Democrats Aren’t Scared of the Politics of Gun Control Any More

New anti-gun House Dmocrats – from left, Rep.-elect Kendra Horn, D-Okla., Rep.-elect Susie Lee, D-Nev., and Rep.-elect Lucy McBath, D-Ga. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

The Clinton assault weapons ban booted a lot of Democrats out of office. As a result, they mostly stayed away from gun control for a generation. That’s not the case any more.

While the “blue dogs” centered in rural districts provided the core internal Democratic resistance to gun control in earlier years, advocates are confident the universal background check bill will draw support from almost all of today’s largely suburban blue dog caucus, starting with its chair, Rep. Stephanie Murphy, an Asian-American and strong gun control advocate who represents a seat outside Orlando. Although the blue dogs will likely resist the left’s most expansive plans for taxing and spending, most of them comfortably embrace the party’s liberal mainstream on cultural issues.

Today’s blue dogs “don’t look anything like … the guys who were voting against those things under Clinton,” said Bennett. “The most avowedly conservative of the Democrats, the centrists, even most of them are going to be on board for these (social) things.”

(Giffords executive director Peter) Ambler anticipates that more Republicans will cross over to support the background check bill than Democrats will defect to oppose it. And both Ambler and (Democratic Rep. Ted) Deutch consider it likely that House Democrats will pass other gun-related legislation over the next two years, such as measures to raise the minimum age for gun purchases to 21; “red flag” laws designed to make it easier for law enforcement to confiscate guns from individuals considered an “extreme risk” of violence; and possibly legislation to ban certain types of semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Deutch has introduced legislation to regulate assault weapons under the National Firearms Act, which bans fully automatic weapons. “We are going to have a debate on weapons of war and whether they belong in our community or not,” Deutch says.

– Ron Brownstein at CNN in Why Democrats are not afraid of gun control anymore

comments

  1. avatar MAGA says:

    Eventually gun owners will get mad enough and fight back.

    Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived. They can disarm some of us, but they can’t disarm ALL of us.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      As long as they do it incrementally, the odds of the People waking up enough to fight back whilst they still retain the means are slim. Indoctrination and normalization ensure that each successive generations will accept more tyranny. Simply take stock of how much tyranny we tolerate today. It will be more tomorrow.

      Be careful of appeasers and soothsayers who want to lull freedom loving individuals to sleep. They are deadly to liberty.

      1. avatar Lost Down South says:

        And if you DO fight back, especially as an individual, you will be a gun-toting nutcase, killed or incarcerated, and will be held up as an example of WHY THIS HAS TO BE DONE.

        Pretty transparent.

        On your feet or on your knees. Choose one.

        1. avatar Captain Mal says:

          Armed resistance?
          Rental trucks are cheap. So is fuel oil and fertilizer. And every cause needs a martyr. So you either way, you end up taking one for the team.
          On your feet. Or on your knees.

      2. avatar Snake Plisskin says:

        Correct. It’s the old “boiling frog” analogy at work here IMO.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      As it stands right now, the physical resources to fight and win quickly are regulated out of sight. When that wall gets built on the southern border and security is as tight as a DMZ, there won’t be much successful smuggling, of what militias need, back and forth across it. Those freedom loving individuals who want to seek liberty elsewhere in the world won’t be able to do so with their own wealth intact, however meager; or perhaps even at all.

      1. avatar DaveP. says:

        1-If the wall doesn’t get built you will have amnesty under the very next Democrat or “moderate” Republican President… and the election after that you lose all your rights, Second Amendment and otherwise, under the tsunami of “new citizen” votes for big-state socialists.
        2- Where are you gonna smuggle weapons from anyway? Has Mexico suddenly turned pro-gun or pro-Republican?

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          1 – A people cannot vote themselves to liberty. It requires strong action. Incrementalism favors tyranny.
          – An individual cannot lose rights. Their exercise can be curtailed but the underling inalienable rights remain and ever shall so. If you understood rights, you would’ve already known that. The right will fuck your exercise of liberty just like the left will. Wake up and smell the tyranny.
          – This is already a socialist system. If it weren’t, you wouldn’t have the immigration problems that you see now. The illegal immigrant is the bogeyman that the politicians and policy makers on the right uses to scare the sheep in the direction that they want them to go when the real fix is to simply force government to honor and follow the Constitution. When the right gets their way, you will have tyranny pretty much as you would if the left gets their way. Neither are solutions in favor of liberty. The right and left both have their useful idiots.

          2 – It’s not just Mexico and it’s not just weapons. There’s intel, personnel, money, etc. Look at history… We will most likely need some financial and logistical help from outside. Mexico is a better choice for a smuggling route than Canada. There are already networks of experienced smugglers.

          Some will do whatever it takes to justify the views of their overlords and handlers; left or right.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes… those “evil” “right wing” “overlords”… how dare they want to take over, cut taxes, and leave you alone?

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Yes… those “evil” “right wing” “overlords”… how dare they want to take over, cut taxes, and leave you alone?”

          Nice deflection that doesn’t address fuck all of the substance. Good job, comrade!

        4. avatar Swarf says:

          If that was what ever actually happened, pwrserge, I’d be all for it, but it isn’t. Ever.

          The Republicans are just as full of shit as the Democrats.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          You mean how the GOP managed to squeak through the largest tax cuts in recent memory? How quickly people forget.

        6. avatar Swarf says:

          Please. Tax cut for whom?

          Don’t bother. It was a money grab by and for the super-wealthy, and the fact that so many Trump voters have their shocked faces on about how much they owe this year says it all.

          Ya boy played you. Somehow. It’s not like he ever tried to hide the fact that he only sees the color green.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Don’t bother. It was a money grab by and for the super-wealthy, and the fact that so many Trump voters have their shocked faces on about how much they owe this year says it all.”

          It does seem that the idea a tax cut is actually a tax increase is attractive to the uninformed. Which appears to be the majority of the population.

          There are the uninformed, and the passionately uninformed. Like all the leftists in NYC who decided that buying enormous tax revenue with a small tax rebate was somehow hurting the population (in this one instance, I fully support the ignorant). Then there are those who do not want high-paying jobs in their state/city because such wealth raises the cost of living, while also raising tax revenues. Better to keep soaking the less wealthy with increased taxes, and keep the economy stagnant (this is called “zero-sum” economics).

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          Um… I’m not exactly “super wealthy” but my taxes went down significantly. A lower tax return is not a sign of increased taxes. Learn to math bro.

        9. avatar Swarf says:

          Well, serge, considering that you think my failure to slavishly commit myself to the Republican Party means that I deserve to be locked in prison or murdered, we aren’t bros. At all.

          It’s nice that you got a refund, but your sample size of one might be too small to meaningfully represent the overall effect of the tax restructuring. Other studies, with a sample size of everyone, show different results.

          “In 2027, the study shows, 82.8 percent of the tax cuts will flow to the top 1 percent. The top quintile actually receives 107.3 percent of the tax changes — because taxes actually increase for the folks in the lowest, second-lowest and middle quintiles. It’s right there on Page 5 of the report.”

          https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/11/14/does-trump-tax-cut-give-percent-benefits-top-one-percent/

          Additionally, this tax fuckery increases the deficit by over 1.5 trillion dollars, something Republicans are supposedly pretty down on. I guess deficit increases only matter when Democrats do it, though. Speaking of virtue signaling.

        10. avatar Ing says:

          Well, Serge, I’m a lot less than wealthy (hanging onto the bottom rung of lower middle-class and counting pennies every month), and my taxes actually went up.

          In taxes, as in almost everything else gov’t does, somebody gets screwed no matter what. And there’s nothing the screwed can do about it.

          John In Ohio is right. One political party is far, far worse than the other right now (we all know which is which), but in the long run they’re both inimical to individual liberty.

        11. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Well, Serge, I’m a lot less than wealthy (hanging onto the bottom rung of lower middle-class and counting pennies every month), and my taxes actually went up.”

