Gun Rights Supporters Now Fighting a Two-Front War: Quote of the Day

“Sure, it’s important to combat the Left’s dangerous lies about guns and public safety, but what’s the point of having raucous fans in the bleachers while the team on the field is throwing the ball in the opposite direction? We must win the fight for our own movement and our own party before we can fight the Left.” – Daniel Horowitz in Blueprint for the new conservatives [via conservativereview.com]

comments

  1. avatar Geoff PR says:

    He has a point.

    We are being gutted by those who claim they are with us…

    1. avatar Joatmon says:

      And those that claimed to be with us caved big time.
      Said this before on this site and others. The left finally found their one thing that no politician could go against. Kids.
      They never exploited them in any other school shooting but the Florida shooting was the turnaround.
      Come mid terms, it’s gonna get bad. 2020 will be even worse.

      1. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

        Not if everyone stands together! Fight the future and vote accordingly. Hopefully TTAG will have some solid info for mid-terms and later 2020…

        1. avatar Kyle says:

          Republicans only grow a spine in congress when we dont have the oval office.

          Vote conservative for the congress, but when it comes to the president, vote for the biggest left winger you can find.

          Trump is a great guy, but he turns our congress into spendthrift anti-gun democrats.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          How did your Senator/Rep vote? Did you contact them before or after the vote?

          The RINO/Social Republicans/Swamp critters do hate Trump worse than the POS Schumer. WHY? because he is upsetting the club. Trump didn’t write that budget. Your Congressmen did.

          My Congressman & both Senators voted NO.

        3. avatar Kyle says:

          Neiowa

          I do not mean to imply trump is a problem at all. The problem is that when republican CAN go spendcrazy, they will. Trump will sign anything the repub congress puts in front of him.

          in short: The ‘pubs go dem when they have a friendly whitehouse.

          And I’m in CA, my DC reps are part of the problem, they’ll NEVER be part of any solution.

        4. avatar Ed Schrade says:

          Aaron….” Fight for the future” the only people allowed to be in the running will be the ones the establishment picks. Look what happened to Roy Moore. They will let a democommie win instead of a true conservative get in and fight the establishment.

      2. avatar jwtaylor says:

        “They never exploited them in any other school shooting but the Florida shooting was the turnaround”
        They were ruthlessly exploited after Sandy Hook. The GOP has just swapped out leadership for people even weaker. And that’s not easy to do.

        1. avatar Sian says:

          They were indirectly exploited after Sandy Hook. Elementary school kids don’t make good figureheads and spokesmen though.

          This is an entirely different animal.

      3. avatar Sgt of Marines says:

        Politicians are different sides of the same coin. The reason for the Republicants to vote for the insane spending bill is that they both want the same thing, more power. They look at being a “public servant” as a money making proposition Who has ever not made a fortune working for the government??

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Me.

          I think you meant to ask, “Which members of congress didn’t make a fortune working in the government?”

        2. avatar mondo_cane says:

          Sar, you are exactly right. There is virtually no difference between the two parties. They only want us to believe they are different because fifty years ago they had well-defined constituencies.
          However, there’s been a slow-motion coup d’etat by the left during the last twenty-five years, so now we have people who are against half the Consitution claiming they are moderates. And Democrats becoming Social Justice Warriors.
          The left is winning the hearts and minds because they gladly give everyone what the want and that list is endless.

      4. avatar BLAMMO says:

        The left finally found their one thing that no politician could go against. Kids.

        Fuck the children.

        1. avatar samuraichatter says:

          When I hear the “for the children” argument used my statist warning bells almost break from the reverberation.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Holy Crap.

      Look what just popped up on the New York Times :

      “John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment”

      “That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        Let them run on that! Any Democrat in a vaguely red state will go down in flames. After that, Democrat = gun confiscation, definitively, no wiggle room.

        Already, the Parkland kids seem to be closing the enthusiasm gap for the Republicans. The kind of sustained campaign required for a Second Amendment repeal would probably double or triple the membership of gun rights organizations.

        1. avatar Craig in IA says:

          Finally someone else on this site who gets it. Well said! I’d also hope it’d get some of the doom and gloom gomers around this site to try to convince others of our cause in a manner that wouldn’t completely turn them off, then take them to the polling places with them.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        You are correct. A Supreme Court justice willing to rule that any legislation that curtails gun ownership and use is constitutional because sometimes an enumerated right doesn’t require an amendment if enough of the voters decide to just make guns illegal at the ballot box.

      3. avatar Bob says:

        …glad Stevens is former SCOTUS…

      4. avatar BillyBob says:

        I view Stephens OpEd as a net positive. For years the left said the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with individuals owning guns, it was all about the National Guard. Now they are finally admitting it protects the right to own a gun.

  2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Does anybody here on ttag actually expect our Congressmen and Senators to start behaving as if they truly believe in the 2nd Amendment? I certainly don’t, that’s why I keep writing and calling those fools to remind them of what we expect from them. Much good that it’ll do!

    1. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

      It seems to be working in Vermont. We started with a proposal (S.55) to:
      1- institute a universal background check
      2- ban bump fire stocks
      3- raise the legal purchase age on long guns to 21
      4- ban “high” (10+) capacity magazines
      5- ban “Assault” rifles

      Mind you, S.55 started out as an extreme protection law only. One senator decided to completely change the proposal after Senate debate and an open forum.

      According to VPR:
      “[The] House vote on Friday was the first vote; the second and final floor vote comes Tuesday. The next step comes on Tuesday, when the House holds its final vote on S.55.

      “It’s extraordinarily unusual for the House to give preliminary approval to a bill — which happened to S.55 on Friday — and then reverse that decision in the final vote.

      “But even then, with the final nod from House lawmakers, the bill still has a ways to go.

      “And that’s because the Senate still has to weigh in.

      “The Senate was actually the first chamber to consider S.55, which they approved it by a vote of 17-13 back on March 2.

