In the last presidential cycle, Democrat candidates hid their anti-gun animus behind weasel words; Barack Obama’s slam against voters who “cling to their guns and bibles” was considered a major faux pas. Last night’s Democrat debate represented a major break from the past. “It’s time the entire country stood up against the NRA” Hillary Clinton pronounced. Bernie Sanders touted his D-minus NRA rating. Lincoln Chaffee basked in his F-rating. Martin O’Malley celebrated his victory over the NRA to create “gun safety” legislation. Only Jim Webb mentioned Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. Hang on. Support for gun rights is up, faith in gun control is down. So what’s up with the gun control fervor? Bloomberg’s thetrace,org (of all people) nails it. Well, almost . . .
Four things that convinced party leaders that gun reform has become a winning issue is Alex Yablon’s analysis of the Dems’ newfound love of gun control. First up, the death of the LGBT issue as a coalition-building issue. To illustrate the point, The Trace taps the former leader of Young Democrats of America, now campaign director for the Center for American Progress, Emily Tisch Sussman.
Since the Supreme Court struck down state bans on gay marriage earlier this year, “LGBT issues don’t present the same big clear villain,” Kentucky county clerks notwithstanding. Believing they have won on LGBT issues, Democrats need to look for new issues to motivate their base. Sussman believes guns could be that motivator. “Democrats are going to have to reconvene the Obama coalition for 2016, and this has very high interest,” Sussman says of gun policy.
Interesting, no? Effective? Could be. Waving the bloody shirt for gun control, attacking the eventual Republican nominee as someone willing to wallow in the blood of innocents to appease genitally-challenged old fat white racist Southerners, would be a repeat of the previous playbook, where Mitt Romney became an unsympathetic plutocrat. Note: Donald Trump is a sympathetic plutocrat. A strong, clearly laid-out pro-gun stance could blunt the Dems’ appeal to the “statists to the rescue!” anti-gun meme.
Next up: the Virginia theory.
Reform advocates point to the 2013 Virginia governor’s race as a case study in how Democrats can win while taking more strident positions on guns, even in “purple” states with strong gun-rights traditions. In a debate two weeks before voters went to the polls, Republican nominee Ken Cuccinelli boasted that the National Rifle Association had given him an “A” rating, while Democrat Terry McAuliffe had an “F.” McAuliffe immediately countered: “I don’t care what grade I got from the NRA … I never want to see another Newtown or Aurora or Virginia Tech ever again.” McAuliffe went on to win the governorship handily. Virginia’s Democratic Attorney General also won statewide office campaigning for stronger gun violence prevention measures.
This is a lot less convincing explanation for the Dem hopefuls’ decision to pimp gun control on the national stage. McAuliffe’s anti-gun rhetoric didn’t change the political dynamic in his state; the huge influx of wealthy Washingtonians did that. Generally speaking, gun control isn’t an issue to convince fence straddlers/independents not to vote Democrat. Nor is a reason for indies to vote Democrat. In short, the Old Dominion’s shift on guns reflects ideological change. It didn’t create it.
For years it was a Democratic shibboleth that the NRA-stoked backlash to Bill Clinton-era gun control measures like the federal assault weapons ban and the Brady background check bill contributed significantly to the party’s disastrous performance in the 1994 midterm elections. Loath to look like the proverbial “jack-booted thugs” out to quash gun rights, the party spent the ensuing years distancing itself from the issue to avoid incurring gun owners’ wrath. Now, many Democratic politicians and liberal commentators are not sure they should be so fearful.
Billionaire Bloomberg’s pet journo would say that, wouldn’t he? Michael Bloomberg is spending millions to position his Everytown for Gun Safety as the anti-NRA. If Yablon wrote that the NRA is even more formidable than it was before the Sandy Hook slaughter and the resulting legislative victory – an idea given credence by the fact that the NRA’s paid membership swelled by well over a million post-Sandy Hook and the Dems’ subsequent mid-term trouncing – Yablon would be out on the street. If Dems aren’t afraid of the NRA’s political muscle, they’re idiots. Just sayin’ . . .
When deciding whether or not to take on the NRA, Hillary, Bernie and the sad sacks flanking them at the debate made ye olde political calculus: risk vs. reward. What do I have to gain or lose by taking on the NRA? Gain is easy. The party faithful love this anti-gun, anti-NRA, anti-gun lobby stuff. Equally, Hillary needed to put some clear air between herself and Bernie Sanders. The gun issue was the only place she could go. As for risk . . .
The NRA has a group of reliable single-issue voters who can be counted on to show up to the ballot box. The thing is, they’re always there. “They’re not going to be any more motivated more than they already have been,” says Emily Sussman of CAP. When it comes to organizing the single-issue gun voter base, Sussman believes the NRA has “hit their ceiling.” Democrats regard those pro-gun voters as all but out of reach, while seeing a gun reform platform as an opportunity to increase their marginal turnout.
Virginia Senator Tim Kaine captured the new calculus when he told the Washington Post that Hillary Clinton has no reason not to take on the NRA: “I think she has no illusion that even if she didn’t say a word about guns, the NRA would be out there blasting her to say she had a conspiratorial plan to work with the U.N. to take everybody’s guns away,” Kaine said. “So why not go head-on on an issue that will improve safety?”
And here’s where the Yablon and anti-gun Dems (which is all of them) have it disastrously wrong. They forget that millions of pro-gun conservatives boycotted the last two presidential elections. If Hillary survives the Benghazi commission’s grilling and the FBI probe into her emails and somehow makes it to the nomination, every pro-gun voter in the United States will do his or her civic duty and vote for whomever the Republicans provide as an alternative.
Should she receive her Democratic coronation, look for Hillary to try to split the difference. She’ll say “I’m a firm supporter of the Second Amendment. It’s the NRA I hate.” Same deal for Bernie or Biden. It won’t work; the proverbial cat’s out of the bag and most Americans (54 percent in 2013) look favorably on the NRA. But that’s what the Democratic nominee will do to try to win the presidency. Watch this space.
Nope they are going to beat our ass and take our guns.
Just wait and see.
That’s certainly a possibility.
Remember that politics is driven more by events than personality – although presidential elections strike me as no more ideological than the race for high school president. With so many low-info voters and so much exposure to the candidate’s puss, it’s become a popularity contest.
Yep and the media and Hollywood decides who get invited to the party.
This is the single biggest problem (in my opinion) to getting pro-rights candidates exposure and then winning elections.
The one thing I think you might have wrong is your assumption that the pro gun control party base they are ginning up will be content with only voting once.
