Senator Charles Schumer Advises Democrats to Back Off of Gun Control


Chuck Schumer wants Democrats to keep far away from gun control before the midterm elections.

Your average Congresscritter has about as much cranial capacity as a bag of hammers. Like the hedgehog, they know one important thing: never say or do anything that will endanger your stream of campaign cash or rile up your opposition in the run-up to an election. Which nicely explains why the Senate’s Chief Minority Hedgehog, New York’s Charles Schumer, is advising his fellow Democrats to ease off the post-Las Vegas gun control push.

Say what you will about Chuckie, he’s much more like the fox than the hedgehog. He knows from decades of experience that gun control is a sure-fire electoral loser for Dems.

Schumer, focused on next year’s midterm elections, thinks it is smarter to focus on economics — specifically President Trump’s tax plan, which Democrats say is a giveaway to corporations and the rich, and GOP proposals to cut Medicare and Medicaid.

But that kind of realpolitik isn’t sitting well with the hard left’s activist zealots and some of the party’s dimmest legislative bulbs.

“Democrats need to find courage and learn to speak to the issue,” said Ladd Everitt, director of 1Pulse4America, a gun-violence prevention group created after the Orlando nightclub shooting in 2016.

“There’s a lot of anger in this movement about the response from Democrats right now. People think it’s totally inadequate,” he added.

One of the Democrats' dimmest bulbs, California Senator Kamala Harris.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) tweeted Wednesday night that the country should be talking about answers to gun violence.

“The deadliest mass shooting in our country’s history was 16 days ago,” she wrote. “Conversations about gun violence have faded. We can’t accept that.”

Like the senior senator from New York, Democrat strategists have learned the hard way that touching the third rail of gun control can lead to third degree electoral burns. It’s one of the major reasons the GOP finally took control of the House in 1994 after the Clinton assault weapons ban.

After 20 children and six adults were murdered in Newtown, Dems once again thought the horror of the event would provide the necessary public support they’d need to reenact another black rifle ban. But even with bipartisan sponsorship they couldn’t even manage a “universal background check” bill.

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was sure the time for gun control had arrived after the Pulse Nightclub shooting.

And after the Pulse Nightclub massacre occurred in the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign, Dems — and particularly Hillary Clinton — convinced themselves that the time to push for gun control had finally arrived. How did that work out for them?

The moral of this long, sordid story: even single cell organisms are smart enough to turn away from heat. Which is why Senator Schumer looks at the proposals to ban bump fire stocks, limit magazine capacity and outlaw “assault weapons” and is warning his fellow donkeys to run the other way. Fast.

“I see why he doesn’t want to (get behind gun control),” David Saunders, who has advised former Democratic presidential candidates Jim Webb and John Edwards, said of Schumer’s avoidance of the gun control measures.

“He’s one of the few people up there who can count,” he joked.

Chuckie knows that no matter how motivated gun control supporters may seem, they don’t hold a candle to the level of commitment of gun owners in protecting their Second Amendment rights.

Saunders warned that even though polls might show that various gun control proposals have strong support, the minority of people who oppose them often wield more political clout because they are more motivated.

“The 28 percent that don’t want it are single-issue voters and that’s why the gun numbers are so deceiving for people,” he said.

Saunders said many of those single-issue voters live in some of the Senate swing states that will determine which party controls the upper chamber in the future.

In the end, maybe the Democrats’ best friends in terms of saving them from themselves will be Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. As the GOP controls both houses of Congress, it seems unlikely that any of the proposed gun control bills will make it as far as a floor vote, where Dems would be forced to go on the record as supporting restrictions on civilian gun ownership. Maybe that should be allowed to happen.

 

 

comments

  1. avatar Pg2 says:

    Cause Chucky knows it will only take a few more false flag mass shootings and the public will be begging for gun control.

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      Ummm, not when it is almost all leftists leaning psycho’s targeting mostly conservative leaning American Patriots( that own most of the guns).

      Oh, I am one of those single issue voters. Because the 2nd amendment is the 1st and the last right when it comes to defending ones freedom..