          I truly would like to understand how your taxes went up, the mechanics. Being on fixed incomes, our taxes went down, slightly, because the standard deduction was more than our prior itemizing. Nothing life changing, but down nonetheless. We don’t cross the high state tax threshold, so no loss there (we never did cross the high state tax threshold). And, we get a smaller refund because less was taken from our military retiree pay. Cannot see a smaller refund based on lower withholding as somehow a tax increase.

          Regarding “somebody gets screwed no matter what”, the biggest, ongoing screwing any of us suffers is removing 47% of income earners from income tax. When you exempt nearly half the sources of tax revenues, the burden must shift to somewhere. Taking all the wealth of everyone will not lower taxes for anyone. And then there is no year two. Taking every bit of income (from any and all sources) over $150,000 will only fund the government for about 9 months (Simpson-Bowles Commission). And then there is no year two.

          Somehow, people still seem to believe that with no controls on spending, taking more income from “the people” will balance the federal/state budget, make things “fair”. The problem is “the people” refuse to discipline their representatives who see no reason to not drive up taxes to match uncontrolled spending.

        12. avatar DDay says:

          Hey Swarf, you absolutely got a tax cut. Also the US had the highest business taxes in the world and part of the tax reform was to eliminate many business deductions and cut corporate tax rates. That’s part of the reason why the trump economy is so strong and unemployment so low.

          Also in the tax reform was capping SALT deductions. SALT stands for State and Local Taxes. By allowing people to deduct those, people in low tax states (red states) where footing the bill for the high state and local taxes in blue states. The tax reform is going to punish those blue states and allow the people there to really feel the pain of tax increases by their state and cities. The prior system allowing people to write those taxes off on their federal taxes allowed dems in blue states to get away with raising taxes.

        13. avatar Kyle says:

          Sadly, it seems we all live in the #orangemanbad world in one way or the other.

          Did Trump lower taxes?
          Yes, he absolutely did. If your paying more and NOT living in New York or California and a multi-millionaire, than you need to find a new accountant….stat.

          Do the repubs have any great desire to curb gun confiscation?
          Nope. To them it only a campaign issue. They know full well the gun community is their hostage, we have no place to go. The left wants us disarmed as quickly and completely as possible.

          Is Trump a good guy?
          Nope, Trump is the last gasp of middle America who want to know? “Does America still represent me?” He’s a finger in the eye to the establishment that has run this nation into something unrecognizable to anyone who lives more than 15 miles from an urban metro district. He’s not a “good guy”. He’s a narcissistic, egotistical, lying, philandering, businessman. He is, however, perhaps this nations only chance to turn back to rationality before we go the way of other failed world powers.

          Personally, I give him 1 chance in 3 of success. Trump needed to win back around 2000 instead of George Bush Jr. We are just too far gone now. But that’s just my opinion.

        14. avatar rswartze says:

          Swarf,
          Federal tax revenues were at a record last April and likely this coming April. The deficit is being reduced from the tax cuts. It’s a spending problem, not a revenue problem, yes we all blame the Ryan House for RINO swamp spending. I hold out hope that Trump will reign this in for term #2 by forcing reform to social security and medicare which drive the budget.

          And if you live in a high tax state…don’t blame the tax cuts, you were getting subsidized by the rest of the semi-responsible states. We paid those taxes for you in deductions. It’s time for those states to suffer, lose population and eventually turn red by recognizing the truth.

          The top 10% of tax payers pay 70% of the taxes, so if tax cuts go to the top 1% or 10%, it’s more than appropriate. What’s the fair share, bro…I’m a flat tax fan myself. If you care about deficits, force your congress reps to STOP SPENDING MONEY. I pray Trump will begin this in 2021.

        15. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Kyle, that was a really good post. You put into words a lot of my conflicting thoughts on Trump. Well done.

      2. avatar Chris Morton says:

        If you knew what a Sten Gun is, you’d know that NOTHING needs to be smuggled.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “2 – It’s not just Mexico and it’s not just weapons. There’s intel, personnel, money, etc. Look at history… We will most likely need some financial and logistical help from outside. Mexico is a better choice for a smuggling route than Canada. There are already networks of experienced smugglers.”

        2. Explain what a Sten gun is.

        3. avatar Derringer Dave says:

          Michael asked what a Sten gun is.
          “The STEN (or Sten gun) was a family of British submachine guns chambered in 9×19mm and used extensively by British and Commonwealth forces throughout World War II and the Korean War. They had a simple design and very low production cost, so they were also effective insurgency weapons for resistance groups.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten

          It could easily be made in your basement or garage.
          It’s probably easier to make it fully-automatic than semi-automatic, which is why in nations that ban or restrict guns (Canada, Australia, England, etc.), fully-automatic submachine guns become the guns of choice for criminals who make their own guns, even in Canada, where recently they found a factory cranking out hundreds of black-market submachine guns that looked and functioned better than a lot of the guns you see in stores (better than a Hi-Point, anyway, LOL!)

        4. Thanks for the answer.

          I can imagine the Crips and the Mafia making Sten guns.

        5. avatar CarlosT says:

          Brazilian gangs make sub machine guns in the favelas. If the technology to make bicycles exists in your society, then you have the technology to make guns. Maybe not excellent guns. Maybe not guns that will allow for accurate shooting at range. Definitely “run up to a crowd of people and mow them down” guns, though.

    3. avatar Jay says:

      This is going to be unpopular but some of y’all really need to face the truth.

      No. They won’t fight back. Stop saying they will, it’s fiction and fantasy. The majority of gun owners will get inline because they aren’t going to go to jail or die over firearms.

      The only hope we have of slowing the coming wave is the courts, which because of the current administration are being re-made a bit in our favor. But have no doubt – winter is coming.

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        A majority? Why would you think a majority is necessary??? The US military, inlcoreserves totals 2 million. Law enforcement, including local, state and federal equals 1 million. There are 100 million gun owners. A tiny, but historical percentage of 3% would all that would be needed. But that percentage would be much higher and only a small minority of the military, if so ordered, would fire on their mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters and sons and daughters. Law enforcement OTOH, would. They’d have to be eliminated in their beds at night as they sleep alongside their wives and down the hall from their children’s. This “fight” isn’t aimed at our “government”, which when faithful to the intentions of our Founders is the most perfect ever constructed, but the bonafide enemies of it. Today, that would be defined as registered democrats and voters. We could start by seizing those records all of the nation.

        1. avatar WARFAB says:

          What would the goal of such a fight be? A fight with the military wouldn’t be in any way necessary to achieve the desired goals. For the most part, fights with law enforcement wouldn’t be necessary either. Fight to achieve an objective. Any fighting that doesn’t directly further the objective is pointless and unnecessary.

  2. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Tick-tock.

    It might not be this round or the next but each turn of the great wheel produces more tyranny and less liberty overall.

  3. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “The Clinton assault weapons ban booted a lot of Democrats out of office. And they mostly stayed away from gun control for a generation. That’s not the case any more.”

    The prior ban was and is as UnConstitutional then as it would be now or in the future,all brought to this nation by the party openly opposing the US Constitution.

    1. avatar bontai Joe says:

      After the Clinton gun ban went into effect, the Democrats lost a lot of slots in congress. Pres. Clinton remarked later that he learned that gun owners “never forgive and never forget”. There are folks that still have not forgiven Bill Ruger for his statements on magazine limits and he has been DEAD for almost 17 years. Ol’ slick Willie tried to tell his wife to not touch the third rail of anti-gun laws, but she wasn’t listening. (Does she EVER listen?) H.S. Precision hired FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi and it cost them dearly in sales and bad press. We gun owners are not a forgiving bunch, and this new generation of politicians are going to learn that what Obama referred to as gun totin’, Bible clutching people will vote them into unemployment.

  4. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    The 3 percent the dims are all that support gun control. None of this will even be bought up in the senate. The stupider the dimwits look for now the better. If the libitards get the WH or senate in the next few election cycles. Then it might be problematic. But until then……..

