TTAG Daily Digest: The Irresponsible Truth, an NRA Cash Infusion and Panicky Democrats

Why the Stevens gun manifesto is beyond irresponsible – Mostly because it tells the world exactly what the anti-gun left really wants . . .

The notion that repeal would be simple is a fantasy. Two-thirds of both houses of Congress would have to craft the repeal, which would then have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. That’s inconceivable in a country that has more guns than people, and laws in 44 states that permit open carry, even though the Supreme Court has never ruled that such a right is compelled by the Second Amendment.

Not only is repeal unattainable, it would also be ineffective and unnecessary. Despite Justice Stevens’ preposterous assertion that the Second Amendment is the “only legal rule” protecting gun sellers, 44 states include a right to bear arms in their state constitutions. And there are numerous laws both ensuring and limiting the rights of buyers and sellers.

NRA donations tripled after Stoneman Douglas shooting, reports say – See: Streisand Effect . . .

Donations to the National Rifle Association’s political fund tripled in the days after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, according to reports.

The NRA’s Political Victory Fund collected more than $779,000 in February 2018, CNN reported, citing reports from the Federal Elections Commission. That’s compared with the almost $248,000 in individual contributions in January 2018.

The Parkland massacre, which left 17 dead and another 17 injured, happened on Feb. 14.

The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, an independent research organization that monitors political spending, found that “the NRA received twice as much money from nearly five times as many donors in the seven days after the Parkland, Florida, high school shooting than it did in the seven days before the shooting.”

Pennsylvania student stockpiled arsenal, threatened school shooting, police say – That “arsenal” they found was made up of a crossbow, a ballistic vest and some ammo . . .

Officials in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, say it was another school massacre in the making. A foreign exchange student is under arrest for allegedly threatening to attack his high school.

Police say the 18-year-old exchange student An Tso Sun was reported for making a threat.

“He told a fellow student, ‘Don’t come to school on May 1 because I’m going to shoot up the school,’ and then he said, ‘I’m kidding,'” said police superintendent Michael Chitwood.

 

 

Remington Spring Fever Means Cash Back for You

With temperatures warming up across most of Remington Country, we are anxious to spend time on the range and in the field chasing varmints. Remington spring fever brings a 2018 Cash Back Rebate on the Model 700 VTR (Varmint-Target Rifle) and the Model 700 Magpul.

The cash back, mail-in offers are valid on purchases now through May 1st, 2018. All requests must be postmarked by June 1st, 2018. $100.00 of per gun, limit 5 per customer. You can download and print the rebate form here.

WATCH: Texas Police Department Has Intense Stand Off With Open Carry Activists –

The incident began on Monday when CJ Grisham, the founder of Open Carry Texas (OCT), put in a call to Olmos Park Police Chief Rene Valenciano. Grisham questioned Valenciano’s stance on open carry and whether or not open carry activists would have issues if a demonstration was held in the San Antonio suburb.

“Am I going to be forced on my face — if I open carry there — at gunpoint?” Grisham asked Valenciano.

“I’m not even gonna respond to that question, sir, that’s a very unreasonable question to ask,” Valenciano replied. “Provided that you have a license to carry a handgun and you are not committing any criminal activity, you don’t have anything to worry about.”

On Tuesday, Grisham and a handful of other open carry activists held a demonstration in Olmos Park to show their support for the Second Amendment. It wasn’t long before Chief Valenciano and other members of his department showed up to arrest demonstrators.

Retired Justice Stevens puts Democrats on a pin with call to repeal Second Amendment – Then really don’t want you to know what they’re actually thinking . . .

Democrats are panicking over retired Supreme Court Justice John Stevens’ comments on repealing the Second Amendment.

You know they’re panicking when they insist they’re not panicking.

It is one thing for the left to slowly, carefully, methodically gut the Bill of Rights by using the media and their children’s crusade as proxies.

But it’s quite another thing to honestly declare your intentions about repealing the Second Amendment, which is what Stevens — a Republican appointee but a liberal — is advocating.

