John Cornyn
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
Previous Post
Next Post

Following the weekend announcement of a compromise framework for a gun control deal in the Senate, Texas Senator John Cornyn apparently felt the need to address angry constituents who aren’t nearly as enthusiastic as he is about expanding “red flag” laws, enhancing background checks for those under 21 among other points in the deal.

Cornyn partnered with Democrat Chris Murphy of Connecticut to negotiate and broker the deal that got nine other Republicans to sign on, greatly increasing the chances of the final bill clearing the Senate once the legislation is actually written.

There’s only one big problem with Cornyn’s much-heralded achievement: his tweet proves that he wasn’t even trying to actually negotiate anything.


It’s pretty clear what his staffers (it’s doubtful he has the graphics skills or computer literacy to do that) were trying to do with yesterday’s tweet — damage control. By showing us all how the deal he struck with Democrats could have been so much worse, he’s trying to frame the agreement as a grand compromise that saved firearm owners from some of the worst that gun-grabbers had in mind.

The way Cornyn portrays it, if he and his fellow collaborators hadn’t rushed in to give some ground, we’d be facing magazine bans, “assault weapons” sales restrictions, waiting periods, safe storage mandates, and more if Democrats went ahead and scuttled the filibuster to force the House gun control bills through the Senate.

Then they could also pack the Supreme Court and we’d really be stuck, right?

I know the comments section is already filling up with “come and take it” and “shall not be infringed” declarations, but I want readers to notice something else — the things that aren’t on Cornyn’s list of rejected proposals that didn’t make it into the Senate deal.

Why doesn’t that list include anything from the Republican side? Why is there no plan for a federal law to allow armed teachers nationwide? Why wasn’t 50-state concealed carry reciprocity considered? How about deregulating suppressors or removing short-barreled rifles and shotguns from the NFA?

Surely if the Democrats really wanted “common sense gun control” as badly as they claim, they’d have stepped up and paid for it with some sort of compromise. Right?

Instead, what we’ve really learned from Cornyn’s sorry excuse at tamping down the blowback he’s undoubtedly getting is that he never really negotiated with Senate Democrats at all.

Cornyn and the other GOP collaborators who agreed to the framework showed up with no demands at all of their own. They were only prepared to haggle with Democrats over how much the rest of us will give up so he can become GOP leader in the Senate some day.

Senators like Cornyn and Romney didn’t give anything up in the Senate deal. They have security details, large houses in gated communities with armed patrols, and plenty of other measures to keep them and their families safe while the rest of us rubes have to fend for ourselves like nearly everyone else who has ever walked the earth.

Just as it’s awfully easy to spend other people’s money, Cornyn had no qualms about giving our rights away for his own political benefit. He never had any plan to actually negotiate for us, to get something in return in an actual compromise with Democrats. Instead, he got rolled and he couldn’t be happier about it.

Cornyn’s just another elitist who wants to see how we can better serve him. He won’t have to face Texas voters again for four more years, by which time he’s betting the folks back home will have mostly forgotten about this. Sadly, he’s probably right.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. We will not comply. If you try to enforce any new laws or regulations we will defend ourselves.

    • Cornyn gives a list of items conservatives rejected.

      Where is the list of items democrats rejected????????

      Sounds like a crappy “negotiation”. What are we getting? Or does this only go one way???

        • Same reason we have thousands of unconstitutional gun laws already, death by a thousand cuts.

      • Well when politically history illiterates congregate in front of the White House and throw knee jerk tantrums on the behalf of what they assume is sugar and spice Gun Control they get the results they want.
        And once again that is what happens when Gun Owners continue failing to define Gun Control as a history confirmed agenda rooted in racism and genocide. Failure to define Gun Control by its history of rot is sorta like the neighbor who hears a woman getting beaten next door and fails to say anything.

        • “And once again that is what happens when Gun Owners continue failing to define Gun Control as a history confirmed agenda rooted in racism and genocide.”

          What does history matter? If a principle is applied without regard to race/ethnicity, but the outcome (fewer deaths) is desirable, how is an idea invalid simply because of an ignominious history?