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Not single issue – “litmus test”

      2. avatar Froghill says:

        ThomasR

        Many people, and I know a few personally realize that it is basically the lefty nutcases hunting conservatives.
        I had the wives of two of my friends and one male friend say in a nutshell “Yeh and since we are being hunted down that is all the more reason to ban guns, so the crazies won’t be able to slaughter us!”
        The two women also threw in the “Ban all of the bump stocks” sentiment too, even though they had no idea of what a bump stock is or looks like.
        I offered them an opportunity to come over to my farm and shoot a bump stock, and sadly they declined

        I pointed out the ridiculousness of their thoughts, they listened and softened up a bit and said that they see the points in my counterargument but they still had that vacant look, the look that says “Yeh we hear you, but we still think we are right”

        The sad part of this is that the husbands of these two wives hunt and own guns, the male friend is the same and he owns a few handguns and one AR-15

        I also pointed out the incremental gun ban being used by the progressives for decades and told them the communists main tactic is to divide and conquer and the left is back at it again

        Communist NEVER give up, they will be in the faces of our children, grandchildren or farther down the line until sadly for America, they win

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      Yeah, the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is in the breach, and the block is closing. The only thing that’s being banned will be them.

    3. avatar Denton says:

      I’ve really had it with the “false flag” narrative. Using it paints gun supporters as conspiracy neanderthals. You really think that there is a cabal of leaders who orchestrate suicidal murder sprees for the sole reason that they want to make guns look more dangerous? That a cabal of leaders wishes to remove guns because they want a defenseless america ripe and ready for a takeover? That it’s a “false flag” because it’s really the democrats planning the shootings? How could you keep something like this a secret? The larger and larger the number of people you need to keep it a secret, from planners, funders, operative minders, insider journalists, and insider bureaucrats is mind-numbing and defies logic that all of them could keep a secret this long. Do you so badly need a reason for atrocities to happen in this world that you would cling to this make-believe?

      Isn’t it enough, and dangerous enough for our gun rights, that we already have a large number of democrats and journalists who wish to take away guns simply because they, wrongfully, think that those guns are too dangerous for the public to access? Is it too hard to believe that they are also good people, who also want the best for America, that at best disagree with us on the overall effect of the gun itself on mass murders or at worse are simply so convinced that they will misrepresent the numbers to prove their point? Sure, that makes them liars but still not out to destroy America.

      Isn’t it enough, that we already know about and can watch the websites in real time, a small but dedicated group of hurt crazies canonize past mass-murderers and actively fantasize online about someday doing the same?

      As gun rights advocates, we certainly don’t allow stupidity among our political opponents but why do we allow this level of stupidity within our own ranks? He’s certainly free to spout this nonsense, but why is there no one responding like me?

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        History is full of known false flags, the Maine, the Reichstag, Gulf of Tonkin to name 3 that immediately come to mind. You’re very naive to reflexively dismiss them.

        1. avatar Denton says:

          The Main is still unknown. Good chance it was a design flaw that set off a catastrophic accident. It’s an example of not letting a tragedy going to waste but not a false flag operation. Good try.

          The Reichstag Fire was either a singe communist person operating alone (this story is still the predominantly accepted version) or the Nazis did orchestrate the fire as theorized by a single book (albeit with new-ish evidence from Moscow who had/has an interest in clearing a good communist’s name). If you’re using the Nazis, who clearly showed that a false flag operation that didn’t kill anyone was downright angelic so far as their other acts are judged, then you need better comparisons.

          The August 2 Gulf of Tonkin incident actually happened and the August 4 incident was an incorrect report by the Captain of USS Maddox who later sent messages attempting to walk back his earlier report. Those messages were intentionally delayed in getting to President Johnson. It’s possible and maybe even likely that Maddox was sent there to provoke a response. Yet Again, not a false flag operation. This is yet another example of taking full advantage of a developing situation then covering up the act of blowing the incident way out of proportion.

          Actual false flag operations are extremely rare. It is much more common to simply take advantage and exaggerate actual events then cover up the knowledge and exaggeration.