Out of the Mouth of Babes

And finally, your feel-good story of the day – Convicted Felon Shot Dead By Homeowner During Nashville Home Invasion

Homeowner Brent Bishop, 43, was away from his residence when two strange men entered through a rear door and struck his wife in the face. Moments later, Bishop arrived and noticed that the rear door was open. When he entered the kitchen, Bishop was struck on the head with a blunt object. He was ordered to open his gun safe and the robbers removed three long guns and a pistol. As this was occurring, Bishop’s wife fled to a neighbor’s house. The two robbers then left with the guns.

Bishop, unsure where his wife was, went to another room in the house and retrieved a pistol. He was outside looking for his wife when he encountered the robbers. During the ensuing altercation, Bishop fired on them, fatally wounding Adams. The second robber dropped the long guns and the pistol that had been taken from the safe and ran away. He remains at large.

comments

  1. avatar Hannibal says:

    “Remington spring fever brings a 2018 Cash Back Rebate on the Model 700 VTR (Varmint-Target Rifle) and the Model 700 Magpul…”

    Cool, how will that warranty shake out after bankruptcy?

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      When they had their big trigger recall I registered and it took 8 weeks just to get the box to send my VTR back. Which in my case was 7-1/2 weeks longer than it took to get a Ti mney installed. I think I made the right choice.

      So in retrospect, I don’t think the bankruptcy will effect warranty claims all that much.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Side note, I’d have no problem giving Timn ey a free link to their website, but it’s almost April and the link still goes to Bro wnells ‘Black Friday Deals’!

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          ‘Black Friday’, ‘Good Friday’, what’s the difference?

          /S

    2. avatar WadeJ says:

      And the little part in the rebate terms and conditions … “Promotion may be modified or canceled at any time.” … as in, thanks for springing for a new Remington; but we don’t have any money for your cash rebate. And BTW, if you think our quality sucks now, just wait until you see what this bankruptcy round does to you.

  2. avatar Ed says:

    I’d rather the cash windfall had gone to GOA, instead of the “keep-on-compromising” NRA. Now all they’ll think is, “Wayne La PewPew is doing a great job, and we don’t need to change a thing about our approach!”

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      And exactly what legislation or relief to firearms owners can GOA claim? When does the MSM credit GOA for standing in the way of “common-sense” firearms laws, or progress towards eliminating the threats from private gun ownership, ot the Second Amemdment in general? GOA thumps its chest and claim “no compromise”, but they’d need to have some sort of impact on the picture to have anything not to compromise on. All that BS is good for fundraising and gun freaks who only talk to each other. GOA hasn’t done a thing for the big picture. Ditto Dudley and his NAGRs.

      Want to bitch about the NRA, to the NRA? If you were a member, you could attend the Annual Meetings in Dallas first weekend in May. I’ll be there. Bring your gripes up at the general forum Saturday morning. Used to be a pretty brisk debate in years past.

  3. avatar balais says:

    Oh god. Not CJ Grisham again.

    With ‘allies’ for gun rights like Grisham, who needs enemies???

    https://michaelyon-online.com/?searchword=Grisham&searchphrase=any&limit=25&ordering=newest&view=search&option=com_search

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Are you blaming the victim and supporting the anti gun government? What were your thoughts when Californian open carried? Are you the type that doesn’t want to rock the boat and expose people?

    2. avatar Just Sayin says:

      He has his detractors.
      Two sides on that story. This one has a happy ending for Texan POTG thnx to him.

      https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Olmos-Park-repeals-gun-ordinance-after-arrests-12791443.php

      Just like there’s more than two sides on the 2A issue.
      I know where I stand, just like most TTAG POTG know where they stand.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Wow! That’s what protests are supposed to do!

      2. avatar balais says:

        Baggage is baggage. And the guy has plenty of it.

        Too bad open carry texas doesn’t have a better advocate for their cause.