          Before you answer, consider all the things born of racism that benefited the economic and political power of the US. Why is it not required that we constantly label those things as “racism and genocide”? Either nothing acceptable can be spawned in racism, or there are favored exceptions. Then those favored exemptions must be defended somehow. And that defense always seems to come down to, “Exceptions are valid when I benefit.”

        • But this is another one of your Republican heros like Trump. How can this be? They all love guns. Oh wait they are on the same path as the Democrats, just at a slower pace.

        • No, with Cornyn, his RINO ilk, and Leftist/fascists like Murphy, that’s the position they want US to assume.

          When you fell like you’re getting f***ed, ask yourself one question, “Did I bend over?” If the answer is “Yes,” then . . . stand up. It’s really that simple.

      • I once worked for a company in Illinois that was under the UAW, when it came to contracts, we had a whole slew of things on the table to bargain with, usually after a week the UAW tooke evberything off the table, and took what the company offered, and said… THATS THE BEST WE COULD DO! take it or leave it!thats what the republicans are doing right now, Both parties should be fired..along with BRANDON!

      • why is it, that someone (public servant) can take an oath to defend and protect those who pay (working taxpayers) his salary, then do just the opposite? How is it that they cannot be arrested for fraud, breach of contract, lying to their employer, “We the People”? WE need to secede from this evil empire. IT would divide our enemy on the east coast from the west. THAT is the best military move in history. Divide & conquer. They are doing it to US

        • You may be the first to sue for fraud etc. and find out the politicians don’t have to play by the same rules as you and I. And they don’t cut their own grass either! Money buys everything and we made them rich. Don’t ever let an elected official have more than 1 term, and that would be a good start to break the cycle

    • You are correct and they better start recognizing how fed up most American Citizens are getting with their lack of respect for us and the Constitution of the USA.

      • “…and they better start recognizing how fed up most American Citizens are getting with their lack of respect for us and the Constitution of the USA.”

        Or what?

        More angry submissions on social media?

        There is no popular groundswell for armed revolt in this country. Time for that is long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away.

        • ***** If John Cornyn was a Police Officer *****

          Officer Cornyn; We spotted some burglars breaking into your home.

          Homeowners; Thank you Officer Cornyn, with record high inflation we don’t have the resources to buy new replacements. Do you need us to press charges?

          Officer Cornyn; Well not exactly. The burglars told us, they wanted to steal everything in your home, even rented a box truck.

          Homeowner; I don’t understand what difference that would make?

          Officer Cornyn; Well because they wanted everything, we “Compromised” with the burglars, for your safety of course.

          Officer Cornyn; Lucky for you we were here. Because instead of everything, they ONLY took four chairs, two TV’s, one car, and the contents of your safe. We feel it’s a good deal for both parties.

          Homeowner; What!?! Our car?

          Officer Cornyn; That is correct, and I sure they will not return later for the rest of your belongings.

          Officer Cornyn; But if they do, we will likely have to “Compromise” with them again.

          Homeowner; But…

          Officer Cornyn; No need to thank us, it’s our job to serve the people. So drive safe, and have a nice day.

        • Unfortunately, Sam, I agree with you. At one point will people decide they have had enough? When the Feds come around and do door-to-door gun confiscations? When they starve Americans out, and then herd everyone into FEMA camps (but give up your guns for the food they provide)? These Red Flag laws are a dream for gun grabbers. I think the “it-cannot-happen-here” belief is so strong, too many will simply do nothing, because they are going to be too shocked when they realize it IS happening here, and to them. But by that time, it will be far too late to try and defend themselves. Fed up? Sadly, I think Americans should have been fed up a long time ago, but at this point, like Republicans, too many are just bending over and taking the tyranny, because it is like the frog being boiled slowly in hot water: It is happening ever-so-gradually. I mean hell, if we are bending over and taking getting sexually assaulted by the TSA at the airport for “safety” without complaint the last 20 years, too many will take just about anything.

      • incontrollable tyrants in gov’t. and their criminal friends on the street should be removed, from the peaceful landscape. Restore the republic, make men free again. Go back to the 10 rules that state what the gov’t. CANNOT do to the citizen. Thank you Abe Lincoln (democracy) and LBJ (oligarchy)

  2. If, if, the Repubs are gaming the Dims, can’t give away the game just yet.

    If the Repubs aren’t gaming the Dims, well….nothing new here, is there?