      “But, the version of the bill that Senate lawmakers voted on included only two of the four key provisions now in play:
      •Mandatory background checks for private gun sales
      •Raising the legal age to purchase a gun to 21 year old

      “It did not include the other two provisions:
      •Banning bump stocks
      •Banning sale or possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds”
      (http://digital.vpr.net/post/whats-next-houses-gun-control-bill)

      So it SOUNDS like we may end up with a slight bruise and scrape instead of a complete gutting of our rights.

      I wrote three letters to numerous Vermont legislatures and I’m sure I wasn’t the only one.

      IMO it gives some hope. Remember that Vermont’s senate and house are both overwhelmingly Democratic. (Of course the light at the end of the tunnel usually turns out to be the headlight of an oncoming freight train.)

    2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      A few do. The Freedom, Liberty, and Second Amendment Caucuses contain most of them. Rand Paul was snubbed by the NRA in 2015 for supporting the more hard line NAGR.

      1. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

        NAGR are just naggers. Just a personal fundraiser for Dewey.
        He did more harm than good in Colorado.

      2. avatar Craig in IA says:

        Dudley Brown and his merry band wouldn’t make a pimple on the ass of a real gun rights organization. Just a paycheck for them. Name one substantial thing the NAGRs have accomplished other than suck some ignorant fools into giving them money…

        Still waiting…

      3. avatar neiowa says:

        Rand Paul is a bigger nut than his father and that takes some doing.

  3. avatar anarchyst says:

    Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned.
    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…

  4. avatar Reggie Browning says:

    I honestly don’t know what to do about the betrayals. I’m too young and haven’t been in the political game very long. It seems to me that a lot of the government is run by ancient people who have been in power so long that they simply keep getting re-elected based on their old voting bases. They’re kind of stuck in the 70’s/80’s.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Sadly that’s not the case. Look a the leadership that’s caving at the national level. They aren’t the real old timers.

      1. avatar Craig in IA says:

        And the “younger ones” would likely be more tainted with the progressive virus. We can cure it, though. Get involved in the primary process and vote in someone else to run in November, then organize and vote again in November. And if you really believe in something, put some money where your mouth is. I know there are scores of posters trolling around here who have never joined NRA, never given a dime to a worthwhile, progun supporter, have never met their elected officials at any level let alone ever sent them a note or email thanking them when they did something right, even a pile who don’t even bother to vote. You’re the type our opposition loves..

  5. avatar anarchyst says:

    The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.
    A firearm is a tool which possesses no evil intent on its own. Assigning intent to an inanimate object is the epitome of insanity. Demonizing a weapon on “looks alone” also marks the accuser as an unstable individual who is also insane. Call them out on their illogic and insanity.
    Another dirty tactic the anti-Second Amendment crowd uses exposes children to potential and actual harm by putting them in “gun-free zones”. These people care not one wit about children, but uses them for their own nefarious purposes.
    We need to TAKE BACK the argument…
    When the antis blame the firearm for the actions of a criminal, state that: “a firearm is an inanimate object, subject only to the intent of the user. Firearms ARE “equalizers” and are used to preserve life and make a 90 lb. woman equal to a 200 lb. criminal”.
    When the antis attempt to justify their “gun free zones” counter their misguided argument with “you mean, criminal safety zones” or “victim disarmament zones”.
    State that “we protect our money, banks, politicians and celebrities, buildings and facilities with PEOPLE WITH GUNS, but protect our children with “gun-free zone” signs”.
    When the antis criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: “you mean the most popular rifle of the day, use able by even the smallest, weakest person as a means of self-defense. Besides, AR-15s are FUN to shoot”. Offer to take them to the range and supply them with an AR-15, ammunition and range time. I have made
    many converts this way.
    When the antis state that: “You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt with”, counter with “AR-15s ARE used for hunting, but in many states, are prohibited from being used to take large game because they are underpowered”.
    When the antis state that: “AR-15s are high powered rifles”, correct them by stating that “AR-15s with the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge are considered medium-powered weapons–NOT “high-powered” by any means”.
    When the antis state that: “you don’t need and AR-15”, counter with, “Who are YOU to consider what I need or want?”
    When the antis state that: “the Constitution was written during the time of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to “weapons of that time period”, state that: “by your logic, the First Amendment should not apply to modern-day telecommunications, internet, television, radio, public-address systems, books and newspapers produced on high-speed offset printing presses. Only “town-criers” and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses would be covered under the First Amendment”.
    When the antis state that “only law enforcement and government should possess firearms”, remind them of the latest school shooting, as well as Columbine, where “law enforcement” SAT ON THEIR HANDS while children were being murdered, citing “officer safety”, afraid to challenge the shooter, despite being armed to the hilt. The government-run murderous sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco are also good examples of government (mis)use of firearms. Let’s not forget the millions murdered under communism AFTER their firearms were confiscated.
    This tome can be used to counter any argument against any infringement of our Second Amendment.

    1. avatar Reggie Browning says:

      What do you do when they say “Guns don’t have intent of their own, but they enable people with bad intent”?

      Yes, I can argue the anti gun stance, probably better than the anti-gun people themselves. That’s why I’m confident in my position.

      1. avatar DrewR55 says:

        I’d remind them that the bad person would have the same intent with a bottle of ammonia and a bottle of bleach, or a bag of fentanyl, diesel and fertilizer, a large vehicle, etc. Bad people do bad things.

        1. avatar Reggie Browning says:

          But a gun is so much easier to use. You could be completely retarded and still be able to kill large amounts of people with it. To build a bomb you need technical skills an knowledge and you have to know where to get the supplies. Then you have to be able to sneak it into a crowded location and even then you only get one shot to kill people. Guns make mass murder quick and easy! Get yours today! Call 1-800-NRA! Hurry while supplies last!

        2. avatar DrewR55 says:

          Trucks? Ammonia and Bleach? Psychotic nurses? Setting fire to an apartment complex late at night after a national holiday when residents are likely to be passed out intoxicated? Blocking fire exits and tossing a Molotov into a movie theater?

