David Chipman
Previous Post
Next Post

When CNN acknowledges that a Biden nominee is having serious problems lining up Democrats to vote for him, you know the administration has real problems. That’s the between-the-lines takeaway from today’s report from the jernalists at CNN on the increasingly imperiled nomination of David Chipman to run the ATF.

It’s so hard to figure why Chipman’s nomination is controversial. After all, he’s only a paid anti-gun mouthpiece for the civilian disarmament industry (he’s still on Giffords’ payroll and previously worked for Everytown). And he’s openly advocated for banning AR-15 rifles (“no one is coming to take your guns!). As for whether he lost his duty gun while working at ATF or made racist comments about his fellow employees, who’s to say? Nothing has been proven yet. Move along.

Yes, that was sarcasm. It’s not at all hard to understand why Democrats are having to work so hard to salvage this dumpster fire of a nomination. GOP squish Susan Collins has even come out against him, for God’s sake.

Chipman has privately been holding one-on-one meetings with wayward senators to assure them he respects the Second Amendment, planning a meeting with GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska on Wednesday, meeting with independent Sen. Angus King of Maine on Monday and even meeting with pro-gun groups in West Virginia and GOP Gov. Jim Justice at Sen. Joe Manchin’s request.

Some are still not sold.

You don’t say. As for the votes that shouldn’t even be a problem . . .

Democratic Sens. John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona said they are still reviewing the nomination. Sen. Gary Peters, a Democrat from Michigan, told CNN he has not spent time yet deciding whether he would vote for Chipman.

“I haven’t made a determination yet,” Tester said.

Uh oh.

This should surprise no one at all. David Chipman is literally the most incendiary nominee Biden could have come up with for the ATF job (OK, he’s at least on the Mount Rushmore of the worst).

In fact, nominating Chipman to run the federal firearms regulatory agency was a deliberate middle finger raised directly at America’s gun owners and the firearms industry. That was clear to everyone paying attention.

So no, it really isn’t that hard to grok why the BidenHarris drones are having so much trouble ramming this nomination through the Senate.

“The issue is whether he’s the right guy for the job,” King, who caucuses with Democrats, told CNN on Tuesday. “My question is whether he can be an effective director. I haven’t decided yet.”

Hickenlooper, King and Shaheen. Three Dems (King is a de facto Dem) that President Klain had to figure were comfortably in the ‘yes’ column when they announced Chipman’s nomination. The fact that all three are still officially uncommitted this late in the game has to be causing the White House some sleepless nights. And that’s a real shame.

 

 

Previous Post
Next Post

84 COMMENTS

    • standard ploy…front someone who is blatantly over-the top…then withdraw him and come up with someone just as despicable but less controversial…..at least it wasn’t beto boy…

  1. jernalists??

    Fukz a jernalist?? Is that something unique to Clinton News Network or does MSDNC have one too? 😂

    • That’s the Communist News Network. They surpassed their level of corruption exhibited during the treasonous Clinton years.

    • Well when they don’t qualify as journalists you have to rebrand to something similar that does not violate copyright.

    • maybe they’re undermining him because he’s not gay…[or is he?]…seems to be an important criteria for that network….

  2. Any ATF employee MUST honor the 2nd Amendment completely, no exceptions! The federal and state governments cannot do anything to prohibit any law abiding American Citizen from owning, possessing or using any gun of personal choice or any ammunition needed for the weapon, including any size clips or number of bullets attached to the guns! End of story. So if you want to be in charge of the ATF you need to fully support the 2nd Amendment and know the government cannot do anything that impairs the rights of US citizens. What part of “shall not be infringed” do they fail to understand?

    • “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do they fail to understand?”

      what do you think “well-regulated militia” means?

      • “And what is the militia Sir? Why it’s the whole people.” See, if you had a real education in history you would already be familiar with that quote. Perhaps you heard this one? Thomas Jefferson, “no man shall be debarred the use of arms.” Don’t know that either? Not surprised given the previous diatribes you have posted here.

        • “And what is the militia Sir? Why it’s the whole people.”

          yeah, the whole people (meaning at that time all white males between the ages of 16 and 60) participating in a well-regulated militia. not sitting at home saying “I’m the militia and I’m OK!”

          ““no man shall be debarred the use of arms.”

          yeah. in a well-regulated militia. that’s what the 2nd is about. if you’re going to ignore what the actual text says then you can’t be surprised if the left does too, and more besides.

