America has a new President. Donald J. Trump has yet to be inaugurated and Americans are already winning. Great jobs, great nominees, strong markets and other good news have rained down on us after a long drought of Jimmy Carter-like malaise. America’s mandate for Trump is well-founded.
Of course, the Left’s radicals are melting down. As are a few establishment Republicans. They find fault in nearly every move Trump’s made. They’ve driven America into the ditch for nearly three decades with their “expertise” and now they think we should value their insight?
Democrats have the fewest seats in the U.S. House in generations – since 1938 to be exact. In the Senate, the Republicans have a narrow majority, but the Democrats under Harry Reid abandoned precedent and greatly diminished the minority party’s power. Now that the Republicans are in the majority Democrats have few tools with which to hinder the Trump juggernaut and its mandate to “Make America Great Again”.
Which brings us to guns. President-Elect Trump has formed a Second Amendment Coalition and expressed full-throated support for gun rights. He’s one of us. It’s time for us to to seize the moment.
You may have heard the expression “battered conservative syndrome“. It’s time to get over it. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Yet few on the left seem to have gotten the message from November’s election results. Radicals like Illinois State Senator Don Harmon want us to “compromise” with him to restrict gun rights.
Senator, we can compromise on the length of mandated minimum sentences for violent armed criminals. But compromise on fundamental Constitutional rights? With all due respect, go to hell, sir. People died to defend our God-given rights. We’re not going to trade them away for your empty pledge of security as part of yet another gun control scheme doomed to failure.
National reciprocity is just a starting point. We also need to press for national constitutional carry and see where we go. Take suppressors out of the National Firearms Act? Why not take everything else out as well? At the same time, let’s pack the Supreme Court with Scalia-like justices who recognize and appreciate the original intent in the Second Amendment – and the rest of the founding document.
Our opponents are going to screech their shrill, Chicken Little sky-is-falling caterwauls no matter what we do. We’re dealing with zealots, people like Tricia Bishop who wrote in The Baltimore Sun, “I’m less afraid of the criminals wielding guns in Baltimore than I am by those permitted gun owners.” Well, honey, clearly you aren’t thinking about any of this rationally.
I don’t know that we owe President-elect Donald Trump an “open mind,” as Hillary Clinton suggested in her speech to supporters Wednesday. He’s shown himself to be a thin-skinned, tax-dodging, deal-reneging, racist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynistic bully with very little self control…
Bless her heart. Ms. Bishop spouts lefty all the talking points with the best of them. But if you asked for substance to back up her allegations that the new President is a tax-dodging racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic xenophobe, she would no doubt just get red-faced angry, sputter and stutter more gibberish.
There’s a reason snowflakes need “safe spaces,” places stocked with crayons, therapy dogs and Play-Doh. The only position she supports when it comes to guns is a path to confiscation. She relies on ad hominem attacks against our position and those who promote it as she can’t argue her side with any real facts or logic.
Why should we moderate our approach in deference to radical extremists like the Tricia Bishop and Don Harmons of the world? It’s time we quit acting like battered wives and stand up for ourselves. The means to our empowerment are in our hands. Let’s aim for the stars in terms of freedom and maybe settle for reaching the moon. For now, at least.
Agree 100% The Dems haven’t listened to anyone but themselves on all the biggest issues for the last 8 years. Time for some of their own medicine. Repeal the NFA, force national reciprocity down everyone’s throat. Its gonna be the obamacare of guns.
Luckily, destroying registries is easier than creating them.
“Luckily, destroying registries is easier than creating them.”
Are you on drugs? Once a government creates a list, it *never* dies.
Lists are immortal once they are on something like flash drive or a system ‘backup’ somewhere…
+ Eleventy Billion!
Not true, the Obama administration ordered the FBI to purge its list of Islamic Terrorist suspects as well as Madrasas. The information lost from that purge was invaluable.
I bet you think you can delete those pix of you in a speedo from the internet too, right?
You do realize that if you keep strengthening the federal government, the next time Dems are in power, it’ll be far worse for you guys than Obamacare?
And there will be a next time. Or do you believe that Trump is forever?
“And there will be a next time.”
Correctomundo!
However, not doing something as a means of preventing the other side from doing the same is not a recipe for success, either. Once upon a time, there was a sort of MAD environment, where neither side “went too far”. But when Obama took office, it wasn’t long before it became evident the Demoncrats were sounding and acting like they expected to be in power forever. They had no regard for a time when Repubs would rule, and tactics would be returned in kind. MAD ended with Obama. This is not your father’s political landscape; it is open war. In the end, there can be only one (which is the Demoncrat goal).
Who said anything about doing nothing?
What you can do is minimize the federal government. Entrench a precedent that it’s all about the states. Scale down gun laws, yes – but also drug laws, and basically everything else. You have the power to do so – both houses of Congress and the president. Restoring all that would require the same arrangement; and it would still be harder, because passing laws is generally more unpopular than repealing them. Seal the deal with some genuine constitutionalists on SCOTUS, and bingo.
Instead, we get Jeff Sessions as the AG, which means that War on Drugs is going to go into high gear now. And you guys are seriously talking not about repealing federal gun control legislation, but creating more of it (like national reciprocity). That thing alone is poison – if it sticks, it will firmly entrench the notion that gun control is legitimately under purview of the federal government. After all, if NRA and all the “gun nuts” signed off on it, who could possibly be holding a different vie?
And really, are you saying that this began with Obama? Plenty of Bush stuff went “too far” (starting with PATRIOT Act). But really we could as well unwind all the way to Nixon and WoD – passing laws that required a constitutional amendment only 50 years before, like it was nothing special. And then, if you think about it, unwind even more, to FDR and the Filburn decision.
“Entrench a precedent that it’s all about the states.”
Already exists: 10A
What does/did that get us? Legislation will get us more freedom than a constitutional provision? States are effectively mere provinces of the central government. A constitutional amendment stating, “We really mean it”?
The original my reply was based on what appeared to be you cautioning that taking advantage of our majority because when the Demoncrats are back in power, they will return the favor. I was pointing out that any reluctance on our part will do nothing to prevent the enemy from doing what we eschew.
I agree that legislation extending reciprocity across the nation is only more gun regulation, alterable at congressional whim. The “full faith and credit” only seems to apply whenever governments see advantage to government. For that reason, I agree with you that national reciprocity should not be supported by pro-gun people. But not pursuing reciprocity because the other side might return the favor is not a useful strategy.
You’d be surprised about what could be done right now, actually. A lot of people on the left have just got a very rude wake-up call with respect to what a strong federal government really means. The time is ripe to preach 10A – indeed, many are already discovering that whole states’ rights thing all by themselves. But, you can only convincingly preach it if you follow what you preach.