          How many bodies does it take for something to become unacceptable? If A nutejob kills two people with parcel bombs that is acceptable and no one marches in the streets of D.C.?

          Why wasn’t anyone this upset when a German pilot killed 144 near Nice?

        3. avatar Reggie Browning says:

          Okay, well, the idea behind gun control isn’t that it will eliminate mass murder, it’s that it will make mass murder as difficult as we can. By simply making mass murder more difficult, then we will reduce the frequency of occurrence. We’re eliminating random unstable people from the pool of mass murderers by putting such barriers in place. Without guns the only people who are able to pull off mass murder successfully will be people with some kind of technical and planning abilities. Like a pilot would need to be able to fly a plane, A vehicle limits the areas where you are able to kill people to outside in open areas. Anyone inside a building would be safe from a truck attack. Even to block the fire exits in a building requires more planning than it would take to just run into a building with an AR-15 and mow people down.

        4. avatar DrewR55 says:

          So, do “something” about the low-hangin-fruit amateurs who don’t know how to think beyond the next fifteen minutes and are incapable of dumping a bag of fentanyl into a ventilation system while not worrying about the ‘rare’ douchbags who know how to really rack up a score?

          Unfortunately, I can see that being the logic of some grabbers. “Let’s not worry about a school bus driver who snaps one afternoon and drives into a river because that doesn’t happen very often.”

          Ha, I am suddenly reminded of a story my dad told me about a soldier in ’73 or ’74 who put LSD into the bug juice in the mess hall at Ft. Bragg

        5. avatar CarlosT says:

          How hard is it to drive a moving truck? The equivalent of the attack in Nice (which killed more people than Las Vegas) is stupidly simple to pull off. Arson is not rocket science, and when combined with blocking entrances, can create much higher death tolls than shootings.

          Conversely, self-defense with guns is easier than with other methods. A wheelchair bound person isn’t going to be deploying krav maga on an assailant, but could easily deploy a K-frame. A young mother isn’t going to take out four meth heads single-handedly with acrobatic kung-fu like in some action movie, but an AR can easily even up the odds.

          Black swan events like Parkland dominate the news, but they are not the reality of guns in the US. The conversation revolves around a cost analysis when it should also include a benefit analysis as well. If it did, guns would come out very much in the positive.

        6. avatar Sian says:

          The worst mass murders of the 20th century were committed by despots and politicians.

          Ask the people who lived in Poland and Germany in 1934 if they thought that 11 million of their countrymen could be rounded up and executed in under ten years. They’d have told you that you were delusional. That it was utterly unthinkable. And that pales in comparison to the slaughters inflicted by Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot. And that murder on this scale can only be accomplished after disarming the populace.

        7. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          Reggie: Deaths by mass murder (not committed by nation states) are extremely rare. As rare as lightning deaths – not even in the top 200 causes of death. Deaths by criminal attack are much more prevalent (even though still quite scarce if you don’t live in a bad neighborhood and participate in criminal activity) as a deaths from government mass murders. Use of MSRs in normal crime are very rare. The harm from MSRs in the hands of average citizens is less than it’s benefits. A human being has the right to defense of selves and others and they have the right to the best tools for that. The semi-automatic rifle is the best tool for a individual fighting. Death by governmental mass murder is a real concern it is happening by the tens of thousands right now in several places in the world. It killed hundreds of millions in the last century. It is a far bigger threat than civilian crime.
          You seem to be trying to start from the “hey I am one of you position and not so slowly begin to argue for prohibition.” Many of the people here are very intelligent and and have been contemplating this issue for decades – they are not the result of NRA ads and simple tribalism. You are not clever enough to dupe those of us that have studied the issue so much for so long.

        8. avatar Reggie Browning says:

          Yes, that is their logic exactly. They think “We need to do SOMETHING! ANYTHING that will reduce the amount of mass murder. If you’re only eliminating a certain section of mass murders, that’s still fewer mass murders in the world. They also come from the mindset that you don’t really need a gun. You need planes and cars and fertilizer, and gasoline to live a normal life. But guns are a luxury item to them so if banning that will result in any fewer mass murders that is an acceptable price. They view it as a choice between a toy (your gun) and human lives (all the victims of “Gun violence”)

          What they fail to do though is see it in perspective. They don’t understand that you are far more likely to die from lots of other things than you are in a mass shooting. Even alcohol. Alcohol is a 100% luxury item that nobody needs. It also results in the deaths of lots of people in drunk driving accidents, not only that but it legitimately CAUSES people to behave violently and irrationally. It is addictive and causes domestic violence, alcohol poisoning, it causes people to shoot themselves or innocent people by accident. Yeah, some unknown portion of the gun deaths in the country are caused directly by alcohol. Yeeeet…. They don’t want to ban alcohol again, do they? They don’t want you to go through a mental health check to buy alcohol, which would actually be more sensible than doing it to buy a gun. They could use the same logic they use against guns to say “Well, if you have a history of addiction, a DUI, a domestic violence charge, then you should be banned from buying alcohol for life.” But they don’t do that because they probably drink alcohol themselves and understand that it’s not worth giving it up to save lives. If they ever say “Is your fun worth the lives of innocent people?” you can throw it back at them “Is your ability to drink alcohol worth the lives of all the innocent children killed by drunk drivers? Don’t you care about them?”

          Okay. That’s interesting. What happened to all the soldiers in that mess hall? Did they actually get high?

        9. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          Reggie: Again you seem to be arguing for prohibition, this time via a comparison to alcohol. Have you forgotten that prohibition did not lower the rate of alcoholism or the damage done by abuse of alcohol. It also increased crime, governmental corruption, and resulted in the loss of other human rights as most all such prohibition efforts do.

        10. avatar DrewR55 says:

          Where I work we have a main road passing through our campus and the students have to cross it to get between their dorms and classes. My job requires that I visit a couple of buildings on either side of this road and I always make sure to time my trips during regular classes. The last thing I want is to be in the middle of a herd of zombies when some clown decides to make a statement by driving a large truck down the road at a high speed. He wouldn’t need to do more then keep the accelerator down and the body count would be… terrible.