        • Ant7, I see that you carefully committed the choices to allow replies to your comment. Your description of 16 to 60 is a made up statistic. Nice try though. The error you and the rest of the “historians” against the 2nd make is this. The key phrase in the amendment is “a free state” “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The words ‘a free state” do not describe ANY political governmental entity, town, city, state or the nation itself. Rather they refer to the state of freedom which our forefathers won for us, with guns. Men of all ages served and died. Some women also served and died so that we can be free of government dictatorship. Does that make it clear for you?

        • “The words ‘a free state’ do not describe ANY political governmental entity, town, city, state or the nation itself. Rather they refer to the state of freedom which our forefathers won for us”

          now that IS novel. in 40 years I’ve never once heard that approach taken by anyone at all left or right or center. as a preliminary response I’ll point out that a militia is de facto a “state entity, not an individual standing or ad hoc random assembly, so saying that “state” refers to a status and not to a socio/political entity is far-fetched. you’ll have to provide some kind of documentation link.

        • “yeah, the whole people (meaning at that time all white males between the ages of 16 and 60) participating in a well-regulated militia. not sitting at home saying “I’m the militia and I’m OK!”

          I’m still trying to figure out how the whole actually means a fraction of?

        • Hey ant7 , Hows this one suit yah?
          The right of the people to be armed, while in servitude to the exsisting governments well regulated militia, shall not be Infringed .

        • The militia clause is what statists think gives them gifts at Xmas.
          AKCHUALLY, it refers to whatever form of military falls under control of the fed or a state for the collective defense (“the security of”). The founders were arguing at that time about the need vs. the fear of a standing army OR a called-upon-as-needed militia, and how it could be turned against “the people” by said governing body for tyrannical reasons (see: revolutionary war, et al.). The final check against such action or other tyranny would be an armed populace (see: revolutionary war, et al.), which also intended to dissuade any attempts at such.
          It could read: Because we’re gonna need some kind of military force to protect us from foreign invaders, we must protect the absolute God-given natural right of each and every individual citizen to keep whatever the fuck kinda guns they want, forever, amen. You know, just in case some asshole decides to use that military to force the peeps to allow their children to be indoctrinated, inoculated, or read to by some hideous tranny hosebeast.
          “The beauty of the second amendment is that you probably won’t need it until they try to take it away.” – Thomas Jefferson
          Now go read the Federalist Papers ant, you indoctrinated fuckwit.

      • It means a functional militia, like a “well regulated mind”, “well regulated appetite”, “well regulated clock”… it was writer in the 18th century, and that is what the expression meant.

        • “It means a functional militia”

          actually it means well-drilled, well-practiced, and well-led, as an entity of the community. “functional militia”, well-understood, covers all that. so yeah, the 2nd is about a functional militia, not isolate individuals acting on their own recognizance – the writers of the 2nd would have thought such people uncivilized and would have told them to “go west” and live amongst the wild indians.

        • Do you think “well regulated appetite” means a functional appetite?
          Hilarious.

          “it was writer in the 18th century, and that is what the expression meant“

          Perhaps you might want to actually consult Daniel Webster’s dictionary of 1828, it is online and states that regulated means “subject to rule or regulation” and there is no mention of clocks whatsoever in the definition.

        • So I just took my own advice, and…well…

          I guess i “accidentally” omitted the part of the definition that the founding fathers were referring to when they drafted the 2nd amendment….WOOPSEY!

          Daniel Webster’s dictionary of 1828;
          REG’ULATED, participle passive Adjusted by rule, method or forms; >>>𝐩𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫<<<

          Hmmm, I guess a'll were correct. My bad!

      • And what do you think ‘Heller v. DC’ and ‘McDonald v. Chicago’ mean? Just because the Supreme Court has held, at least TWICE, the firearm possession is an individual right and not a collective right, and just because the first ten Amendments, that comprise the Bill of Rights, are universally accepted as being rights that pre-exist Government and that are guaranteed to all citizens and not privileges granted by Government, and just because the entire POINT of the Bill of Rights is to command Government to confirm, honor, and protect these rights to all citizens, I assume that you disagree, and believe that the 2nd Amendment is a granting by Government of the privilege to The People to join organized militias under Government control only if Government so commands?

        Please explain.

        • antigun ant7 is unable to comprehend what a prefatory clause is.
          The 2nd Amendment says, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Period.
          The part that comes before the comma is merely a prefatory clause, so it does not negate the part that comes after the comma (yes, I do know there’s an often-quoted version that had three commas, but there is also an OFFICIAL version that only has one comma).