Given the stall in congress (they all like things the way they are), the time required to organize another constitutional amendment (which will be gutted by the courts), get it published through congress, ratified by the states in 24 months would require more changes in political life than is really possible. In this country, we always make the mistake that we are politically structured like England – labor (liberal) and conservatives. Our political labels are just about meaningless. But we persist in believing Republican = Conservative/psuedo-libertarian, Demoncrat = Left. Had the opportunity to explain party labels to a couple of Brits, over dinner. They remained silent while I elaborated. When finished, they both looked at me closely, and one asked, “Tell us again how America won World War 2” ?
I don’t think a new amendment is needed. 10A is good enough. What it needs is bipartisan buy-in – people need to have real skin in the game, so that if it goes away, it hurts them personally.
With Trump at the helm as a stark example, you have a very strong argument to explain liberals why 10A is a good idea in general. Furthermore, getting rid of as many laws as possible on federal level would prompt the states to enact their own versions of the same, including on things that they know may come under attack on the federal level again (like abortion access, anti-discrimination laws, or gun control).
And that’s the compromise here. It’s not about what to enact on the federal level. It’s about, “you guys can do these things in your states, and we can do these things in ours; and this is the list of things that neither of us can do”. It’s long past due to discuss this explicitly, instead of trying to stab each other via SCOTUS (with every such jab destabilizing the system further). Basically, sit down, figure out what the irreconcilable differences are, and agree to disagree on them by moving them to state level. Meanwhile, point out that there are still things on which the Union does provide advantages – like national security/defense, or a free trade zone between states.
I think that such a compromise is entirely possible, and if it’s seen as a reasonably good deal by the majority on the other side, could hold for a very long time – decades, at least.
The 14th amendment effectively repealed the 10th (unless the central government finds some use for the 10th to promote an agenda).
We can all do a little, here and there, in every state. But that is only legislation that can be swiftly dumped, overturned, or modified by simple majority of those voting.
The 14th only repealed the 10th with respect to constitutional rights, which is okay (could be fine tuned, but good enough). The problem is a bunch of stuff that was conjured by SCOTUS out of thin air under the guise of the 14th. That will need to be reined in – and that would have to be a major part of the compromise.
The other problem is the Wickard v. Filburn decision. That basically gives the feds unlimited power to regulate. It needs to be killed. Liberals will have to accept that it’ll also kill the federal Civil Rights Acts. Conservatives will have to accept that it’ll kill all federal drug laws.
Both of these can be done without constitutional amendment, though. It just needs SCOTUS to revert its own past decisions.
SCOTUS will declare any limit on their existence to be unconstitutional, even a successfully ratified amendment to limit their jurisdiction.
That depends on who’s on SCOTUS, no?
Also, SCOTUS can declare all they want, but if the rest of society agrees to ignore their declarations, there really isn’t anything they can do, because they don’t control the enforcement arm – that’s executive. So if there’s a bipartisan agreement to change the way SCOTUS works, and both parties in the legislature as well as the executive are on board, then it’s going to happen.
“That depends on who’s on SCOTUS, no?”
No. SCOTUS is an organism. The prime directive for any organism is to survive, at all costs.
Neither party wants to rein-in the SC. It is too important that there always be a court to overrule “the will of the people”. Wink, wink, nod, nod, “Say na more”.
In the history of the Republic, no congress has ever attempted to limit SC jurisdiction.
Neither party wanted Trump, yet here we are.
If Trump was possible, the establishment is not as powerful as they were assumed to be. This makes a lot of other things possible.
To remind, there’s always the mini nuclear option of adding more seats to SCOTUS – all it takes is a simple majority in Congress. In fact, I’m fairly sure that this is going to be exercised sooner rather than later – either by Trump himself, when he realizes that his 2-3 appointments aren’t going to make SCOTUS approve a lot of what he wants to do, or else the next Democratic government, when they’ll be facing with a conservative SCOTUS supermajority they cannot hope to break in their lifetimes.
But I digress – the point here is that it’s totally possible to e.g. add 10 new seats, and fill them with people who have the sole explicit purpose of reverting any past ruling that stands in the place of proper federalization, and then immediately retiring. If Trump were to such an arrangement, I would back it.
FDR tried to increase the SC, and pack it with Democrats. SC ultimately ruled the attempt unconstitutional. The organism remained intact.
As to the Repub establishment. It remains intact. It rules the newcomers with an iron fist. The oldies informed (will also inform on 20Jan) the newbies that the job of the newbies is to fund raise and keep the leadership in power. No serious committee appointments. The “young Turks” are braced up with the message that there will be no major shift in party agenda just because the newbies made the current majorities possible.
Point being the two major parties will do whatever to remain alive. The Dems are moving further left into Venezuela, the Repubs will act as breakwaters against which the base will smash.
> FDR tried to increase the SC, and pack it with Democrats. SC ultimately ruled the attempt unconstitutional. The organism remained intact.
That’s not how it went down. FDR threatened to do so, and SC – which was at the moment considering several cases that were likely to end up not in favor of the president – had “suddenly” changed their mind, by virtue of a single judge switching his vote. That’s why it’s called what it’s called, namely:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine
It was never ruled unconstitutional, because it is not actually unconstitutional. The constitution does not define the number of justices on the court. The initial size was set by an act of Congress, and it was incremented and decremented several times since then, again, every time by an act of Congress.
Either way, my other point still stands: it doesn’t matter what SCOTUS thinks about it, if everyone else tells them to GTFO.
Thank you. My point made…..SC survived as an organism. Why would the SC suddenly vote in such a way to prevent expansion of jurisdiction and power? Because as it was constructed at the time, the justices believed the status quo would be disadvantageous to the court.
If “everyone” did anything, all the time, without regard to law/regulation…that would be interesting. However, gun owners would then lose the moral high ground.
SC survived by conceding its power – something that you claim cannot possibly happen.
And I’m not promoting doing things against laws/regulations all the time. However, sometimes it is necessary, when the existing laws/regulations result in an unworkable system, while also preventing the necessary changes to that system. Every revolution that happens is against the existing laws and regulations of the system that it tries to replace. It is justifiable, if the goal is not anarchy, but the establishment of new and better (ideally, more just – but, pragmatically speaking, “long-term viable” is already a worthwhile bar to aim for).
In other words, rule of law is desirable in and of itself, but rule of a particular law that is detrimental to the concept of rule of law is not (just like freedom is desirable in and of itself, but the freedom to limit other people’s freedom is not). Thus, paradoxically, some laws have to be disobeyed, for the sake of rule of law.
SC survived, by any means necessary. Survived and reinforced itself. Fighting for survival does not mean that aggression is the only tool. Federal bureaucracy is a shinning example. The bureaucracy has its one agenda, and survives not by revolt or open rebellion, but by ducking and weaving, stalling, reviewing, analyzing, assigning to more research, until whomever is no longer available to threaten the bureaucracy.
