Steve Scalise Congressional Baseball Game Shooting
Previous Post
Next Post

“Taking away the rights of law-abiding citizens is not the answer. Again, it was law-abiding citizens with guns that saved my life and many others.” – Congressman Steve Scalise in Congressional baseball game comes a year after shooting [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


    • It already passed. Going into effect once Trump signs it. Right now, they’re hiding it and not telling anyone that it passed so that it doesn’t whip up a storm in the liberal fake news media.

      So put away your $200 and be quiet before you ruin it for everyone.

      Praise Jesus.

      • Last I’d heard they separated fix NICS and passed it, but abandoned the dereg.. Though I’d certainly like that to be true

        • Me, too. I already have my next suppressor selected, will order just as soon as I can do so at my LGS instead of specialized NFA store.

        • Yeah, no matter how “quiet” they may want to keep it, for it to become law it must be entered into the house and senate’s books which show up on If it passed either/both, it would be there. And I see no sign of it. Only the HPA, which has only been introduced, and H.R. 38, which has passed the House, but not the Senate.

      • I think it passed the House and disappeared into the bowels of the Senate. We won’t see it again, if at all, until just before the November election cycle. Same with reciprocity.

    • Better yet, repeal of GCA’68 along with NFA of 1934, for openers. Then repeal of The Hughes Amendment, which never should have been adopted in the first place. The foregoing just a couple of off hand thoughts.

  1. Limiting any right is a step towards tyrrany, no matter how well-intentioned. Thus, doing so must always be done cautiously, reluctantly, thoughtfully, and with a readiness to remove said restriction if the supposed benefits don’t materialize.

    It seems the congressman gets it; but as usual actions speak louder than words. We shall see.

  2. Kinda’ puts a kremp in the anti-gunners argument when someone shot (and almost died from the shooting) comes out on the pro-gun side!

    • It also puts the lie to the pro-gunner stance that just because someone has survived some spree shooting, they are not entitled to some special super vote or right to be heard when they make their anti-gun arguments. Here, people are celebrating the Congressman’s special status snd elevating his opinion on the Second Amendment as a result of his personal story.

      • How so? By your argument people who have been harmed by the fourth or fifth amendment and what those revoked, have same standing as people who do not want them provoked.

      • It’s a little different in Scalise’s case because he had a public stance on the Second Amendment before the shooting, as a public official who was in a position to pass legislation affecting gun rights. Now he has gone through something that people have argued should change that stance, and he is making it known that his experience reaffirmed his position, not weakened it.

  3. Contrast Steve with Ronnie Reagan…he gets shot by a Berniebot(not widely disseminated) and he not only doesn’t condemn democrats but he still supports gun rights. Supposed 2A hero(LOL) Reagan gets shot with a 22 and signs all kinds of evil BS. SCALISE for President…Reagan meh. The jury is still out for Trump.

    • People may just assume Reagan was a pro-2A hero, if the topic comes up, but I doubt very many people are out out there actively making that case.

      Reagan was mostly neutral to somewhat beneficial on guns. FOPA was a modest net gain, yes, even at the expense of full auto toys. I say toys because you and I both know that’s all they’re good for in civilian world. If we civilians ever have to go to war against enemies foreign or domestic, FOPA gets defenestrated and we all modify our rifles, regardless.

      Now, I still say even that is an infringement. There, I said it, but it’s an infringement with near zero practical value. That doesn’t make it right, but it doed make it basically irrelevant.

      Where Reagan went too far was mostly in his post-presidency pronouncements, which lent his gravitas to Cliton’s efforts.

      • No. Reagan was markedly pro-Second Amendment in the context of his age cohort, California, the country, and the GOP.
        His generation was the only with a consistent majority support of bans. His age cohort had majority support for total handgun bans in the 1970s. Of the 65% support for handgun bans at the time, there was not even too much of a partisan difference, about 57% GOP, 60% Indep/other and 70% of Dems.

        • Context is for liberals making excuses. Objectively, he was fair-to-middling anti-gun, just like most of the other politicians of that era that conspired to deny us our natural human rights.

      • A 2rd burst on a 45 or 9mm subgun in my House is a pretty goddamn good tool. Do I NEED it? Not necessarily, but I should be allowed to have it.

    • Reagan gets a ton of heat around here but I’m old enough to know it’s mostly unwarranted. Not because he was a perfect conservative or walked on water, but because of the conservative revolution that surrounded him. He certainly wasn’t a perfect conservative or very good on gun rights, but he was the first conservative president since before FDR, and started to majorly turn the tide against the march of liberalism and the federal government. Many parallels with Trump and the drain the swamp mentality and constant war with the elite liberal media. Both Reagan and Trump are the most conservative presidents anyone alive today has seen.

      • Ive got bad news for you. Reagan expanded the size of government. Carter reduced it ever so slightly. Clinton reduced the size of government substantially. Every other president in the last about 100 years has increased it. Conservative or liberal.

        Yeah, the typically conservative punching bag Bill Clinton was the only one to reduce the size of government and by a fair amount. I don’t really care for the guy, but conservatives haven’t been for small government since Eisenhower. I think it is time to give up on it, or actually elect someone who doesn’t pay lip service to that.

        Mother Jones is muy liberal, but just spend 5 minutes on google. You can find any number of sources that back them up on the numbers.

  4. Unfortunately another public official Dianne Feinstein who was shot at through the windows of our house, and later a bomb planted at her house that failed to explode, she still does not support gun civil rights. But she does have armed government guards around her at work.

    And as far as I know she still has that 38 revolver that she used the to defend herself after that bomb that was planted at her home failed to explode. All that from the early 1980s. She claimed she got rid of that revolver. I don’t believe her.

  5. This is why Scalise is my pick for speaker. None of the other canidates floated have stated the Second Amendment is absolute.

  6. No way they even say the words “deregulate suppressors” until after mid terms in November. If you haven’t been following, GOP is in serious danger of losing control of the House so they won’t risk giving the leftists any talking points. And if GOP does lose the House, chances at zero at least until GOP controls POTUS, Senate and House again.

  7. I TRULY HOPE I AM WRONG, but I fear the republicans are going to take a beating in the mid terms. I am also afraid that the republicans are in real danger of loosing the white house come 2020. Because of these fears I also fear the strong likelihood that the suppressor industry may never fully recover from the beating they are taking. That beating is because we are waiting on legislation to deregulate suppressers that may never come. I TRULY HOPE I AM WRONG bit I fear I’m not.

Comments are closed.