          The 2nd Amendment would mean the same thing if the prefatory clause was changed as follows:
          “The price of imported tea from China being high, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
          If the price of tea from China then declined, it would not mean Americans have to give up their right to keep and bear arms!
          Also, it would not mean that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” only applied to people who drink tea from China.

          Why is this so hard to understand? Why is it so hard for anti-gun people to understand the meaning of a prefatory clause?
          It’s almost as if they don’t want to understand it.
          It’s almost as if they’re ignorant and stupid by choice…

        • “firearm possession is an individual right and not a collective right”

          you make a distinction that the writers of the 2nd would not have recognized. they saw the security of a free state (however defined) as being upheld by self-armed individuals participating collectively in a well-regulated (commanded) militia, not by self-armed individuals acting independently in disregard of that militia and the state behind it – they would have seen such loners as uncivilized and told them to go west.

          “the Supreme Court has held, at least TWICE”

          it has – and this has changed how the 2nd is legally understood. and having done so, they can do it again. live by the court, die by the court.

        • “antigun ant7”

          (laugh)

          “is unable to comprehend what a prefatory clause is”

          by your explanation, “prefatory” means “irrelevant”. but the 2nd clearly asserts that the point and purpose of the people keeping arms is to bear them in a well-regulated militia. that’s not irrelevant.

          and if you think it is, then you can expect the real anti-gun people to treat as irrelevant anything they wish too.

        • Clearly, it is you, and I, and the Supreme Court that are wrong;
          Here we’ve been operating under the delusion that the 2nd Amendment is a statement of the rights of citizens to possess firearms on an individual basis should the formation of a militia for the common defense–whether it be AntifaBLM riot, or an out-of-control government–be necessary to retain a free state or State, States being understood as the individual STATES and not a Federal government entity, when all along it is actually an empowerment of the Federal government to dragoon individual citizens into a government-controlled militia force to defend GOVERNMENT against its citizens should they become uppity.
          This is BRILLIANT! Why hasn’t anyone thought of this before?!

        • People insist on setting up the militia clause (the prefatory clause) and the individual right (the operative clause) as if they’re opposed to one another, but that is an egregious lie. They don’t oppose or limit each other.

          They work TOGETHER to specify an individual right that the government must not infringe upon AND to tell the government what use it should make of that right.

          The individual right to keep and bear arms must remain uninfringed because without armed citizens, the people cannot properly defend themselves and their country, and there could be no militia at all. Meanwhile, the government is *also* enjoined to ensure that the citizen militia is well regulated (as in functional, not restricted into oblivion).

          Both/and, not either/or. Don’t fall for the false dichotomy.

      • Have you studied the debates of the 14A? Do you know what privileges of citizenship that Thaddeus Stevens spoke of in relation to the new freemen?

        Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty,” Stevens said. “The Fourteenth Amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question.”

        If you read the Congressional debates you will find the 2A was considered an individual right and the Reconstruction Amendments were made to enforce that freemen were citizens and were to enjoy the same rights as all other citizens.

        From the Founding to the Civil War and after the prevailing though was the 2A was an individual right. The writings and debates of the time period show this.

      • “AND to tell the government what use it should make of that right”

        Well, in a word, no.

        In the United States Constitution militia clause, the founding fathers gave Congress the authority to “prescribe discipline for the militia”, that’s where the ‘well regulated’ comes in, meaning “subject to rule or regulation” per Daniel Webster 1828.

        • MinorIQ,

          I’ve spanked your worthless @$$ on this issue time after time, and your consistent response is to emulate brave Sir Robin, and bravely turn your tail and flee.

          Even if I were willing to accept your ignorant, ahistorical, ungrammatical and illogical argument (Hint: I’m not) you have NEVER ‘explained’ why, if the Congress-regulated militia was the ONLY point of the 2A, the right was given to ‘the people’?? Meaning anyone under or over the age to be within the definition of “miliitia” had no right to own guns?? Meaning that the REPEATED references throughout the Federalist Papers to the INHERENT and PRE-EXISTING right to bear arms and to self-defense are . . . not actually there? Meaning that the clear distinctions drawn between the “unorganized militia” and the “organized militia” didn’t mean anything? Meaning that Congess right to prescribe SOME discipline for the ORGANIZED militia translates into a right to prescribe personal property ownership and personal behavior of PEOPLE not in the organized militia?

