Reader JJ writes:
“There has been a very marked change in strategy from the Democrats. In 2008 and even in 2012, Obama was very careful not to say anything too inflammatory regarding the 2A in the period leading up to the elections. Hillary is all out in the open with it now. I have to assume that their polls show that the background check issue is a winner for them. Lord help us all if she wins after being so honest on her anti-2A credentials.” Agree?
The proof is not to be found in July 2015… It is found between the conventions and Election Day… I will start worrying if she is advocating an AWB in Sept. 2016…
She has never not been advocating an AWB.
Further more an AWB of any similarity to the ’94 one would simply be impossible to implement. The firearms industry may have laid down and took it in ’94 but they will not allow it again, not because they all actually care about our rights but because it would kill their profits. Imagine if Magpul could only make 10rd mags, think about all the companies that make amazing AR’s and AK’s….they would do everything to influence the politicians that would vote on an AWB whether legal or not because it would involve major loss of profits if they didn’t.
I wouldn’t pin my hopes on Magpul’s pull. Magpul could not even successfully counter mag limit politics in their own home state, ultimately getting pushed out of Colorado. How are they going to influence anything nationally? .
As for ths rest of the firearms undustry, there isn’t a major manufacturer out there whom I expect would not turn completely compliant if the government offered them sufficient military or municipal contracts.
We cannot take for granted the support of any apparent allies. Everyone has his own interests.
I hope you’re right.
Nonsense.
Ancient Alien theorists unanimously agree: Hitlery is a reptilian from Zeta Reticuli.
Sorry folks , It’s Jebs turn . The elites don’t like Billary , the only reason Bill was allowed a crack is because of a little thing called Iran Contra and his cooperation with the players when he was the Gov. of Arkansas and could hide a little airport in Mena . You can tell the way the press ( MSM ) is reporting . It’s Jebs turn and he ain’t your friend . They are coming for the second amendment no matter who is elected and probably sooner . We are one national emergency away from a national Katrina .
With same-sex marriage finally out of the way maybe all of those “I’m a gun owner but the Reps hate gays” voters will feel less inclined to vote (D) for all that fantasy social justice nonsense.
I want to believe that, but my cynicism won’t allow me.
There are many articles now on the fact that many of the same sex marriage crowd are moving on to gun control as their next cause.
Charles
“There are many articles now on the fact that many of the same sex marriage crowd are moving on to gun control as their next cause.”
Links, please?
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/07/why-gun-control-could-be-like-marriage-equality.html
Re Vhyrus’s link — after one second of seeing gun-ban shill Dan Gross, and then laughing, I’m wondering how Dan has any time at all to promote firearm confiscation when he so clearly, lately, should be off planning his wedding.
Someone sure is a lucky dreidel. Meow.
In short… nope.
Roe v. Wade was 43 years ago, and people are still single-issue voters about abortion. Why would gender-neutral marriage be any different?
Lol. Sure. Kinda like how after Gov Nikki Haley signed the bill to take down the Confederate flag from SC state grounds, Chuck F Todd’s next question was essentially “Why do you still hate blacks with your state’s voter ID laws?”
Sorry, all these are straw man issues used to distract the populace from the bigger problems at heart.
She’ll likely win because she is a women. We have to run through the rainbow of races, genders, creeds, etc.
By the 2020’s we’ll have a transgender Pygmy midget running for POTUS.
I’d vote for a transgender pygmy for POTUS right now if he/she wasn’t Lying Hillary.
Are you sure she’s a woman? All those pantsuits? And that tink-tink-tink sound when she walks? Just saying.
I hear ya, I’m not much for women who wear pants all the time.
Hillary though, has got everything a man would want, combat boots, mustache, hair on her chest, everything!
Note to Dan Z. Please don’t post photos like that, right after I eat! I almost barfed on my keyboard!
“She’ll likely win because she is a women.”
Not against Carly Fiorina.
Fiorina will clean her clock in one-on-one debates
There’s no passion for the HildaBeast with her base. At this point I question she’s the presumed party nominee.
I like Carly Fiorina, but I just don’t see her making it through the primary season.
Given that the only thing Shrillary can do is shout “Vagina! Vagina!” Carly would definitely clean her clock.