    • Republicans are loath to even put forward any kind of road map on gun rights, other than generic “support for the second amendment”, which, most Dems also claim in the same breath they call for an AWB ban. They won’t bring bills up for a vote in the Senate unless they have 60 (which means never) and as soon as anything happens they sheepishly go into hiding on gun rights. The only thing we occasionally see is the House reps throwing in some bills they know won’t pass, but nothing more serious than that.

      I think most of us on the gun rights side probably have a different list of what we stand for than the GOP, or even NRA (I know I know we don’t like to bring them up either). It seems like most GOP pols are proudly promoting red flag laws, happy to ban bump stocks, don’t want open carry, don’t really want permitless carry, or campus carry, like background checks, would consider universal ones, don’t know what NFA or Title II firearms are, wouldn’t want to repeal the NFA, or delist suppressors, SBRs, or machine guns, would be open to some magazines capacity limits or AWB. Most of them won’t let the mask slip but our passions likely don’t match most of them. Mitch, various Bushes, definitely Florida GOP, Trump, Rubio, Rick Scott, I think a lot of them would embrace a lot of these gun control items if they could without getting hit back, as such they will only slow walk (or no walk) most pro-gun positions.

      It would be interesting and enlightening to see a survey of gun rights positions and values and where the GOP stood on it, if they would actually truthfully answer it. We would likely discover that a lot of our frustrations “man, why didn’t they repeal the NFA, delist suppressors, or at least direct the AG to open the MG registry!” are likely non-starters for most of them.

      • “We would likely discover that a lot of our frustrations “man, why didn’t they repeal the NFA, delist suppressors, or at least direct the AG to open the MG registry!” are likely non-starters for most of them.”

        Hasn’t that already been undeniably established. Isn’t the voting record a proxy for some sort of written survey?

        However, it would be smart, both ways, for Repubs to deceive the Dims into destroying the “bi-partisan agreement”; no gun control bill, Repubs don’t have to put forward any counter legislation, yet get credit for “saving” gun rights.

        The Republicrats who “negotiated” the bi-partisan agreement are much closer to actual events, than are any of the public. There must be a reason Repubs signed onto the agreement. Trickery, or inside knowledge that the “red wave” isn’t really on the horizon; that the Dims will have the power to rule after November. There is a reason that 10 Repubs joined the agreement, not 8, or 9. What don’t we know?

        • Sam,

          TBH, I think you are giving them WAY too much credit. Not a single name among the group of Republicrats was EVER a 2A defender in any real sense. Why 10? Because that’s how many the Dims need to defeat a filibuster. Just like Dims spent DECADES filibustering civil rights and voting rights laws, Republicans can filibuster “gun control”. Only, in the case of the Republicans, they would actually be protecting civil rights, instead of denying them.

          This is just the swamp in action. There are MORE than ten RINOs; they chose convenient ones (and that’s a GIANT clue, right there – about half the 10 aren’t running for re-election, so they can vote any way they want to). This way, Mitch the Bitch gets to cave to the Dimocrats (in exchange for some new piece of pork, which is all he cares about), but not have his name on it. Notice they didn’t include the Wicked Witch of the North, Murkowski? Not that she has a chance of winning, anyway, but if she voted for this trash, she’d be history. No, these were VERY carefully selected turncoats.

          In other news, water is wet, the sun rises in the East, and AOC is dumb as a box of hammers. Don’t overanalyze this. They had plenty of candidates for “et tu, Brute?”, they DELIBERATELY picked a bunch of retirees, losers, and candidates for “political analyst” slots on MSDNC and CommieNewsNetwork. I highly doubt this gets anywhere, since Malig-Nancy will need to deliver more to her crew of idiots, so we will see the Dims add everything but the kitchen sink, and it is likely that a few ACTUAL 2A defenders will add a poison pill or two. I give this “framework” less than a 25% chance (still WAY too much, unfortunately) of passing as legislation in both houses.

          Having said that, we have a list of RINOs to target.