          The other item that you are missing in your conjecture is “Action”. False Flag operations are designed to instigate and give authority to some drastic measure such as going to war or purging an entire group of people. In the mass shooting cases, what action have we seen? Attempting to utilize the system to legally and slowly enact baby-step laws? Come on. If 9/11 had preceded the declaration of Martial Law and the President purged all Muslims from the government before removing all civil rights from Muslims then you would have a legitimate claim to a false flag operation. Heck, there’s a really good chance that the Turkish attempted coup was a false flag operation. 1) it was shockingly ineffectual and poorly planned and 2) President Erdogan used it to purge judges, professors, ministers, officers, and college professors faster and with more thoroughness than simply taking advantage of a coup attempt would lead me to believe. Now that is what a false flag should look like and is specifically not what the Democrats have done or have been doing.

        2. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Let’s not forget “Fast and Furious”. The ultimate anti-gun False Flag Operation.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          What about the ATF Indian cigarette outpost?

        4. avatar Denton says:

          Joe R. I’m not familiar with the ATF Indian cigarette outpost. Were they smuggling cigarettes to fund undercover investigations?

      2. avatar Maine Constitutional Carry says:

        “You really think that there is a cabal of leaders who orchestrate suicidal murder sprees for the sole reason that they want to make guns look more dangerous?”

        Yes.

        (Fast and Furious — and it’s many iterations)

        1. avatar BDub says:

          Personally, I dont know if it is or isn’t a false-flag.

          What I do know, and the OP should know, is that the power-players have a huge agenda, and more money than any of us can conceive of at steak, such that orchestrating a flase-flag to move the ball for their side is not, by any means, out of the question morally, nor out of the question finacially.

          Trying to look at this as of a 5-figure earning middle-American is not going to convey to your mind/understanding the gravitas of the pieces that are in play in this game.

        2. avatar Denton says:

          If Fast and Furious was a false flag, what was its goals?

          It appears to be a poorly conceived and even worse run operation to track weapons moving into Mexico. To follow weapons trafficking, you first have to have weapons to traffic. Logically. Did the ATF need to provide those weapons? Not sure. What is for sure is they lost track of them and failed miserably at all their stated goals. Did the ATF or any higher ups use this fiasco to advance their political agenda? NO. They did not. They covered it way up and did not want to talk about it until intrepid and nosy journalists of the media we like to bash so much dug it up. They covered it up so early too that agents died when they probably could have used the information.

          Definitely a cover up to hide embarrassing stupidity and incompetence. Not the first time and won’t be the last for either party or any government. But decidedly not a false flag operation.

        3. avatar JD says:

          Denton you ask what were the goals of F&F if it was a false flag? Do you remember the endless reports on every news cycle about the killings in Mexico and how it was being caused by rouge gun dealers in the SW USA? Remember how every antigun Democrat was getting a sound bite in almost daily about how 80-90+95% of all guns found in Mexico were being traced back to the USA? Remember how the story seemed to evaporate almost overnight after F&F came to light? F&F had one goal and that was to push more gun control and bans here. Period, end of story. It was planned and put into play by Holder and Obama. Period. If it wasn’t then why the huge effort to cover it up? Why did Obama claim executive privilege to stop all testimony? Seal all records?

        4. avatar Joe R. says:

          Worse, it was [A L S O] to EXPORT many of the limited supply of pre-1986 ban full auto weapons so that they could be confiscated or destroyed if they ever made it back into America.

        5. avatar Denton says:

          You’re right JD. The “rouge gun dealers” story hasn’t been used in some time by the mainstream media and it ended about the same time as the F&F story was coming to light. Yes, Obama and Holder took great pains to keep 1,300 pages of documents from the congressional investigation. That leads me to believe it was, at least somewhat and at some point, their baby despite republican investigations and conservative journalists failing to uncover nothing more than knowledge of the program earlier than Holder said he found out about it.
          Here’s my formula for evaluating a conspiracy. Are there no other simpler or more likely scenarios? Conspiracies are hard to pull off and even harder to keep secret. So the pay-off and likelihood for a successful conspiracy should outweigh the perceived dangers of getting caught. And, given that conspiracy theories by definition generally lack evidence, there’s an element of belief.
          1) Gunwalking was a practice utilized in Fast and Furious as well as in Operation Wide Receiver under Bush. Both were failures with Fast and Furious being worse.
          2) The use of gunwalking was pushed over the objections of the ATF agents on the ground. Some of whom blew the whistle on the practice. We don’t have evidence that this was a policy pushed from “on high” but was pushed from the U.S. Attorney’s office and mid level at the ATF in Phoenix as a response from an October 26, 2009 meeting including then FBI Director Mueller implementing what would become known as Fast and Furious with the goal of eliminating entire networks, not just the low-level buyers. No one present at that meeting remembers discussing gunwalking specifically.
          3) The gunwalking strategy went horribly wrong when there wasn’t any cooperation with the Mexican government to track the arms once they crossed the border. The result was hundreds of Mexicans and one Border Patrol Agent killed with those guns.
          So, could it really be as simple as incompetence? Yes. Tracking an item to see where it goes is a tried and true practice to gather evidence of an entire network. Laziness in policing is real too and happens all too often. Given the number of whistleblowers and career agents/bureaucrats up and down the chain of command all willing to talk, the political willpower and drive of republicans to uncover as much as possible, and conservative journalists, it’s easy to see why the attempted cover-up didn’t last that long at all. Yet still there is no evidence that Holder or Obama were pushing to allow gunwalking specifically.
          With so many people involved, the likelihood of discovery was high and the political consequences would be worse relations with Mexico, worse relations with the agencies, worse relations with the public, and an undercutting of liberal efforts to reduce gun rights.
          If this was never discovered and uncovered, what about the successful achievement of their goals? Say it worked and the public became enraged that so many guns were getting to mexico and killing mexicans. The Obama administration would have earned the ability to stomp on straw purchasers and frequent buyers (a few of the cartel buyers were buying 200 guns a month) and the dealers that facilitate them. Straw purchaser laws already exist so that’s not a win. You wouldn’t be able hit the worst dealers that hard because they were in on the plan from the beginning and you don’t want them talking. They could push for waiting periods and a maximum gun purchase per month limit. Total homerun would be a weapon-type ban.
          This is just not enough to justify the risks and effort. Especially given that Obama ALREADY had democratic majorities in both the house and the senate during Fast and Furious. They could do whatever they wanted! (see obamacare). Fast and Furious released about 2,000 weapons. That’s a pitifully small number when compared to the tens of thousands sold and produced each month. If the government actually set out to actually do something, I’m assuming it would do it with more than 2,000 weapons. And when has large numbers of Mexican dead ever really pushed the American public to do anything? It’s been really bad down there for 20+ years. It’s such a difficult, unreliable, and needlessly roundabout way to try to manipulate the American public. If you want a good false flag operation, start killing off the rich elites of both parties (mostly republicans and rich preachers) and pin the blame on minorities. Much simpler and hits right at the power base where they are most afraid.
          It makes more sense that the simpler explanation is the true one, especially because it’s backed by evidence gathered by journalists and republicans. The task force really wanted to nail the entire network so it let the guns walk without taking down the small fish. The U.S. Attorney’s office pressured the agents to let the guns keep walking out of fear that there wasn’t enough evidence yet for the big kahunas. The guns reached the Mexican border where, as we are painfully aware, Mexican authorities are not all the pillars of honesty and justice we wish them to be. The agents may not have worked with them out of fear of being discovered, were simply too lazy to find the good ones (or finding them is impossible), or (except for the whistleblowers) didn’t care enough about Mexican lives. The administration attempted to cover-up how epically they had screwed up because no one likes looking bad, especially when hundreds of people had died including a Border Patrol Agent. Sealing testimony and documents is exactly what someone would do to either cover up a false flag operation or to also cover up an epic mistake.
          I still think it was to cover up an epic mistake. The sound bites changing was a natural shift to a juicier story, Mexican death’s dropping a bit, and democrats finding out the truth about fast and furious and moving on to something else. To go to all the effort of a conspiracy for this tiny, rube goldberg garbage doesn’t make sense.