          Your ability to turn your own opinions and prejudices into historical “facts” – against ACTUAL historical evidence – makes me laugh. You are an ahistorical, ungrammatical, illogical idiot of a troll, and your BS justification of your policies based on personal prejudice isn’t even very amusing. Try reading some ACTUAL history, Minor Annoyance, and quit trying to impress us with articles questioning the authenticity of ONE quote from T. Jefferson is enough to . . . invalidate the DOZENS of authentic T. Jefferson quotes acknowledging and approving the INHERENT right of self-defense and to keep and bear arms.

          If I actually cared, I might point out to you that you’re making a damn fool of yourself – but it’s actually funny as hell. Since you love illogical, ahistorical rhetorical stretches, tell us the one about how a “mandate” which is NOWHERE authorized in the Constitution is actually a “tax”. It’s about as logical, and well-founded in law and the Constitution, as your asinine arguments about the 2A.

          As Buzz Lightyear would say, “You are a sad, funny little man.” Or am I misgendering you by assuming you are male?

        • Lamp,

          I can’t answer any of your rebuttal.

          I am limited to only giving a partial definition of the word “regulated”. The part that makes no coherent sense within the context of the second amendment.

          That’s it, no more.

    • The federal and state governments cannot do anything to prohibit any law abiding American Citizen from owning, possessing or using any gun of personal choice or any ammunition needed for the weapon..

      You have obviously not heard of Kommiefornia, Ill-noise (Chiraq), New Jerk, Kommierado or New Joisey….

    • To ant7 and all – Proper English – -> It’s called a Comma – Look it up in Websters if you don’t know! There are “Coma’s” in the 2nd for a reason! and that makes ant7’s argument irrelevant.
      Some have a Piss Poor education – even at the College level !

  3. Murkowski might just toss in a final fuk-U and vote for that dick head because her political life is about to come to an abrupt halt, King was just reelected in 2018 so he’s safe til 24 when he will be 80 years old, might not care about running again that would be a pretty sweet kick in the teeth to the people of Maine. Manchin and Sinema are probably our best hope of keeping that ass-clown away from the “AFT”…

    • Don’t be too sure. The Divine Miss M, Senator for Less Than Half of Alaska, has powerful friends–Planned Parenthood, Native corporations, and the DNC. She managed to defeat an actual Republican last time around with a write-in vote (although he was a bit of a loon, a person that probably shouldn’t be left alone with small children or animals), and her cronies on the Left side of the Senate know that she will either vote FOR a Biden appointee, or will abstain from voting altogether and thus will support her in every way that they can.

      Never sell a corrupt ReKleptocrat short.

  4. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on. Loses service firearm, blows up Waco, shill for gun control, can’t define the mythical “assault weapon”, plus he just looks creepy. Abolish the ATFB!

    • I prefer the old English version: Fornicate thyself and the steed upon which thou didst arrive!!

      LOL

    • You don’t seem to comprehend that what you have mentioned are not faults or drawbacks, but are instead positive attributes much valued by the Left.

      If you want to hire a hatchet man, you don’t shop around for one with a conscience, morals, ethics, or scruples; You want a sociopath, an Anton Chigurh sort of fellow who will follow orders.

      Stalin did not hire Beria because he loved children and small animals.

      • I’m sorry, I must correct myself.

        Stalin DID hire Beria because he ‘loved’ children and small animals. He was charged with over 300 counts of child molestation and rape, and was known to torture and kill small animals for sport. For 20 years, however, this was not seen as an ‘issue;’ Only after Stalin died did people make a big deal out of it.

        I wonder what Anton Chipman thinks of small animals; We know how he feels about small children after Waco.

  5. Just sent the following to Manchin and a few other senators.

    Dear Senator,

    I respectfully request that you oppose confirming David Chipman to the Directorship of the ATF. I understand that the agency needs leadership, but you must understand that confirming this man is as inappropriate and incendiary as it would be to appoint Wayne LaPierre to that position.

    I will not assail you with outrageous or fanciful claims against Mr. Chipman. I certainly vehemently disagree with his answers to the Senate committee. The base fact is that it is highly inappropriate to appoint a paid lobbyist (still currently employed as such) to the head of a powerful and problematic Federal agency. I am sure that you had similar and legitimate concerns regarding Betsy DeVos and Ajit Pai.

    Thank you for your time. Although I may not be one of your voting constituents, your choices in this regard certainly stand to negativity affect my life.