As ACORN used to say (before they were broken up for criminal activity):
Remember young Dems, vote early, vote often, and honor grandmas memory by making sure her vote counts too.
Acorn is a hydra, and it is alive and well apparently.
http://humanevents.com/2010/04/02/acorn-playing-rebranding-game/
Agree. All the same villains are up to all the same (US taxpayer funded) dirty tricks under other names. At least some of them are working with the Obamacare system.
Starting very much with Reagan, Presidents are merely corporate tools, beholden to the money-men who bought the office for them. The MSM have become lap-dogs, who enjoy the lavish perks of the DC party circuit, and are readily controlled to dutifully sell any narrative as instructed.
Try Leibovich’s This Town for a realistic view of the utterly corrupt and broken system we exist under.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books/review/this-town-by-mark-leibovich.html?_r=0
That started long before Reagan. McKinley maybe. Probably earlier than that.
Since Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924) there have only been a handful of (D)bag mfs as President, and they have all been shills of satan.
None, however, equaled the POS quality of the (D) voters that supported them.
F ALL OF U
Try Jackson, the original Democrat, and his spoils system of rewards. Ignore the SCOTUS, kick the Indians off their lands, homes, and farms in the south, and give that valuable real estate to your loyal supporters and friends who handed you the election. This process of blatant favoritism and corruption has been working well for them ever since (excepting that nasty unpleasantness from 61-65).
Jackson is one of the most significant ones in the long process of transforming the country from that of the founding fathers to that which it is today. Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Wilson, Johnson, etc… all had a role in transforming the federal government into the corrupt colossus it is today. But as far as being in the pocket of big business that had to start in the late 19th century, because there weren’t any companies large enough before then. I know McKinley had strong support from the ‘robber barons’, but I don’t think he was the first either. Grover Cleveland was pro business, Anyway, that aspect of politics started long before Reagan.
Sorry I had to run yesterday and miss this. The point was not ‘corruption’ or taking care of your friends – those things are inherent to high office. The point was corporate interests, and the blatant subservience to the corporate master.
There has always been the influence of the power brokers, but that blew up post-Carter. So much money spent on elections, so much corporate lobbying, so much revolving door, it’s multiplying at an accelerating pace. During the Gipper it was turned up to “8*, during Obama’s tenure it’s been set on warp factor “12”. These are not the doings of the office holders, these are corporate power grabs captioned beautifully by Citizens United.
Washington suppressed the whiskey rebellion (against taxation without representation), vastly favoring his own (and his fellows’) interests over those of the frontier farmers. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
“Remember that politics is driven more by events than personality – although presidential elections strike me as no more ideological than the race for high school president.”
This is why I am very concerned about the Left exploiting tragedy:
“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” – (Rahm Emanuel)
As in a suicidal mentally ill Progressive who hates guns deciding to ‘take one for the team’ by slaughtering a bunch of kids before offing themselves shortly before a major election.
Massive public outrage shortly before a major federal election is something the Left would *love* to exploit.
An attitude like that, I’m sure they WILL take your gun.
My gun stays with me. Win, lose, or draw. It stays.
Depending how far things go and how fast, they might roll both of our bodies in the same open pit.
If things hold for a while then it will be our sons or grandsons blood split. But mark my words the rule of law IS breaking down. We live in two Americas and they don’t like each other and our beliefs are not compatible.
It is only a matter of time.
I seem to remember a meme along the lines of:
“You may take my gun from my dead, bloodied hand, but that will be after I give you all of my bullets first!”
Or, taking into account what one of our Swiss militiamen commenters recently stated, “The gun grabbers will be met with ‘ballistic resistance’.”
“Better that we should die on our feet rather than live on our knees.”
–Emiliano Zapata
https://images.rapgenius.com/b78b9c84d3c8f6d67da2b21c3c555550.480x300x1.jpg
It was only ever a matter of time. The only chance we have is to wall in the cities and stop sending in food.
With an attitude like that, they won’t have to. He will hand it over willingly, just for the asking.
Wait and see.
While I appreciate and agree with your statement, I hate to think how many people that claim to be steadfast in their 2A rights would gladly not just give up their guns when SHTF, but turn in all those that they know of if offered amnesty or even, god forbid, compensation. Everyone talks mad shit, but are rarely capable of any REAL conviction.
Agreed, there are undoubtedly many who live among us. In the words of William above, “Wait and see.” It reminds me of a book I read once, by G.R.R. Martin:
“Proud men might shout that they would sooner die free than live as slaves, but pride was cheap. When the steel struck the flint, such men were rare as dragon’s teeth; elsewise the world would not have been so full of slaves. There has never been a slave who did not choose to be a slave, the dwarf reflected. Their choice may be between bondage and death, but the choice is always there.”
I will agree with your proposition that many people will gladly turn over their guns if ( when ) SHsTF and I will add an addendum to clarify my point . If the Feds manage to tie their entitlement checks to people ( SSI , Medicare , Medicaid , ACA , ADC , on and on ) to gun forfeiture then , yes they will sell their very soul and will be the most vocal afterwards to get others to do so , just like the folks who were coerced into giving up smoking are now the loudest against cigarettes .
Mark S. has it right. They won’t be going through neighborhoods kicking in doors. There will be some of that, but not much I think. They will make people dependent, even if it means denying water and utilities as well as food and medical care. Stalin filled far more trenches through starvation that he did with bullets to the back of the head. The Stalinists here will do the same. If Hillary or someone like her wins, they will not try mass confiscation for now, they will work on registration and making it too risky and difficult for legit firearms manufacturers to sell to civilians. They will also build data-bases from internet data in preparation for when they have enough control of basic resources to bend people to their will.
And the longer they have to prepare by nationalizing means of production, distribution, healthcare, etc., the more likely they will be to actually pull it off. This is why I will pencil in Ted Cruz if the GOPe gives us Bush or Rubio. The slow limp toward slavery plays into the hands of the illiberal left. Let the beast show its face. It may be too strong already, but if we continue down the current path the “progressive” Stalinists will only get stronger while Americans will only get weaker.
Mark –
Then you raille against it, and I won’t hold you personally responsible.
+1. There is a certain inevitability in being a real OFWG.
In the immortal words of Kris Kristofferson: “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to loose.”
Anyway, if I had no children, I have to admit that I might go along to get along, and hope that if worst comes to worst I could live out my years drinking Victory Gin in my Agenda-21 style assigned micro-apartment, slowly dying from age-associated medical conditions for which I cannot receive treatment because I’m retired and no longer a Societal Asset.