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      In this particular case. CJ was clearly in the right. The ordinance, now repealed, was indisputably contrary to Texas State law, and the officers “knew or should have known” that the ordinance would not withstand scrutiny. Moreover, in watching the vieos, it is also patent that the chief doesn’t like citizens carrying firearms in his town, and doesn’t like protesters who don’t like him. One video shows a police officer drawing his gun on a man who was doing nothing more than holding a protest sign. the man was ordered (not asked) to put the sign on the ground, and then to get on the ground. There is no evidence that he committed any crime. The one concerning CJs arrest shows that he was ordered to step away from another protester “because he has a gun.” Although armed, he protester was doing nothing but holding a protest sign. Really? I mean REALLY? It would seem that there is a fairly decent civil rights action that could, and maybe should, be filed.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        The article mentioned they declined to charge them with additional crimes the cops on scene recommended, but didn’t make clear if the original charges, including assault on a police officer, were dropped as well.

        Is CJ currently charged with assault on a LE?

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          OOoo! Good catch, I missed that. I’m not thinking City Council can drop those charges, maybe a “come to Jesus meeting” with the cops is indicated.

    4. avatar Dave says:

      I’ve never heard of this Michael Yon guy, but his arguments reek of the usual anti-2A elitism-based rhetoric that peasants can’t be trusted to be safe with live weapons.

      1. avatar balais says:

        LOL really?

        Yon is pro-2A and self-defense (read up his history, and youll know why). He is also very anti-retard and against idiocy from guys like CJ Grisham.

        He is also one of the most highly respected journalists who covered the war on terrorism.

  4. avatar BLAMMO says:

    Democrats will now cry “NOOOO, we’re not for repealing the 2nd Amendment or taking anybody’s guns away!!”

    Too late. You finally showed us your ass.

  5. avatar former water walker says:

    Keep on blathering Stevens. Senile dementia is a bitch…can someone puh-leese ‘splain to me exactly WHUT GOA actually does? Or influences?!? The media rarely if ever mentions GOA. Oh well…

    1. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

      Justice Stevens clearly has his bow tie tied too tight. Then again, he is just speaking from his heart. Other Dems don’t like their plans discussed openly like this though.

      Of course this is nothing new for those on the Left; they always know what’s best for everyone else.

  6. avatar sound awake says:

    think theyre crazy now

    wait until stevens is gone and ginsburg retires

    and trump puts two more on the bench like gorsuch

    then all this anti 2nd amendment stuff largely goes away along with:

    voter fraud

    sanctuary cities

    open borders

    the welfare state

    gay marriage

    transgender agenda

    and the really really BIG one:

    ROE VS WADE

    hopefully we can get cans and sbrs out of the nfa and national carry reciprocity out of the deal too

    1. avatar BLAMMO says:

      Fossilized human remains Ginsberg and Breyer are on deathwatch. It just better happen in the next 2 years. Two months would be better.

    2. avatar . says:

      It’s utterly ludicrous that the people who scream loudest about the sanctity of “individual rights” are often the same ones who think they have ANY right to dictate to fully-formed adult human beings that they’re not allowed to remove a few unwanted cells their own bodies. Screw the thousand-plus years of scientific progress we’ve made as a species, because a couple of millennia ago (back when “marrying” your brother’s 12-year-old was socially acceptable), somebody crawled out of his hut with a completely un-provable claim that he got a personal telegram from an Invisible Sky Wizard to let everyone know what “he” wanted for the world.

      You have no more authority to declare your views as the religious or moral Standard Supreme than they have to tell us what we should and should not be allowed to own by way of firearms. Live YOUR life the way YOU want, and go in peace. But trying to shove your religious salvation onto people who don’t want it is no better than the little brown-shirt brats trying to cram their demands down our own throats.

      I’m perfectly happy for all of us to enjoy your guns, but life would be a LOT better all around if some of our number would grow up and accept the fact that whatever people – ANY PEOPLE – do with their own bodies is none of your affair. In short – it’s never been any of your business, and rightfully, it never should be.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “… but life would be a LOT better all around if some of our number would grow up and accept the fact that whatever people – ANY PEOPLE – do with their own bodies is none of your affair, …”

        Hey, I agree.

        Personally, I think abortion is murder, but if a Progressive wants an abortion, have at it.