      • except for a handful of republicans, the government is totally corrupt. We the People should do what the founders and Jesus said to do, SEPARATE from the evil, touch not the unclean thing, do not cause one child to fall, for such is the Kingdom of heaven. IT is GOD who is going to destroy bloody Amerika

  3. If you’ve actually read the proposal, this article sounds like the author thinks our “rights” are allowing unlimited straw purchasing, no funding for mental health facilities and care, not fixing our background check system to include all federal databases, not paying attention when a violent sociopath buys 2 AR on his 18th birthday and threatens to kill children, not funding school security, and not taking firearm rights away from committed domestic abusers.

    I’m fine giving those “rights” away.

      • sean surrendered on the behalf of the actions of an insane indivudual and laid his rights down at the feet of Gun Control which is a History Confirmed agenda rooted in racism and genocide…sieg heil brown shirt sean.

        • How do you know? For example, I can see better school security/mental health funding being very helpful in preventing school violence.

          What specific issues do you have with these proposals? Articulate an original thought.

        • Pattern recognition and almost a century of broken promises. No to any gun control proposals as they are always in bad faith much as your arguments appealing to imaginary enforcement on felons (lol straw purchases for gangs)

        • And there we go: you can’t articulate any specific problems with the any of the proposals.

          By the way, not all of these proposals were even related to “gun control.” For example, better funding for school security/mental health services. You’d know that if you read them.

          Crazies like you are why people are increasingly ignoring gun enthusiasts like you and me in these conversations. If there’s an assault weapons ban in this country, they will point to people like you to justify it. Thanks for that.

        • “trolling” = asking you to articulate a position. Still asking. And if you’re not going to do that, not sure why you’re responding at all….

          If you don’t have anything to add, just don’t. Every time you respond without answering the question, it just gets more embarrassing for you.

        • Nothing needs to be articulated your position is further infringement that has no place in a free society and is unacceptable.

        • And that’s five responses now without articulating what specific issues you have with these proposals. Who are you, Hilary Clinton?

      • Here’s a better question: Why are you against better enforcement of straw purchasing laws, fixing our background check system, funding mental health facilities and in school initiatives, improved school security, and increased scrutiny on violent/and or particularly young purchasers?

        What exactly is wrong with that, besides the “death by a thousand cuts” or “slippery slope” idiocy? Remember, this is a framework so the details aren’t even decided yet. Are all of you truly against these things even in THEORY? Crazy.

        • “You can have your rights only so long as no one abuses them.”

          That’s consequentialism and should be as dirty a word as communism.

        • an interesting quote and an interesting concept.

          It’s not anything I said and it doesn’t have anything to do with what I said, but interesting all the same.

          Since we’re just saying random, unrelated things, here’s something we can discuss: how come Go Gurt’s technology was never applied to pudding? It seems like a perfectly good idea for highly portable, on to go desserts. You even said, and I quote verbatim: “Go Gurt is cool, just as cool as communism.”

        • Because we will get none of that and still have more demanded of us so fuck them and you are either arguing in bad faith or a fool.

        • Oh, well if they end up erasing everything completely and changing everything around, then I’ll be against that, if it’s things I don’t like. So, I’m for these proposals but if they change them to stuff I don’t like, then I’ll be against those.

          Makes sense, right? you should support stuff you like and not support stuff you don’t like. Why don’t you like the proposals? For example, do you do a lot a straw purchasing or do you have some domestic violence on your record? I can understand not liking these proposals if you beat your wife or buy guns for felons, you might get in trouble!

        • Lol hope you are getting paid for these posts because if it’s for your degree it is even more worthless than your argument. And anything seems like madness if it doesn’t fit with your desired agenda (yes this goes both ways).

        • better enforcement of straw purchases is exactly what is needed, not making it even more illegaler.
          “fixing” bgc… it could be improved without becoming a defacto registration; i object to that.
          absolutely get the spongeiforms the help they need.
          school security should be tightened. i doubt if your version looks at all like mine would.
          scrutinizing violent and or young individuals would be part of improving background checks, these agencies could share more info, but then privacy…
          you’ll soon bore of putting words in other mouths.

        • I actually went to technical school, currently working as a welder. So….no, they’re not for my degree.

          I can’t help but notice that you STILL can’t come up with any specific issues with these proposals. Try reading them, slowly, one at a time. Maybe out loud?