Agree, but not so directly. As RF posted the Incrementalism article today, that is the more likely route to civilian disarmament. It is very effective, especially when you consider they will be allowing in millions of immigrants, illegal and legal, who don’t expect any rights, let alone gun rights. There’s always the possibility of more pharmaceutically induced shootings, and to top it off they can always throw in another hoax shooting/false flag. All this against a socially conditioned, dumbed down television controlled public, the 2A has no chance in the medium to long term.
AMERICA sunsets first. GUNS AIN’T THE ONLY ISSUE. Evidence of how it’s ‘chucked’ has already been evidenced throughout human history, in the last 200 years vicious, physical, and brutal rebellions have been visited on people’s a-hole neighbors needing jobs (those holding themselves out as “in charge”).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions
“it must be noted that the founding fathers’ contemporaries, and their contemporary societies and countries, were rife with the recent history of extravagant overthrow of governmental and sociological models. In fact, stable societal pressure was, in evidence, abandoned in-fact, and indeed armed conflict had brought the fruition of “tomorrow” to completion ‘today’ in their experience. Believed-Power was shown not to be, and societal pairs decided the continuing party [the party that was allowed continuance] even without the absolute pressure of basic need becoming the prominent factor. Clearly shared and individual value had brought the immediacy of conflict.
The founding fathers knew with seized and gathering certainty that the individual, regardless of rank was the master of his own destiny. They knew that society was determined by the interaction of paired individuals and that the pairing was wholly dynamic. Moreover, they knew that individual sovereignty ruled, if not reigned.
On the notion of individual sovereignty one individual could say to another “Stand feet shoulder-width in your largest foot gear and draw a chalk line around the soles of your shoes.
The lines alone contain the hallowed ground upon which you are king, until, by you, I am made to move my feet”.” [J.M. Thomas, R., TERMS, 2012, Pp. 76-77]
Summed up briefly, “your life is not worth half a wet tick-turd.” Now attempt to convince me otherwise without a gun.
Individuality itself is under relentless attack in the name of the the group, herd, greater good, collective.
If another Democrat is elected to the White House, our worries are over, because America will be over. A nuclear holocaust or surrender to Islam, or just a complete economic collapse, take your pick. Any way you slice it we’ll all be survivalists then, so let’s fight with everything we have to get the legal voters out and make sure it doesn’t happen this time. I don’t hate Democrats, don’t have much love for Republicans, but the recent record speaks for itself. We keep saying it’s time for a change, well it’s fifty years past time for a change, how about we get it done?
Correction: They’ll TRY to take our guns. We outnumber them. If they try, it’d be the last thing they do.
Correction: They would TRY to take them. With 100 million of us, they won’t succeed. And most of them wouldn’t make it out in one piece.
That’s the thing, there’s not enough “them.” But they can pass laws to destroy the gun culture or drive it so far underground that it’s almost as bad.
You could be right about that first part.
You’re probably right, seeing how Republicans will either run another Democrat as a Republican (like Romney) or they’ll go for the most batshit crazy religious fanatic who wants to institute a theocratic dictatorship.
The US will split into multiple countries before that happens. Don’t give up. Especially while we are ahead for the first time in decades. However, I have a feeling you’re just a troll trying to stir things up. If not, having a fatalistic attitude never helped anyone.
Okay, I take back what I said about you being a troll. It’s just that we have gained too much ground to give up. Remember, when this country was founded there were no other free countries and only a small percentage supported the revolution. Eternal vigilance my friend.
I think they know something we don’t , mainly Barry’s upcoming bamboozle , soon to arrive at a propaganda MSM outlet near you and me and everyone else .
It’s coming , they just want to be included .
An attitude like that, I’m sure they WILL take your gun.
My gun stays with me. Win, lose, or draw. It stays.
It’s debatable that McAuliffe “handily” beat Cuccinelli, unless you call three points handy. Everyone was surprised it was so close, with the media piling on Cuccinelli and money pouring in to McAuliffe’s campaign. He should have won by 10 points at least, oh but for those pesky issue voters.
The House in VA also became 2/3 Republican and the Senate just over half. The Dems only won a few districts (not counting the ones they were running unopposed).
The major population centers were responsible for McAuliffe’s narrow victory.
yep, this ^
Terry McAuliffe won by 2.5% with name recognition (Bush 43 era dnc chairman if I recall), out spent Ken Cuccinelli 1.75:1, in a state packed with statist DC transplants while then current Republican Governor Bob McDonnell was under investigation for what ended up as a Federal indictment on corruption charges the following January.
And I am going to belabor the point again — Cuccinelli and his insane pick for a Lt. Governor candidate were so pandering to the anti-abortion voters that it guaranteed a higher feminist turnout in the D areas of the state.
I’m not sure the feminazi coalition commands enough votes by themselves to make the greater than 2.5% margin McAuliffe had on election night. As justsomeguy mentions below, establishment republicans abandoned Cuccinelli, withholding support and money which I think had a larger impact than the vaunted political force that are feminists.
….and Cuccinelli received no support from the Republican establishment.
Despite some of his statements last night, I think it’s a mistake to rule out Sanders as a legitimate choice, even for a gun owner. The worst you can really say about him is that he’s inconsistent. Keep in mind, he’s taking a more moderate position in a rabidly anti-2A party. In front of a huge, Democrat audience he stood up and said that yes, there are issues around violence that need to be addressed, but we need to focus on mental health and inequality that are the real sources of these problems. Think about that for a moment. That takes some serious brass ones to espouse a point of view that you know is anathema to your audience. A willingness to stand up to your own party when they are demonstrably wrong on an issue means this is someone we could work with. Could he directly come out and say that holding manufacturer’s liable for third-party criminal activity is insane? Of course not, he might as well pack it in if he were to do that. But he did the next best thing, namely to redirect the conversation to things that could actually stand a chance of working.
On the Republican side, of course you can get plenty of candidates that say pro-2A things. There’s no risk for them. If anything, the fact that Bush is wishy-washy EVEN WHEN THERE IS NO POLITICAL DANGER, should be seriously concerning. All they’re doing is sticking their finger in the air and checking which way the wind is blowing. You can expect them to do an about-face as soon it becomes politically advantageous.
No mistake.
Kyle , I will pay you $ 100.00 to stop this nonsense and cast your vote to Ted Cruz , That is $ 100.00 cold hard cash . That is always how it’s been done here in ? That’s not important , cold hard cash , cash for Cruz .
The only man that can restore what’s been lost .