  5. avatar Adam says:

    You’ll see this more and more as America becomes more polarized. As republican voters start to move to Republican states and democrat voters do likewise, you’ll see politicians who become less and less willing to make deals across the isle because they won’t have to, and you’ll see politicians on both sides become more extreme in terms of views because their states are doing the same in terms of voting populations.

    America will not be a pretty place once a majority of representatives live in “safe” districts and never actually have to work to make America better. All they will actually focus on is virtue signaling to their base to shore up enough votes to beat their primary challenger and this will be done by appeasing to an ever-decreasing amount of primary voters by becoming the extreme that their party is regularly caricatured as.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      What’s an “extreme” Republican? A libertarian? Oh the horror… What we need to do is declare the DNC a terrorist organization and round up their leadership in GITMO for their treason trials.

      1. avatar Aaron Walker says:

        I second that…..

      2. avatar WARFAB says:

        They’ve been publicly admitting to trying to overturn the 2016 election results via investigations and a desperate attempt to use the 25th amendment. It’s not like they’re hiding their treason anymore.

      3. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “What we need to do is declare the DNC a terrorist organization and round up their leadership in GITMO for their treason trials.”

        The methods of communists don’t change much. Your DNA is showing. Consistently, you fail to grasp the very basics of unalienable individual rights and a free society. What you regularly advocate is tyranny and not liberty.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes… because clearly your method is working so well…

          Principles and an empty sack are worth the sack.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Well, at least you don’t deny that your methods are those of commie tyrants. I seriously commend you on being honest.

          My method has been used. That’s how this free nation was formed and why you are able to stand in it and spew communist vile.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes… because clearly holding tyrants accountable in a court of law is totally “tyrannical”… Not sure if you’re a retard or just a troll.

        4. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Actually- each American, according to our Founding Documents has a mandate to DEFEND our nation from “domestic enemies”. That would be currently defined as all registered democrats and voters. Liquidating them is not tyranny. It is what is required from us. But nice way to obfuscate the facts using Post-Modernist tactics.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Actually- each American, according to our Founding Documents has a mandate to DEFEND our nation from “domestic enemies”. That would be currently defined as all registered democrats and voters. Liquidating them is not tyranny. It is what is required from us. But nice way to obfuscate the facts using Post-Modernist tactics.”

          Absolute horseshit and you very well know it. If you were to follow comrade in his quest, YOU would become the tyrants. How you don’t see that is a sad statement indeed.

          Go ahead. Talk about rounding up whole groups and executing them because of political beliefs. Tell the class how that is different than the “great” communist tyrants of our day. This ought to be a hoot!

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Yes… because clearly holding tyrants accountable in a court of law is totally “tyrannical”… Not sure if you’re a retard or just a troll.”

          Your posts are consistently advocating tyranny and the commie methods. That’s a matter of record. You have no intention of using any due process. You’ve made that very clear before.

          You know I’m not a troll as I’ve been on here a very long while, perhaps even before you showed up. I’d rather be a retard than a communist. One will burn in Hell. I leave it to you to figure out which one.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          You might want to learn basic reading comprehension kiddo.

          1. I mentioned treason trials for the leadership. That’s it. Hardly tyrannical.
          2. People have due process rights. Commies aren’t people.
          3. Please, continue to call the descendant of holodomor victims a commie. The means do not make the tyrant. The ends do.

          Go read a history book kiddo. Your education on the subject of government seems to have ended in the 1800s.

        8. avatar John in Ohio says:

          1 – You mention TREASON trials and GITMO. You completely gloss over your glorious posting history here, comrade. Why take them to a foreign land to try them for a crime that does not fit the action for most holding a political belief? Why a place known for torture? Where does bail fit in? What about a jury? Does the following ring a bell, comrade?
          “For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:”
          Communist countries had their show trials too. You commies love a good show trial.

          2 – Spoken like a true commie. They are people; even if we don’t like what they believe in. THAT is the difference between the nation I grew up in and the communist shithole you spent your formative years in. The sad irony is that you are incapable of making the distinction.

          3 – “Please, continue to call the descendant of holodomor victims a commie. The means do not make the tyrant. The ends do.” Boo-hoo! Poor little commie boy has to appeal to sympathy. You’ve cried those tears before here. Speak like a commie now and you will get treated like one. I don’t give a damn about who or what you are descended from. YOU are a danger to liberty. The ends and the means define tyrants. Get it right; if you are even capable.

          “Go read a history book kiddo. Your education on the subject of government seems to have ended in the 1800s.”

          The truths of liberty are timeless. Keep wriggling like a communist worm on a hook. There is nothing new under the Sun.

        9. avatar pwrserge says:

          Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, your argument is invalid. Go home worthless troll and read a history book.

      4. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        “The democrat party must be declared a terrorist organization and all their registered voters designated as domestic enemies and then put in concentration camps” FIFY

    2. avatar DaveP. says:

      “Democrats examine the patient and pronounce that he must have both legs amputated; Republicans, in the spirit of bipartisanship, say they must compromise and only amputate one leg. Meanwhile the patient only came in to the doctor for a flu shot…”

    3. avatar 2aguy says:

      Democrats are moving to republican states too…..they voted for the taxes, the crime, the poverty, now they can’t live there anymore…so they move…to Red states, where they vote for more taxes, more crime and more poverty….

      1. avatar Auto Lode says:

        Yup Texas is already lost to the lefties and Arizona is right at the tipping point turning red to blue

    4. avatar Swarf says:

      All you fuckwits calling for rounding up your fellow Americans and murdering them or putting them in “concentration camps” and gulags for daring to have idiotic political beliefs should be ashamed of yourselves.

      If that is truly how you feel, you are no longer an American. Throw yourself out of the helicopter, or move to the religious or political dictatorship of your choosing, but don’t pretend to embody American ideals do the rest of us. You are the problem.

      Fuck your neo-Stalinist horseshit. Drape it in the flag all you want, but a purge is a purge even if you add white and blue to the red.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Yes… and sometimes it takes a purge to get rid of the filth.

        Ideals and an empty sack are worth the sack. They are worth less if you aren’t even willing to do whatever it takes to protect them.

      2. avatar Napresto says:

        @Swarf. No kidding. I really laud the 2A community to my lefty friends, pointing out how different it is from what they think. And then I see comments like many of the above and I die a little inside.

        To be clear: some of these comments are about putting MY good friends up against the wall because of their beliefs. Now I don’t agree with these friends about everything, but if you think I wouldn’t try to stop you when you show up on your mouth breathing high horse for mall ninja revengemas 2020, well… best of luck to you, comrades.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Not your friends, just the leaders they elect, after a proper trial for treason. Your friends can deal with the fact that no amount of votes allows you to violate other people’s rights.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “To be clear: some of these comments are about putting MY good friends up against the wall because of their beliefs. ”

          If I dust off all my books about rebellions and civil wars, that is exactly the point; remove your opponents. Which is what made the first America civil war so fascinating, so different from all those before, and after. The winners did not round up the opposition, and eliminate them.

          However, if you look at today in America, you have two irreconcilable visions of America. One group pretty much takes a “live and let live” position, the other mostly takes a “live the way I tell you” position. One group sees America as a place where individual freedom and liberty are highly regarded values. The other side sees societal compliance and docile subjects. One group believes people are good stewards of their own lives, the other group is hell bent on making everyone “mind” them. One group sees government as the guarantor of civil rights, the other group see government as the arbiter of civil rights. One group sees government as a necessary evil to be ruled by the entity that provides power to that government, the other sees government as a benevolent dictator, necessary to contain and control the entity that gives government power. One group sees the necessity of retaining the power and ability to successfully fend off a ever-smothering, ever devouring government, the other group fears government being forcefully thwarted.

          The described tension is as old as the nation. There was always serious disagreement about the nature of people: one argument was for a ruling class (even monarchy), the other argument was for letting people manage their own affairs with minimal intrusion from the central government. The second American civil war tested the two sides because of unalterably opposed visions of America. But when a major political party decides that is has the authority and power to strip citizens of the powers retained by the citizens, and that party insists there be only one vision of America, only one wealth-giving, wealth-managing entity (government), only one set of ruling standards, what are the opponents to do when government becomes a weapon against it own people?