        • to tsbhoa.p.jr.
          1. It seems like these proposals are attempting to fix poor enforcement of straw purchasing.
          2. I don’t see any language at all about a registry (I’d be completely against that as well). I see some small adjustments to the background check system, mainly extra scrutiny around especially young purchasers.
          3. Well, the proposals include funding for better school security. I’m glad the government is at least discussing it and I hope that part of the proposal passes. I’m sure ours would look closer than theirs but I’m glad they’re discussing it.
          4. I think that exact proposal is in the list….
          5. I don’t know what this means. I think these are pretty reasonable proposals, everybody is spazzing out about them, I asked why, no one can tell me why. Asking questions is allowed, my guy. Wanting people to think for themselves is allowed.

        • your for them when the groundwork hasn’t been laid out yet?, guess maybe you sound like Linsey Graham, I was against it before i voted for it!

        • I will offer arguments to those willing to debate in good faith. I have not run into anyone supporting any further infringement fitting this category in over a decade. Everything is a slippery slope fallacy of criticized despite only leading to more infringement. Your argument is irrelevant as any further involvement in background checks will inevitably lead to a searchable database and defacto universal registration for anything sold or transferred in violation of federal law. You are just another Miner/Dacian/other astroturf lefty and good luck with the welding I am sure your doing great with that lately. Oh and next time lurk more and get some post history before trying your push it makes it less obvious.

        • To george: “your for them when the groundwork hasn’t been laid out yet?”
          The whole point of this article is that they just laid out the groundwork….

          If you think they haven’t even laid out a groundwork, what exactly are you mad about?

        • To SafeupstateFML: So, again, you really don’t have any concrete reason for disliking these proposals outside of some hypothetical, separate, unrelated legislation in the future. Saying “any adjustment to the background check system will always lead to a registry” is just horseshit. A registry leads to a registry. That tic tac toe line of thinking would prevent us from having any laws at all. We debate the laws as they are, not what they might someday in the distant future be.

          As for those people you mentioned and post history, I honestly have no idea what or who you’re talking about. How much time to do you spend arguing with people on this website? You actually know their names? You manually look through their history? That’s sad dude. I’m checking back on this post because I have yet to hear why I as a gun owner should be up in arms about this. Do you act like this on every post?

          Go outside, go shooting, do something productive. But if you’re not going to honestly engage with these questions, I’m not sure why you’re still responding. You’re just running up your blood pressure for nothing.

    • Hey, Sean,

      That was a ridiculously partisan and inaccurate description of what the opposition to this POS thinks, but thanks for outing yourself as a gun-grabbing hoplophobe. We had kinda figured that out, already.

      As for YOU being happy to give away YOUR rights?? Feel free. Give up your right to vote; you clearly don’t have the brainpower to exercise it intelligently, so it’s no loss. Keep your effin’ “compromise” off MY damn rights, or we’ll have an issue. Your 2A rights are yours to have, keep, or throw away, and I could give a flying fornication what you choose to do. Start compromising MY rights, well that’s a different story, chief. Suffice it to say that YOUR opinion of what is a “reasonable compromise” does not align with mine. Have a nice day.

      • and insane sperging like that is EXACTLY why many people in this country don’t trust gun owners like myself. You’re the one compromising my rights as a legal gun owner, not the other way around.

        • You guys keep pretending that the proposals mentioned are impeding our 2nd Amendment rights. I have yet to have anyone explain to me how. Does the 2nd Amendment state that we can’t have funding for mental health initiatives and school security? Where exactly does it say that? Which legal scholars believe that the 2nd Amendment prevents the government from funding these things?

          Or do we just spaz about “muh rights” everytime someone mentions guns without actually reading any of the proposals and making up your own mind? It’s amazing how hive-minded some of you “rugged individualists” are.

        • sean, you really need to watch this video explaning the 2nd a, and rises in homicide deaths in US the last 65+ yrs.. Because you haven’t a clue what the 2nd A means, and states. if you did you wouldn’t be on the wrong side of the fence with Elmer Fudd. When you vote for anti 2nd a BS you’re taking away MY (and the other 2nd a supporters here) 2nd A rights.

        • You expect someone else to explain the documents enshrined as law to you because you fail to divine the meaning within?

          Waste of time with someone being purposefully obtuse.

