s hiding. Trump should insist on that debate. He shouldn’t do any other debates if she can’t do that one.

            • He damn sure needs to stop calling her dumb and ugly, truth but a turn off for women… Let her show how stupid she is on her own (guaranteed), she’s not going to win any beauty contests, but no one cares what she looks like…

          • “Our nation is heading to a VERY dark period in History if Republicans fail to get as clever and ruthless as Democrats.”

            THAT is not how we do things. We will always do the honorable thing, even if we lose.

            Winning isn’t everything, and winning with Democrat tools and methods makes us no better than Democrats; what’s the point in that?

            When one gets down in the dirt with pigs, one only gets dirty, and the pig loves it.

            Ron Paul and son for president!

            • Are you fucking retarded? You don’t win a war by trying to be more “moral” than your enemy, you win it by smashing them every way possible. Idiots like you are the reason things are so bad, so stuck up on your high horse.

              • “Are you…retarded?”

                New here?

                Welcome a board.

                Just repeating war plans of Republicrats.

              • No, I’ve been commenting here over a decade.

                I usually just comment when someone says something so spell-bindingly stupid that it requires acknowledgement. I know Debbie meets this criteria but I’d rather saw my balls off than talk to that moon cricket.

              • @X
                Sam was using sarcasm to comment on the ineffectiveness of typical Republican methods.

                Most of us are 80/20 on the same team here.

              • Sam enjoys irony and sarcasm.

                Sam is also a contrarian who sincerely argues some silly ideas.

                If your favourite brand of comedy is “being mocked for not memorizing the personality of a stranger”, he’s quite a charmer!

      • Harris apparently descended from a very prominent slave owner…

        He was actually a slave trader/owner AND an avowed Marxist, toss in that she spent most of her youth in soshullist Canada and you understand why she chose a full blown Kommie as her 2nd… and why she CANNOT be given the keys to the Oval Office…

  5. Who was the candidate who said, “hell yes, we’re coming for your guns”? Never heard from him again.

  6. “Everything else is regulated as various jurisdictions see fit, from standards for ladders to tools to children’s toys, to clothing, etc., as common sense and the voters decide,”

    Oh so now they’re suddenly interested in democracy! There’s only one problem. We don’t have a Constitutional right to ladders and abortions. Yes, decades ago, some people claimed to find a secret Constitutional right to abortion, hidden away in invisible ink. We looked again, and discovered that it was never really there in the first place.

    We all know this isn’t going to happen. They would pack the court before they’d do this. And they will pack the court as soon as they’re able to. People will go along with it. People voted for a brain dead puppet. It’s now obvious to the world that we do not have a functioning president. What is the response of half of the country? *yawn* “Look over there! Future BIPOC woman (say the biologists) president! Break the glass ceiling! Orange Man bad!”

    • Dude,

      Plus, all of the “standards” and “regulations” regarding tools and toys leave us with readily available tools and toys which function incredibly well and enable the users to use them with incredible utility.

      That isn’t the same objective and outcome that Mr. Hastings and his ilk are driving to achieve with respect to firearms. Rather Mr. Hastings and his ilk want to reduce the ability to own, possess, and use firearms to the point that they have virtually ZERO utility.

    • “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

      – George Orwell

  8. Instead, repeal the 19th amendment and let’s get back to logic? Every modern problem leads back to pandering to women, especially “conflict resolution” instead of punishment for crimes. Welfare? Women…Section 8? Women. DEI? Women. Ignorance of Economics and Science? Women. The list of unintended consequences goes on and on…so open a Constitutional Convention at your peril.

    • Repeal Democrats, marry the women, and have kids. Women aren’t the problem. Single women are the problem.

      • “Single women are the problem“

        Interesting…

        But isn’t it true the vast majority of dictators throughout history have been men?

        Isn’t it true the vast majority of wars and genocide have been instigated and performed by men?

        “Your thin skin and emotional immaturity… “

        Donald Trump hasn’t made it quite to the dictatorship level, although he is a failure at business and honoring his marriage vows.
        Of course, he has admitted that he is in love with dictators, and routinely exchanges love letters.

        • COOL STORY, lying dumb@$$!! Now tell about Senile Joe and his constant lies, his even temper, his respect for his constituents, and his absence of grift. I’ve already told you I am NOT a Trump fan . . . but when it comes to ‘lesser of two evils’, even an idiot like you should be able to see the grifting, snarling, lying evil that is Senile Joe, the absolute babbling incompetence of his DESIGNATED successor (after the Pelosi cabal and the Obamas forced Joe to resign (in a letter he never wrote). Kamala is simply stupid, and any honest observer knows it. She is also effectively and outright statist, down to her Marxist core. Yes, some things, even less-than-good things, can STILL be preferable to outright evil things. Apparently, only idiot Leftist/fascists, such as yourself and your chosen power brokers, have trouble making those distinctions.s

        • @Miner
          The context of the conversation was female support of certain policies. Go back to fifth grade, and learn how reading comprehension works.