      3. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

        Fast & Furious not enough for you Denton?

      4. avatar JoshtheViking says:

        Operation Northwoods. Look it up. Scary Stuff.

        1. avatar Denton says:

          That IS scary. Good point and shows that even American citizens at the highest of levels would conceive and go that far. Thank you for this.

          I’m not arguing that it isn’t possible for US citizens or our leaders to orchestrate a false flag operation. We’re human with the same incentives of greed, power, corruption, shame, pride, etc. that leads us to many terrible decisions. Watching the Ken Burns documentary on Vietnam, a lot of our decision to stay in Vietnam was because our presidents were embarrassed we were losing and didn’t want to lose the Presidency. Both parties couldn’t figure out how to exit without embarrassing ourselves. A lot of lives have been sacrificed on the alter of pride.

          I’m arguing that the long series of mass shootings going back over a decade now is not a false flag operation. If it is, it’s not only an amazingly and embarrassingly poorly conceived in its methods and goals. Aside from the longevity of the program making secrecy that much more difficult, it’s especially difficult to believe because there hasn’t been any significant action taken by those purported to be running it. It didn’t get them the presidency, it didn’t get them the house or senate, it didn’t even get them to sway the minds of the supreme court. No significant legislation at the federal level and the overall trend stateside is loosening restrictions. Nor have they tried anything illegal like a coup. Nothing has followed these mass attacks except what you would normally see before any other attempted legislation.

      5. avatar LarryinTX says:

        So, your explanation is all those people really are that stupid, that they honestly think UBC, for example, really will accomplish anything to prevent another shooting by a guy who passed dozens of them? Rather than simply seeking their constant goal of registration/confiscation? Seems a bit gullible to me.

        1. avatar Denton says:

          The smart ones recognize that UBC would not prevent mass shootings specifically. But they see UBC as one cog in a long term machine that will eventually reduce gun violence. UBC, removing semi-automatic firearms, maybe all handguns, etc. I gather that the smart ones just want to start somewhere, anywhere.

        2. avatar Froghill says:

          Denton

          The goal of the “Progressives” isn’t about saving people from being shot. These no good for nothing subversives only want guns out of the hands of ordinary, everyday citizens.
          The puppets and the puppet masters couldn’t care less about citizens being shot but the “Progressives” are worried about themselves getting shot before they can install, and enforce their brand of government

        3. avatar Denton says:

          Froghill,

          They certainly have enough armed muscle protecting them don’t they? Especially if they can get a police escort all the time so that their muscle now has badges. Republicans and Democrats both use this kind of protection and it would be even stronger if the public didn’t have weapons.

          What do you envision a “progressive” government looks like? What would they do to the people?

      6. avatar sound awake says:

        denton youre completely clueless

        you should avoid posting here in the future to both avoid wasting our time and risk sullying your reputation as a reality based thinker

        i wasnt going to say anything but you asked the question-the rest of us here dont respond like you because were not profoundly developmentally disabled

        1. avatar Denton says:

          I’m open to being convinced. As you can see by my posts, I’m not afraid of an in-depth discussion of the nuance. Attacking me personally doesn’t change my mind but evidence and facts will.

    4. avatar The Punisher says:

      You guys are all missing the forest for the trees.

      Even if no bump stock bans or further legislation is brought forward, they’ve already achieved a victory, maybe the victory that was sought: The SHARE act and/or HPA is dead along with any talk of deregulating items on the NFA list.

      If shenanigans are going on here, and there’s no reason to think there’s not, then they’ve already accomplished quite a bit.

      Makes one wonder if that “leaked” ATF memo talking about all of these things and getting gun owners orgasmic was something more than just a “leak”….

      1. avatar Denton says:

        This is possible and it certainly did exactly that. The SHARE act is not going anywhere soon. The timing was perfect for that goal.

        Can you line up the other shootings with similar outcomes? My issue is that so little has happened or been tried that I can’t match the cost of any other mass shootings with the possible goal and likelihood of success of that goal. False Flag operations are dangerous to the perpetrators if they don’t achieve their goals quickly.