A) Pass
B) Cruz opposes lots of things. I have yet to see him come up with much in the way of actual solutions. Take the ACA. Great, you think it’s a garbage piece of legislation. As do I. But we still have a problem with healthcare in this country in that 1) It’s way too expensive for everyone and 2) Low and middle income families essentially don’t get access to healthcare, which has enormous knock-on effects on societal and economic levels. Repealing the ACA is fine, but it won’t address those problems, and as far as I know he hasn’t offered alternatives. Same goes for several other subjects.
Cruz was all too happy to let the government continue to ignore constitutional requirements for probable cause before warrants are issued.
But hey, the government isn’t storing your data now, private industry is with the requirement they hand it over for the asking. Feel better now?
Rand Paul would be a better choice in that respect.
Question to the tues of yues , if I get Cruz through to the nomination as the republican nominee , will you vote for Ted Cruz over the Dem. nominee or will you simply not vote ?
He said he wants to ban the private sale of guns and ban scary looking weapons (I can’t remember if he said magazine bans too). You must have sustained a major head injury if you think he’s not anti-gun.
I didn’t say I think he’s pro-gun, I’m saying he is not caving to all the lunacy that Hilary and Co are throwing around. Don’t get me wrong, he still isn’t “in our camp”. However, in the current Democrat environment, being moderate is a ballsy move. It indicates to me that he would be willing to listen to a well-reasoned, factual argument because he’s taking a risk by not going with the flow. Contrast that with several of the Republican candidates, who won’t stand up for the 2A even though it carries zero risk for them.
Please explain what twisted logic you’re using to define a scary looking weapons ban, ban on private sales of guns, and magazine capacity restrictions as “moderate”.
Have you listened to Hilary lately?
Far left doesn’t become “moderate” just because someone else is even further left. That’s like saying murder is a moderate crime because some people commit mass murder.
I don’t know, I think Bernie has taken the path of least resistance his entire career when it comes to guns. When he was in Vermont he was pro-gun…ish… because it’s Vermont. Now that he’s in the primary he’s anti-gun. I suppose we could hope that the national election would result in a Bernie somewhere around Bill Clinton levels, but that’s still pretty bad.
There is a difference between what he’ll say to get elected, and what he’ll actually do once elected.
For Sanders, the single most important issue is economy (specifically, wealth and income inequality). Second is social justice. Guns, if they’re on the list, are somewhere rather far down.
If you look at his track record in Congress, he’s also a very pragmatic politician – not in a sense that he will renege on his ideals, but in a sense that he’s willing to compromise and work across the aisle to get some of what he wants (in a situation where the only realistic alternative is not getting anything at all).
Now, to get anywhere on his main issues, he will need Congress. And even if the next election will make it majority Democrat again – which is unlikely – he’ll still need more than a simple majority to get things done, the way things are. This means that he’ll have to offer up something for trade, and, being pragmatic, he’ll start working from the bottom of the list up. Which, I think, means that guns are one of those things that will be the first to be put on the bargaining table.
In a way, this is similar to Obama and ACA, except that Obama has actually got what he wanted pretty fast, and then was free to pursue his other goals. But what Sanders set as his goal is much, much more ambitious, and he himself said that he’ll never actually achieve all of it even if elected.
So, all in all, I wouldn’t worry too much about a gun grab under President Sanders.
Hillary, though…
The gun control issue didn’t effect the the Virginia governor race because Cuccinelli was so terrible. He had actually advocated changing the Virginian state seal/flag because there was an exposed breast on the figure of Virtus. He was the personification of the nanny state Tea Party (the wing that wants to control your private life and govern morality). Virginia is a moderate state and both parties were swinging to the extremes. Even though McAuliffe won it was still very close, if the Republicans had put up someone even REMOTELY palatable the race would have gone the other way. It came down to a lesser of two evils situation for most swing voters.
Both sides are looking too much into the Virginia race, the Democrats are trying to sell it as proof that leftist ideals can win purple states, Republicans are trying to sell it as they didn’t go far enough to the extreme right.
Komando, all good points. When Cuccinelli snatched the nom from Bolling, he looked overly ambitious.But Cooch wasn’t quite as bad as everyone made him out to be. When he defended the antisodomy law, he was acting as Attorney General, who has a duty to defend the state’s laws, a fact that’s lost on our current AG. Besides, that case involved a minor, something glossed over by the media, who just wanted to paint him as anti-gay (even though it was a man and a girl in this case). The seal flap was stupid. But how many awful things did McAuliffe do that were glossed over by reporters? The Washington Post refused to endorse him. So they endorsed no one.
Tea Party (the wing that wants to control your private life and govern morality)
Nope. There is no Tea Party. It is a movement, a group of people that are Taxed Enough Already and want limited government. You have been fed a lie and swallowed it whole.
Lies, deflection, and bribery. These are the tools of the (fascist) progressives. It doesn’t matter the topic. 35% of the voting public will believe anything the Democrats say because their voter base is willfully ignorant. Free college education. WTF is that? The 35% hear that and cheer and don’t even care that someone else has to pay for it. Of course the NRA is an evil, money grubbing, civil war mongering terrorist organization that needs to be wiped off the planet. Because the 35% keep hearing all about it therefor it must be true. Who needs armor piercing, 30 round/second, large capacity, barrel shrouded weapons of war anyway? They have absolutely no clue of the damage they are doing by voting for these people. And the saddest part is they don’t even care as long as the Democrats keep proclaiming they will (support them) give them free shit.
A pedantic point: the phrase should really be “split the difference,” not “split the baby.” To split the baby is to devise an ingenious solution to an intractable problem. To try to have it both ways or compromise is splitting the difference.
http://lexicide.com/splitting-the-baby/
Point taken. Text amended.
If Hillary…makes it to the nomination, every pro-gun voter in the United States will do his or her civic duty and vote for whomever [is the best] alternative.
FIFY. There are people in the R race who are no alternative. And GOP leadership strongly wants one of them to be nominated.
“There are people in the R race who are no alternative. And GOP leadership strongly wants one of them to be nominated.”
cough, cough, (Bush), cough, cough.
JEB doesn’t seem to be as bad on guns as GWB, and I hope nobody in the RINO race is as bad as GHWB, but JEB, who is married to an immigrant and ought to know better, can’t seem to figure out the difference between immigration and criminal invasion.
They’re not loath to BE jack-booted thugs, of course. They just don’t want to LOOK like it.
LGBT issue is one thing. The right to keep and bear arms is another.
For the Dems, this is a bridge too far.
The Dems are going to push gun control as a presidential-election issue?