“Wickard v. Filburn decision”.
Made it illegal to not engage in commerce. Thought this would have been the SC reasoning for upholding Obamacare (but instead the “Republican” decided O-care is a tax (which should have been challenged as a “head tax”). I would find it entertaining if SC determined that homemade firearms are illegal because they impact commerce by reducing the number of firearms that would otherwise have been traded through normal commerce.
The decision itself didn’t make it illegal to not engage the commerce. It was the law that was upheld that decision that did.
So homemade firearms are not illegal, but only because there’s no federal law making them illegal. If Congress were to pass such a law, under Filburn, it would stand.
Stretching the analogy to apply one circumstance to another is a age-old political tool.
int9h – typical. The Dems are out and NOW you call for moderation, for scaling back? Where were these cries and desires over the past 8 years?
As stated – the rules have been thrown out. The Dems will be in majority again and they will use every tool – legal or otherwise – to undo everything a democratic republic is about. We have 4 years, at least, to undo the past 8 and set precedents that will be hard to undo.
They aren’t democrats or even liberals. They are socialists, through and through, and won’t be satisfied until the U.S. is a marxist state.
If you go around wielding federal government as a club, that will be one precedent that will be hard to undo. Everything else will be easy to undo by virtue of that very precedent.
As far as “you started it”. Personally, I didn’t – I was always a “tenth amendment liberal”. But even if the collective “they” did – you do understand this this is a kindergarten / junior high excuse, right? The adult thing is to show that you’re an adult and de-escalate, leading the other side by example. If you escalate instead, it’ll just keep ratcheting until it blows up (and the higher you manage to get it, the harder it’ll come down).
And consider this: when it does blow up, EC won’t matter anymore – and even in this past election, there were, what, 2.8 million more people on the other side?
If leading by example were to be effective, wouldn’t the radical left have abandoned their agenda and tactics long ago? Restraint in the face of evil only encourages evil. If you want a successful example of how effective proper retaliation can be, check the FAQs on the website of the government of Carthage.
If you truly believe that everything and everyone that the left represents is irredeemable evil, then the logical consequence of that is complete physical destruction, by any means necessary. Are you willing to go there?
“…then the logical consequence of that is complete physical destruction, by any means necessary. Are you willing to go there?
Politically? Yes. (Demoncrats and Leftists have declared that only single party (theirs) rule can produce a proper society).
Physically? Leave me alone, I leave them alone. But make no mistake, we are at 1850.
You won’t be able to go there politically for long. That 2.8 million difference in votes is going to be bigger next time. At some point – and likely sooner rather than later – EC will not be enough of a roadblock against the sheer popular vote.
If you think that this is 1850, wouldn’t it be wise to try to defuse it? The slave states have arguably accelerated the advent of the war by trying to use the federal government to impose their will upon the free states (e.g. via Fugitive Slave Act… ironically, of 1850).
However, I don’t think that there’s any issue quite like slavery today. I mean, there are certainly many that are very divisive, but none worth killing over, basically. At least this is how it looks from the left; I have a nagging feeling that abortion might be such an issue on the right, for some at least.
Hillary got more popular votes. Fact. Democrats got less, overall. Republican control of US legislature, state and local seats is is not because of some sort of EC trickery. Politically, the only way this can go is one party rule. Not that there won’t be other parties, but like in Europe, they will amount to little (we do not have proportional representation).
Defusing would be nice, but it is a hopeless task. The basic nature of humans is laziness (sloth?). Those who want to destroy initiative, create abject dependency on government, eliminate free thought, offer a wholly attractive agenda. To change that demographic means decades of wins by adults, re-creating a culture of self-respect, sense of accomplishment, and responsible behavior as the norm, once again.
Culture will not be changed through evenly split visions of America. The founders believed our government/constitution was fit only for a moral and religious people. Those types of people do not revel in the robbing the central treasury in order to allow half the population to live off the efforts of the other half. Believe them when the leftists tell you that they “deserve” all the benefits of society without contributing to it. Believe them when they tell you that they will never back down from “gimme, gimme, gimme”. Believe them when they tell you that people who accomplish anything are lottery winners who owe the rest of society an easy living. Believe them when they tell you they intend to take absolute power over you to enforce their childish selfishness.
> Democrats got less, overall. Republican control of US legislature, state and local seats is is not because of some sort of EC trickery.
Legislature seats have the same problem, just on a smaller scale. Because they’re all single seat districts, you can have 51% voting for R, 49% voting for D, and the single guy representing them all is an R, and those 49% can just go suck on something. On the other hand, any extra votes you get above 50%+1 in that district also don’t matter.
With even population distribution, this sort of thing would cancel itself out. But because Ds cluster in high-density areas (cities), the system is disproportionally skewed against them – basically, there are a lot more districts that are supermajority D, than there are those that are supermajority R. So Ds get a lot more wasted votes in the cities, and a lot of votes that are effectively canceled out outside of cities.
Then you add gerrymandering on top of that – which I’ll grant you both parties do, but Republicans do it more, and more effectively (largely because they can, again, because Dem electorate is so tightly clustered). Just look at Austin, which is a city full of liberals, but only has a single D representative – because it’s carved up like a pie, and every slice of the pie is attached to a bigger chunk of the countryside, such that all those D votes are canceled out as much as possible. In each of the six districts that incorporate some part of Austin, city residents are a minority. The only Austin district is blue, because it is drawn to encompass as much Latino vote as possible in one place (including from outside of the city) – i.e. it’s a “minority majority” district.
So we need to look at the actual votes, not the seats, to see the trends. And I’ll grant you that Republicans did get more votes for the House this time around, and last time, too. But Democrats got more popular vote in 2012 and 2010. And Republicans got fewer votes compared to their own result in 2014, while Democrats got more (this is largely because Republicans turn out to vote more reliably in off-years). So it’s a much more volatile figure to base any long-term assumptions on.
At the same time, there’s one trend that is not bucking – increase in partisanship, and corresponding decrease in split-ticket voting. If this keeps going in the same direction as it currently does – and there are no obvious reasons why it shouldn’t – you’re going to see less and less difference between presidential popular vote, and the same for Congress. I think you see where this goes.
Of popular votes, all my life I heard that if all the Demoncrats vote, the Repubs cannot win because the raw number of Dem voters is always greater that what Repubs can ever muster, anywhere.