        I’m even fine with using public money to pay for Progressive’s abortions. That’s a small investment compared to the fiscal havoc their crotch fruit will bestow on this great country once they hit voting age…

        1. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

          You fucker! You owe me a keyboard! And I don’t approve of abortion. But you made a crude, cruel, but very valid point.

          Let the progs protect earth mother by limiting their off spring.

        2. avatar CZJay says:

          If they all decide not to have kids, become genderless and disable their genitals, there will be a lot less David Hoggs. They will eventually realize they need to adopt so they can raise someone to take the torch from them. I am already seeing such a thing happen with homosexual couples…

        3. avatar 16V says:

          C’mon. I mean seriously, come the eff on. Let’s separate religious ideology from reality. Ask yourself the following questions…

          Does having a child inherently make someone a passably adequate parent? Not great, not even good, but just not horrible enough to most likely raise another monster?

          Are these unwanted children a burden that you, the taxpayer, are willing to shoulder? Because the parent can’t/won’t, so buck up moral warrior, the onus is now on you.

          Is bringing a product of rape/incest into the world, which further damages it’s parent, and has all the negative implications thereof, something you’d be proud of helping force to happen?

          Not to mention abortion has happened for as long as we have had civilization (5000+ years). Women have always had abortions. Or killed unwanted children after birth. Period. Full. Stop.

          You do understand that one of the major factors in the ever declining crime rate since the late ’60s, is legalized abortion, no?

        4. avatar Pg2 says:

          @16, using abortion in cases rape/incest in the same context as people using abortion as birth control is dishonest and ignorant. Par for course for you.

        5. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          Personally, I think abortion is murder, but if a Progressive wants an abortion, have at it.
          Evolution in Action!

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Pg2, it is the choice of the mother, period, claiming something else makes *you* the one outside the lines. If the mother wishes to bear the product of her brother’s raping her and giving her an STD, that is her business. If she wishes to abort her husband’s baby as a form of birth control, that is her business. NONE of it is your business, unless you happen to be pregnant.

        7. avatar 16V says:

          @16, using abortion in cases rape/incest in the same context as people using abortion as birth control is dishonest and ignorant. Par for course for you.”

          So, do explain how they are different for us ignorant serfs. The fetus isn’t carried to term in either scenario, ends up just as dead, so please explain how it’s somehow “different”. Better motives makes it okay? So as long as you approve of the circumstances, your moral stance is flexible. Got it.

          Another childish post, without anything resembling an argument, just another sad ad hominem.

      2. avatar mandrake the magician says:

        “liberals” are all-for pro-choice, ‘gay rights’, transgenderism, no-fault-divorce, ‘gay marriage’, ‘open borders’, relative morality and…. TOLERANCE….
        except when it comes to guns…..
        that’s when their “tolerance” evaporates and they become KGB-style-control-freaks…..
        nah!
        i ain’t having a ‘bar’ of it…..
        i don’t pay attention to HYPOCRITEs nor do i give them the slightest creedence…..

        1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          liberals” are all-for pro-choice, ‘gay rights’, transgenderism, no-fault-divorce, ‘gay marriage’, ‘open borders’, relative morality and…. TOLERANCE….
          Really?
          So this is why they are against “hate” speech and for censorship.
          So this is why they are against due process of law.
          So this is why they ban dissenting speakers and teachers from Liberal Campuses.
          So this is why Hollyweird bans conservative actors for the like of Harveywood.
          Go to an Antifa rally wearing Trump paraphenalia and see how tolerant they are.

      3. avatar Thunderkawk says:

        Except….. It isn’t their own body they are doing it to. It’s a separate body connected by a cord. Not mere cells. Barbarian shit right there.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Not according to SCOTUS, and none of your business. Men forcibly controlling women’s birth decisions, that is some barbarian shit, right there. Like many grabbers, you are being lied to. Same word twisting, denigrating, personal attacks, EXACTLY the same process, with exactly the same goal, depriving *somebody else* of their natural rights, when it will never affect you.

      4. avatar JPT says:

        It is possible for a person to see abortion as barbaric and selfish without being religious. Calm your tits and grow up.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Absolutely correct. If you fall into that category, then don’t have one. But demanding to be given control over somebody else’s decision is far more barbaric. Calm your own tits.