          The natural, human and civil right of a people to throw-off tyranny is immutable. The execution of rebellion may be disastrous, but the right to reject tyranny remains. And what does rebellion look like? It looks like war, and the most viscous of wars.

          So you tell your lefty friends, there may come a day when all their efforts result in backblast. That they would be responsible for all the horror unleashed. That they are the ones who are irrational and foolish if they think a cornered lion will not attack. That they are the ones who need to learn to “live and let live”, lest they free Vishnu’s threat.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “But when a major political party decides that is has the authority and power to strip citizens of the powers retained by the citizens, and that party insists there be only one vision of America, only one wealth-giving, wealth-managing entity (government), only one set of ruling standards, what are the opponents to do when government becomes a weapon against it own people? ”

          Both major political parties have done that and continue, in their own diabolical way, to do so.

          In a civil war, revolution, rebellion, or what have you, you fight and fight hard. However, if you set out intent on doing evil, evil will result. Surely those following the communists thought the temporary evil was necessary and one day, everything would right itself. Read the diaries and interviews. These regimes started out with some noble talk but evil actions. The individuals thought it would change. What happened was many innocent people were murdered, directly or indirectly. If we do that here, then we are doomed. War is hell but there is no reason to invite more.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “War is hell but there is no reason to invite more.”

          Agree. ‘Tis better to be made a servant than dirty up the living room. There are alternatives to liberty. No need to cling to outdated ideas and documents. The world is different, people are generally benign in dealing with each other, and benign people are reflected in their benign governments. The founders were wrong to establish barriers to the natural condition of humans.

        5. avatar Mad says:

          The alternative to liberty is slavery.the founders got it right.Jesus states that mankind is depraved and needs restraining.when He comes back people will wish they would have listened.it will be too late.remember hell lasts forever

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The alternative to liberty is slavery.”

          Have another look at the comment.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          “War is hell but there is no reason to invite more.”

          Oh that’s possibly the most retarded thing I’ve ever read. War is the ultimate expression of human achievement and determination. It is a declaration of sides willing to set aside all else in the pursuit of their goals.

          War is responsible for the greatest achievements in human history.

          Revolutionary War – Responsible for the formation of the greatest nation in human history.
          US Civil War – Responsible for the freeing of millions of people from bondage.
          WWI – Responsible for the downfall of the last of the autocratic monarchies in Europe.
          WWII – Responsible for the downfall of the latest batch of genocidal totalitarian dictatorships.
          Cold War – Responsible for the downfall of communism in the west.

          Yeah… War is hell. But it is better to rule in hell, than serve in heaven.

        8. avatar Mad says:

          The reason you go to hell is you reject Christ and his free gift of salvation.fighting war is a good thing if done for righteous reasons ,like fighting evil.we have God given rights and they’re worth fighting for and if needed to die for

        9. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          “It is no longer enough to be willing to fight and die to preserve our rights, one must be willing to kill for them, too” IST

        10. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Again, pwrserge, you latch on to one thing in a post and completely ignore the substance. You even misconstrue that one thing. I presume it’s because you don’t have a decent answer for the heart of the comment.

          At least you stopped whining like a little bitch for sympathy.

          “But it is better to rule in hell, than serve in heaven.” — pwrserge, 2019

        11. avatar pwrserge says:

          The fact that you would attribute on of Milton’s most famous lines to me proves your lack of education trollo. Still waiting for you to counter my other example.

        12. avatar Mad says:

          You have lefty friends you will die for.so be it.maga

        13. avatar Mad says:

          You will hide just like your commie lefty friends

        14. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Still waiting for you to counter my other example.”

          Yeah, you were giving Satan’s line, as far as I could tell. It boggles the mind how you think good can come from setting out to do evil. But, hey, you do you.

          As always, you misrepresented what I was conveying. I was pointing out that war has enough evil come of it by nature of conflict. However, there is no need to intentionally add to that evil. For example, setting out with the intention of committing mass murder. See? So simple even a commie like you could grasp it.

          What other example? I must have missed it.

        15. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Agree. ‘Tis better to be made a servant than dirty up the living room. There are alternatives to liberty. No need to cling to outdated ideas and documents. The world is different, people are generally benign in dealing with each other, and benign people are reflected in their benign governments. The founders were wrong to establish barriers to the natural condition of humans.”

          Either I don’t understand your reply correctly. Sam I Am, or you didn’t understand my comment.

          All I was pointing out was that, in the conflict of war, many terrible things happen. However, one doesn’t need to add to the horrors by setting out to do the most vile things they can. For example, raping and murdering. Killing in war is self-defense. Murder and rape are indefensible.

          Now, did one or both of us misunderstand each others’ posts?

          For those others who apparently didn’t understand. I am absolutely NOT against armed conflict to defend liberty. In fact, quite the opposite is true. I am a firm believer that an individual must vigorously fight for their liberty. What I am against is intentionally setting out to completely disregard the rights of other people merely based upon their exercise of their unalienable right to speak. I am against the wholesale slaughter of innocents for the sake of eradicating them and their decedents. Again, war can be awful enough that we don’t need to set out to make it worse. THAT is what I was trying to convey. If anyone has an issue with that then I don’t really know what to tell them apart from perhaps they need to search within themselves and find some morality and ethics.

        16. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “War is all hell”
          – – Sherman

          Evil cannot be negotiated with, it is relentless. Else, we would not see so much evidence of evil in the world. Evil must be defeated, and eradicated wherever it can be. If a society allows evil to exist within, and that accommodation allows evil to flourish, the only proper course of action is eradication of evil and its agents.

          Evil is on the rise in this country, it is voracious, and will, without hesitation, destroy anyone or anything in its way. When evil unleashes the dogs of war, there are no limits on the retribution that can and should be visited upon evil and it agents. One of the most devastating elements of evil is that it convinces it opponents that they must be honorable in opposition, while evil knows, and is limited to, no boundaries.

          Rape, pillage and plunder? “War is all hell”. And again, I invite people to tell me when was the last time the ambassador to the UN from the nation of Carthage made a speech to the General Assembly?

          There is an ancient report of a people who were instructed by their sovereign to go into enemy territory, and eliminate the enemy, including the men, women, children, and livestock. The army of the sovereign failed to follow instructions, and the progeny of the enemy tormented them forever after.

          How does all this work out in defending liberty? “War is all hell”, especially civil war. Evil is personified in the determination of one group of people to rule over another for the purpose of self-gratification of accumulating absolute power. Eradicate evil when the only alternative is submission to evil.

          Rape, pillage and plunder? If it comes to all-out civil war (and not simply one or two contests with authority), rape, pillage and plunder will be the least of worries. If it comes to all out war there may be no America left to ponder. My first rule of war: Win, win decisively, then you can discuss the aftermath.

        17. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “The fact that you would attribute on of Milton’s most famous lines to me proves your lack of education trollo.”

          Um… that was what YOU wrote. “Yeah… War is hell. But it is better to rule in hell, than serve in heaven.” Did you not intend to quote Milton? Or, are you just completely full of shit? Perhaps both.

          Stay off of whatever it is you are smoking!
          https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/03/daniel-zimmerman/democrats-arent-scared-of-gun-control-any-more/#comment-4207984

        18. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Sam I Am, I respectfully submit that y’all will be fighting a war on multiple fronts. You won’t just be fighting the leftists. You will also be fighting those of us who will not set out to intentionally commit atrocities; those of us with a sense of right and wrong. Will we make mistakes and will the unintentional happen? Will there be collateral damage? Of course. However, those of us who believe that we must answer to a higher power at the end of our lives will not only fight the left, but other tyrants (as you appear to be describing) as well. What you are alluding to is the makings of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, and others. The end AND the means are important.

        19. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You misunderstand.