Grew up in a Democrat family; first Repub. In those days, there were entities called “conservative Democrats” (using the sloppy language of media, members of the Democratic party should be called Democratics). The adjective “conservative” is important because the believed in self-reliance, hard work, America, self-reliance, and wealth measured by achievement and improved financial condition (we didn’t quite have a good mark on the last one). After hearing “conservative” values for so many years, I noted that those same values were a fixture of the Republicans. So, like an idiot, I asked why the family weren’t Republicans. Two words, “Union” and “FDR”. Unions were the source of wealth, and FDR saved the country from the depression. Obviously, both ideas were wrong, but they kept us Democrats. Watching the radical left take over the Democrat party, I became a Republican because that party seemed to be the remaining home for conservatives. Family remained Dems, but constantly complained that they didn’t understand what happened to the party. All along, family insisted that if only all the Democrats (even as that creature faded into extinction) would just vote, there would never be a Republican in office. They did not grasp what it was they were asking for…even as they failed to understand it while looking at the morph into statism. I learned to have a healthy respect for refusal to admit the obvious.
At any rate, stasis cannot endure because there is no viable mechanism to impose stasis externally. “In the end, there can be only one”. We are at the brink.
There’s no stasis. But there are periods of stability, which encourage prosperity and growth.
If what you want is a state of permanent war until full, complete and irreversible defeat of your opponents, then you need to be honest with yourself, and admit that 1) it will have to be a physical defeat, so you’re talking about killing or enslaving millions of people, and 2) such a thing would require an actual shooting war to execute, and it will come to your town and your house.
For a good example of what happened to a country where both sides chose the total war path, you can look at the Russian Civil War. The American one was peanuts in comparison.
Total war is a bit of a messy thing, not? I’ve also seen tidy little scrapes where the intent was to “send a message” to the others that they should politely adopt more peaceful means of conflict resolution. Message returned, “No such address, no such zone”.
How ’bout politically destroying the enemy in a way that neuters the ability to recover to a national option? Turn the ruled for radicals against them? Attack, attack, attack. No pussyfooting about, calling them, “My esteemed colleague”.
> How ’bout politically destroying the enemy in a way that neuters the ability to recover to a national option
There’s no such thing when the political differences are that great. At some point, if it becomes clear that there’s no political way to fight back, and there never will be, it becomes a tyranny – and people on the receiving end will switch from words to bullets. Heck, American Revolution was started over a smaller difference of opinion (it widened further later, but the initial grievances were fairly mundane).
Agree. Given how far we have fallen, there is zero possibility of a third revolution to throw-off tyranny.
> Believe them when the leftists tell you that they “deserve” all the benefits of society without contributing to it. Believe them when they tell you that they will never back down from “gimme, gimme, gimme”.
I’m a leftist. I earn roughly 4x the average household income in US (and mine is a single earner household at that, although I am married) – and I pay taxes for all of that.
This also holds true in general. Any map that shows how much states and counties draw from the federal or the respective state budget for each tax dollar they send to it, makes it clear that blue states/counties subsidize the red. Sure, a lot of people on welfare vote for Democrats; but so do a lot of productive workers with high salaries.
Kinda hard to be a Leftist if one accepts income inequality, approves of wealth gained outside government largess, holds self personally responsible for outcomes, believes that government intervention is not the source of happiness. By definition, leftists are statists. For statists, there is no room for the individual to act independently of the state.
There is considerable amount of spectrum between “government intervention is the source of happiness” and “government intervention is often necessary to ensure the security of sources of happiness”. And most of it lies on the left.
Your definition of “leftist” is a strawman, just as much as the common “racist hick” stereotype of a Trump voter on the left.
“…government intervention is often necessary to ensure the security of sources of happiness”.
Nowhere in the constitution, nor was it in the minds of the founders. People were to be left to their own devices, uneven, inequitable, unfair outcomes.
If you think my idea of a Leftist is a strawman, review again the Russian revolution outcome, communist China, Venezuela, North Korea, (to name a few). No true leftist ever wants people to make their own way; always the government deciding what is right, what is fair, who should determine…always the government.
> Nowhere in the constitution, nor was it in the minds of the founders. People were to be left to their own devices, uneven, inequitable, unfair outcomes
The fact that the Constitution established a government already indicates that you’re wrong. If people are to be let completely to their own devices, a government is plainly unnecessary.
Then there’s this bit in the Constitution:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”
What exactly is to be understood by “general welfare” can and should be debated. But it’s clear that the Founders did have some notion of such a thing in mind when they wrote this clause. Which is, again, counter to the notion that “people were to be left to their own devices”. As is taxation.
Then, of course, the Constitution, as originally authored, largely defines the balance of power between the federal government and the states. It doesn’t talk much about the same between the states and their respective citizen, and it’s for a good reason: because that’s where most of regulation was supposed to be happening. And there was plenty of such regulation in the colonies already, and the majority of it remained when they became states.
That, and well, the whole slavery thing is kinda diametrically opposite to “left to their own devices”, don’t you think?
So, no, the Founders weren’t socialists. But they weren’t minarchists, either. They wanted a small federal government, not necessarily a small government in general.
Left to their own devices is exactly what the people of the states were supposed to be…not regulated by federal decree or legislation. As to slavery, it was a constitutionally protected “right” (“all other persons”), although there is absolutely zero mention of “slave” in the constitution. Whether good or evil, slavery was LEGAL in the states because the federal constitution did not declare it illegal. The states were not prohibited from establishing, within their borders, how to categorized “all other persons”. Certain states declared “all other persons” as property, which allowed trade, and recovery of “lost” (runaway) property. Attempts by the national legislature to overturn slavery without constitutional amendment, became the flashpoint between states. Finally, a constitutional amendment was ratified after force of arms. Hardly a shining example of “democracy” in action.
Yes the founders wanted small federal government. The also wanted freedom within the individual states to construct a society how they saw fit. State constitutions were not copies of the federal one.
“…promote the general welfare” is one of those statements where the Devil has his playground. There are logical arguments to be made that the federal government, by that phrase and the commerce clause, has power to regulate every facet of life. The 10th amendment was supposed to limit this. After the Civil War, the constitution was amended to overrule the 10th, and make every state a province, and every citizen a citizen of the federal government. With the “promote” and commerce clauses, states are a legal fiction, with less legal standing than corporations.
We will never see this country return to the principles of its founding.
My point is that Founders were okay with slavery – some reluctantly, only because it was a compromise that made the Union possible, others enthusiastically. And slavery is inherently counter to the notion of “live and let live”. It appears that you actually agree with my point, namely:
“Yes the founders wanted small federal government. The also wanted freedom within the individual states to construct a society how they saw fit. State constitutions were not copies of the federal one.”
That’s exactly what I’m advocating for here. A small federal government, enough to provide for common defense and guarantee freedom of trade and movement between states, and protection of some basic political rights to ensure that constituent states remain free in nature (e.g. I do think it’s a good idea to enforce freedom of speech on federal level). And varied state governments, small or large, depending on how their citizens decide and enshrine in their respective constitutions.
The problem is that this model is advocated by the side on the receiving end of the federal government club, while the other side (which was previously in that position) abandons it as soon as they get the club in their hands. This is a vicious circle that must be broken, if the Union is to endure.