Only please, Brer Fox, please don’t throw me into the briar patch…
I hope that’s right, but I’m not sure. I’ve seen a depressing turnout in some places, even among rural “gun friendly” people come election time. After the NY SAFE Act was rammed through the people had a chance to throw out the bums that did it, but turnout in upstate was abysmal.
Where did this dumbass learn to draw? lol
Yep, same here. I will not give up my guns. I certainly do not want to see a modern day Lexington or Concord, but by God, I will not allow this country to slide irreversibly into tyranny. Gun confiscation is a red line for me, and unlike the Obama Regime’s foreign policy failures, my red line is real. BUT, I do not think that the Democrat Party is that stupid, though. Even if they were that stupid, I doubt that the small portion of the US military that would blindly follow their unlawful orders would be strong enough to enforce it. I suspect that the Democrat Party has jumped the shark, that they are going to lose the White House and lose more seats around the US in this next election, so I think we will be fine.
I have a relative in the NAVY, who is also a gun owner. He is not a POTG though. I recently had a discussion with him about gun rights, and he has basically told me that even though he “loves his guns” he would be okay with more gun control if that is what they said needed to happen to prevent more violence…
The good news is he is only going to be in the NAVY for another few months. I don’t think he will be taking orders to fight “enemy combatants” here at home. But I also don’t think he has the ability to choose not to do that for himself if he was told it needed to be done.
When you get thrown onto a big boat and are tossed about by the waves for long durations of time with no way off , and under the complete control of THE MAN , you tend to get a little liberal , I think . Like the folks that live in these big mega cities , way to reliant on big government for their sustenance . In the country you grow most of your own food , you feed your hogs and chickens what your family won’t eat , your guinea hens clear your yard of ticks and insect larvae , your horses goats and cows eat your grass , you burn your trash , drink water that comes out of a hole in your own ground , you hunt for your meat , harvest your own grains , bake your own bread and heat your home in the winter with a renewable source called wood , from your own land . What do you need government for ? I even repair my own section of state road .
Maybe. Just like I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Mitt Romney in 2012, I sure as hell won’t vote for Jeb Bush or Krisp Krispy in 2016.
People like you are the reason that we have ObamaCare, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor.
Thanks for nothing. Get off your ass and vote next time.
Yeh, maybe you’re right chip, and I agree with you a lot of the time. BUT maybe its people with that lesser of two evils mentality that are still voting for evil.
The place to cast an ideological vote is in the primary. In the general election, you vote party. Otherwise, you cut off your nose to spite your face.
I speak as one who has cast many an ideological vote in the primary, all the way back to the first presidential election I was old enough to participate in: I voted for Alan Keyes in the primary, and George W. Bush in the general.
Maybe its time to leave the party to demonstrate the dissatisfaction
If you keep voting party line in the general election no matter what, you’re basically telling to your party leadership that they can nominate anyone. Their logical takeaway is that they should nominate someone as moderate as possible while still being able to slap the party brand on him, because a moderate will attract more undecided voters, and possibly even snatch some from the other side of the aisle, while hardliners like you on this side will hold their nose and vote for him anyway, so there’s no downside to ignoring their demands.
TL;DR: if you don’t like the likes of Romney but will vote for them, you will never get to vote for anything else. Ever.
This goes for both parties, by the way.
Speaking as someone who did, in the end, hold his nose and vote for McCain and then for Romney, I would have to disagree with you here.
The reason we have Obamacare and Sotomayor are people like McCain and Romney and, much more importantly, the idiots who decided that each one would get to take his turn and be the nominee.
BINGO.
I thought I needed to vote for GWB to keep McCain from winning, so I did it.
I thought I needed to vote for GWB to keep Gore from winning, so I did that too.
Now I have to suffer the consequences…unPatriotic Act, DHS, TSA, etc, etc.
I get on my knees and pray, I won’t get fooled again. Won’t Be Fooled Again!
I did not vote for McCain (remember 8 years earlier that I voted for George Wanker Bush just to keep McCain out of the White House).
I did not vote for White Obama With a Better Haircut (anybody else remember RomneyCare?).
And I won’t vote R in 2016 if they stick us with anybody more tyrannical than Ben Carson.
How tyrannical would Hilary Clinton or Bernie Sanders be, compared to any of the current field of GOP candidates? Because it isn’t the tyranny of even Jeb Bush you’d be avoiding; it would be the tyranny of Hilary Clinton you’d be actively abetting.
Chip, no matter how many times you say it, voting for freedom does not equal abetting tyranny.
Nor does refusing to vote for slightly less tyranny.
Except that, if you actually cast a vote, then none of my comments are directed toward you. Thus, the first half of your comment is a straw man. I commented on those who chose not to vote.
And if you think that President Romney would have given us ObamaCare and supreme court justices Sotomayor and Kagan, then we are at an impasse.
Chip you are focusing on individuals. If you step back and look at the big picture are you affiliated with an establishment that barely aligns with your world view and poorly represents your ideals?
The GOP establishment certainly doesn’t align with my ideals. Grassroots GOP, however, does.
Also: the US is a two-party system. I don’t foresee anything changing that reality, at this point.
I can agree with Chip that those who refuse to vote have no right to complain about the results of the vote.
And that it would have been really hard for Romney to come up with two SCOTUS choices as awful as Sotomayor and Kagan.
But I’m still proud to have voted for Ron Paul in the primary and Bob Barr in the 2008 general election.
A lot prouder than I would have been if I’d voted for the only guy in the country who had signed into law a requirement that all citizens purchase something from private companies.
“The American People will be forced to buy what we tell them or they will be fined.” said no Founding Father
No, we’d still have them because idiots like you wanted us to vote for a Republican pushing THE SAME DAMN POLICIES. Mitt Romney was the original creator of Obamacare, yet people like you insisted “No, he’s a Republican, he’ll overturn Obamacare!”. Mitt Romney had an anti-gun record longer than Hillary’s list of crimes, yet people like you insisted “No, he’s a Republican, he’ll push for better gun rights!”. You need to pull your head out of your ass and stop viewing elections in a childish “Republican good, Democrat bad” manner – especially since there’s virtually no difference between Republican and Democrat candidates these days (abortion and gay marriage are the only real differences, since at least half of the Republican politicians love gun control).
Stop voting for anti-freedom Republicans just because they have an R after their name. Stop supporting the one-party Republicrat system. Stop saying that you hate evil, yet continually voting for evil politicians while insulting anyone who has the courage to say “No, I’m NOT going to be complicit and vote for evil”.