        2. avatar 16V says:

          Exactly my go-to. Against abortion? Don’t have one.

      5. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        Unlimited individual autonomy? “They can do it, so it must be permitted.” Really?

        What someone does to someone else is exactly what law is for. A “clump of cells” may not be a person yet — maybe not til 26 years after birth, to pick a threshold at random — BUT may become one. (Some say an embryo is a person already. Myself, I’m not sure about a lot of 26-year-olds, but we treat them like they might be — people that is — just in case.)

        People with incompatible wants: what do we do about that, once that starts?

        What do we do about that when there are plenty of ways to stop the avalanche before the first cells with their own genome start down the hill to personhood? (That’s the good analogy I’ve been looking for — thanks.) Is it just to stop a kid you’ve decided you don’t want, when you could have realized that sooner and not started? We frown on disposing of 25 and a half year olds, because they’ve become a P I T A. Maybe planting that, back then wasn’t such a good idea. Now what? Yet, even shrubbery have rights of a sort.

        And no, nobody gets to do anything they want with their body. When what you’re doing impacts someone else, time to look at the trade-off. The law is for that, too.

        This ought to be perfectly familiar. “You’re doing a thing that maybe will impact me.” is the form of *all* the anti-gun “safety” screeds. The anti-gun version is populated with bad science, worse stats, n terrible legal principles, but still it happens.

        When it’s about guns, this apparantly counts, leading to “No you can’t ever have guns, and we get to do anything to stop you.” When it’s about pregnancies, the argument doesn’t count at all. The science, the stats, n the law are all clearer than about guns, but … nothin.

        It’s almost like outcome first, n the “argument” is window dressing.

        What’s common across the two issues is the perspective on (ir)responsibility. I’ll leave that as an exercise for our little dot of an interloper, who apparantly was not aborted.

      6. avatar Big Bill says:

        ““… but life would be a LOT better all around if some of our number would grow up and accept the fact that whatever people – ANY PEOPLE – do with their own bodies is none of your affair, …”

        This is part of the “It’s MY body” line of thought.
        Which is easily negated with this: Try going into a police station, shooting up an illegal drug, and telling the arresting officer, “But it’s MY body!”
        More to the point, what anyone does with their own body can harm society. Getting drunk is a bad idea. Being drunk means you have a reduced capacity to make good decisions. Making good decisions is a part of belonging to society. If those poor decisions harm only you (you fall and break a leg, and you have the adequate insurance (not paid for by society) and assets to pay for the experience, for example), then no problem. But if you fall and break your leg and society has to pay for it, then you’ve harmed society through your poor decision making. If, instead, you’ve made the poor decision to drive while drunk, you’ve harmed society more, by putting members of that society in immediate danger. If you manage to hit someone while driving drunk,than you’ve not only harmed society, but,more importantly, you’ve hurt someone, possibly killed them. If that person is a family member, you’ve hurt the family.
        What you do to your body is indeed often the business of society.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          What manure. If somebody wants to shoot up in a police station, write a “3” on his forehead and throw his ass out the door. The world is overpopulated, let him die. Or explain how 40 years of the war on drugs has benefited society in *any* way.

        2. avatar 16V says:

          If someone wants to shoot up in a police station, give him a clean needle, and find him an empty cell. Give him his medical grade morphine, you know the kind you could get OTC at the corner drug store, or through the Sears catalog until the stupidity of ‘drug control’ started. When he wakes up, send him on his way with a nominal bill for the sleeping quarters.

      7. avatar balais says:

        You’re absolutely correct.

        If republicans wanted to truly squash the democratic party, they would abandon silly moronic acts of behavior like: infringing upon womens reproductive rights, privatizing public lands, and continuing the war on drugs.

        In fact, Ive made the argument elsewhere that the only thing keeping the republican party on life support is that they generally have a better stance on the 2nd amendment than the democratic party. There’s plenty of gun owning liberals who wont vote for democrats because of that party’s gun control stance.

        1. avatar davida says:

          Pro constitutionalist 1st pro rights 2ned pro gun 3rd if theses are not met first there is little to further discuss till thats agreed on .