  2. avatar Eddie Garcia says:

    Saunders goes by “Mudcat”. If you put that in the body of the article, it might jog some memories of when Webb beat George Allen.

  3. avatar MiniMe says:

    The smell of ripe mackerels is in the air. Chucky “Crybaby” Schumer wouldn’t say this without at least 50 ulterior motives.

  4. avatar BLoving says:

    That’s right, Chucky, you need to be very afraid of us.
    Just as every elected official at every level of government should be quite fearful of the voting citizenry.
    It is the reason I smile a bit wider every time the mask slips a bit and I see the fear in the eyes of a politician.

  5. avatar dph says:

    I’ll bet Old Chuckie started wearing those glasses as a child, you know, to keep from getting his ass beat.

  6. avatar Joe R. says:

    NEVER FORGET . . . what aholes your POS (D)bag neighbors are.

    It’s a Trap. They are falling back to cover, and re-grouping.

    1. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

      Pretty much covers it. Short and sweet.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Well, sweet for Joe, anyhow!

  7. avatar former water walker says:

    Yeah despite his shortcomings Schumer can COUNT. Keep pushing human… er guncontrol dims. It would be swell if the RINOS didn’t join satan😡

  8. avatar HP says:

    For what it’s worth, I have barraged his office (and that of his moron counterpart Gillibrand) with every single pre-written letter that GOA emails me to send.

    Ah, the joys of living in rural, red upstate New York.

  9. avatar Shire-man says:

    I still don’t get it. Most people don’t care one way or the other. Across the board support for gun control has been dropping for a generation now. Women and minorities are the fastest growing groups of gun owners. Every time they bring it up they lose.

    Who are they beating this dead horse for? The final wave of boomers with one foot in the grave?

    1. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

      Money dude. As always. From Bloomberg and whoever else is in the pay-to-talk-about-gun-control game.

      These guys don;t get out of bed in the morning without a bribe.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      Because Karl and Vlad told them that they have to take away the guns.

  10. avatar Cloud says:

    Schumer is hell spawn.

  11. avatar TFred says:

    “…touching the third rail of gun control can lead to third degree electoral burns.”

    Now that’s clever writing right there! 😀

  12. avatar st381183 says:

    “it seems unlikely that any of the proposed gun control bills will make it as far as a floor vote, where Dems would be forced to go on the record as supporting restrictions on civilian gun ownership. Maybe that should be allowed to happen.”

    Good God no, it should never make it to the floor! We can’t trust Republiscams to find their arses unless they fart once a week let alone trust them to block gun control legislation. The Demorat anti gunners have already outted themselves, let sleeping dogs lie.

  13. avatar RockThisTown says:

    “The moral of this long, sordid story: even single cell organisms are smart enough to turn away from heat.”
    Yeah, it’s those multiple cells that cause the trouble. So let’s pass a law that says only single cell organisms can serve in Congress! It’d sure beat what we have there now.

  14. avatar GS650G says:

    People want criminal control. Look at the dirtbag in MD yesterday and his record. Personal firearms are the last line of defense.

  15. avatar Mmmtacos says:

    That’s it Chuck, abandon your principles of gun control because you know it’s not palatable. For as horrid a politician as she is at least Harris has some scruples and sticks to her position. You abandon it because you know it won’t get you re-elected.

    You are despicable. We succeed and fail on our beliefs in the world of politics and we only back them in the first place because we believe them to be for the betterment of our American society. Even if you think what you’re doing is right you have to be truthful and honest with the American people. If we as a people can’t back the policy that is best for us today and for posterity then the onus is on we, the people. We, just like the politicians that legislate, execute and judge our laws, will succeed or fail on our choices as a society. Just let it happen. If we as a people don’t like what you put forward then so be it.

    But no. You have to back off because you are too cowardly to stick to your policy. You’re slime because this is pure manipulation. I hope you fall back into whatever cesspool you crawled out of.

  16. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Schumer remembers 1994, when he was “The Man” carrying the 1994 AW “ban” and the Brady Bill to Clinton’s desk.