She can advocate all she wants. The GOP will maintain control of at least one side of Congress after the 2016 elections, so I don’t see anything happening, frankly.
if, God forbid it, she should win, she will have her Lord and Master’s example to follow. She will simply ignore the laws and issue executive orders implementing her policies and the RINOs will do absolutely nothing. This is why we need an Article V convention to impose term limits and rein in these traitors.
Agreed. We can no longer rely upon our governmental institutions; not the Executive, not the Legislative, not the Judicial. We have to re-assert our sovereignty in the People via the Constitution. And, it seems, it will be a never-ending process.
E.g., just as the aristocracy found that they could have their way with us via the seignority system for leadership in each chamber, thy will likewise frustrate our reaction to impose term limits. Then, we will be forced to impose some new constraint on that branch of government.
In the mean time, there is still the political process to attend do. Because of the Presidential power to nominate judges, the elections for this office are crucial. Hillary can only get 100% of her progressive constituency’s vote; she can’t get 103% of it. The more she lurches to the left the more she starves herself of Independent votes. She can get up to 100% of the Progressives to come-out on election day; but she can’t get more than 100% of their votes.
Conversely, her candidacy – in the wake of the Obama administration – should overcome the resignation and apathy of libertarians, conservatives, gun-rights, economic-liberty and other constituencies. If these voters come-out on election day they will defeat Hillary. If they stay home as they did for McCain and Romney, then they will have delivered the office of President to the Progressives by a default judgement.
Well put Sir. I pray that you are correct. The beauty of the Article V convention is that the government can do nothing to stop it. They have no say in the matter.
You know, that’s exactly what Calhoun said about nullification… Doesn’t matter what the government is allowed to do if they can get away with doing it, at the end of the day. They’ll just tweak the rules after the fact to make their actions legal
Do term limits rein in the traitors, or merely reshuffle them? Virtually anyone elected once can pull off a second (Senate) or third (House) win regardless how bad they are. It typically takes years of slights and betrayals to build up a coalition of opposition sufficient to unseat an incumbent.
Untrammeled by re-election fears, would term limits then free them to serve even more treacherously? After all, they wouldn’t have even to pay lip service to our rights anymore, let alone defend and extend their exercise?
Fundamentally, we need to reduce the jackpot that is public office. We need to unsweeten the benefits, so that it is less of an irresistible pathway to riches and power, and more of a bearable civic responsibility. Make it less like “House of Cards” and more like jury duty, and you won’t have people lining up to spend their entire careers in Congress.
There is a great deal of discussion on exactly how to write the term limit amendment. The current thinking is to make the Senate, two terms, 12 years, and the House 8 years. The amendment also would forbid anyone who was elected to either body from serving in the other ever again. Another part of the discussion is to forbid them from having any pay raises and they must use the same healthcare system as the rest of us.
You can follow all of this at
http://www.termlimitsforuscongress.com
Actually, what you describe is why the Republican congress’ first action after the 2014 elections should have been to impeach Barack Obama (if they’d announced it ahead of time, they’d likely have 2/3rds of both houses by now). I remain convinced that we’d get a significant number of Democrats on board the bandwagon if the Reps would make a serious effort to unseat him; they’re tired of his shit as well. Instead they announced 2yrs ahead of time that they will never punish him for anything, an assertion Obama has taken full advantage of ever since. Once he’s gone, why should we believe the Republican congress will ever hold a president accountable?
No matter who holds office next , they will have greater flexibility to rule with pen and phone and NSA info. in hand and a weakened congress . Imagine Don Trump at the helm . The precedent has been established and it didn’t start with Barry S. .
When that big jumbo jet that disappeared , reappears over NY and drops that Iranian nuke and then travels on to LA to drop the other one and anarchy prevails , they will need to confiscate our firearms to protect the unarmed masses from annihilation . Just a silly theory .
She is a dyed-in-the-wool antigunner just as DiFi is, and this tiger will never change her stripes. If elected, she will work tirelessly to limit gun rights in any fashion she can, including but not limited to “expanded” or “universal” background checks, ammo bans, “assault weapons” bans, and bans on AR “pistols.” She was the architect of the Clinton AR ban, and she will seek to revive it, but this time without a sunset provision. Fortunately, unless and until the demographics of the Congress change, her efforts will meet with little to no success.