          States must follow that doctrine too , they have no pass to ignore the law of the land.
          It is also why way to many state laws are in fact unconstitional and must be removed.

          The constitution does not say states can violate the constitution untill some one can prove injury and get it before the supream court. 23 years later like with Washingtons DC’s gun ban that was repealed in 2008 FINALLY

          Truth be told the oath of office is suposted to stop said unconstitutional laws before being passed theres where the problem lays on why stuff is going to hell in a hand basket .

    3. avatar TexTed says:

      It’s all about the midterms. If the R’s lose control of the Senate, then Trump gets no more Supreme Court appointees. After the Merrick Garland thing, if you think there’s any chance that a Senate Majority Leader Schumer would allow any Trump appointee to go through… you’re nuts. He’ll pull every trick in the book, he’ll claim that a president under investigation shouldn’t get to make an appointment, he’ll claim that the house is preparing impeachment proceedings so no appointment will go through, etc.

      In short — Trump has until the end of 2018 to make any new Supreme Court appointments. After January 3, 2019, it all depends on whether the R’s hold the Senate or they lose it during the midterms.

      1. avatar Parnell says:

        When the GOP is defending ten seats and the Democrats twenty-five I think the chances of turning the Senate are pretty slim. The danger is in the House.

        1. avatar BierceAmbrose says:

          Never bet against The Stupid Party’s ability to screw up.

  7. avatar ironicatbest says:

    What a mom I’ve got, 84 years old, don’t own a gun and just got a membership to NRA, Told her about GOA, ” how much does that cost? I ‘ ll get that too”

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Be a good son and buy your mom a nice gun.

      (Just don’t give her any lip and give her an excuse to use it on ya… 😉 )

  8. avatar R Cain says:

    Bottom Line …. Liberals suck!

  9. avatar DoomGuy says:

    I’m glad to see that Texas cops have solved all of the actual crime down here that they have so much free time to harass citizens exercising their rights…

    Oh wait, they can’t go after the real criminals because then they would be racists so they do the big Belt buckle’s bidding of harassing the little guy.

    I doubt they’d keep their eye on BLM or the many Islamist movements here in this state. Nope they can’t and won’t. Your tax dollars at work folks.

  10. avatar David Thompson says:

    Kudos to Justice Stevens. He got someone who writes for CNN to admit that guns aren’t easily obtainable.

  11. avatar Geoff PR says:

    ““Am I going to be forced on my face — if I open carry there — at gunpoint?” Grisham asked Valenciano.

    “I’m not even gonna respond to that question, sir, that’s a very unreasonable question to ask,” Valenciano replied. “Provided that you have a license to carry a handgun and you are not committing any criminal activity, you don’t have anything to worry about.””

    If he has Valenciano on tape saying that, does he have a case for, oh, maybe entrapment, perhaps?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      What Valenciano DIDN’T say was that the town has (now “had”) an ordinance making it illegal for ANYONE in town, other than police officers, to carry a loaded firearm. Although this ordinance has apparently been on the books for a long time, it is obvious that it conflicts with the long-standing Texas concealed carry law–what point is it in having an unloaded concealed carry firearm?–as well as the Texas statute outlawing all local ordinances concerning the carriage of firearms. In other words, Valenciano was taking the position that it was legal to open carry ONLY unloaded firearms. He was dead bang wrong about that. I hope it costs him.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “If he has Valenciano on tape saying that,”

      Olmos Park Police Chief Phone Call:

  12. avatar Ralph says:

    “Stevens — a Republican appointee but a liberal

    I think you misspelled “assh0le.”

  13. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “guns are our most heavily regulated consumer product.” (http://www.cnn.com/2018/03/28/opinions/john-paul-stevens-has-second-amendment-wrong-levy-opinion/index.html)

    Yet the 2A states, “shall not be infringed.” 🙁

  14. avatar davida says:

    When in 2007 Wash, DC gun ban was overturned with just a 5/4 vote , gun owners knew that was the case because it should have bin unanimous 9 / 0 for repeal.