          People are strange beings, indeed. It is like foul language. If I am sitting at a conference table and let slip the word “fuck” people frown and ’tisk’ but if the guy next to me says “fudge” everyone smirks and finds it amusing. However, the intent behind both words is the same,p and it doesn’t matter which one is used. Likewise, does it matter if you are stabbed, beaten, shot, or poisoned? Dead is dead.

          I am trying to find something about Ft. Bragg but I cannot seem to find any articles. My dad had fallen off of a repelling tower a week or two earlier and was on light duty working patient intake when they started bring people in. Some of the guys were pretty sick and a senior NCO was trying to fight everyone in sight.

        11. avatar Reggie Browning says:

          Vic Nighthorse, Maybe I wasn’t totally clear. In my first reply I said I could argue the anti-gun position better than the anti-gun people themselves, even though I’m pro-gun. So, I proceed to do so.

          Then I stopped, and explained what the anti-gun mindset actually is and the comments about alcohol were actually not an gun control argument, it was a demonstration of the problem with gun control.

          Again, to put it simply, anti gunners basically think banning/restricting guns is acceptable because they are not necessary for a normal life as cars and things are. They think nobody needs a gun and people are dying by these toys that nobody needs. So, they believe in restricting access to them or banning them outright.

          My point was that choosing to ban them because people are dying from them and nobody needs it is a double standard because alcohol is an item that has even less use and arguably causes more harm to society than guns do, yet they don’t support restrictions on that.

          And they fail to understand just how rare mass shootings, or even murder all together in the USA is. Gun people need to make a list of common, every day things that you are more likely to die from than a mass shooting to alleviate public fear. Like back when people were afraid of shark attacks because of Jaws and people came out and said “You’re more likely to be killed by falling coconuts than a shark.” someone needs to make a whole list of things you are more likely to die from. And they shouldn’t be things like medical disorders, they should be rare accidents so that people can see just how safe they really are from gun violence.

        12. avatar Reggie Browning says:

          An example of what such a list would have on it, and I don’t know exactly what would go on it because I don’t have all the statistics, but just an example.

          You are more likely to be killed by lightning strikes than a mass shooting. (Which is probably true if you go by the FBI’s definition of an active shooter.)

          You are more likely to be killed by a dog

          Or by falling off a ladder.

          Drowning in a swimming pool.

          Again, these are just examples I don’t know if any of these are true because I don’t have the resources or mathematical skills to put all the data together. I would hope that someone with the proper skills would do so, it would be a really effective tool for reducing public fear of guns. It’s kind of using the anti-gun side’s own tactics against them. Except we won’t need to manipulate the data to get the results we want. We do however need more “propaganda” that is put into easy to digest formats that will actually appeal to non gun people. I mean the way to counter the fear mongering of the anti-gun side is not to use more fear mongering (Saying I want the gun to protect myself from the bad guys that you’re afraid of.) it’s to put out anti fear mongering information. To say “There is no gun violence epidemic, you are perfectly safe in the United States even if there are lots of people with guns.”

        13. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          Reggie: Your arguments are sufficiently flawed and apparent base assumptions so anti firearms rights that it is actually to take you at your word. This part:
          “My point was that choosing to ban them because people are dying from them and nobody needs it is a double standard because alcohol is an item that has even less use and arguably causes more harm to society than guns do, yet they don’t support restrictions on that.”
          Is more an argument to more strictly regulate or ban alcohol that it is to not infringe further on firearms rights. It starts with the implication that fewer people would be dying if firearms rights were curtailed and that firearm utility is very low and then just goes on to say that alcohol is worse.
          In your previous discussion of alcohol you sure sounded like you thought legislating it further was a good idea.
          As for the second part of your comment, such statistical comparison are made regularly but they just don’t stick the way continuous 24 hour coverage of a mass shootings do. An intellectual splash is overwhelmed by an emotional tsunami. Statistic are also so easily manipulated and cherry picked that large portions of opposite sides of arguments discount them all together much less consider them carefully.
          I do think effort for normalization of exercising right as you touched on is a good idea though.
          I do hope that I am wrong about you, we need every interested party that we can get.

        14. avatar Reggie Browning says:

          Vic Nighthorse I’m only using flawed logic and base assumptions because I’m trying to work with the flawed logic and base assumptions of anti gun people. Convincing them that owning a firearm is actually useful seems to be an almost impossible task. People have been throwing the same arguments at them about how you would be better off with a gun than without, and it doesn’t work because these people just think “I don’t want to use a gun! I want nobody to have a gun so that I’m safe!” because the idea of needing a gun to defend themselves is really scary to them. Their position comes from fear and emotion, so I believe a more effective way to combat anti gun beliefs is to target the base fear of guns that causes it.

          I’m simply trying to go at the argument from a different angle. Most of these people do not believe in banning alcohol and won’t support a ban ever. Okay, I’m trying to make them realize that they too support the freedom to use a luxury item that kills people, simply because of freedom.

          Anyway, if you have good lists of things that people are more likely to die from than mass shootings, could you please share them? I would like to use them.

        15. avatar James M. says:

          Some people argue that it’s harder for a would-be spree killer to build and place a bomb than it is for him to steal a gun. They don’t understand that would-be killers are willing to put in the time and effort. Dr. Stanton Samenow’s studies of criminal psychology have clearly disproved the myth that these things are spur-of-the-moment decisions: Most killers think about committing (and fantasize about) their crimes for weeks, months, or years before actually committing them. They find ways to get the materials and information they need to commit their crimes.

        16. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          Reggie,

          Setting aside the big high profile spree shootings, your average spree shooting claims only a few victim, usually two or theee dead and a few more that injured

          One can accomplish that body count without any special training, especially if the perpetrator is also suicidal. A screwdriver to the neck of the driver and you can a Greyhounf bus and dozens of passengers over a cliff. Lighter fluid and a disposable lighter can turn a movie theater into an inferno claiming hundreds of lives.