    • I’ve been saying this for decades. Repealing the 19th would make a lot of problems go away.

    • brother is probably a hen pecked miserable regular flying under another moniker. Come out of the closet brother.

    • Repeal ALL the prog amendments (since late 19th century). Not a one was well reasoned and useful.

    • open a Constitutional Convention at your peril.

      A Constitutional Convention can only address the specific reason for which it was opened, they cannot just blow out the whole thing, and the will to abolish the 2nd does not exist in a majority of states…

      • Where are you reading that limitation into Article V? Text reads a convention for considering amendments, with no mention of such amendments being limited to a particular topic.

        • As I said above. While getting rid of the 2nd Amendment, you can guarantee those inconvenient (to the state) 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments will be repealed too.

    • “…so open a Constitutional Convention at your peril.”

      Amending the constitution does not require a Constitutional Convention.

  9. “Think this over and get back to us within the month or we begin our massive shift of people energy and resources toward our new goal.””

    I enjoy ‘or what?’ situations.

    • Really. there will never be enough votes in either the House or the Senate to pass a repeal amendment, much less three-quarters of the state legislatures to enact the amendment. So he can have at it. We know he cannot possibly win. Or maybe he should go read the Constitution to see what it takes to pass an amendment; that might take him down a few pegs.

    • “You think you’re having problems now? Just wait until you try to repeal the 2nd.”

      What new problem(s) are you expecting to arise because of a movement (and possible success) to amend the constitution?

        • “Piles of bodies?”

          Not quite understanding. The use of the prescribed process for amending the constitution justifies suspension of the constitution?

          Part of the design of the constitution was/is that the process was agreed to by all participants. If an amendment is ratified, but the voters don’t like it, those voters can mount a campaign to repeal the amendment.

          the response above seems to indicate that you value the constitution so long as it pleases you. Opposition risks death for using the constitutionally prescribed process for amending it?

          Doesn’t that stance indicate a need for better understanding of the constitution?

        • “justifies suspension of the constitution”

          Yep, ever since Donald Trump floated the idea of terminating the constitution, the right wing extremists have been foaming with excitement.

          “you value the constitution so long as it pleases you“

          That’s how fascists work, I’m thankful that so many who attempted an unconstitutional overthrow of our government have been sent to prison.

          • COOL STORY, BRO!! Now tell us the one about Senile Joe telling the public that he’s going to proceed with his illegal and unconstitutional student loan forgiveness, his pursuit of his now clearly unconstitutional (and objectively stupid) “Assault Weapons Ban”, and unconstitutional and fascistic vaccine mandates, and ongoing COVID lockdowns in absolute defiance of the actual science. I could go on, and on, and on, but it wouldn’t matter, because you are a Leftist/fascist, and “reality” for you is

  11. I wonder if a more accurate depiction would be:

    News Website Desperate for Viewers Publishes “Click-Bait” Article

  12. “Best alternative to a negotiated agreement.”

    I think Carl von Clausewitz had thoughts on this, if you want to understand what this fellow and his ilk really mean.

  13. How come my comments are vanishing? Not going to moderation, they get posted then later just vanish.

  14. Democracy, they are screaming Democracy? It is all BS. How many times did the founding fathers mention democracy in the constitution and bill of rights? Not once, it/s not written in there. That’s because we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. Don’t believe me, research it yourself.

    • “That’s because we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic.”

      And, given the trend of politics in the last 80yrs, what is actually the functional difference? If “we the people” are permitted to determine political outcomes via majority voting, “we” are a democracy.

    • “The American institutions are democratic, not only in their principle but in all their consequences; and the people elects its representatives directly, and for the most part annually, in order to ensure their dependence. The people is therefore the real directing power; and although the form of government is representative, it is evident that the opinions, the prejudices, the interests, and even the passions of the community are hindered by no durable obstacles from exercising a perpetual influence on society. In the United States the majority governs in the name of the people, as is the case in all the countries in which the people is supreme.” — Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville (1835)

      • Great idea, MajorLiar!! Why don’t you reinstitute slavery, or we can decide that the whole 4th and 5th amendment thing is just too much trouble. Perhaps you could get your fellow Leftists to back off of their INSANE pursuit of reinstating the draft???? Some ideas are so absurd that only an ‘intellectual’ could believe them. The exaltation of ‘mob rule’ over piddling details like ‘inherent rights’ just interferes with your party’s, and your politicians’, ability to remake our country the way THEY want it, amirite?? Eff off, you fascist @$$clown.