          War is not a game. War is not a contest. War is not a challenge. War is life and death. Anything short of that is just pissing in the wind, and pissing away valuable lives in virtue signaling. The American style of war since 1945 is police work, sending messages, believing that if you spank an opponent, and put them in the time-out box, you can achieve national goals on the cheap, without any real commitment. It may offend the sensitivities of the weak kneed, the weak of spirit, but war is all hell, not just sorta hell.

          It is popular among the sissies and pantywaists of this nation to proclaim that if America fights wars of annihilation, America is no better than its enemies (pick one). This is blatantly false, and dangerous to national survival. Evil cannot change it habits, or its methods. Evil comes to steal, kill and destroy (note the lack of redeeming values). Defeating evil by whatever means necessary is a mere tactic for the righteous. After the carnage, the righteous revert to their prior condition; evil has no place to revert. During WW2, entire cities were laid waste in an effort to end that war as quickly as possible, which is a means to limit casualties. Endless war of signals and messages is endless war.

          Raping and pillaging and plundering is the very modus operandi of evil. Are those behaviors a goal to seek? Not for honorable peoples. Are they going to happen? Yes. Should there be punishments? Yes. Will the hope of honorable peoples prevent rape, pillaging and plunder? Nope; never? Will the specter of punishment prevent those acts? Nope; never. If you, your kin, your friends are not willing to engage in war to eliminate the enemy, do not take up the sword. Roll the bandages, comfort the dead and dying.

          When your enemy tells you they intend to destroy every vestige of your way of life, including you and yours, believe them and act appropriately. When Cesare was at the gates, the people under attack knew they had two options: surrender and be subjugated, or die. There was no third alternative. So it is with war: surrender or die. Wasting lives in hopes of proving you and your army are honorable people is gross sin; unforgivable.

          The dispute between those who wish to rule, and those who wish enjoy liberty has been going on since the beginning of the nation. Do not be surprised that from time to time, the tension breaks explosively. Darkness cannot peacefully coexist with light; they are natural, eternal enemies. In the end, darkness (evil) will prevail until, on a certain day, it doesn’t). Fighting darkness to the death meanwhile is a high calling.

          Attack no one. But when attacked, keep shooting until the threat is ended.

        20. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “You misunderstand.”

          Yes, I did misunderstand part of your comments. It is obvious that mine were misunderstood to some extent as well. What follows is not a disagreement but a clarification.

          “War is not a game. War is not a contest. War is not a challenge. War is life and death. Anything short of that is just pissing in the wind, and pissing away valuable lives in virtue signaling.”

          I completely agree. What is coming cannot be a “soft” war; if there ever truly was such a thing.

          “The American style of war since 1945 is police work, sending messages, believing that if you spank an opponent, and put them in the time-out box, you can achieve national goals on the cheap, without any real commitment.”

          I agree. That is not something we could afford to do in our fight against tyranny.

          “It may offend the sensitivities of the weak kneed, the weak of spirit, but war is all hell, not just sorta hell.”

          That’s where I believe you completely misunderstand me. My position is that we cannot start out with the intention of committing atrocities. Very bad things will happen in the course of war. It is almost inevitable. What cannot be done is to set out to something, for example, “Let’s demonize all of the Jews, send them to concentration camps, and then exterminate them.” To set out to do that is pure evil.

          “It is popular among the sissies and pantywaists of this nation to proclaim that if America fights wars of annihilation, America is no better than its enemies (pick one).”

          I agree. I have made this statement many times elsewhere. The patriot militia movement was infected with this in the early 1990s.

          “This is blatantly false, and dangerous to national survival. Evil cannot change it habits, or its methods. Evil comes to steal, kill and destroy (note the lack of redeeming values).”

          I agree.

          “Defeating evil by whatever means necessary is a mere tactic for the righteous. After the carnage, the righteous revert to their prior condition; evil has no place to revert.”

          I disagree. My religious beliefs do not allow me to become “as evil” as the enemy. To fight like hell, yes. To set out to do evil, no.

          “During WW2, entire cities were laid waste in an effort to end that war as quickly as possible, which is a means to limit casualties. Endless war of signals and messages is endless war.”

          I will defer on discussion on WW2 as I don’t completely agree with some of the premise and details of the war.

          “Raping and pillaging and plundering is the very modus operandi of evil. Are those behaviors a goal to seek? Not for honorable peoples. Are they going to happen? Yes. Should there be punishments? Yes. Will the hope of honorable peoples prevent rape, pillaging and plunder? Nope; never? Will the specter of punishment prevent those acts? Nope; never. If you, your kin, your friends are not willing to engage in war to eliminate the enemy, do not take up the sword. Roll the bandages, comfort the dead and dying.”

          This is pretty much what I was saying as well. It’s a similar, if not the same, point of view.

          “When your enemy tells you they intend to destroy every vestige of your way of life, including you and yours, believe them and act appropriately. When Cesare was at the gates, the people under attack knew they had two options: surrender and be subjugated, or die. There was no third alternative. So it is with war: surrender or die.”

          Of course.

          “Wasting lives in hopes of proving you and your army are honorable people is gross sin; unforgivable.”

          You really, really, really misunderstand me. Nothing could be further from what I was talking about and what I have been talking about for over three decades.

          “The dispute between those who wish to rule, and those who wish enjoy liberty has been going on since the beginning of the nation. Do not be surprised that from time to time, the tension breaks explosively. Darkness cannot peacefully coexist with light; they are natural, eternal enemies. In the end, darkness (evil) will prevail until, on a certain day, it doesn’t). Fighting darkness to the death meanwhile is a high calling.”

          I agree.

          “Attack no one. But when attacked, keep shooting until the threat is ended.”

          Exactly.

        21. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I disagree. My religious beliefs do not allow me to become “as evil” as the enemy. To fight like hell, yes. To set out to do evil, no.

          So, when the sovereign ordered the people to utterly annihilate the enemy, you also would have refused?

          If you are going to limit yourself as to what you will do to survive, you decide that surviving is not the goal, that as some point you will declare to the enemy, “You win, I just can’t be as brutal as you”. You will cede the moral high ground to evil? Evil will capture your moral high ground and make you a blood sacrifice. You are placing a limit on that which you would do to protect your family, your nation? I perceive that regarding WW2, you would have taken a position that it would be better to allow evil to survive, rather than destroy the people who provided the material wherewithal to the leadership they enshrined.

          As noted, war is all hell (that is, there is nothing redeeming about it; as if hell escaped to the surface), and people not inclined to visit hell upon their enemies are not the people who should be engaged in war, nor should they decide war is to be circumscribed by some sort of honor code. “Honorable war is a fiction of western culture that is far from universally respected”. There are no “innocents” in war. All are belligerents in one way or another.

          Let me give you a view of effective war. Because the “war” is ongoing, I will use the “war on terror”, and the killing that is Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

          Being trained in the science of strategic targeting, let us first look as the problem with “terrorists”. Strategic targeting is designed to eliminate the ability of the enemy to wage war, at all. Where is the strategic target in regards to mohamedan jihadists? Well, every terrorist had/has a mother. Cut off the supplier, and the consumer of the supply will die on the vine. Second consideration…national sponsors of terrorism. The leader of a strong nation would simply inform every nation from whence terrorists spring that the very next time there is a terror attack, anywhere in the world, mohamedans will have to learn to live on top of glass. There is no problem that the instantaneous application of the heat of the sun to vast quantities of silica will not solve. Than, amigo, is war.

        22. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “So, when the sovereign ordered the people to utterly annihilate the enemy, you also would have refused?”

          You have no way of knowing my religious beliefs. May I assume you have none? If so, then we have nothing further do discuss along these lines because we will never meet at a consensus.

          As to the rest, I did not bother to read as it appears clear that nothing of benefit can come of it for either of us.

          I gave you a fair shake and made my position clear. You seem driven by some hatred. That is unfortunate. Hate will blind even the most brilliant of men.

        23. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You have no way of knowing my religious beliefs.”