          America needs crazies control, not gun control.

  6. avatar Timmy2Knives says:

    So… if you are so fed up with your Reps… Why don’t any of you jump ship to the Libertarian party?? They actually value the Constitution.

    Granted, (L) party haven’t had much opportunity to cave to the Left yet, as they don’t actually win any elections! Maybe that would change if the 50% of conservatives I hear complaining about the (R) party left! Just a thought. I know we have a binary choice blah blah heard it all before 1000x.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Why don’t any of you jump ship to the Libertarian party?? They actually value the Constitution.”

      Please. Dyspeptic did an epic tear-down of just how useless the ‘Libertarians’ actually are as a viable political party.

      In a nutshell, all they care about are the sex-n-drugs part, but little of the responsibility part of the Constitution…

      1. avatar YARB0892 says:

        There’s more than one Independent party. Look at the Constitution Party for instance. OR, and here’s a unique idea- let’s start our own.

        Claiming somethig won’t work is no excuse not to try. What we have right now is overbloated, cancerous, and is sliding ever farther to Leftism. Something muat be done to stop that. I’d like to hear you offer a better solution.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          The Federalist Party is one we should all take a look at. They have principles AND they’re being smart about building a viable party from the local level on up. http://thefederalistparty.org/

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Maybe because the “Libertarian” party proved to be anti-2A during the last election.

    3. avatar pwrserge says:

      Because ancaptards are only marginally better than commies. The commies want us to live in North Korea… the ancaptards want to move to Somalia

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        Says the troll profile who wants the US to adopt a North Korean medical/pharmaceutical delivery system. Priceless.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes… how dare I demand that you not be allowed to turn your body into a bio-weapons factory because you’re an illiterate retard?

        2. avatar pg2 says:

          Another ignorant gem of a reply from the profile that threatens to beat up woman’s husbands who disagree with him on online forums(Disqus). You push communism part time? How many profiles DO you troll this forum with?

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Whatever you say retard. Why don’t you put your special helmet back on and get back on the bus? Nobody gives a shit what a cretin who can’t pass biology 101 has to say on the subject of medical policy.

        4. avatar Pg2 says:

          Lol, calling you out as a clueless troll is fun and easy. Too easy. Dr. Evil, I’m still waiting for you actually cite some of the evidence based science you claim exists backing your statements about vaccine safety and efficacy. I’ve only been asking you since 2015. But you keep bullying moms on disqus and making gun owners look like assholes, that’s where your ability is.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          You’ve been cited dozens of articles. Learn to read. I’m not the only one who has called you on your anti-vaxer bullshit.

        6. avatar Pg2 says:

          @trollserge, Nice deflection, again, 3 years and going.
          The only “proof” you have ever provided was your statements that you are related to an MD, and that the average person isn’t smart enough or responsible enough to make their own decisions. You never stop making making 💩 Up and lying, do you trollserge?

    4. avatar Craig in IA says:

      Joining the Libertarian party at this time is about like signing up to ride Musk’s rocket ship to Mars… You’ll get your hopes up. spend a lot of time and money and you’ll never make it.

      It wouldn’t be all that hard to fix what we already have. It’d take our folks to learn to get along with each other and decide that even if what NRA offers at the time is not 100% in our liking, it’s better than splitting up into fragment groups with bellicose attitudes that only make it easier for the leftist progressives to win. Can;t see the forest for the trees.

      That’s what makes the left so formidable- they will always come together regardless of shedding all their principles for the good of the “cause” they seek at the time. Key words are “at the time”.

  7. avatar DrewR55 says:

    Absolutely. The fact that Oklahoma’s representative Tom Cole and senators Lankford and Inhofe thought this bloated POS spending bill was worth voting for shows their true colors.

    There is no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. The current batch of Republicans talk a great game about individual rights, fiscal responsibility, small government, and a host of other buzz words but they want the same thing as the Democratic Party.

    The GOP would happily propose and pass legislation banning the private ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens if they weren’t afraid of losing enough votes to lose the next election. In the same vein, they would pass amnesty and grant citizenship if they thought fifty- one percent of the new voters would lean Republican. The GOP is populated by big government loving elites who do not share the values of their voter base.

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      Yep. Two wings of the same bird, both parties controlled by same people/interests. We’re given the illusion of choice.

  8. avatar Mmmtacos says:

    The GOP is as useless as ever. They have nothing and say they’ll help if we can give them the House. So in 2012; we do. Then they argue they need the Senate so they can control the legislative branch. So we give them the Senate in 2014. Then they say their hands are truly tied because if they pass legislation it’ll just get vetoed. So we give them the presidency in 2016.

    We’ve had complete control of the executive and legislative branches for over a year and yet for some reason it still feels like the Democratic party has a stranglehold over Congress and have tied the hands of the office of the President.

    When the shoe was on the other foot the Dems rammed through Obamacare for better or worse. It’d sure be nice if the GOP did something meaningful with their time left. With the way they’ve been acting it certainly wouldn’t hurt their chances at retaining control over both chambers because right now it looks like we will lose majority in at least one of them. The GOP aren’t giving their constituents any reason to come out and bother voting when they are just enacting the policies of the Democrats.

    As I heard earlier today; the Dems only have one legitimate thing to complain about right now and it’s the omnibus spending bill… only they won’t complain about it because they actually like the damn thing.

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      Guys- you talk about “the GOP” around here just like the gun ban whack-os talk about the NRA.

      The NRA is it’s members, ditto the GOP.

      I’ll take my 2 US Senators, Grassley and Ernst, as well as Rob Blum (IA 1st Dist) and Steve King (IA 4th Dist) and put their progun and Constitutional creds against anyone in DC. Little weenie David Young, IA 3rd Dist- mine, is another story and we already have plans to primary him out for his vote on the omnibus last Friday.