But the only way it can be broken is if the side that has the power will find the will to break it while they are in the power – and utilize the entirety of the power that they have for this one purpose. Republicans, right now, have a historic concentration of power in their hands – not just president and Congress, but also (in a year or two, anyway), SCOTUS. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity – there will not be another for many decades to come. Republicans are also a party that had, at least, paid lip service to federalism and the 10th more so than Democrats.
Now they have a chance to deliver on either the promises they were making with respect to “small government”, or the hypocrisy they were accused on account of the same.
The ball is in your court. Where we go from now is largely up to you – and so is the immediate responsibility for the consequences.
Ball ain’t in my court. I trust neither major party to do what is right. As noted before, Republican doesn’t mean “conservative”, “small government”, individual liberty.
Both parties like big government. It is merely two groups of socialists arguing over who can run the most efficient and effective socialist state.
SCOTUS appointments rendering Repubs three branches? Think John Roberts. Justices have a maddening habit of moving opposite their core principles, trying to prove they are oh so circumspect that they disadvantage the party that appointed them. This is not neutrality/objectiveness.
Watch TV for a few days. Note that almost every pontificating protoplasm is talking about how Trump will do this, or do that. They have become so comfortable with imperial presidents that they ignore the congressional temperment….which is largely anti-Trump.
Hoping we will see history made yet again, when the Republican House and Senate put forward bills they like, and Trump vetoes them time and again. Popcorn on the counter, beer in the fridge. Gonna be laff-a-minute after 20Jan.
You may not be a Republican, and Republicans may not be conservatives; but they certainly do pay lip service to conservatives and not liberals. You have their ear, not by much perhaps, but still to the extent that I can never hope to get. So you can advocate for federalization and states’ rights from within the party in a way I cannot do.
I do the same on my side. But over here, it’s more about laying the groundwork for the future right now. And I don’t see much chance for my arguments to be heard, if Republicans in power piss all over 10A while they can.
In the last 60yrs, the people wanting federal control over most everything have not been Repubs, or conservatives. They are the same old Hamiltonians from the founding; strong central government. 10A is the refuge of the liberty-minded.
> In the last 60yrs, the people wanting federal control over most everything have not been Repubs
Really? Nixon, Reagan, Bush weren’t Republicans?
And please don’t go all RINO. A label means what it means at any given moment, not what it meant 150 years ago. Reagan would be a RINO today (and Republicans of 1950s would consider him a crazy nut). Brands are more enduring than ideologies, unfortunately.
Political Correctness, equality of outcomes (founders would have taken the vapors over that), safe spaces, right to be free of inconvenience, redistribution of wealth, welfare that destroys personal initiative…did not come from Nixon, Reagan, nor Bush.
Didn’t it? What would you call civil asset forfeiture if not a massive redistribution of wealth? I’ll grant you that it isn’t redistribution for the purpose of reducing inequality – quite the opposite, in fact – but it’s redistribution anyway, no? And it was created by Nixon, and massively expanded by Reagan.
But anyway, you are changing the goalposts. You were talking about “people wanting federal control over most everything”. This is far broader than political correctness or wealth redistribution. Nixon, for example, essentially created the War on Drugs, massively expanding federal regulation and its enforcement. Reagan signed Executive Order 12333, which enables large scale warrantless wiretapping by the federal government to this day. Bush’s signature is on the PATRIOT Act – ’nuff said.
If it gets rid of bad guys, a little collateral damage is the price of freedom. Nothing free about freedom.
So do background checks on gun transfers, no? “Getting rid of bad guys” is a universal excuse for government doing whatever it wants to be doing – it just needs to adjust the definition of “bad guy” as needed. If you consider it a valid justification, there’s no expansion of government that it couldn’t justify. I mean, that’s exactly what the Nazis told people they were doing when they were loading Jews into trains to all those camps…
Although I’d be curious to hear how civil asset forfeiture helps “getting rid of bad guys” in any way, for example. So far as I can see, all it does is let the government claim that their expenses are lower than what they actually are, by providing for an unaccounted-for channel to extort money from the populace.
Not a fan of government, at all. Minimum necessary for defense of the nation, minimum necessary to keep the states from warring against each other. Beyond that, the only government/law that should exist is whichever law you can personally enforce.
Oh, and are the consequences of the War on Drugs – which, to remind, include a prison population larger than anyone in the world, in both absolute numbers and per capita; larger than Russia, China and Iran – “a little collateral damage” to you?
Nope. Not collateral damage. Direct reward for violating the law. Under the “legalize drugs” theory, one might just as well advocate for zero laws (or no law to prohibit you favorite criminal activity). NO LAWS = NO CRIMINALS; equals no prisoners, either.
What is collateral damage is all the random, innocent victims of criminals, drugs or no.
What victims? Drug prohibition is all about victimless crimes.
In any case, if you want it so much, do it on state level. Why are the feds involved in it without a constitutional amendment authorizing them to do so?
And, really – do you support drug prohibition? If you do, you have absolutely no moral ground to so much as squeak about “government overreach”, on any level.
What I said is the huge population of prisoners who were convicted of drug crimes, received the reward for their behavior. Nothing said about whether drug laws are good/bad.
Second, the idea of legalizing what is now criminal (good or bad) is based on the idea that personal behavior should not be regulated. Picking a single (favored) behavior to be exempt from regulation is no more morally valid than deciding no personal behavior should be regulated (by anyone). It is the picking and choosing that is illogical and indefensible. If there is a moral good to be gained by de-criminalizing any behavior, it is on those merits, not the idea that a criminal behavior results in a significant number of convicted people in prison. The number of prisoners is irrelevant.
Third, the drug trade is not victimless. That is to say, not without collateral damage. If legalized, the druggie poses the same collateral damage to family, and strangers who are injured by a drugged person’s irresponsible behavior. Collateral damage as a criminal activity includes accident, destroyed families, healthcare costs, death to bystanders.
> What I said is the huge population of prisoners who were convicted of drug crimes, received the reward for their behavior. Nothing said about whether drug laws are good/bad.
That is directly implied, however. The “reward for their behavior” is another name for oppression, if the laws under which you imprison or execute or otherwise punish people are unjust. Most people in Soviet gulags were also there because they broke some law or the other.
To remind, you were disputing my point that some of the biggest authoritarians in this country were prominent Republicans. If you don’t consider Nixon authoritarian on account of the drug laws that he enacted and implemented, simply because they were duly passed laws – well, then, Stalin wasn’t authoritarian either, since he similarly enforced the laws that he helped pass, and he was duly appointed to his position by people elected under such electoral laws that USSR had at the time.
> Third, the drug trade is not victimless. That is to say, not without collateral damage. If legalized, the druggie poses the same collateral damage to family, and strangers who are injured by a drugged person’s irresponsible behavior.
The crime in that case is the irresponsible behavior, and possibly consumption of drug (if it is guaranteed to induce such behavior). But it cannot be mere possession or transfer of it.