          Don’t like our Rights? Fuck off to some other kingdom where the subjects you admire shrink into the corner and do what nanny tells them, instead of standing your ground against the odds for what is right. See the last thing my namesake screamed in defiance while being disemboweled and dying.

        • And once again, still no answer on why these proposals would impede the 2nd Amendment from either of you. Just inane garbage pretending like I’m some green-haired progressive pushing an assault weapons ban.

          You do realize you have to respond to what I’m ACTUALLY asking, not what you wish I was asking, right?

          I’d love to hear it. How, specifically, do these (specific) proposals being discussed impede your 2nd Amendment rights (specifically) as a law-abiding gun owner?

          If it’s so obvious, let’s hear it………….specifically.

        • it’s simple, like you.
          bcg’s that create a list of gun owners will lead to confiscation. do you see how having my legally owned guns removed violates my rights?
          denying purchase to <21yr olds violates their rights, and if that's my son or daughter then my families rights have been violated.

        • Give it up, idiot . . . you’re as much of a “gun owner” as dacian the stupid. Again, I don’t give a rip what YOU want to do with YOUR right . . . your INHERENT right!! . . . to self-defense and to keep and bear arms in support thereof. Give it away, don’t exercise it, ignore it, whatever floats your boat.

          I ALSO don’t give a rip which fascist gun-grabbers “don’t trust me”. My Leftist/fascist brother-in-law doesn’t “trust me” . . . Gee, I’m all out of f***s to give.

          You seem a candidate for MinorIQ, dacian the stupid, and jsled’s daily circle jerk. Have fun!! I have a range session scheduled . . . of the two of us, I might actually accomplish something. Go micturate up a cable, fascist gun-hater.

        • “You guys keep pretending that the proposals mentioned are impeding our 2nd Amendment rights. I have yet to have anyone explain to me how.”

          Hey, don’t tempt me with a good time!!

          1. “Enhanced” background checks for purchases by persons between 18 and 21. What’s next?? How about we don’t allow people to vote, if they are between 18 and 21, unless they pass a basic Civics test? You are welcome to post drivel on the Internet . . . but you have an (undefined) “waiting period” before your drivel will be posted. Starting to get the picture, [email protected]$$???

          2. “Red Flag” laws are INHERENTLY unconstitutional, and everyone with an IQ over room temperature knows it. No opportunity to confront your accuser. Seizure without an OPEN evidentiary hearing. Burden is on the DEPRIVED PARTY to PROVE their innocence. Of course, no part of that would strike a Leftist/fascist like you as unconstitutional – I doubt you’ve ever even READ the Constitution, let alone the DoI, BoR, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, or notes of the Constitutional Convention. Historical knowledge limited to your “U.S. Government” course in High School (if you even got that far).

          YES, you moron, nearly EVERY part of this POS is unconstitutional . . . and YOU are the one telling ME to bend over and grab my ankles, and be grateful for the opportunity???

          Go micturate STRAIGHT up a cable. My INHERENT RIGHTS are not up for “compromise” dipwad. Now, I’m off to the range. Have a nice day. “Assume the position”, sheep.

        • To tsbhoa.p.jr
          “it’s simple” Wonderful, this should be easy. Where exactly does it say in these proposals that they’re creating a registry or not allowing 21 year olds to purchase guns? Can you just copy and paste that over so we can all read it?

        • To Lamp of Diogenes
          I’m just gonna ignore the unhinged ranting. I’m starting to see where the domestic violence screening might piss you off. Now, to your points (good on you for thinking, now we can get somewhere!).
          1. If your first problem is “what’s next???!!”, then we’re back to the slippery slope fallacy. I think we CERTAINLY need to have a discussing about when someone is considered a full-on adult. There’s a huge maturity difference between an 18 year old and a 21 year old. I wouldn’t mind this country re-evaluating the 18 year old draft or voting rights, so we have a unified standard for when someone is an “adult”. Unfortunately, the majority of people buying a gun and immediately using them in crimes (especially mass shootings) are younger, so this proposal will almost certainly bring those numbers as well as suicide numbers down.

          That being said, it’s moot. These proposals do not BAN 18 year olds from owning guns or purchasing whatever they want. If they have a clean record and haven’t been making violent threats around town to shoot up an elementary school, their buying experience won’t be that different from now.