    There should be no more fence sitters now its spelled out.

    Your either for the constitution and freedom or your the enemy.

  15. avatar Gun Owning American says:

    At least Stevens is honest.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      And he is in good company. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a “law and order” Nixon appointee claimed in a television interview that the NRA’s view that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual right to keep and bear arms was “a fraud on the American public.” It was is view that the right was guaranteed to the States so that they could arm their militias, and that therefore the States had the right to regulate the private ownership of arms. (I think he and General Thomas Gage were in agreement on the point that the local state government should have control of all arms and munitions.)

      1. avatar Parnell says:

        The same paragon of individual liberty who as Governor of California started the incarceration of Japanese-Americans at the start of WWII. No doubt a graduate of the Roger B. Taney School of Law.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I have to point out, once again. 1A is a laundry list of rights to be protected by the admonition “Congress shall make no law …”. Why was the RKBA not simply added to the list? Because that wording obviously and deliberately leaves the door open for states, counties, cities, villages, to go ahead and make such laws. Only Congress is forbidden. RKBA, instead, is protected by “shall not be infringed.” As in, not by anyone, for anything. Don’t get confused by the piles of manure. Just read the damn thing, BOR fits on one page and I’d bet you think you could interpret that many words if you set your mind to it.

  16. avatar Defens says:

    NRA nets about $800,000 after the big march, totaling thousands of individual donations. Bloomberg yawns and writes another check for a million.

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      Bloomberg v NRA…

      And once again, you miss the point by miles. Bloomberg has big bucks but only one vote. NRA has (perhaps) less money but about 5.5 million votes, not to mention the other 30 or so million too cheap to pay the $30 membership but “identify with” and generally back the NRA each election cycle.

      For only having about 4%-5% of all gun owners as actual, paid up members, NRA and your “devil” La Pierre, et al, have done one hell of a job protecting every American’s God-given right since GCA ’68… I’ve always thought it’d be great if we could secure that right only for members- then there’d be an appreciation for what’s actually been going on. Just another fantasy.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        The Tory compromiser likes the NRA. There’s a shocker.

        “I’ve always thought it’d be great if we could secure that right only for members-”

        No surprises there either. There’s very little difference between you and the other left leaning statists.

        1. avatar Craig in IA says:

          And you miss the point even further… You seem to like the right without any responsibilities to maintain it. If you and your ilk actually had to do something other than troll the internet casting aspersions towards an organization you’ve likely never been a part of to keep your God-given rights from being taken, you might contribute something in the positive nature for the country. As it is- Zip, Zilch, Nada, except for other like-minded cheap, selfish paranoid wannabees.

          You’d have to be an idiot to know I’m kidding in the quoted portion you chose to repost (I did claim it “a fantasy”, which you intentionaly did not repost) but it only helps your cause, whatever that may be, to continue to mock the one organization that has continued to maintain your right, regardless of your own efforts or lack thereof. I’m hoping you’re not an idiot but it’s becoming increasingly more difficult with each of your negative, factless postings to maintain that assumption…

          So, in a truly American manner, I’ll respect your right to your opinion concerning NRA, perhaps, even, your aversion to my joking, but how about providing some actual facts about NRA’s incompetence in maintaining the 2nd Amendment over the past 40-some years, as well as the gains made by other groups like the NAGRs, GOA, yourself, and the other little no-compromise failures to appear? That shouldn’t take you too long to type…

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “I did claim it “a fantasy”, which you intentionaly did not repost)”

          I didn’t intentionally choose not to repost anything, Tory. I posted a snippet to highlight that to which I was replying. Anybody can look a little bit up-level to see all that you wrote. Why don’t you cry to your beloved Crown about the commentary injustices that have befallen you here. Boo-fucking-hoo!

        3. avatar Craig in IA says:

          I love it! “Tory, NRA sympathizer”… That’s all you’ve got?