    In November of 1994, the DNC lost control of the Congress in both houses for the first time in decades. The press, the DNC, the GOP, the Clinton machine – they were all taken off-guard. They were all surprised.

    In the aftermath, the truth came out: The NRA and RKBA activists were directly responsible for flipping 21 seats in the House. One of the Democrats who was kicked out of office over the gun control vote rolled up on Schumer, in full view of the C-SPAN cameras, and screamed at Schumer: “This is YOUR fault! You did this! You cost me my seat!” I forget which Democrat bad-bencher it was, but Schumer was taken aback and embarrassed in the extreme.

  17. avatar Geoff PR says:

    ““Democrats need to find courage and learn to speak to the issue,” said Ladd Everitt…”

    Please, please, *please* find that ‘courage’, Leftists.

    That will win us elections for a *long* time.

    TTAG’ers, if you want to help the Leftists commit political suicide, hit the comment sections in Leftist blogs and *loudly* demand they run on gun control.

    You love the comment section here, use that skill to stab them in the back…

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      That’s a dangerous game, Geoff. If you spend too much time reading leftist comments, you are at risk of ending up a whole lot dumber.

  18. avatar Mike B in WI says:

    “Is it too hard to believe that they are also good people, who also want the best for America, that at best disagree with us…”
    Denton, I’m not really sure they want the best for America, at least not the America envisioned by our founders and by most Americans. Don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do. They seem focused on gaining and retaining power over all of us. That power is much easier to wield if we are not armed.

    1. avatar Denton says:

      “I’m not really sure they want the best for America, at least not the America envisioned by our founders and by most Americans.”

      I differ only in that I think they do want what is best, but that their vision of what is “Best for America” is not what we think is best. This is naive of me to say, but I think they are good people who just don’t share my understanding of what this nation was envisioned to be and what is good for it long term. I don’t blame them for wanting political power and more power over the person. Too many democrats are good capitalists for me to think that they want to disarm us to create some sort of communist state. I think they are socialist but not necessarily communist. Social programs require political and personal power to enforce. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are bad people with bad intentions. Just that they are wrong. It takes the power of the state to enforce policies they think will be beneficial to the nation and they want more policies. Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, Food Stamps, the EPA, the progressive tax code, the estate tax, public schools, public universities, etc. are all socialist programs and we live in a country that has many socialist programs. Some small few individuals are communists but most are capitalists that think that socialism is there to curb the excesses of capitalism or the dangers we pose to ourselves. They can be right sometimes too.

      Also, I haven’t seen republicans give back power once gotten either.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        socialism is just phony/pretend BS for polite company. They are utopian marxists which means they are so stupid they still believe the claptrap. They ARE out to “remake” the US the way it “should be” which is right out of the euro anarchy of the 19th century using Karls original drivel. That while Vlad, Leon and,Josef were really great guys they just didn’t have the material for achieving nirvana. The US progs being smarter/better and having the US and it’s ill gotten gains to play with achieve all.

        1. avatar Denton says:

          It can’t be that they want a utopia because they have bleeding hearts and don’t like seeing people starve or die from preventable health issues for lack of insurance?

      2. avatar SparkyInWI says:

        “Also, I haven’t seen republicans give back power once gotten either.” Amen Denton, they do not give back power either despite all the talk of states rights, etc. There is actually very little real difference between the parties. Other than talk the only thing they can both do is spend our taxpayer money like it is a never-ending spigot. Nor do I believe the Republicans were ever actually going to spend true political capitol to pass either a national carry or hearing protection law of some kind. The current status quo of the past decade or more has been very good for them, actually for both parties. They can each rake in lots of dollars from the respective sides (anti-gun and pro-gun groups) and despite a lot of political theater nothing really changes.

  19. avatar Joe R. says:

    NOTE: WE BLAME YOU [EVIL POS (D)] FOR THE VEGAS SHOOTING.

  20. avatar Dave says:

    Say what you will about Schumer (and I have nothing good to say about him), but the man is a very good politician. And like what Dyspeptic pointed out, he has not forgotten what happened to the Democrats in 1994. He is a Democrat party loyalist.