          Didn’t ask about that. Only requested to know if you would have obeyed the sovereign. Somehow that question involves religion? Thinking a survey of available literature, and finding the report of the people disobeying the sovereign would be enough for a person to analyze their values, and reach a conclusion as to how they would respond. Not only is the ancient report a challenging comparison, the question is relevant today.

          You may presume I have no religious beliefs, if that facilitates conversation.

          Yes, I hate evil. Evil is the destroyer. Evil wants control over other people (I do not, as I have enough trouble controlling my own evil tendencies). Evil is to be conquered, not cooperated with.

          I believe war for less than victory is not honorable. Being willing to fight for liberty only so far as one’s sensitivities are not offended is folly that takes lives needlessly. People who support wars that do not have complete victory as a goal should not engage in, or support such wars. If a person is not willing to win because of certain ideas about “honorable war”, such persons should not engage in, or support such wars. Sending soldiers into wars the national leaders do not intend to win utterly is an atrocity of the first order, above all other atrocities.

  6. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Another miscalculation on their part. It’s going to cost them big time. There is just a noisey few.

  7. avatar barnbwt says:

    Now I wonder where they could have possibly gotten the idea they didn’t need to fear the NRA (or by extension, gun owners/voters)?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      They figure that if the only nutjobs shooting people are on their side, then they don’t need to be concerned about being shot.

      1. avatar WARFAB says:

        They might want to talk to Gabby Giffords about that.

        1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

          That poor woman has become nothing more than a remote control meat puppet for her self seeking anti-gun husband.

        2. avatar Swarf says:

          Perhaps, but you miss his point.

          Serge, like a lot of FoxNews-only consumers, has a very selective memory when it comes to who is violent.

          It’s all of us, and pretending otherwise is… unhelpful.

        3. avatar barnbwt says:

          *Million-dollar idea; remote control meat puppets

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/politics/trump-lunch-nra-lapierre-cox/

      ‘”Don’t worry about the NRA, they’re on our side,” Trump said. “Half of you are so afraid of the NRA. There’s nothing to be afraid of. … And you know what, if they’re not with you, we have to fight them every once in a while, that’s OK. Sometimes we’re going to have to be very tough and we’re going to have to fight ’em.”‘

      1. avatar n64456 says:

        Does your neighbor know you are molesting his young children?? I hope he catches you in the act and cuts your fucking balls off….

    3. avatar Anymouse says:

      They’ve shifted focus and no longer are courting white working class men. Since they don’t care about losing support of union men who hunt or otherwise participate in shooting sports, it doesn’t cost them any more votes to let the far lefties push their disarmament proposals, and Bloomie and Soros will pay them to do so.

  8. avatar 33Charlemagne says:

    It’s Representative Ted Deutch that doesn’t belong in our community!

  9. avatar john says:

    I say, who cares?

    Gop is not going to lose control of the senate. The democrats are in disarray with 20 primary challengers like last election and Trump will be re-elected and Court docket 18-280 is going to be heard by the supreme court with another case for NJ carry waiting in the wings.

    Can we please stop with the ‘hills are burning’ NRA scare tactic solicitation for donation writing, to garner wack job comments?

    1. avatar Napresto says:

      There’s probably some truth to this, although it’s undeniable that the Democrats ARE going to keep pushing for gun control. Then again, failure theater is as much a thing for the left as the right… it’s easier to push for base-pleasing red meat legislation as the minority, when you know it won’t actually become law.

      …not that I’m going to start counting on that.

      1. avatar binder says:

        Glad to see someone here get it. They are looking at not passing anything and then using that to get the vote in 2020. The real question is what are they going to try and pass after the election (if they win it). I think you will see a light version on U.B.C.. They just want to set the precedent and get past the court challenges.

        If they really wanted to start on gun legislation, they would go after bump-stocks. But they will not, because all that will do is bring out the Republican vote.

        1. avatar Swarf says:

          Truth.

          I think the term “virtue signaling” is overused and often improperly applied, but this crap is it.

    2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Don’t be too sure of the Senate. The Rino’s lost control of the house because they were against out president and people wouldn’t vote them back in. This may very well happen to the senate also. Example, look at how the opposition to the Emergency declaration is lining up.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Example, look at how the opposition to the Emergency declaration is lining up.”

        Beware of a superficial observation of Emergency declarations. Such legislation exists only because the Congress (both houses) wanted to be able to have their cake and eat it. They wanted to let a favored president do what the legislature was wary of doing, or what the legislature wanted, but needed “cover”.

        The issue is not the border wall declaration. The issue is the abdication of legislative power for the convenience of the legislature. Now we have a legislature (“the establishment”) that hates Trump implicitly (and doesn’t want Trump doing what the Republicrats have been promising for 40yrs). So, now is a good time for the legislature to decide that they created an unconstitutional proposition, and need to re-assert their power. The right, constitutional outcome would be to repeal the National Emergency Act, completely. But the intention of “the swamp” (Dims and Repubs) is to simply block Trump, and retain their “cover” for when they need it. They cannot hamstring themselves permanently.

        Now is the time for blocking a National Emergency Act because all the Dims want to block Trump, most of the Republicrats, and there is the added advantage that some of the reliable Trump supporting Republicrats will seize the opportunity to vote to establish legislative authority as a matter of principle.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Except that they need to scrape up 67 votes to do so. Not going to happen.

    3. avatar barnbwt says:

      Well, the hills are burning, right where the NRA and select Republicans dropped their torches & pitchforks.

  10. avatar JMR says:

    And that’s why so many people were pissed off with the “well it will never pass the senate” or “trump said he may veto it”

    There was a time when the bills never stood a chance, and we still fought them, but most gun owners are lazy and complacent, they just do what the NRA says so they don’t question why Red Flag laws are bad, or why the bumpstock ban is bad, or why it’s bad that republicans and democrats from swing states now support gun control and can get away with it.

    We’re losing the fight, and most people are to idiotic to even care.

    1. avatar john says:

      If ‘we are losing the fight’ what was the 80s?, the 94 assault weapon ban?, etc, etc.

      We currently have one case that has been certed to the supreme court, 18-280, that if you take the time to read the petition you will see it has nothing to do with the case but actually giving mcdonald and heller the proper teeth they have always lacked. That’s how the documents were written and accepted by the court and provides an obvious view into the way the ruling will read. On this alone more headway will be accomplished for our side than at any time since the pendulum of guns rights swung towards the antis in the early 80s.

      As stated before the democrats are in disarray and provided some huge thing doesn’t occur to sink Trump’s presidency he will be re elected. RBG is 85, there is no way she is going to make it through another term. Check off ANOTHER conservative justice for the supreme court. That will be a 6-3 slant. Hallelujah!!!!

      So yeah this fear mongering about, ‘then end is nigh!!!!!’ is a load of crying wolf bs. However if your younger its all you’ve been subjected to your entire life by the NRA so you can get a pass for that. If you’re an old fudd though there is no saving you. If you choose not to see the writing on the wall then enjoy your travels through paranoia land.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        That was losing the fight, too. Our side mustered enough strength to hold them off for a few decades, and now we’re staring at a number of straight-up death blows; universal registration, outright bans on semis, widespread confiscation based on rumor or executive fiat order.

        We’re now at the end of the line having failed to stop their advance; if we fail here, the only guns left in a decade or so (single shot rifles/shotguns) won’t even be worth fighting for. Civil disobedience will be the only route left, and it will fade in time if the bans remain in place.

      2. avatar JMR says:

        Also losing the fight.

        I hope that wasn’t a serious question.

      3. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “That will be a 6-3 slant. Hallelujah!!!!”

        Roberts blows up that configuration. 5-4 may be better than the last eight years, but Roberts is of “the Swamp” (maybe a “never-Trumper”?), and more interested in making it look like the SC is above politics. He recently denied what is irrefutably obvious – that SC Justices actually are political appointments, always have been.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Odd thing to say about the guy that got us both Heller and McDonald…

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Odd thing to say about the guy that got us both Heller and McDonald…”

          Roberts created a tax called Affordable Healthcare (the legislators were emphatic the individual mandate was not a tax, and their lawyer before the SC declared the Act was not a tax). Why would someone who “applies the law” create a tax in the face of clear constitutional wording that only Congress can create taxes? One speculation is Roberts saw how divisive the politics were, and created a tax as a way of signaling that he was not a GOP rubber stamp; implied integrity.