      Rather than castigate all Republican as bad, why don’t you do the difficult thing and single out only those who are? Oh, yeah that’d take too much time and effort and you couldn’t just do the leftist/progressive thing and use hyperbole and general, blanket accusations. That’s really helping.

      And BTW- can we once and for all get rid of speaking about RINOs? If any of you need a US History lesson, 101 would explain that except for Goldwater, first, and Ronaldus Maximus, the American Republican Party always was a progressive, NE US orgaization with some agricultural folks who were not communists thrown in. It was, until the end of the Civil Rights Mvt, the Southern Democrats who were the conservatives. Amazing how we’ve allowed the revisionists to flip this. (Dsiclosure: Am I voting modern day democrats??? NFW!)

      1. avatar Mmmtacos says:

        I don’t refer to the GOP like “gun ban whack-os” refer to the NRA. If you mean I refer to them as a group, then yeah, I do, because that is what they are. What you’re thinking is the “gun ban whack-os” refer to the NRA as some demon that feasts on the blood of little children and has untold millions it spends buying politicians. It’s gross mischaracterization and quite frankly I don’t think I am giving that to the GOP one bit.

        They said for years they’d repeal Obamacare and after seven years of promises we get a couple of half-assed bills that do some good and some bad. They say they are pro-gun and when we ask for reciprocity it sits floating around, going nowhere. They say they stand up for our gun rights and the milquetoast politicians waffle about seeing how they can appease the other side of the aisle with a possible age restriction, bump-stock ban and/or even more background checks.

        Yes, I use general, blanket accusation because the whole party is to blame because the whole party has a platform and it has politicians under their ticket within legislative and executive offices across multiple levels of government from local to federal. If you don’t like that, I’m sorry– not sorry, but it’s the way it’s structured.

        No, we can’t get rid of the name RINOs because the modern Republican platform tends to lean conservative. Moreover, someone like McCain fully deserves the title.

  9. avatar Alex Waits says:

    Politicians no longer serve the people, they pay lip service to constitutional restraints when it is politically beneficial, our government is but a shell of what it once was.

  10. avatar Shire-man says:

    Nobody is a position of power wants the underlings armed. Every single suit in DC hates you. Always has and always will.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      That’s just not true. There have been quite a few people elected to the Senate and House that ardently worked to increase the freedoms of American citizens. Unfortunately, they were lumped in with everyone else, as you have done, and then passed over for these “new and improved” turncoats.
      Keep painting everyone with a broad brush and it will only get worse.

    2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      That is demonstrably false. You are going completely hyperbolic in your anger. The “suits” that do genuinely support the right to self defense and the second amendment may be in the minority but they are clearly there. The caucuses I mentioned earlier (small though they may be) are full of such people.

  11. avatar YARB0892 says:

    We’ve known for at least the last fifteen years- since the passage of the first PATRIOT Act at least- that both main political parties are dirty as hell and in essence two sides of the same coin, with the American People in the middle being played time and again.

    When can we as a group of gun-owning Conservatives band together and jump ship from both Parties? I heard endlessly- even here on TTAG- about how I wasted my vote in the 2016 election because I voted Third Party. I said it back then, I say it now- Third Party is the Solution we’ve all been scrambling for. We know for a fact that Trump is a Populist and will go where ever the most expedient political winds will blow. We know for a fact the Leftist parties will do absolutely everything to try and turn this country into a Socialist hellhole and strip us of our Rights, Property, and our Freedom to Think and Live as we please. We know for a fact the Republican party will abandon us to our fate as soon as it is politically expedient for them to do so.

    Someone on here explain to me how the 42% of the households in America that own guns is NOT a majority vote in an election? Less than 130million votes were cast in 2016- rounding up, that’s about 40% of the US population. If every gun-owning household votes the same way in any election, that is as near to a guaranteed victory as has ever been seen.

    Voting Main Party is a wasted vote regardless, unless you’re a mouth-foaming Leftist. The so-called conservative party has and will continue to back down every time. Voting for either of them simply votes in more Leftism. See the pitifully inadequate and utterly immoral budget passed last week and supposedly 2A-Friendly Trump’s call for a bumpstock ban as proof.

    How can anyone on here justify NOT voting third party next election?

    As for me, I vote Constitution Party. Y’all can do what you like, that’s what Freedom is for. I just hope you don’t vote my Freedoms away with your own.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Because handing any votes to the DNC is unacceptable. Give me a third party that has won an actual seat in Congress, and you might have an argument. Until then, voting anything other than Republican is the same as not voting.

    2. avatar cisco kid says:

      Thanks for voting 3rd party we Socialists need many more Morons like you to help us turn American into a civilized country like the rest of the Industrialized World has been for decades. Yes people like you need to be locked up with straight jackets on when you let robber baron drug companies bankrupt people or murder them because they cannot afford life saving drugs and ditto for much needed operations they need to save their lives.

      Our Nation is so fked up we now rank 37th in Health Care, 34th in education and 20th in personal freedom. Now there is the real truth about us as we are indeed at the present time living in a “hell hole”.

      We are the only Industrialized Nation in the world that does not heavily subsidize education or in some states make it available for free. If that is living in a hell hole then your the one that needs your head examined.

      We are the only industrialized nation that does not have a high speed rail system or even a National Policy for Green energy production. If saving the planet and our children’s future here on planet earth is a hell on earth we need to put guys like you in the loony bin and keep them there.

      When the people of other foreign nations are asked if they want to go back to the greed monger “health care for profit Insurance based health care systems” and they say they would never even consider such a lunatic plan and it proves that they know what they are talking about because they have lived with both systems of health care and know that our way has given us the most expensive health care in the world with the least benefits and it is an insult and rip off to every American living today.

      Tell me were you born an idiot or did you go to school to become one. Or is it that you are so cheap and stingy you think by saving a penny in taxes today by avoiding a National Health Care plan that you will not go bankrupt when you need health care. Only a Nut case whose mind was warped by blind greed and stinginess would argue other wise.

      1. avatar YARB0892 says:

        Tell me- does it hurt to be that stupid or are you blissfully unaware that your skull is full of nothing but leftist platitudes?