  15. “Author Tom H. Hastings is the coordinator of Conflict Resolution BA/BS degree programs and certificates at Portland State University.”

    I find that description of Mr. Hastings’ job description very ironic since Mr. Hastings’ notion of conflict resolution is: give my tribe what we want or we will bludgeon you to death.

    That isn’t conflict resolution–that is domination through force.

    • Yep. Guess who has more gats? Certainly more than a majority of nation-states. I’m over 70 & majorly p-o’ed🙄

    • Hasting’s idea of conflict resolution is he talks, you shut up, listen, obey, and be in awe of his magnificence.

    • “That isn’t conflict resolution–that is domination through force.

      And the modus operandi of humans since they invaded and conquered this planet.

  16. Hastings writes: “My choice of BATNA would be, ‘Look gun rights people, we want to negotiate common sense regulations with you. However, literally every time we pass such measures at the local or state level, you work to overcome the will of the people by challenging those commonsense measures in court, with your lawsuits, and it’s all based on the Second Amendment.’

    We’ve done the “negotiating” bit since 1934.

    https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png

    • “For what partnership can righteousness have with lawlessness? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?”

  17. “Author Tom H. Hastings is the coordinator of Conflict Resolution BA/BS degree programs and certificates at Portland State University.”

    We, at least hes putting that BS degree to good use because this is pure B*** S***.

  18. The Dims and their allies like John Cornyn would have to control two thirds of the House and Senate and have the President to sign an ammendment. Not happening!

    • “What else would you expect from a broke dick commie from Portland?”

      A person, or group of, seeking to use the prescribed constitutional amendment process is, by default a “commie”?

      A “commie” is more likely to try to use simple legislation to effectively amend the constitution.

      Or launch a violent revolution to accomplish the goal.

      • How about “statist”? Is that word acceptable, Your Highness? Maybe “fascist” may be more accurate: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”- Benito Mussolini

        • How about “statist”…?”

          No. It is true that a “statist” might use the legal and constitutional process to alter the constitution to give more power to statists, but using the legal process does not thus “make” someone a “statist”.

          Taking all into consideration, you may be edging toward the “Constitution for me, but not for Thee” crowd.

          The founders were quite aware that permitting amendments (and designing the process) could lead to a form of government the founders fought to against (there was much discussion among the founders about establishing an American monarchy and aristocracy). Yet, the founders took that risk, anyway…with no sign of maligning those who would use amendments to essentially overthrow the government.

  20. Wonder if he approves of the free abortions being done in the food truck outside of the DNC convention?

  21. If you can’t do, teach.

    This guy doesn’t get it. The 2A crowd would appreciate the honesty none of this no one is coming for your guns nonsense.

  22. “Author Tom H. Hastings is the coordinator of Conflict Resolution BA/BS degree programs and certificates at Portland State University”
    Guarantee you he is a “british cigarette”

  23. “We have a template for that; the amendment outlawing alcoholic beverages was passed and a decade later that Amendment was repealed.”

    As usual, the answer stares him straight in the face, and he can’t see it.

    WHY was it repealed? Not only because it DID NOT WORK, it actually MADE THINGS WORSE!

    How can these kinds of folks be so oblivious to their own ignorance!?

  24. So the options are to lay down and pretend the 2A doesn’t exist or they’ll do away with it. I would have expected an obvious expert at negotiations to see the error of his position: he leaves us with nothing to gain and consequently nothing to lose.

  26. I am 100% onboard with this guy’s idea. His plan: “Our BATNA is that we are going to stop all other gun control work and focus all our resources on a campaign to repeal the Second Amendment.” Great! Go ahead and stop all gun control work. That’s a huge win for us. Now concentrate all your effort on repealing the Second Amendment, because that only takes passing the House and the Senate with two-thirds majority votes and then being ratified by three-fourths of the states. Like that would EVER happen. In the meantime, they stop all gun control work. Sounds like a plan to me. What idiots.

    • And by the way, in true tolerant leftist fashion, he deletes any comments on his article that he doesn’t like. Pussy.

  27. Site uses Western Africa time zone. Interesting, since US gun control is steeped in historical racism against blacks, Black Star News would choose to exacerbate the issue in support of further disarming minorities.