Or, I could be a rational adult, and recognize that the polarization of our current system precludes even the possibility of a viable third party. Under that recognition, what would you propose as the alternative?
Other than George W. Bush’s second term, I don’t think I’ve ever voted for a primary candidate who went on to win the nomination. But I’m not naive enough to think that a third-party vote in the general election is anything other than a virtual vote for the candidate least-ideologically aligned to me.
You could stop wearing your R. Let the GOPs numbers shrink. Send you’re message that way
It’s hilarious that you say blindly voting for a party because “That was the clique I chose 30-40 years ago!” (sorry, hard to tell how old you are) is “being an adult”. An adult votes for a candidate based on their positions, not on a f-ing R or D next to their name.
The only thing blind here are your assumptions. Carry on.
Chip can I ask you this? Are you a Republican or are you a proud Republican?
I’m a conservative, registered as a Republican. I support candidates, and don’t give a penny to the party.
If I recall correctly you’re religious?
What I’m getting at Chip is you wear your 2A badge, your religious badge(?), and so on with pride. You probably even give these organizations money. If you cant wear it proudly then its probably time to drop it. Chip I think you are a Republican only because you haven’t been to the post office to get the new paperwork yet.
Nah. Neither you nor any party is entitled to someone’s vote when that party puts forth a terrible candidate. Eventually- maybe this cycle, maybe not- they’ll learn to stop doing that. OR the party will collapse again (has certainly happened before) and we will get a realignment. That seems overdue.
Of course we could just make all of this better by dropping this idiotic election system we have and changing it to one that doesn’t reward mediocrity via ‘winner takes all” in each state…
I’m sure Americans are too dumb / lazy to make it happen, but with a growing number of moderates and members of both the Republican and Democrat parties leaning libertarian, now would be a great time to make it a full on three-person race.
If we’re to believe the LGBT issue is settled I can point to a not so small number of folks who voted (D) despite the danger to the 2nd only for LGBT reasons.
So wouldn’t some of those voters be moving on to protecting the 2nd A rights now that LGBT issues are settled?
Of course nothing is ever settled with politicians eager to whip up frenzies and a population that loves to be whipped up.
Oooohhh. You bring up a really good point. I don’t know anyone personally who fits your description … nevertheless I can picture a lot of people in that camp. We might just have enough voters this time to support our right to keep and bear arms.
See, I know gays who are pretty middle of the road and would vote Republican now that gay marriage is legal nationwide. However, at least 2/3 of the Republican candidates keep spewing hatred for gays, which means that if they get the nomination, those gay people will NOT vote for them. It would be like the SCOTUS actually repealing all unconstitutional gun laws and saying that no future anti-gun laws will be tolerated, but a candidate still spews hatred towards gun owners – would you vote for them? Nope!
Republicans are going to keep losing at the national level until they put down the Bible and go back to being the party of small government, not the party of religious fanatics who want to jail anyone different from them.
[Citation Needed]
Watch any Republican debate. But then again, you admitted earlier that candidates positions don’t matter to you, you’ll blindly for whoever has an R after their name on the ballot.
That’s a long-winded way to say that either you have nothing, or that you’re too lazy to back up your BS.
And while you’re at it, if you’re not too busy being too lazy to back up that BS, why don’t you go ahead and cite where I said that I “blindly vote”, mmkay, pumpkin?
>> So wouldn’t some of those voters be moving on to protecting the 2nd A rights now that LGBT issues are settled?
Not for as long as GOP keeps claiming that it’s not settled, and that they’ll keep trying to find roundabout ways to upset it.
For us in the pro-gay-rights (and more broadly, individual social rights) crowd, you could picture it kinda like this: we have defeated the enemy and drove them into the hills, and we know they’re there to stay for good so long as we hold our ground – but we still get random harassing fire from that direction, so we know that we need to hold the ground, or we will lose it eventually.
Give it another decade or so, and then what you said might actually apply.
Of course, there will be other wedge issues then…
Because this is the primary and not the general election. Just as the Republican hopefuls are, they are trying to appeal to as broad a base as possible. Should HRC get the nom, she will likely back off the anti-NRA rhetoric, because it will cost her rural voters on fence.
No doubt the 5 million NRA members are overwhelmingly people who always vote, and always vote pro-2A.
But there are 100 million or so gun owners in the country. So the question pertains to the other 95 million. They’re probably mostly Republican but not overwhelmingly so, and they probably have a 50% or 60% turnout in your average election.
My prognostication is with Farago on this. Hillary is motivating those 95 million people to show up and vote R. And she’s desperate enough to roll the dice and see what happens.
If the entirety of the 5 million members of the NRA voted every cycle, and voted single issue, we would see much better turnouts at the polls every time.
I shouldn’t point fingers… This is the first time I’ve ever wanted to vote for president.
If everyone lived as though they understood that upholding the Constitution actually requires the threat of physical violence upon your neighbors that merely disagree or hold it in contempt, then few of these things would be at-issue.
Are you seriously advocating physical violence in response to merely disagreeing with something in the Constitution?
“The NRA has a group of reliable single-issue voters who can be counted on to show up to the ballot box. The thing is, they’re always there. “They’re not going to be any more motivated more than they already have been,” says Emily Sussman of CAP. When it comes to organizing the single-issue gun voter base, Sussman believes the NRA has “hit their ceiling.” Democrats regard those pro-gun voters as all but out of reach, while seeing a gun reform platform as an opportunity to increase their marginal turnout.”
Maybe the current NRA has hit its ceiling, but a Shrillary candidacy could add another 3-5 million people to the NRA’s rolls. The real threat is apathy if the GOP candidate sucks. Romney really wasn’t the evil plutocrat that the Dems/MSM painted him as, but perception trumps reality.
If Bush somehow gets the nod, it’ll be the same result as last time: millions of no-show conservatives.
This time round, though, there might be the same effect with Bernie supporters if Hillary gets the nomination. I can tell you that a lot of people who like Bernie can’t stomach Hillary.
I suppose it’s all down to what the other side will field. If Hillary ends up running against Trump, even most left-leaning people who hate her will come and vote for her just to make sure Trump doesn’t get elected. I don’t know which candidate will elicit similarly strong pushback on the right – if I had to guess, it would be Sanders because of his “socialist” label, but based on what I’m seeing online, many conservatives would actually prefer him over her even so.
Perception trumps reality, are you talking about how the Governor of Alaska was too inexperienced to be VP, but the Senator of Do-Nothing was the ideal pick for President?