The real problem is that the left controls the narrative. People who aren’t familiar with guns are amazed to find out that background checks are already required and “stand your ground” does not mean it’s ok to shoot someone if they look at you wrong, because they are bombarded with these lies daily. Just like the now-common misconception that “semi-automatic” means multiple rounds on each trigger pull.
As little as 3 years ago, “semi automatic” in Georgia meant 5 rounds or less per trigger pull. Haven’t checked it recently. Damn NFA.
Never mind, I found it on NRA-ILA website:
The Georgia statute has an unusual definition of machine gun: “. . . any weapon which shoots or is designed to shoot, automatically, more than six shots, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” Regardless of Georgia’s definition, federal law strictly governs, among many other things, weapons which fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.
Cool, so Georgia will let me have a malfunctioning, full auto Webley Fosbery:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUhMQopTweI
If background checks were a good idea for people who want to buy guns, we’d already have them for people who want to buy smack, crack and meth.
The 2nd Anendment sounds so quaint, a reminder back to times when people actually understood what rights were. Today the 2A is highly regulated privilege, with much of the meaning behind the freedom lost on a public that accepts more and more encroachments and control over their daily lives, to the point people are now accepting their status as livestock on a farm, with their masters determining what they
Eat, what medicines they must take, or not take.
” the background check issue is a winner for them”
Clementa Pinckney, Cynthia Hurd, Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, Tywanza Sanders, Ethel Lance, Susie Jackson, Depayne Middleton Doctor, Daniel Simmons and Myra Thompson beg to differ……
I’m sorry, guys, but somehow I remain unafraid of an ugly, cranky old postmenopausal diesel beyotch.
And in the debates, she will be slaughtered.
“And in the debates, she will be slaughtered.”
The HildaBeast can’t think on her feet and is a much more wooden persona than last time.
Fiorina is chomping on the bit to take her arguments apart at the sub-atomic level.
B-B-B-Bernie is the one to watch at this point.
Not by Jeb Bush or Christie. Christie has little chance, but the statist / mainstream / big govt GOP gives Jeb a lot of support. An 8th grader with a bit of political savvy would slaughter Hrod in a debate. Unfortunately, the mainstream GOP candidate might not be that good.
The left still loves Hrod even though she won’t allow questions or give interviews. Perhaps the Hildebeast can get a tidy win even without a debate. We have multitudes of idiotic voters, mixed with a healthy dose of fraud, and illegal immigrant votes to overcome. There’s big money pushing for an Hrod / Billary presidency in 2016.
I agree that mainstream will lose just like Mitt even though Mitt was dead right on about every issue. But a “true Conservative” can’t win either. The reason is, unlike the Democrats, Republican factions only support their own guy.
It is Republican progressives turn anyway . Jeb can do it . Most people will do about anything when their starving or dying , including turning in their guns and turning in their neighbors for a meal for their family . What would you do to get that insulin for your kid or those heart pills for your dear sweet mother ?
I’m with you Ralph…and I believe the hildebeast suffered a brain fart and is not up to the task. I also find it hi-larious that a hyper-leftie like Bernie Sanders is a serious challenger. We’ll see…
“I also find it hi-larious that a hyper-leftie like Bernie Sanders is a serious challenger.”
B-B-B-Bernie is resonating with the Progressive base much like D-D-D-Donald Trump is resonating with the right’s base currently.
It’s still way. way early.
Those peaking so soon will likely not be in a year.
Does Howard Dean not ring a bell? Bernie’s not the first crazy guy they’ve put up front and center (nor is Trump)
Ditto Ralph. And I believe that the dems are simply behind the curve on gun control. Taking a poll at berkely does not equate to good intel on the matter.
If The DNC installs Hillary as the President, it’s game over.
Agreed. She’s just going to blow a bunch of money.
In the endgame, it’ll be someone else.
“She’s just going to blow a bunch of money.”
Based on Cankles’ past behaviour, I think it more likely that the filthy, thieving, murderous skidmark on the underwear of humanity is actually doing the opposite- ie, redirecting as much campaign cash into her personal accounts as she can get away with.
I still think Obama is going to drop an anti-2A executive order before he leaves office. So some of Hillary’s work will be done before she even gets sworn in.