          You can’t dispute the fact that it takes work and strategy with like-minded people to maintain our rights so you’ve got to try character assassination and mockery. Shoot, I’m betting you’re still stinging from that Y2K thing that never materialized and have finally finished off all those MREs you had buried. I guess I’d be bitter, too. Or that UN takeover in northern MT that never came to pass? Just iching to get out there and whack a few of the “deserters” who don’t see the world through your dirty spectacles…

          Seriously, John, you should propose something positive- a plan for the future to keep and maintain the Constitution and this great nation. It’s easy to sit around taking shots at others- if you actually propose something substantial there’s always the distinct possibility you’ll have to defend yourself from incoming from other whack jobs like yourself with no plan or purpose. I’d think some of the selfish, cheap crackpots would, if for no other reason, try to keep America going for their kids and grandkids but I doubt most of them can see any further than the day after tomorrow, if that far. Guess it’ll get lonely sometime down there in your bunker, especially if the internet shuts down.

          Then what would you do?

  17. avatar Mark N. says:

    Not surprisingly, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, where a Chinese kid with an “arsenal” was arrested for making a joke, borders West Philadelphia, an area the Second Amendment hasn’t penetrated, despite the views of the rest of the state.

  18. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Wow, in January NRA didn’t even take in enough money to pay Wayne LaPierre.

  19. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    It is one thing for the left to slowly, carefully, methodically gut the Bill of Rights by using the media and their children’s crusade as proxies.
    This is just an appetizer before the main course.
    Democrats are panicking over retired Supreme Court Justice John Stevens’ comments on repealing the Second Amendment.But it’s quite another thing to honestly declare your intentions about repealing the Second Amendment, which is what Stevens — a Republican appointee but a liberal — is advocating.
    Shows Donkeycraps and RINOs true intentions about serving a shet sandwich..

  20. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    “That “arsenal” they found was made up of a crossbow, a ballistic vest and some ammo . . .”

    Arsenal may have been an overstated. OK, it was a huge overstatement. What’s more interesting than the media’s everyday hyperbole is TTAG’s equally commonplace understatement, or in this case, no-statement.

    Conveniently left out of the snarky blurb here is the fact that the accused had also sought help with obtaining a gun. That’s an overt act in furtherance of the plot that graduates it from morbid fantasy and idle threats to spree shooting in the making. “TTAG: All the news that fits our narrative……and nothing more.”

  21. avatar cisco kid says:

    It was announced today that Congress may just subpoena NRA records to find out exactly how they spent millions from Russia during the Presidential campaign which if used for the campaign would have been illegal. The NRA responded that just because one of their members met with Russian Officials it does not mean anything. It sounds about as ludicrous as Trump saying he had no Russian help in being elected.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      So, I assume you support assignment of resources to determine exactly who was paying Russians to try to influence the 2016 elections? Paying them millions of dollars?

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        Try again to post a coherent and logical and sensible post. It will help if you stop putting drugs in your coffee.

  22. avatar Craig in IA says:

    Well, since the site hasn’t been accepting edits today, this is how my reply post above to John in Ohio should read. Two words but it does change the meaning. If you want to reply, reply to this one…

    So, should’ve been:

    And you miss the point even further… You seem to like the right without any responsibilities to maintain it. If you and your ilk actually had to do something other than troll the internet casting aspersions towards an organization you’ve likely never been a part of to keep your God-given rights from being taken, you might contribute something in the positive nature for the country. As it is- Zip, Zilch, Nada, except for other like-minded cheap, selfish paranoid wannabees.

    You’d have to be an idiot to THINK (edit) I’m NOT (edit) kidding in the quoted portion you chose to repost (I did claim it “a fantasy”, which you intentionaly did not repost) but it only helps your cause, whatever that may be, to continue to mock the one organization that has continued to maintain your right, regardless of your own efforts or lack thereof. I’m hoping you’re not an idiot but it’s becoming increasingly more difficult with each of your negative, factless postings to maintain that assumption…

    So, in a truly American manner, I’ll respect your right to your opinion concerning NRA, perhaps, even, your aversion to my joking, but how about providing some actual facts about NRA’s incompetence in maintaining the 2nd Amendment over the past 40-some years, as well as the gains made by other groups like the NAGRs, GOA, yourself, and the other little no-compromise failures to appear? That shouldn’t take you too long to type…

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