Perhaps I need to clarify:
I do not care what the laws are. People earn the government (and the laws) they deserve/elect. With that starting point, all that is left is to work within the system that exists. Change the system, and all arguments/objections/discussion change. If I cannot influence enough people to force the lawmakers to make laws I like, that is my problem, and I must deal with the consequence. There is no earthly, objective moral judge who can overrule unjust or oppressive governments. No holy international law enforcement to ensure the edicts of an earthly morally superior being (if one existed). To content that anything is inescapably moral, right, just, good is merely an exercise in moral pontificating; opinion.
My original premise is that leftists are authoritarians. Doesn’t matter if all other groups are the same. Leftists always want to control thought. If every other political group wanted to control thought, it wouldn’t relieve Leftists of the charge.
It wouldn’t. However, it would also mean that putting another group in charge with the same exact problem is not a solution.
“And there will be a next time. Or do you believe that Trump is forever?”
Trump won’t there forever.
His Supreme Court justices will be around for about an estimated two decades.
In that time frame, we normalize gun ownership to a point public support is on our side.
The Left has been brainwashing their people (children especially) that guns have magical evil powers.
We’re gonna break that spell by normalizing children to guns by having mandatory actual gun safety in school.
Hollywood and the FPS game industry with their romanticizing of guns will do the rest.
We are going to re-weave gun rights back into the very fabric of America.
That’s our plan…
The California legislature is continuing to alternate beating and apologizing (“I’m sorry I had to beat you”) to gun owners so I see no reason not to flinch every time they get in session.
I don’t live out there, so maybe I never see it, but when has California apologized?
Indeed. You don’t compromise with your opponent when they are down. You put the boot in to make sure that they never get back up.
No pity. No quarter. The Left delenda est.
“Elections have consequences”.
The Latin word for left is sinister, so Cato’s famous exhortation would be Sinister delenda est.
Sinistrum (neuter) doesn’t really work as a translation. Yes, it means left or left handed but it’s not a proper noun the way that Left is.
I suppose you could go all Terry Pratchett about it and give no fucks about being proper, and just capitalize the S thereby making it “Ad Sinistram delenda est.”… Which maybe 5%of readers would understand that and I’m sure Google translate won’t translate that the way you’d intend.
“Romanes eunt domus? People who are called ‘Romanes’ they go the house?”
As of right now “Ad Sinistram delenda est” translates to “The left must be destroyed” on google translate.
“Yet few on the left seem to have gotten the message from November’s election results. Radicals like Illinois State Senator Don Harmon want us to “compromise” with him to restrict gun rights.”
Shortly after Obama won the election in 2008, the Republican leadership was meeting with him and asking him if he could compromise on a position.
Obama replied (paraphrasing) “Elections have consequences. I won. Deal with it”
We should extend to the Democrats what they extended to us.
Nothing.
On the NFA: All but select-fire should be off of it. Re-open the registry, but leave it as-is.
If made over the counter, I can envision a true whack-job like Lanza mowing down 100 + kids.
I can envision him dumping most of his ammo into walls and ceilings. Automatic weapons are far less effective than people would like to think.
Ya, full auto weapons suck so bad that people (in the absence of other options) invented Slide-Fire and Binary Trigger Systems. Both of which are awesome, by the way, but I want the oem real deal.
Those things were invented because firing really fast is fun. Even so, they don’t approach the speed of actual full auto. If the killer at Sandy Hook had tried to use a full auto M4, most of the rounds would have ended up in the ceiling.
Ya, so per the ATF&E firing ~12% faster = illegal, but Slide-Fire, binary trigger = not ??? fdat
Once again, the honor system leads (should lead) to people feeling like they paid a lot of money to look stupid.
A G A I N
IF your government (a/k/a your stupid ahole neighbors who needed a job) doesn’t trust you, then neither do I. You are obviously lacking somehow.
IF YOU WERE NEVER DENIED FULL AUTO FIREARMS, FIRING THEM ON FULL AUTO WOULD BE ROUTINE (just ask Switzerland).
BUT STILL FUN.
Ok Joe,
1. Automatic fire is inherently less accurate than semi-auto fire, it’s why every rifle used by any military on the planet has a semi-auto mode. No amount of experience will keep you from spraying shots all over the background behind your target. Given the same amount of ammo, I would actually prefer that the person shooting at me had the giggle switch on, it makes it far less likely I’ll actually get hit.
2. It’s actually illegal to fire your weapon in full-auto at most swiss ranges. (I’d say all, but my experience is limited.) AFAIK Full auto fire is restricted to official training during your militia obligation.
“Quit Acting Like Battered Wives” unless it’s Farah Fawcett in “The Burning Bed”.
Hell yeah we won, we can celebrate like in Chicago when the Bulls win the NBA Finals.
BURN THIS B1T<H DOWN !
I agree with your NFA sentiment. There’s no reason at the very minimum that SBR/S shouldn’t be removed along with suppressors. The absolutely stupid part of Hughes needs to go. If we are willing to go through all the hassle and paperwork, fingerprints and BGC’s, there’s no reason I can’t drill an extra hole in an AR receiver. Or fabricate a piece of sheet metal for a lightning link.
Which parts/provisions of NFA and Hughes and Sullivan do not violate the second amendment? The founders had all the current “weapons of war” to use against the army of the Crown. Wherefore does the constitutional authority for any branch of government to regulate (at all) weapons of the public (“we the people”)?
Answer?
All restrictions on weapons were/are deemed permissible, “reasonable”, “common sense” laws and court decisions.
The rights enumerated in the constitution, and amendments, are not to be altered, improved, proscribed, “reasoned” into an alternate universe, except by formal amendment approved by the people.
That’s weird. A bunch of people on TTAG told me that Trump wasn’t serious about winning, and that Trump doesn’t care about guns?! Glad Trump is remembering his strong endorsement by the NRA, even though there are TTAG members who can’t seemed to bother to join one of the best gun rights organizations we have. To those who have joined, I salute you.
I’m glad to have invested so heavily into Trump’s campaign, and will continue to support the nomination of a Scalia-esque SCOTUS justice and federal judges.
California, NY and others could certainly use national reciprocity. Suppressors, too, but that may not ever happen. So I’ll continue to support pro gun causes whenever I can, and also keep looking for land in WI.
Be specific. It’s good you’re on the 2A committee, however nothing written in your post talks about what to do.
Trump is voted in. I donate to the NRA-ILA. I vote for those likely to support fewer/no restrictions to the 2A and all the rest of our rights. And more.
Unfortunately, your post is full of “rah, rah” rather than a coherent plan about what is going to take place. What is going to be pushed first in terms of the 2A? When, how? I haven’t seen an updated post from you about any of this. Just the one post from you which was merely a list. Updates, please.