I would say that this would sink her campaign, but with everyone fawning over that orange a-hole from NJ she may still have a chance.
I don’t think the voting demographic has changed. I think the Libs are still Libs and are natural born sheep, who like good little sycophantic sheep, consume the message they are told by the MSM and fall right in line, parroting what they have been told (bahh bahhh). And we know where the Media stands on this. But just like the mid terms, we will see that the voting public by and large has not bought into the media’s (current regime’s) message and in fact, many more voters will finally have their chance to reject this BS we’ve been having shoved down our throats for the last 7, 8 years.
It is a good question, but it is not broad enough. If any, openly anti 2a candidate, democrat or republican walks into the White House in January 2017, we are in trouble.
The best case for us in the 2016 election will be a democrat candidate who sees political advantage in spouting gun control, commonnonsense being stomped by a republican who sees political advantage in spouting pro 2a commonsense.
If we make this happen, the democrats will refuse to touch gun control for another 20 years.
There’s a best case for 2016, and it has nothing to do with a Democrat POTUS.
Politics is cyclical. And this here is what we call
“overreach”. This is when a party or politician has had a relatively ok or good track record in the recent past and gets overconfident. Democrats are going completely overboard and it will not end well for them. They’ve completely abandoned anyone that lives outside of a major city, doesn’t have a handlebar mustache ,or blue hair. Plus with the recent Executive order on affirmative fair housing or whatever, all the people in suburbs will abandon the democrats after they find out that section 8 is moving in next door and there’s nothing they can do about it.
What you describe is only the case in a republic that is properly governing political discourse. That mechanism has its limits, especially when you remove both failsafes and the fuel needed to keep the machine running. Secret courts, secret congressional bodies, secret Executive edicts, secret general warrants, courts that do not obey language or precedent, malfeasance in the treasury, a congress unwilling or incapable to hold the other branches to account; we’ve seen all these seals become broken in the last ten years’ times, the only question is how many remain and will they be strong enough?
Her position has never changed. She’s having to come out on it now because her campaign is falling apart. She knows it is a non-winner in the general, but she is losing her base. Also tightly connected with this is that she is having to counter Bernie Sanders. A lot of Anti’s have problems with his position on guns. Hillary is both trying to stop the bleed and to give Progs an alternative.
These sorry authoritarian statists are trying to use their mass media propaganda machine to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. “If you build it, they will come”. That hag Hillary has always wanted to disarm the American people, and so did Obama. They just use cutesy pie little phrases to hide their intentions by saying things like “common sense gun safety”. Nothing could be further from the truth, they want us all disarmed so they can push a harder, Euro-style socialism onto us. As long as we stay armed, they can only do that bull a little at a time, and they want to go full-bore, all-at-once. Well, millions of Americans, armed Americans, need to tell them to go pound sand.
Hard to say. The Dems are having a race to the left. Hillary is watching Sanders rise and that scares her.
She is not getting the middle pro (or even mildly pro) gun vote so there is no downside to being honest about her gun prohibitionist ways, and there is a lot of money to be
madedonated from Bloomberg. Hillary is mostly, if not entirely, about the $$$.Hillary will not win as much as the GOP would lose – the GOP would lose by nominating an idiot, or failing to contain someone like Trump. There is an outside chance Trump runs as an independent and splits votes giving Shrillary the W. She is probably taking the Bloomberg money and dumping some to Trump. Trump, too, is mostly running for the $$ and attention.
Just listened to a Trump speech and have to say I am impressed with what he had to say and his easy way of answering questions and dealing with reporters. He looks pretty good right now. Thought he was pretty much an A-hole before hearing him talk. Changed my mind after that. Think he may have a chance if some of the Right wingers in his party don’t screw him over.
A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary.
I guess it could go either way… I am almost inclined to see it as more of the left wing fringe is jumping up and down and foaming at the mouth about gun control and there is a real risk (not for us) of them being dragged out into the weeds and away from their core that will get them elected. Much in the way that often good moderates and libertarians get dragged out into right field during republican primaries.
Someone at the top said it best, let’s wait till September next year before we call anything on this.
Why is this surprising to anyone? It’s a well-known poliical maxim that before the primaries, candidates run to their parties’ fringes, whereas after the primaries, candidates run to the electorate’s centrists.