          His recent declaration that the SC is devoid of, and immune to, political influence was completely false, asking the country, “Who ya gonna believe? Me, or your lying eyes?” At best we can expect he will vote with the liberal wing of the SC often enough to make it look “fair”.

          Fact is, we need to replace Ginsburg and Thomas with hard core originalists.

      4. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “We currently have one case that has been certed to the supreme court, 18-280, that if you take the time to read the petition you will see it has nothing to do with the case but actually giving mcdonald and heller the proper teeth they have always lacked.”

        If you think the result of the ‘NY Pistol’ case will be ‘strict scrutiny’ across the board, you’re on drugs.

        Realistically, the best we can hope for is a declaration the 2A covers carry outside the home. They will likely leave the door wide open for the ‘slave states’ to come up with all kinds of bullshit (onerous ‘training’, etc.) when they are forced to ‘allow’ their serfs to carry outside the home.

        Personally, I find most worrisome their plans to add semi-autos to the NFA. I think we will eventually prevail on constitutional grounds, but we better get our ducks in a row to get a stay lined up with a friendly judge.

        They are planning pure evil for the 2A…

  11. avatar GS650G says:

    In our binary political environment we are just one major election away from a complete dusting of our current way of life. In one year Obama upended health care to the point we are about to go single payer because the cost of insurance and care are unbearable.
    They will strip the right to even possess most guns away and dare anyone to challenge them in court. It will take years to get in front of the SCOTUS and then we hold our breath hoping for salvation.
    With a 6-3 conservative court that’s possible. Not today.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      To be fair, that’s also what the Dems said about Trump…and he hasn’t upended anything, really (I guess the state-level tax credit ending is somewhat significant). Their way of life is completely unaffected despite being subjected to the ‘sum of all their fears.’ That’s what we said about Obama, too, and yet he did less damage to gun owners than Trump has done so far (though he too did damage other areas of public policy in fairly significant ways)

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        Our side is a lot more civilized. Their side wants Sweden with a side order of France and England. DJT has not enjoyed the support of Congress or even his own party like Big O did.
        And if someone knocks off Don next year in the elections they will be worshiped as a deity. And they will take advantage of it.

  12. 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. You see, anti-gunners want them all. They will chip away a little at a time until their goal of civilian disarmament is complete. They have an excuse for banning every firearm. Scoped bolt-action rifles are defined by anti-gunners as “sniper rifles” because they are “too accurate”. Magazine-fed weapons are suspect because of high (actually normal) magazine capacity. Handguns are suspect because they are “easily concealable”. The gun grabbers want them all and have made (flimsy and suspect) excuses for banning every type of firearm. They don’t care how long it takes. and will use incrementalism to their advantage.
    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…
    Even the NRA bears some responsibility for capitulation on matters concerning firearms. The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NICS “instant check” system, the “no new machine gun for civilians” ban in 1986, the so-called “assault weapons ban in 1994, and other infringements of the Second Amendment. Let’s face it. What better way to increase membership than to “allow” infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive. Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of “compromise” will only lead to one thing…confiscation.
    If the NRA is truly the premier “gun rights” organization, it must reject ALL compromise…

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the NICS “instant check” system, ”

      Fight it? They helped write it! They are on record bragging about it modern day.

      “NRA President’s Testimony During Congressional Debate of the National Firearms Act of 1934”
      http://www.keepandbeararms.com/nra/nfa.htm

      The NRA supports gun control. It steadfastly supports a privilege over the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms. Here’s just one example.
      https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180228/nras-support-for-the-national-instant-criminal-background-system-fact-checking-the-fact-checker\

      “its spirit of “compromise” will only lead to one thing…confiscation.”

      True. If anyone is counting on the NRA to save them, they are pissing up a rope.

      1. avatar n64456 says:

        STFU, you pedophile…

    2. avatar MouseGun says:

      Do you have this little screed saved in a word document that you just copy-paste every now and then?

    3. avatar binder says:

      And those laws would have passed no matter what. The 1968 Gun Control Act was going to happen sooner or later. If it had not, you would eventually have IRA (and you can keep putting in “terrorist” organizations in for the next 50 years) buying 1000s of firearms in the mail and using them internally or smuggling them out of the country. Gun running is hard enough to stop, without NICS you would have open the floodgates. Your are already seeing it again with 80% lowers. Gangs are starting to figure it out that it is easier to just mail order everything and then machine them out than dealing with “straw” purchases.

      Machine guns were a given. Everyone had already been through WW1 and you had criminals running around with them. The fact is that by now there would have been incidences of someone dumping thousands of rounds into tightly packed groups of people. We already had one, and that was with kind of crappy setup, but he did give a inkling of exactly what is possible. Again, remember machines guns are not just sub guns, but SAWs, and light machine guns too.

      1. avatar Ian says:

        Someone doesn’t have the faintest clue how easy it is to make a machinegun…..

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Or what shall not be infringed means.

      2. avatar binder says:

        Or how to say by by to the second once someone lights up a NFL bleacher with a M240. Again, it NOT about sub guns, its about light machine guns and SAWs.

        Honestly who cares if someone coverts their Tech 9 to full auto. Even ARs are not that much of a issue with a standard upper (Hint, you can overcome the issues with a dozen of them in your hotel room).

        Have a couple of guys from some middle east country, fly in, order a bunch off a stuff from a catalog and kill a few thousand, and we will see just how long the 2nd lasts. Because that is EXACTLY what will happen if all those gun control laws you are complaining about were repealed.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          So long as we are willing to put steel behind enforcement of the 2nd amendment, it will last forever. In your scenario, the simple solution is to simply arrest anybody who claims that repealing an enumerated constitutional right is an option. To me, that constitutes treason.

        2. Why would they need to do that if they could obtain a fully-automatic AK-47 in Somalia for only twelve dollars?

    4. avatar rt66paul says:

      More than that, all Americans must stand together and support our freedoms together. We must fight the political NWO run machine. We need to stand up for all of our rights, not just the 2nd. We must remember(even if we don’t care about certain groups having their rights), that we are all in the same boat and what is bad for those in forward steerage is bad for those in luxury cabins. Sinking this ship is not going to save it.

  13. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Democrats Aren’t Scared of the Politics of Gun Control Any More”

    And they’re still as uninformed as they ever were…

  14. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Looking at the entire landscape, the Dimwitocrats have declared they are afraid of nothing, even their own mental illness. Pelosi declared that the job of representatives from the different states is not to represent the interests of their constituents to the congress, but to represent the interests of congress to the states.

    Or, if you like, House representatives are representatives of the Dimwitocrat party, not delegates representing district voters. Representatives are expendable so long as they vote the party line while in D.C. One day, the Dims will not have to deal with districts that vote Republicrat, so losing a Dim now and then is merely the price paid to achieve full, unopposed power; one party rule.

    Now comes the dilemma: do we support Republicrats that are strong on every other value we hold, but anti-gun. Or are we a one-issue constituency, willing to sacrifice every other traditional American value in hopes of holding onto whatever gun possession permissions we have today?

    If we are demanding our elected politicians support full on constitutionalism, and full on “gun rights”, where is the mechanism to achieve the result? What are the voting demographics standing in our way, how do we overcome?

  15. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    From the Article…

    “Deutch has introduced legislation to regulate assault weapons under the National Firearms Act, which bans fully automatic weapons. “We are going to have a debate on weapons of war and whether they belong in our community or not,” Deutch says.”

    My response…

    We have already had a debate on this in 1791. You lost.