        • Ant7,
          Excellent advice to contact ones own senators. I had already emailed, called, snail mailed, and called local offices for both Cruz and Cornyn. (And Brady, and Biden.) And put in comments on the atf proposed rules for the last couple years.

          Also, go make friends and take said friends or to the range to introduce them to responsible gun ownership.

          When you contact senators offices through their contact forms they all require your address. Hence the comment about not being their constituent.

          The political left of this country have ZERO compunctions about harassing, funding, or otherwise interfering with politicritters out of their home state. The least I can do is politely express my opinion to an out of state politician on how their decisions will affect the broader country in general and me specifically.

          The founding fathers wrote extensively and often to parliament prior to their decision to declare independence and point their guns at the tyrants.

          Maybe my comments will end up round filed, probably more likely than not actually. Screaming into the void as it were. But I exercise my right to speak, just as I exercise my right to carry, and for the same reason. Rights we don’t exercise atrophy and die.

  6. “I haven’t made a determination yet,” Tester said. Real meaning “I haven’t got paid yet”. Sleepy Old Joe won’t let go of any of the under the table money. Murkowski is as corrupt as an Alaska summer day is long. Almost everyone knows that and she hates them because of it. She will probably give the middle finger salute to America. Sinema will probably cave to DemonRat fundraising. Manchin is the only one popular enough to survive DemonRat public pressure and that makes him an unknown. All true Americans need to light a candle and say a pray.

  7. I looked up the phrase “resting bitch face” and lo and behold, there was the photo at the top of this post.

  8. The “Founding Fathers” never dreamed there would be a future population that is too stupid to read and understand plain English.

  9. Who is Chipman’s understudy? Find that person and watch closely. They will, given enough pressure, withdraw Chipman, slide in the understudy, and the gutless Republican Leadership will grease the nomination. Ptesto-Change-o. Worked every time, and the people’s never catch on

  10. Mr Chimpman will say anything and lie to get the job after which it will be too effing late.
    Seems abundantly clear that when there is this much apprehension for confirmation, it’s obvious he shouldn’t be confirmed.

    Do people think he could be trusted?

  11. There’s no way Hickenlooper isn’t a solid Yea. He promoted and signed the slate of California-esque anti gun laws, like mag limits, UBC, and a $10 Hickenlooper tax for the privilege of having the State run a background check for each purchase. He might be pretending to be undecided in hopes of receiving in more of Daddy Bloombucks’ cash.

  12. What I still cannot understand is the actual purpose of this nomination.
    Had Mr Biden wanted an ATF director capable of effectively disarming as many Americans as possibile, I am confident that there is a lot of efficient (and with a clean CV) bureaucrats to chiose from.
    Instead he choose a quite controversial (and controversial is an understatement) figure, again proving how some politicians are much more interested in the show, rather than getting things done.

  13. My State’s two Senators, Bennett and Lickshispooper, are both rabidly Anti 2A, though they claim otherwise, their actions speak the truth. Because Denver (and its surrounding Commie communes) has a death grip on Colorado, my once Red State is now a Democrat Cesspool. I’ve written, emailed and phoned Bennett and Lickshispooper both over Chipdickhead’s nomination and my opposition and concerns, only to receive the typical Democrat form letter response about how they will carefully review the nominees pros and cons, but will end up voting Yay, because Common (Non)sense Gun Laws are needed.

    I’m a Colirado native, if I wasn’t disabled and of limited means, I’d move.

  14. The Chipman nomination is or certainly should be a lost cause. Biden should have long since withdrawn it. Is the president really so lacking in Situational Awareness? I wonder.

  15. Statements made about him / his performance in the DEA, statements he has made concerning the 2nd Amendment, his statements under questioning in Congress put his knowledge about weapons on display for everyone. He seems to be a prime example of the Peter Principal – one who has been advanced in position without being qualified.
    How this man could remain a Nominee by the President does not say much about the President nor the system.

  16. @ant7 When referring to the 2nd amendment, stick to this question… “What came 1st, the chicken or the egg?” Next… Stick to the article at hand and answer the question why, or why not, you would like to see Chipman get appointed to head of the ATF. Your opinion on the appointment… simple as that.

  17. Whatever the founders meant, today it means whatever the people with guns say it means – which is kinda the point after all. So the anti 2A trolls can argue as much as they want about what it meant in the 18th century as long as they realize they can’t force the rest of us to agree with them about what it means right now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here