Ultimately it comes down to this; There are single issue voters, and then there are voters willing to go to their graves over that single issue. It would behoove the left to figure out the difference.
Those willing to take that issue to their graves have no intention of going alone.
THAT is what the people cheering for Hillary’s extremist statements need to start thinking about.
Well, at least they are coming right out with it. Obama was smart enough to fool some people the first time around, now there should be no excuses.
If hillary wins and pushes gun control then I predict the US enters a period of widespread civil disobedience.
The few LEOs that I know enjoy their 2A freedoms as much as I do. As do the LEOs on here. In the more extreme scenarios you’d see a split in the ranks of the enforcers.
vv ind,
Be careful extrapolating your friend’s ardent support of the 2nd Amendment: assuming that you ardently support the 2nd Amendment, you will naturally have friends who ardently support the 2nd Amendment and you will naturally NOT associate with people who ardently oppose the 2nd Amendment.
So, to say that most of your friends would stand-up for the 2nd Amendment in the face of opposition — and therefore most everyone else would do the same — may not reflect reality. World history has shown countless times that government enforcers virtually always do the bidding of the ruling class. Dare I say that the U.S. Revolution is the only large scale example of disobedience than I can recall.
Note: I believe government enforcers overwhelmingly support the ruling class because the ruling class pays them and the enforcers perceive an opportunity to climb the proverbial ladder and become a member of the ruling class. Couple that with the fact that there is very little chance enforcers will pay any personal penalty if the ruling class collapses, and …
I agree to an extent. Does mass disobedience have to be public? In the instances of protests and demonstrations it is public.
Would you classify something like paying cash or horse-trading goods and services to avoid double taxation as mass civil disobedience?
I know that it is a fairly widespread practice.
How many LEOs from across the country, or even National Guardsmen, resisted tyranny in Louisiana in 2005?
AFAIK, the answer is….ZERO.
If a JAG lawyer had told me that it was OK to provide backup for door to door confiscations as long as we didn’t physically steal the guns ourselves, I’d ask him who goes to prison for bank robberies, does the guy pointing the gun at the tellers go to prison or just the guy carrying the bag of money?
Then I’d shoot him.
Until their superiors threaten them with firings / loss of benefits over disobedience. Same for soldiers who insist they’d never fire on Americans – as soon as they’re threatened with life in jail or execution and their families being left with nothing, they’ll fall in line real quick. That’s why you should never try to be the “good guy” working for an evil organization, because at one point or another, they’ll ensure that you perform evil deeds.
CT, NY. We’re already there.
As a New Yorker I do appreciate the widespread non-compliance of the SAFE Act. To be fair though, push still has not come to shove. We told government to piss off, and that is basically what happened. They didn’t have the gall to take it further. I don’t think we would be as proud of the patriots in this state if Cuomo decided to go full Nazi.
CO, although its recent laws are not nearly as onerous as CT’s and NY’s are, is another example. Many gun dealers sell “parts kits” for>15 round magazines, that happen to already be assembled. Others don’t even bother with that subterfuge and just sell the things straight out. No one gives a crap.
I think that is the model. There’s no widespread confiscation, despite non-compliance, but it has turned gun owners into criminals who have to look over their shoulders.
i think we’re pretty much already at that point, with Connecticut and New York refusing registration and confiscation, Oregon and Washington refusing to comply with private party sale background checks, etc. Many other states didn’t have to disobey, they handily changed their laws for the better.
I have had the same thought.
It is simply another way of stating the idea that each party feels compelled to win the votes of their most “extreme” supporters since they cannot win the votes of the other side. It is why many people predict that our nation will continue to get ever more polarized.
And populated…..By “dreamers”
Which is amusing since more and more people from both parties (and moderates) are moving to (or at least leaning in favor of) libertarianism, which both Republicans and Democrats fear with a passion because it means less power for them.
Remember those articles TTAG ran about gun/2A-loving liberals? What about it, guys?
They’ll do what the pro-gun liberals I’ve talked to (in person and online) always do – vote for whoever has a D next to their name because “gun rights aren’t that important”.
If a Democrat makes it into the White House, I can only hope it is not Hillary. Both her and Barry still think that there is a “gun show loophole” when it has been closed for years. Barry would be the lesser of two evil though.
What this nation needs is a president who will cook and eat bacon off the barrel of an AR, not some anti-constitutional Pecksniffian tyrant. Now where will we find such a leader?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8
Ted Cruz will save us from the garbage heap or try . That’s all . The only one .
Why did Cruz call bacon cooked with a semi-auto ‘Full-Auto Bacon’?
Cuz when you run 60 rounds of anything in full auto you have officially put the burner on high , the optimum bacon frying temp .
OR
to get the the other side .
Ted Cruz put McAuliffe in the Governor’s Mansion not his position on guns or the movement of “wealthy Washingtonians” into Northern Virginia. Movement conservatives have mastered the fine art of the meaningless gesture. Cruz’s antics shut down the campaign for 6 weeks. After all if that the margin of victory was inside the third party total This is the primary reason why I don’t like Cruz. He show boated a Democrat into the Virginia statehouse.
You cannot separate the Democrats position on guns and armed self defense from #blacklivesmatter. While you are holed up behind your personal Maginot Line waiting for the jackbooted thugs to breakdown the door the Democrats are outflanking you by teaming up with the gangs to enforce party control over society. They don’t even have to take away your guns to do this. Just take away your right to self defense when a gangbanger like Michael Brown comes calling. If you want to stop the Democrats you need to get your collective heads out of your anti-police rear ends and stop paying attention to Ted Cruz and the politics of the futile gesture.
Maybe. But if Ted ends up with the nomination, he has my vote. Right now for me, it’s between Carson and Cruz, the rest are just a waste of air and space, but of course the party would prefer another team player rather than the possibility of any real change.
You sound like typical Obana hope and change voter. And be sure to stay home when someone besides Cryz wins the nomination. I hope you enjoy President Hilkary.
“Why Democratic Presidential Candidates Are Grabbing the “Third Rail” of Gun Control”
Why people who care if Democratic Presidential Candidates Are Grabbing the “Third Rail” of Gun Control are actually grabbing the “Third Leg” of public opinion.
FWIW, I wasn’t a single-issue voter before, but I’ve become one thanks to the blatant lies used to promote the anti-gun agenda. I’m also not an NRA member. Yet. So that calculus of hitting the ceiling is off by one. At least.
Same here — so it’s off by at least two.
I’ve always been an independent-minded voter and have voted for candidates from both parties. Not very long ago, my votes went about 2/3 to the Democrats. But their post-Newtown anti-gun insanity changed my mind.