  16. avatar Mad says:

    Gun control advocates.educate them or execute them.why? They’re trying this on the Patriots of this nation

  17. avatar strych9 says:

    I suspect that Ambler et al are probably telling themselves what they want to hear. They, like some other groups, are falling victim to their own advertising because they already believed it.

    If this were really true it would be supported by internal DNC and DCCC polling which is really rather good (Go look at the Podesta hack, DNC polling and Hillary’s internal polling told a completely different story from public polling and Podesta knew it and was scared shitless of it. Hence his willingness to use FoxAcid illegally and the manipulation of public polling insititutions by what I can only assume were threats because the internals on those polls were not possible and any freshman poli sci student knew it). If that were the case Pelosi would be crowing about it non-stop as would Feinstein. They’re not.

    The seasoned politicians letting this ride the way it has but not talking about it as great day in and day out tells you two things. First, it tells you they know these bills are DOA in the Senate. Second, it tells you that what they’re hoping for is that the death of their proposals in the Senate can be used in the next election to blame Republicans and, hopefully, garner some extra votes in purple suburban districts next time around.

    For all the things people like Pelosi are, stupid isn’t one of them. They’re seasoned and savvy politicians. Both were around the last time Democrats weren’t “scared” and they know where that hubris left them.

    They also know that when we look at polling, especially for younger folks which form the Democrats necessary cohorts at this point, gun control isn’t popular especially with the young ladies. Millennials like their access to abortion and contraception but they also like guns. In fact, Millennials age groups have some of the highest support for 2A issues of any demographic. More than even white men 55+. (And no, Hogg and his buddies are not Millennials, they’re the next generation and significant, reliable polling on their positions on guns won’t really be available for another couple of years.)

    The actual big-wigs in the Democratic Party are shitting themselves right now. They haven’t been able to seriously damage Trump in the ways they thought they could, their Presidential Nominee field is a fucking mess, their litmus test is out of step with the public, the people they’ve got with a decent shot in the general have pretty well been run out of the party already, they’ve got loudmouthed Freshman who can’t STFU about Jews or are getting caught abusing campaign funds and a potential coup in the works thanks to AOC and her lunacy. On top of that they have their gun control wing pushing for what it wants just as hard as the other groups are. The power players are struggling to herd the cats on nearly every front and they know the cats are consistently doing things that damage the party.

    None of this is to say that a counter-attack wouldn’t be a good idea or that we should rest on our laurels. Quite the contrary. When the enemy camp is in disarray is exactly the time to launch flaming arrows.

  18. avatar Swarf says:

    It’s like the Democrats want Trump to have a second term.

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      They do, just so they have something to complain about…

  19. avatar Bob Watson says:

    You can go through life, declaring to one and all ” my dad can beat up your dad”. Or, you can learn to stand up for yourself. I was in my 40’s during the Clinton “assault gun ban”. When the democrat party was punished in the midterm election, Slick Willy’s whining and crying about the NRA helped create the myth of a monolithic, all powerful “gun lobby”. It was not the NRA that spanked the democrats, it was outraged gun owners all across the nation. We “voted our guns” and made the democrats afraid, very afraid.
    Then we got soft. We became dependent on “Daddy NRA” or, “Daddy Supreme Court” for our salvation and protection. The democrats view us as a paper tiger. It is time to take the belt out again and teach them another lesson. Get active, write letters, make phone calls, go to rallies and Vote Your Guns!

  20. avatar raptor jesus says:

    For every gun grabbing hellhole there’s a new constitutional carry state popping up.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Every law passed can be a law repealed. It can be a positive development in the short term but if it doesn’t clearly declare “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says, then it doesn’t offer the future protection some might think.

  21. avatar Shire-man says:

    The last “blue dog” was Zell Miller. All the (D)’s now are the same rubber stamp statists edging ever closer to Pol Pot and the voting public bless’em are largely too lazy or stupid to do anything about it. It took 15 years for Venezuela to collapse into ruin so maybe in 20 years we’ll get to hear all these US leftists talking about what a surprise the ruin was and how they wished somebody had warned them.

    What is the point of history if we refuse to learn from it? Its not like there is any shortage of examples of what not to do. I resent being dragged along this path by a sea of idiots.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “What is the point of history if we refuse to learn from it?”

      “The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.”

      – – F. Hegel

  22. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Wayne Lapierre said it 20 years ago. “president Clinton is comfortable having a certain level of killing in the United States”. Or words to that effect. The problem is the gun community is all about being NICE. You want to be nice to the enemy. You don’t want to hurt their feelings.

    Lapierre was correct and it applies to most democrats. It applies to nearly every elected democrat. As long as the killing is going on in someone else’s neighborhood, that area needs gun control.
    I have no problem saying the Shannon Watts is a racist. I have no problem saying Michael Bloomberg is a racist. I have no problem saying white homosexuals who support replacing the black father with a welfare check and support gun control and support “gun free zone” housing projects are racist.

    Currently the anti-civil rights white jewish lawmakers are having a verbal battle with another anti-civil rights lawmaker. The bigoted immigrant muslim from minneapolis. Both of them are racist. And anti-civil rights.

    All of them have racist views on private gun ownership. They only trust the mostly white government gun ownership. Even the elected blacks who run Baltimore trust the white police more than the black residents in the city.

    I would be calling out at every speech, every public statement, the fact that these people have armed guards all the time. Every press release would have this in it.
    I can be a nice person. But not to the people who are after my civil rights. Pointing out the facts is not being mean. The gun community has lost its passion. And I think to the enemy that is weakness.

  23. avatar W says:

    CNN, LOL!

    The reality is that it’s easy for Democrats to vote for a bill that the Senate will not take up and that the president will veto. In doing so, they will appease their base and paymasters and ultimately face little risk of backlash since it will not become law.

    High school political science kids can understand as much. CNN, well, draw your own conclusions.

    Google “ron brownstein gun control” and you’ll see that he’s been trying to sell gun control to the politicians for years.

  24. avatar jwm says:

    Of course they’re not afraid of a back lash on gun control. They’re all in on a coup to remove a legally elected president from office. Gun control is chump change compared to that.

    What they better be sweating is who has more pull with the military. Trump or the Dims.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Oh, there’s no question about that. With the rank and file? Trump by 8:1 easy. High end brass might be different, but general officers who give orders they know won’t be obeyed tend to have unfortunate “accidents”.

  25. avatar Ralph says:

    “Democrats Aren’t Scared of the Politics of Gun Control Any More”

    The lunatic fringe of the Democrat Party was never afraid of gun control. Now, the lunatics are the mainstream of the party of jackasses. They are running the asylum. And millions of wannabee inmates are voting for them because they’re too damn stupid to figure it out.

  26. avatar possum says:

    Democrats aren’t scared of the politics of gum control anymore. Perhaps, People whom support the Constitution do not fear the politics of gumn control anymore either and or but but ain’t got no

  27. avatar Hannibal says:

    thanks to Trump and continued polarization\voter segregation, they don’t need to be scared. Most democratic seats are safe. Those that aren’t will not be decided by gun control, it will be decided by whether Trump has enough base in their district to beat out everyone else.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      You haven’t been paying attention to the #WalkAway movement, have you? Demokkkrat seats aren’t as safe as they think they are. We just need to crack down on election tampering by the DNC.

  28. avatar Jbw says:

    Get involved, send emails, make calls, support local gun rights groups, bitch at your senator or representative even if they are the #1 gun grabbers. I live in Illinois, so I have durbin and duckworth. The dem state senator no longer even responds. Keep fighting, make them think twice, not all of them are as secure as durbin.

  29. avatar Warren munchen says:

    Do you hear the crazy guys talking about violence when they can not have their guns?

    I am not for gun control but I know it will not impact me. Gun control is for the black and brown people and for the poor. Lol. And the crazy nut jobs on this line talking about fighting the government and other stupid ideas like that.

    The system will target the blacks and Hispanics first in the poor communities where gun rights are most important but the good blacks and Hispanics don’t own. Maybe that lack of fight is why their communities get out of control.

    1. the anti-gun cult knows this and yet supports these laws anyway.

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