I know the inauguration is over a month away. I appreciate your zeal, but we need actionable details on how to get there from here.
Actionable details wasn’t the purpose of this post.
Mindset, however, was. And it’s directed to many on our side that say we can’t do this or we can’t do that. There’s little we can’t do if we seize this mandate.
John
Uuuhhh, like, uuuummmm, you know, like you were the one who sponsored and achieved compromise in Illinois.
No compromise means NONE. A single step back from “shall not be infringed”, regardless of the imagined “reasonableness”, is compromise. Generally, you seem to be advocating no compromise, except those you deem “common sense”.
Your credibility is poor on the pro-gun side.
Ok I’ll bite. Let’s see your stellar resume? Or are you just blowing hot gas?
Another literary gem of a response; destined for posterity, and a bumper sticker somewhere. (No equivalence intended, but I do not need a degree in criminology to criticize lax sentences for crimes committed using a firearm.)
John Boch joined in producing Illinois legislation that compromised on gun rights. The fact that one or two elements of that legislation might be stretched to be considered a “win” for gun rights does not wash the compromise
John Boch talks about representing gun owners, being a strong supporter of the second amendment…but with caveats.
John Boch has established his resume. As a person John Boch claims to represent, a person John Boch exhorts to “stop acting like a battered wife, when one of the hallmarks of a battered wife is attempting to compromise with the beater in an attempt to modify the beater’s behavior. It would appear that John Boch is the one acting like a battered wife.
When I learn that John Boch repudiates his, and all other, Illinois gun-restriction legislation, and is intolerant of any restriction of gun ownership and carry, I will watch closely, and applaud John Bosch for every challenge he lodges against restrictive legislation. The second amendment is absolute, regardless of what the SC decides. “Shall not be infringed” limits ALL branches of federal government to producing exactly zero restrictions on gun ownership, transport and presentation.
Ah, I see. Just another talker. Wake me up when you’ve actually done something besides beyotch.
Always good to trap a true warrior here. Those with good resumes rarely talk about them (kinda like soldiers who actually saw combat). Bragging is still considered gauche in some of these parts. If only those who have “actually done something” (whatever that might be) were allowed to express opinions, this blog might consist solely of the TTAG staff, and you (I guess).
But you still evade the point….compromise is compromise, regardless of being “just a teensie, weensie, little bit”. Live free, or die my man. I support any person or organization that refused to endorse limits to constitutional rights, especially the right to self-defense (yes, I believe the first amendment is absolute too; falsely yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded venue is perfectly permissible…but if that caused damage or injury, the speaker suffers the consequence).
Half a loaf is what? Half a natural, civil and human right is what?
So, no. I don’t have “something” (whatever that is) to point to related to gun rights, but don’t pee down my collar, then tell me it is simply raining.
Sounds like Sam I Am is full of it.
What have I done? Here’s a partial list: donated ~$800 to the Trump campaign, $~100 to Rand Paul, $~200 to Ted Cruz, $~50 to the NRA, $~50 Calguns, $250 to the Firearms Policy Coalition, $~50 to SAF, trained 1/2 dozen new shooters, helped about 2 dozen new shooters buy AR-15s, wrote about 40 letters to congresscriters opposing gun control, made about 120 phone calls for the Trump campaign, shared about 150 pro gun articles (including TTAG when they didn’t get too heavy on cop bashing) on Facebook, helped dozens of people find ammo deals, transferred firearms to new shooters, and helped dozens of friends formulate pro gun arguments, and I bought 9 guns. And I voted. My tax guy will get more precise figures since I haven’t finished my accounting for 2016.
And that’s just in 2016.
Certainly there are people doing more than me, but many are doing less. Maybe Sam I Am has done more, but given his high level of arrogance, I strongly suspect he’s done less. Especially if he’s spending so much time attacking sentence structure.
I certainly wish more gun owners were gun rights advocates. Just think what the NRA could do with 40 million members. Heck, what each of the major gun rights groups could do with 30-40 million member contributing.
That is certainly a lot of activity and support. Good job. Hat is off !
But it doesn’t address a lobbyist who schools us on not being battered wives, while engaged in multiple actions that result in compromising gun rights in return for half-measures.
By the by, I worked 30yrs for the largest non-profit in the world. About half the people were gun friendly, half not; different times, different places.
You worked for the United Nations Children’s Fund?
Bigger, much bigger.
Sam,
Thanks for that. I’ve made mistakes, and certainly the author may have as well. I used to support background checks, but now I’m a 2nd Amendment purist (with the exception of having violent offenders serve a period of probation after being released).
Anyways, I hope your future pro-gun endeavors serve you well. I’m still curious what they are, but we’lol leave it at that. I’m sure I’m not the only one on TTAG risking my job to be pro gun.
My endeavors are simple. “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. … If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men (people)”.
In private, and at gatherings for the purpose, encouraging (exhorting) others to insist on an absolute adherence to 2A. And if not possible, be internally truthful that if one accepts restrictions it is only a matter of preference which restrictions are permissible; every opinion being equally valid for further restriction.
That, and stay on the payroll.
National Prohibition (supported by the 18th amendment which was supposed to make national abstinence permanent) failed because the political winds shifted and an opportunity for repeal presented itself. That’s an important lesson. We have the opportunity to put a stake through gun-control in it’s entirety. American politics is studded with examples of missed opportunities. Now that we have the political muscle to do, we have to also have the political will to act. We need to put a stake through the heart of gun-control once and for all and the best way to do that is to start disassembling gun-control legislation law by law and policy by policy.
Prohibition failed because of human nature. Politics may have had to do with ratification of the 21st Amendment but the failure of Prohibition was completely outside the political arena.
I see Gabby is standing there without her puppet master, er, husband…
She shills for whoever gives her free coloring books nowadays……
Great point! Make sure to get the President-Elect fired up with that same message. Sell it!
The Dems kicking and screaming will make the affair all that more enjoyable for me at least. Compromise with the Dems? Haha haha bahaha, what was it Obama said when the establishment Repubs came to him asking for compromise, “Elections have consequences. I won. Deal with it.” Time to give it to the Dems with both barrels in that same vein.
Best thing you’ve written yet Boch-except the Jimmy Carter malaise. It’s a Bury Soetoro malaise…let’s kick their collective azzes!
I’m always tickled by the “gun owners” I find on firearms related message boards, proclaiming the need to “compromise” and “give the other side something”
Strangely they never have anything of any consequence that we’d be getting in return. They sound like Judenrat, counseling us to send the Chasidim first so we’ll be on a later train.
Of course, all too often they display an amazing tendency toward using the EXACT words and phraseology of the most radical of anti-gun cultists, such as “assault weapon”, “large ammunition clips (sic)”, “universal background checks”, and “reasonable restrictions”. For some, Petain, Quisling and DeGrelle are roll models still.