I don’t think they do think it is a winner. I do, however, think they know it is great for fundraising.
Here we go again! Look for another period of extended ammo and reloading component hoarding and shortages!
Obozo = Hitlery. Saul Alinsky fathered both of these unclean creatures.
Bernie is bad, and I think he has a better chance than Hitlery.
Hillary is not a ringer. If she was, a person like Bernie Sanders would never have even become known such as he has. Fiona and or Donald will eat her for lunch in a debate. Democrats will see her weakness, and they already have, enter Bernie. Her “woman” card has been played and can be played too often as it’s already wearing out and we have a long way to go. Hillary is seen as part of the system, a screwed up system, and as I said, even the Democrats are aware of this reality.
Is the 2A in trouble with Hillary? YES. If you think Obama is anti-Constitution, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. The people who value self-defense and the roots of our Nation as a whole will be divided away as the bad-apples, with a progressive base which will be set to sell through media all as criminals in wait.
We’re doomed if she is elected no matter what her stance is on gun rights. She’s not something that needs to be in or around power, not even an electrical outlet.
By refusing to be any part of the solution to gun violence in the USA ammosexuals will lose their “rights” (not actually a Constitutional right but that’s your narrow mindset anyway) to own private firearms and ammo in … oh … the next decade or two.
So for the majority of yahoos here (penniless, under-educated, unaccomplished ammosexuals living in their Mother’s basement) your days of having guns as a penis substitute are limited.
Now, if ammosexuals were to take a responsible position and work with Ms. Clinton. Naw … ain’t going to happen. So that’s why you clowns are screwed.
Troll alert!
god lives in his own little world full of denial. In 20 years we’ll have universal constitutional carry nationwide. And we’ll have all those ammosexuals to thank for it.
And the fascisexuals being led by god will be gone.
I guess everyone, to include people within gov’t whom create law, referring to carrying a gun without licensing as “Constitutional Carry” are just mistaken. It’s all just a clever ruse to appease the masses.
But yeah, you’re probably right, it is all just a figment of our imagination.
Good call, friend.
Alan Gottlieb argued that the background checks issue was unwinnable in the long run already back in 2013. Whether compromising back then would have prevented the emergence of what is by now a much more substantial anti-gun lobby is not all that clear, however.
Hillary appears to have suffered a traumatic brain injury at some point in the last couple of years. The clues are everywhere – how she talks, her new glasses (when she wears them), her gait, etc.
I don’t think that she’s up to the job of campaigning, much less debating. The press can cover up only so much, and if Hillary continues to run away from answering ad hoc questions, sooner or later the jig will be up and people will start opening questioning her fitness for office.
The other problem for Hillary is her record. This is where Sanders is gaining traction with the liberal base.
Now, the banker/finance/corporatist financial base of the DNC cannot have a guy like Sanders getting ahead of Hillary, so they’re going to find some way to either take him out, or put in another candidate more acceptable to the bankers. That could be someone like Gaffemaster Joe Biden, or it could be Lizzie Warren, the faux populist and bought-n-paid-for Harvard lawyer. I’m going to guess Biden, because he has the advantages of the office and the bully pulpit.
No reason to fear the insane Hilary Clinton. If gun owners, gun advocates, believers of the 2nd Amendment simply vote to purge our government of jackasses like Clinton, who think taking away our Constitutional Rights is her sole reason for existence, then we will have nothing to worry. I dont know anyone personally who is even remotely thinking of voting for her.
If the Democrats attempt any substantial form of gun control I suspect we would start seeing cases of state nullification of said laws. The federal courts and SCOTUS be damned. The lawless actions of the SCOTUS have put conservative states on the brink of doing it. I suspect major gun control could very well cause it. I wont say that another civil war would result, but I could very well see the political process stop any major gun control from being implemented in red states. Now if an authoritarian imperial president attempted to enforce said gun control in states that refuse to implement based on principles of federalism… I can’t predict what would happen in such a case… Keep your powder dry boys. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The 2nd Amendment exists to combat tyrants as dangerous as this woman. We live in dangerous times.
I don’t see this one working. Political process professionals need a cause people are willing to through money at. Hand them a few major defeats and the energy will dissipate as they look for other causes.
Comments are closed.