    3. avatar cisco kid says:

      And by the way the latest NBC poles show that only 36 per cent of people own guns not 42 per cent and out of the percentage of people that own guns your living in a fantasy world if you do not realize the mass slaughter of children on a weekly basis has not affected their thinking on assault rifles. All gun owners are not for owning assault rifles and videos of some of them cutting them up should be enough of a shock to wake up even die in the wool nut cases that cannot see that doing nothing only guarantees they will lose everything but when did the average Conservative have any brains anyway.

      When the Republicans prevented universal back ground checks and safe storage laws they only guaranteed that deranged children would be taking their patents guns to school to commit mass murder or any nut case out there could and would buy all the heavy weapons and ammo he wanted and guaranteed that the mass murder they committed would lead to total bans on guns. This is not rocket science even a retarded Moron could see what was coming but I am sure all this is way over your head.

      The stingy cheap ass Republicans by not funding Federal money for armed guards and security systems have guaranteed that the severe gun restrictions are coming so thank them for being more responsible for taking your guns away than the Democrats that will only be responding to the demands of millions of Americans horrified by what is going on with the weekly mass slaughter of our children. You may not give a damn but sane people certainly do even if they are being misled by thinking that banning guns will be a Utopian solution to a complex problem.

      Yes the Retarded Far Right has always been their own worst enemy and by doing nothing they guaranteed themselves they would lose everything. With last summers Supreme Court decision with the Conservatives participating the refusal to hear the Maryland Assault rifle ban was the green light for all States to ban anything and everything and the latest anti-gun laws in California, Massachusetts and Maryland are only the beginning of the end of all modern gun ownership in the U.S.

    4. avatar Craig in IA says:

      Voting “3rd Party” would only make sense if there was a viable one that had universal, or at least a high degree of appeal to most Americans. None do at the moment and never will because most of the people who’d look towards them are single issue-only wonks who wouldn’t know how to compromise or do give-and-take for the best deal at the time and would throw away their entire future, and the future of their kids, grandkids and country.

      The majority of the negative posts around here do absolutely nothing for our future- they merely provide a soapbox for angry people with no plan or clue to spew their poison and make them feel better, at least for the second that it takes them to hit the Post Comment button.

      1. avatar YARB0892 says:

        Gee. Sounds like we need to do more than sit around and bitch on TTAG. Maybe get out and recruit for a party. Maybe call our existing Reps. I stand by my original statement- I vote Constitution Party but am not behilden to any political party. Maybe if y’all weren’t so busy screaming ‘it never works that way’ or ‘I’m not wastin my vote to guarantee a Democrat gets elected’ we could maybe, just maybe, get a few actual conservatives in office.

        Oh and Cisco- maybe you can’t read, but it’s 42% of HOUSEHOLDS not people. Most gun owners, especially during hostile times toward pro-gunners refuse to answer or outright lie on polls concerning gun ownership. Best of luck installing your socialist utopia in the face of 100million armed citizens.

        1. avatar cisco kid says:

          Wake up and quit living in an old fashioned minute man fantasy world. The sheep turned in guns by the millions in Australia and all they had to do is run an add in the paper, no men in dark sun glasses, no storm troopers. The sheep complied because they knew what would happen to them if they did not. Now Genius with an aging U.S. population do you think old farts like you will be running to the barricades with their oxygen containers to fight the non-existent storm troopers that are not even there. Nope they will turn in their weapons to survive economically and physically after the law is past. The only hope would be young hot heads who are actually a minority in the population as a whole and they are mostly all rabidly anti-gun due to having their schools turned into shooting galleries.

          Don’t believe me about young people. In my state gun shows are only populated with old doddering grey bearded semi-senile old men. You know the kind of old codgers who rant on this forum. Young people at gun shows are damn near extinct and have been for decades. Young people are game players on their computers and its the closest any of them have even ever seen a gun. In our neighborhood a couple of years ago they broke into 4 houses and in one house they found guns laying around and they did not take any of them even though they were in plain sight. They had no use for them and did not even want them.

          Your idea of a revolution is laughable and the pipe dreams of senile old men living in a fantasy world. That America did not die out 200 years ago because it actually never even existed as historical facts prove the majority of the sheep did not support the American Revolution and history proved they were all right, it was a disaster of biblical proportions that reverberates to this very day. The founding Father Swamp Rats screwed us out of a real democracy and a parliamentary government and founded a corrupt representative government that was for the rich and by the rich.

  12. avatar davida says:

    Any state that has an ‘approved ‘ list of guns for sale in the state has “STOLEN ” YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS , and your free choice in arms , if in just part by requiring them be sold thru an FFL out of state.

    BIG infringement on that one.

    Grandfathering did or should mean same laws apply to this weapon as it had on its 1st new sale.

    Really boils down to all anti gun laws are illegal .

  13. avatar Joe R. says:

    Nope, one party, they all have to go.

    It’s rumored that Paul Ryan wants to lose the Senate to the evil POS (D) so that “Drain the Swamp” Trump gets impeached.

    They can all go the fuck home quietly on that day.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      This makes no sense. Impeachment happens in the House. Trial and possible conviction happen in the Senate.

      At present, to secure a (politically motivated) conviction the Democrats would need to pick up 23/33 (70%) wins in the Senate and take the House.

      At that point they would effectively control everything and they’d have until 2020 controlling the White House as well.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Oh shit man, you want them to make sense? F it.

        It’s not a two-front war, it’s a one-front war, we have some tyrannical turn-coat 5th column MFs in our lines and we’re surrounded.

        Don’t sweat it though. . .

        A M E R I C A

        S T A R T E D

        W I T H

        L E S S

        P A T R I O T S

        [HOWEVER, With more more ‘shrinking awe’ of our LORD, though. So, take a knee.]

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “This makes no sense. Impeachment happens in the House. ”

        Which part of impeachment makes no sense?