  28. ‘Conflict Resolution’, ‘Gender Studies’, ‘Violence Interrupter’

    Alex, I’ll take ‘imaginary things people do to sound important’ for $200.00

  29. A lot of threats from someone who teaches conflict resolution. My conflict resolution rides on my right hip.

  30. “Rather than keep fighting that battle, he believes just changing the Constitution is a better method.”

    As he should. A Leftist understanding how the constitution works is actually a good thing. Using the amendment process is appropriate. Mr. Hastings should be respected for his common sense understanding.

    Of course, the actual rulers of the Left will want to keep 2A alive, because of all the benefits of constantly harassing gun owners via lawfare. Repeal 2A, and a bunch of anti-American people lose jobs and go out of business.

    I learned, through years of military and government work, solving a problem is a problem.

    • The Human Rights Campaign didn’t exactly pack it up and go home after they helped to repeal Clinton’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, and after they got same sex marriage legalized. Instead, they tranzitioned to tranz and gender expression issues. They bring in tens of millions every year.

      I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. They love running on anti-gun and pro-abortion issues because it’s easy. There’s always another gun to take, and there’s always going to be another baby to extinguish.

      • “The Human Rights Campaign didn’t exactly pack it up and go home after they helped to repeal Clinton’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, and after they got same sex marriage legalized.”

        Agree, but don’t remember any talk about amending the constitution, as we have here.

        Personally, I believe anyone who disagrees with me (about anything) should be rounded up, have their/they/them citizenship revoked , and be deported to Upper Slobovia.

        But there is that pesky constitution…..

  31. I’ll take that “all or nothing” deal! You try to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Go for it! Just in case you don’t know… it will take a 2/3 majority in BOTH the House AND Senate. THEN it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. That’s all ya gotta do. It’s as “simple” as that!

    GOoooooooooo for it! Please! Really! I’m serious. DO IT.

    But here’s the other side of that deal. When you FAIL, you have to concede defeat and agree that ALL gun control laws are therefore null and void. ALL of them. If the 2A remains standing, then our Right to Keep and Bear ALL Arms is the law of the land. That means machine guns, suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, etc…. are all available to citizens without special permission.

    Deal?? Deal!

  33. Trying for a constitutional amendment might be a good idea. Simply because it would prove how little real support the disarmament crowd really has.
    The last somewhat honest research I’ve seen showed the country is split into thirds on the firearms issue. With 1 third being solid gun owners. The second third being friends or family of the gun owners with access to firearms but not being the actual owners. And the last third being the rabid anti gun crowd of progressives, chicken hearts and pacifists.
    What I find amusing about these disarmament proponents is the sheer hypocrisy of their demands. Knowing it will take armed force to in any meaningful way disarm the majority of gun owners.
    What is really astounding is the idiots are demanding disarmament of the law abiding while doing nothing about the criminals actually committing the violence and crime.

    • “What is really astounding is the idiots are demanding disarmament of the law abiding while doing nothing about the criminals actually committing the violence and crime.”

      Feature, not failure.

  34. Hastings writes: “My choice of BATNA would be, ‘Look, gun rights people, we want to negotiate common-sense regulations with you. However, literally every time we pass such measures at the local or state level, you work to override the will of the people by challenging those common-sense measures in court with your lawsuits, all based on the Second Amendment.’”

    The anti-gun advocates have never, not once in the entirety of American history, negotiated using common sense, let alone in good faith. American citizens have repeatedly witnessed this lack of common sense and the complete absence of good-faith negotiations. This is why over 120 years of unconstitutional methods to create, pass, and enforce arbitrary and capricious “laws” by oath violators result in continual losses when U.S. courts strike down these unjust and unconstitutional laws. The courts often restore—at least partially—the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, despite a long history of activist judges ignoring the Constitution and fabricating unconstitutional laws.

  35. Anti-gun advocates have consistently failed to negotiate with common sense or in good faith throughout American history. Citizens have repeatedly observed this lack of reason and honesty. As a result, over 120 years of unconstitutional efforts to create, pass, and enforce arbitrary “laws” by those who violate their oaths have led to repeated losses when U.S. courts strike down these unjust measures. Despite a history of activist judges who disregard the Constitution and invent unconstitutional laws, the courts often restore—at least in part—the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

    • “Anti-gun advocates have consistently failed to negotiate with common sense or in good faith…”

      Actually, it is those on the Right who consistently negotiate with common sense.

      When the Left wants to, say, spend $100,000 on something, the Right tries to negotiate for only $50,000. The proper stance is to demand not $50,000, but zero (“half a loaf” concept). Republicrats always claim, that losing half the battle is better than losing all the battle. The Left has no such concept. Winning is still winning; losing only “half” is still losing.

Comments are closed.