I’m not a single-issue voter, I’m a freedom-minded voter, and the Democratic party’s stance on gun control is the window to its dark, authoritarian, anti-American soul. I’ll die before I vote for another Democrat — unless their party dies first.
Sanders has taken the democratic primary so ridiculously left that Clinton has to take a strong position on gun control to make herself leftist enough. Don’t worry, after the primary she will get back to the middle and the gun issue will fade away during the Presidential race. Their play on guns is a long term grind and the incremental frog in a pot approach. The Republican nominee will make it an issue if he/she is smart.
I shut up a lefty friend the other night by asking him what terror organization was responsible for more deaths a day in the US than the 90 often quoted due to guns. His response was “the Police.” Nope, Planned Parenthood. There are about 3500 abortions a day in the US on average. The NRA is a terrorist organization?
I don’t recall gun control being a being a big issue in the Va governor’s race. There were a lot of commercials on abortion and gay marriage. I cannot recall a single one on gun rights/control.
major population centers The change there consisting of Fed employees hired by the Obumer admin.
Clinton, Sanders or Biden will be the Democratic Nominee. We know where they stand on “gun control”. As I have said before, it is the Electoral College Vote that decides the Presidency. Right now twelve States that control 198 of the 270 needed to elect the POTUS are nearly 100% guaranteed to go Democrat and eleven of them are positively committed to cast their 169 ECV’s for the Democrat Nominee by their State Law (Florida with 29 ECV’s is not committed, but very likely to the Dems, as in 2012). It’s better to Vote for whoever the Republicans Nominate and it is imperative for everyone to Vote. By various sources between 60 and 90 million eligible Voters did not vote in 2012. That’s a huge problem.
Debating who is “pro gun” enough in the face of the Democrats’ stated determination to enact more “gun control” laws that will do nothing to actually reduce gun-involved violence is a waste of time. Ignoring the potential outcome of the Electoral College Vote and the facts and trends pertaining thereto is short-sighted and dangerous.
We have to wrest the Executive Branch from the Democrats in 2016 and that is the only thing that matters.
Yep, pretty much this.
I know who I would like to see on the R ticket, but I’m going to vote for the person who has the best chance to keep a Dem out of the White House for another term.
Face palm
Gun control is all the Democrats have to talk about. You don’t expect them to talk about importing voters, voter fraud and giving away free sh!t, do you?
Mcauliffe won because of the government shutdown at the time. Cucinelli was winning in the polls up until the shutdown happened. The polls accurately predicted the election results. This is of course not to mention the libertarian candidate who siphoned off votes from Cucinelli. But hey, let’s just ignore basic election fundamentals, because guns.
Here is another election fundamental, third party candidates siphon off more D voters than R voters so if it wasn’t for the third party candidate the voter margins would look worse for Republicans.
I chaired a gun owners’ rights PAC during the Va Gov election: DEAD WRONG! I busted my ass to make he election about guns, zip. Bloomberg tried desperately to make it about guns. Not only did he get nowhere, the rabidly anti-gun Washington comPost gave him THREE PINOCCHIOS
I just renewed my NRA, joined SAF and GOA. Gotta do my part to make sure that nasty evil gun lobby can buy influence on the Hill.
I won’t vote. Haven’t in years. The RNC can go pound sand.
Thank you for proving my point.
You Sir are one of the reason they shall win and take our guns.
We are too proud to fight their game and too foolish to win.
Can’t we all just agree that all (D)s are POS’?
I really don’t give a flyin’ F IF you agree, I’m just wondering to myself if it’s possible.
FU(D)
Eight years ago it was…
You didn’t build that.
“they cling to their guns and religion”
If you want to keep your doctor and health care you can.
Not a smiggin of impropriety at the IRS.
Constitution…I have a pen and a phone.
Will win elections by mass immigration.
Democrates are changing this country at no cost to themselves and fully supported by republicans.
No use having a conversation, when in the end Democrats legislate what they want.
If they are not systematically voted to the unemployment line. Then we blame ourselves.
The big orange flag in the photo, That’s the sorriest reproduction of a firearm I’ve ever seen. A kindergarten pupil could do better!
My prediction falls along the same lines as participation in the revolution. If Democrats win, and get a ban, the following will happen:
1/3 will line up to turn them in
1/3 will wait for the knock on the door and capitulate
1/3 will resist, violently is need be
I expect roughly the same split from those ordered to get them. Some will charge out gleefully, some will sit on the sideline or go home and wait for it to be over, and some will resist the unconstitutional order
At least we are free unlike those poor slobs in Russia.
They can have my guns; ammo first.*
*All ammo leaves my possession at a minimum speed of 1000fps.
We’ve not seen the last criminal event, there will be others. But who stands at the helm and oversees these matters does matter. A leader can steer the ship into a storm or clear water. The best choice is not always clear until the moment presents itself. In a Country in which a Constitution exists, it is profoundly imperative to the security of the Constitution to have a leader secure it its protection.
“Our successes are confirmed by the voracity of our enemies’ cries demonizing us”
Just Me.
Does anyone believe that the party will change its tune because someone of substance in the MSM warned them about such public displays? Yeah, me neither – the cats’ out that bag, man. They’d have to put it in writing with a “get out of the White House” clause to even consider their platform.
Now I’m going to be labeled Converted Liberal Gun Club Deserter
The problem can only be remedied until after everyone embraces the actual problem – WHY anyone would want to shoot up the world – which has clearly appeared to be for the perceived notoriety. Take that out of the equation and the problem will become something else, wherever the same crazies decide to go and do something to gain fame at death. These are suicidal people, so start helping them before the go violent. Or something like that.
Whatever- the whole tired azz dumbocrat “debate” was a sick joke. Who can be the most commie bastard idiot? Millions of folks are legally arming up. SEE: 2014 mid-term erection…I just hope the repubs put a decent candidate in…Ted for prez.
I don’t forsee any sort of national ban or confiscation flying because unlike Russia or other countries, we are a union of states, and like 1860, it would lead to a Civil War.
I think we are doing ourselves a disservice with comment like this “anti-gun Dems (which is all of them)” while most of them are not all are and pigeon holing the pro gun Dems only hurts our cause as it furthers the divide in the country. If we can bring some Dems to the Pro-Gun side then guns won’t become the issue they can rally their voters in order win the war we need to bring them along with us!
Pretty simple for me, if you are for gun control and against the 2nd Amendment and the NRA…you do not get my vote.
Comments are closed.