        Impeachment is sufficient unto itself, for political purposes. Submit articles for impeachment. Hold months of hearings. Conduct a vote. Demoncrats are confident they will rule the House in 2019. Impeachment is guaranteed. Using the process and the result to bash the president and the Republicrat party is an achievable and positive goal. Then, put impeachment before the Senate in the summer of 2019, and have both houses dragging impeachment through the 2018 mid-term elections. Even if the president is not convicted in the Senate, the damage will be its own reward.

        Note: Republicrats will not protect the president in the Senate, so both parties could see a victory in removing the president. It would be the swamp wreaking revenge on the public.

  14. avatar former water walker says:

    We’re screwed…keep your powder dry. Fight ANYONE who opposes the 2A…as mentioned we have both houses and a “somewhat” pro-2A Trump. And an ok SCOTUS. They’ve used kids before- they kill them before they’re born too. 😡😩😖

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Not what the latest projections are showing… Trump’s approval rating is up again and the “blue wave” would need to have the largest margin in almost 40 years in order to take the House. (There is mathematically no realistic way for them to take the Senate.)

      Turn out.
      Vote

      1. avatar Sian says:

        I hope you’re right. The dems were slaughtered in the polls after they went all-in for gun control in 1994. That lesson stuck with the majority of them for the next 20 years.

        They seem to have forgotten that lesson. I hope they get a stinging reminder.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          He is probably right. That little March on Saturday energized the right and POTG more than it did the Left.

          If any of the analytics and polling are to be believed that is.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          The bias in polling is heavily slanted in favor of the DNC. Last time they were this far “ahead” in the generic ballot, the GOP picked up almost a dozen house seats.

  15. avatar cisco kid says:

    Actually the Republicans are to blame for the coming loss of gun rights and total destruction of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court this summer complete with Trumps appointed Justice who is a Conservative voted to trash the Heller Case which guaranteed the right of people to own guns by completely reversing it and now making it legal for States to ban any and every gun they want. And now the States are doing just that. California is confiscating semi-auto rifles and has severe ammo restrictions. The Attorney General of Massachusetts by decree with no law passed outlawed semi- auto rifles. Maryland has outlawed semi-auto rifles and the list is on going in other states as well.

    Also the Republicans who are crafty back stabbing devils to all gun owners refused to do anything about the school massacres happening on a weekly basis because they refused to spend any Federal money on security guards or security systems. You see it was cheaper for them to let guns gets banned than to spend any money to stop the carnage. Now the crafty disingenuous Republicans can sit back after the take over of the Democrats in Congress in the fall elections of both house and claim it was not they who banned guns but the Democrats knowing their constituents are too dumb to realize that they the Republicans could have prevented this from the very beginning simply by doing something about mass shootings in our schools.

    Now due to Republican refusal to spend any money on doing something we have now bred an entire new Young generation of Americans who are anti-gun and anti Second Amendment to the core and will be voting to destroy it for the rest of their lives. And remember down through History the Supreme Court has always I repeat always voted with public opinion on controversial subjects even when it blatantly violated the Constitution of the U.S. Just to give you two of the the most outrageous, remember the Dred Scott Decision where the corrupt and disingenuous Supreme Court declared that Dred Scott could not sue for his freedom from slavery because eve though he was born in America he was declared a non-human being but only an animal according to the then popular public opinion of the time. And ditto for 100,0000 Japanese American citizens that were put in concentration camps in the U.S. during WWII where they lost their homes and businesses. Just two examples showing it is actually public opinion and not the Constitution that gives you any rights at all. Gun rights will be no different as the latest outrage in the Maryland decision this last summer proved beyond all doubt.

    Public Opinion rules and controls the corrupt Supreme Court.and the Second Amendment is now history without even having to change the Constitution because now its just simply ignored as though it does not exist and since 64 per cent of Americans today do not own guns they see absolutely nothing wrong with destroying it. They actually believe it to be a blessing that will make them and their children much, much safer.
    Edit

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Thank GOD you ain’t from here.

  16. avatar Alexander says:

    The most substantive difference between the Constitution of the United States and that of the Soviet Union is the Second Amendment. The American Communists are working hard to make them the same.

  17. avatar Quest says:

    Reggie Browning, related to your desire to know the statistics of dying in a mass shooting versus other rare deaths, I found the following quote:

    “…an American’s lifetime odds of dying in a mass shooting committed in any location is 1 in 11,125; of dying in a car accident is 1 and 491; of drowning is 1 in 1,133; and of choking on food is 1 in 3,461”

    Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics-2018-2

    Good to keep these things in perspective.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Stats are always dangerous, but….

      BI noted the “odds” of assault by gun are 1 in 315. Admittedly, I do not understand or know how “odds” are/were calculated for the BI dataset. However, if the “1 in 315” means one out of every 315 people in the country are going to be shot, and if the population is ~315,000,000, then dividing the population by group of 315 results in one million assaults by gun last year. Does that make sense? If so, why do we not see one million gun assaults trumpeted 24/7? Anybody know of a different source that supports the one million “gun assaults” in any given year?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        I read a bit more of the BI statistics. The narrative under the “cause” chart declares that we have ~13,000 deaths through “assault by gun”. Which proves I do not understand how “odds” are calculated. This apparently gets into “probabilities”, at which point I defer to Lazarus Long: “The probability of any given event is 50-50; either a thing will happen, or it will not.”

      2. avatar Quest says:

        Those odds are lifetime odds, not in any given year (thank God).

  18. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “We must win the fight for our own movement and our own party before we can fight the Left.”

    The progressive march through the institutions started long before The Reagan Interruption. It’s gonna take as long a consistent slog to unwind it. Pragmatically, you gotta take a party to get access, and you don’t have to listen to the swamp creatures once you’re in, if your own authority is enough.

    Primary every squishy R, then make sure every R in the general wins — even the squishes who got the nomination anyway.

  19. avatar JW says:

    Two ways to expose this madness.

    Show the disparity between Maryland and Florida voting.

    Ask parallel topic questions of the teens – exposing their superior reasoning abilities.

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