  21. avatar BLAMMO says:

    Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) tweeted Wednesday night that the country should be talking about answers to gun violence.

    Jesus, we’ve been talking about it for 240 years!! Say something salient or STFU!!

  22. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    Yep. Any politician who supports gun control is a fool. Gun rights are the difference between being a citizen and being a slave, even if you choose not to exercise your second amendment rights personally.

  23. avatar DaveL says:

    Saunders warned that even though polls might show that various gun control proposals have strong support, the minority of people who oppose them often wield more political clout because they are more motivated.

    Well, that and your polls are compete BS.

  24. avatar Kenneth G Maiden says:

    Wait, what? Schumer orders his kabal, the lefty progressive DemoCrud control freak rats, SHUT THE F UP?

  25. avatar Cadeyrn says:

    No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. That kind of double-think gets Republicans in trouble every single time and gets us the 1986 Hughes Amendment results. Further gun control bills cannot advance anywhere anytime for any reason. The SAFE act must proceed.

    Why aren’t we talking about the million to two million defensive gun uses each year? Even if only half would have otherwise resulted in a serious crime, that’s at least 500,000 Americans who are better off than they would have been assaulted, raped or dead. Why aren’t we praising people not only in the police, but in normal society who use the force of arms to stave off criminals and generally protect the helpless?

    Gun controllers want to bathe in the blood of those who die in senseless acts but apparently revel in lawless criminals being allowed to prey upon the citizenry. They are monsters of the worst kind.

    1. avatar RJB says:

      Well said Cadeyrn.

  26. avatar Kevin b says:

    Denton – I appreciate your comments. Not everything is a conspiracy, and plenty of people live in the “sincere but wrong” category.

    Screaming (at Denton, at them or at us) doesn’t really help, but this is the internet, and that’s how it rolls.

    1. avatar Denton says:

      Thank you Kevin.

      This is fun and all but a couple responses have been respectful. I like this community.

    2. avatar What About Bob says:

      I also think Denton has it mostly right.

      Imagine trying to keep a handful of people from spilling a “good” secret. Not imagine trying to keep hundreds quiet, with a story involving the murder of dozens of innocents.

      Yeah.

  27. avatar Ralph says:

    Poor Chuck. An intelligent thought in his head would die of loneliness.

  28. avatar IYearn4nARnCali says:

    Nah, don’t listen activist Democrats, don’t listen, you keep attacking on gun control, the nationwide results of this agenda have been impressive so far, having lost over a thousand seats at the political table since Pelosi and Schumer have had any measure of party control, so you just keep doing god’s work Democrats.

    Maybe if you push hard enough, we can have a clean sweep of ALL Democrats in American politics by 2018! Imagine the glory of that victory Democrats! I can dream, and so can the rest of our community, now if only those rats can follow through on their teasing.

  29. avatar Robert says:

    As always, you get about 10% right-wing freaks, and about10% left-wing freaks. The majority sits back and doesn’t say much.
    Well, I’m beginning to start entering the “freak” wing myself. I have been a law-abiding citizen all my life, and a target shooter for nearly 50 years. I’m tired of having to constantly defend myself for my chosen sport. —- Let’s get rid of football while we’re at it. ….. Lots more violence there……
    But seriously, ever really look at gun sales whenever there is a threat of more gun control? All of a sudden, the “silent majority” goes out and buys lots more guns. [These citizens are most likely untrained and unsafe – there’s the rub.]
    So, maybe somebody got through to the senator [unlikely] and showed him the way to get “less” guns in homes was to stop attacking gun owners. [Yeah. … I know. … Wishful thinking.]

  30. avatar Roymond says:

    A liberal but Clinton-despising friend had an interesting observation last week: Hillary’s arrogance combined with her anti-gun positions fed the idea that political elites have a hidden agenda when they talk about gun control, and since at least 49% of Americans say they don’t trust Hillary, that means a lot of people are going to buy guns precisely because Hillary doesn’t think they should.

    Schumer is just an extension of the same arrogant elitism — but apparently he gets it at least a bit.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email