For there to be any “compromise” after this election is like debating what territories to concede to the Japanese in May of 1945.
You, sir, are absolutely correct. Might I add my “two cents”?
Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies.
The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them.
The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence.
Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned.
Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”.
The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…
I can get behind some “reasonable restrictions.” Like don’t use guns to commit crimes. Ok, so I can get behind a “reasonable restriction.”
Going mad with power are we? That’s what the left did for 8 years and look what it got them.
No, it’s called not trying to negotiate Belgium away to the Germans in March of 1945.
The anti-gun cult got its ass handed to it in November.
We need to start acting like it.
After eight years of “Fast & Furious”, etc., we need to start working on our own “Morganthau Plan” and let the anti-gun cult try to bargain their way out of THAT.
It defies belief that Hillary Clinton chose to make gun control a centerpiece of her campaign.
I thought her centerpiece was “First Woman President” (i.e. “My turn”).
Lets hurry up and fix all this already. I’m tired of having to act like a secret operative everyday in my own damn country in order to ensure my friends and my safety from terrorists and nut job snowflakes.
Need to take advantage of this asap before Trump starts dumb trade war or involves us in more overseas retardation. Should see hearing protection act this spring.
You may have heard the expression “battered conservative syndrome“.
And then there’s Trump Derangement Syndrome, to which a lot of pseudo-conservatives with delusions of adequacy seem to suffer.
Now we’re being conned with the lie that the Russians hacked the election and caused Trump to be elected (according to that pair of superannuated RINOs, John McCain and Lindsay Graham).
And all along I thought that James Comey was responsible for Trump’s election.
Trump is the leader we needed a long time ago. All his words towards the violations and infringements of our civil rights has gone way out of control by these liberal anti gun crooks. Brain washers making us believe that what the liberals are doing is great. They put the women as the front fall gal to spearhead and make us people have no say or ground with the unconstitutional federal gun laws for decades. Guess what, I have a big truck load of tissues for your non sense weeping. Shame on you for infringing our civil rights. Thank you Trump for taking the chance to run as president and doing what you do. Hands down and god bless.
I’d like to see Melania apply for CWPs in: NYC; NJ; MD; and DC. I don’t care whether they issue them or not; some “MAY” and others “WON’T”. Either way, it would make the story interesting.
Then, a book titled: “Melania Gets Her Gun – the Sequel”.
When the Left howls about National Reciprocity, we tell them to read-the-book.
The best part will come when Vanity Faire and the social page of the NYT ask: “What will Melania be carrying?”
Women, young and old, will start to think of femininity and fashion differently. S&W will crank out lot’s more models in pink-camo.
Yes yes yes! Now is the time to go on the offense! We need to ‘crush them, see them driven before us, hear the lamentation of the women’ – all that good stuff. Time to muster the troops and charge with sabres out! We should focus the most on those actions that protect the 2A in the long term – and can we do anything to help our brothers and sisters who are stuck behind enemy lines? How about we direct some obama-style funding for ‘gun safety studies’ to the groups who can fight the legal and PR battles behind enemy lines. Bottom line: attack on all fronts, build strong fortifcations along the way and send these cockroaches back into the woodwork where they belong!
Enhancing gun-rights is a great start. Those rights also need to be defended.
We need penalties for those that would seek to infringe on our rights. Gun-owners need to be a NATIONALLY protected class.
Ohio is trying to make gun-owners just that – a protected class:
http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/state–regional/ohio-lawmakers-pull-trigger-new-gun-laws/n77NuTGugLkpVnICiiqJxM/
Those that violate out rights should end up in federal prison.
“[Ms. Bishop] relies on ad hominem attacks against our position and those who promote it as she can’t argue her side with any real facts or logic.”
Facts and logic are every bit as irrelevant to Ms. Bishop as rights and laws are to rapists. Let me make that perfectly clear: people like Ms. Bishop do not care about right/wrong, rights, facts, and logic. They only care about getting what they want … just like a rapist.
Oh man. That’s harsh; really harsh.
But so true.
I concur with John Boch 100 percent.
The gun-grabbers’ idea of “compromise” is simple: they threaten to take away all of our rights, then reluctantly allow us to hold on to a few while giving us nothing in return. No more.
This is a unique opportunity that may not come again in our lifetime. I say we go for everything under the sun, from national constitutional carry to full auto.
During the civil rights struggle, did black Americans compromise? Did they agree to ride in the back of the bus on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays as long as they could ride in the front the rest of the time? Hell no.
Gun rights are civil rights, all or nothing. If we play our cards right and refuse to let this opportunity slip away, we can shore up our natural right to armed self-defense for generations to come.
Just released: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/12/robert-farago/breaking-2/
Another fine article. 2017 looks strong with the right fighters in place. PRO 2A so back off.
I find it supremely gratifying that the left continues to scream daily with their same old rhetoric, it’s a sure sign of their thinking, as in, if we just keep trying this same strategy; it HAS to work, right? I for one congratulate their talking points, their bluster, and I relish their outrage, and I WANT THEM TO KEEP DOING IT, because it means we have ALREADY won 2020.
So please, keep it going, and you might even consider running Hillary Clinton again, cause hell, that’s gotta work this time right, I mean she IS the most qualified, and she EARNED it, didn’t she, it’s HER TURN isn’t it? Pelosi is leading the charge of these things, personality over policy rules their party and I desperately want them to continue with the status quo leadership. Under wet sacks like Pelosi, Schultz, Clinton, etc, etc, etc, they LOST completely. I want a repeat in 2020, so I can watch the utter fall of the left so we can start rolling back the stupidity of sjw thinking and start taking away the cudgel of fear that the left uses, and educate some people in this country about what being American means, what a debt we all owe to the brave citizens before us who fought and died to create a place where freedom meant more than a punchline. The left is knee deep in their own BS and it is glorious to watch them flail about. p.s. I want to watch the anti-gunners run from federal mandates…….+ a Gowdy cabinet position for xmas???!!!
Rule 8. It’s effective. Evil never tires, but good people want to live their lives without constantly fighting evil, every day, every week, every year. Eventually, good people get to, “Whatever…” And evil knows it.
You sheeple think things will change under Tramp, sorry Trump, Wake the frell up. Trump has gone 180 on mos of his issues, ADMIT it you have been had
What a messed up country we live in where the decisions I get politically are deciding which rights get trampled on. I’m glad Trump is hopefully protecting 2A…but at what cost? No part of the Bill of Rights is more important than the other, they work together….and just getting to keep your guns while signing away the rest of your rights to a plutocrat….nauseating.
Just hoping Rand and the small minority of actual freedom protectors can keep the bullshit from getting too deep.
Which is why I want to promote the idea of first principles, and self-determined laws. Keep the govt out of people’s lives; accept “lawful” interaction as only that which you can personally enforce.
Comments are closed.