          2. This proposal simply gives federal funding to the laws, but individual legislatures have to create and pass those laws. So, all the specific problems you have with the concept of red flag laws would be completely up for debate. This proposal wouldn’t have any specificity about how red flag laws would or would not be applied. Many states will likely opt against the concept entirely.

          Again, just going to ignore the unhinged ranting about what my politics are, what I’ve read, personal attacks, and odd psychosexualstuff. Not my cup of tea, but it’s a free country.

        • So, Sean the Leftist, my first point is a “slippery slope fallacy” because YOU say it is??? Gee, I’m come all over aquiver with that level of reassurance. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN INHERENT RIGHT, you gormless t**t. At MINIMUM, under standards of Constitutional review, that requires “strict scrutiny” (as SCOTUS may very well reiterate in NYSRPA, but has already been stated more times than I care to mention). There IS NO rational basis to deprive an entire class of ADULTS of their Constitutional rights because SOME members of that class have abused those rights. That you’re OK with it just reinforces what a fascist @$$hole you are.

          What part of “no Red Flag laws are ‘constitutional'” escaped your limited ability of ratiocination???? ALL “Red Flag” laws fail constitutional review – (i) we have a constitutional right to face our accusers, (ii) we have a right to legal representation, (iii) we have a right to present evidence in our defense, (iv) we are PRESUMED INNOCENT until proven guilty, (v) we cannot be deprived of “life, liberty, or property” without DUE PROCESS OF LAW, and (vi) it is NEVER our burden to prove our innocence, it is the STATE’s burden to prove our guilt.

          But I guess all that doesn’t matter to a devoted fascist, like yourself.

          As for the ranting?? Child, you ain’t even SEEN ranting, yet, if you want to keep going down this road. I feel no obligation to treat an brainless Leftist/fascist with kid gloves. Don’t like it? Don’t come on here with that weak s***. The “compromise” is an unmitigated disaster, totally unconstitutional, and probably DOA in any event (it isn’t CLOSE to enough the get Malig-Nancy and her flying monkeys on board, and SOME pro-2A legislator is going to toss in a poison pill).

          But, you just keep on givin’ away rights . . . especially ones that DON’T BELONG TO YOU. I’ll keep mine, thanks. And feel free to go pound salt in your @$$.

        • Keep pretending you don’t comprehend. We will see if you are still trying to be a wise ass up against the wall with the rest.

          It is coming because you dip shits will not leave us well enough alone.

        • ‘hello fellow gun owners we really need to stop being so forceful in defending our rights and stop suspecting that politicians are looking to take them away.’ D+ more coherent than some but not believable.

        • To LampofDiogenes
          1. Again, where specifically in these proposals does it say that it will deprive entire classes of adults of their 2nd Amendment rights?

          Just copy and paste it so we can see. Or are you talking about the felons, straw purchasers, and/or domestic abusers?

          2. I understand you said those words. What I said is there’s no reason red flag laws would need to be written in an unconstitutional way. You could very easily have a legislature right a red flag law that respects all four of the items you mentioned. And, crucially, these proposals don’t list any requirements for red flag laws AT ALL. They simply offer funding. States could opt out entirely, or write extremely soft ones. Either way, the people/representatives of each state would have ultimate say in how the law works. That’s American Federalism and it works great.

          And again, just take a breath dude. You’re get hysterical and really running up your heartrate for no reason. If this is how you act with such a small thing, how on earth will you handle it if something really happens?

          And somehow, you managed to work in a reference to pounding an a$$ in there as well…..that’s four..uh…references if you’re keeping track.


        • To TheTimeHasCome
          “death threat. We’ve got a death threat here! See, nobody cares.”

          again, when they come for our guns, they will point to people like to you to sell the rest of the population on it. Congrats, you’re helping the other side.

        • to SAFEupstateFML:
          ‘hello fellow gun owners we really need to stop being so forceful in defending our rights and stop suspecting that politicians are looking to take them away.’ Who said that? Also, you use ” ” marks for quotes.

          but you got me, I work for George Soros.

        • Sean,
          zes :
          “Again, where specifically in these proposals does it say that it will deprive entire classes of adults of their 2nd Amendment rights?”

          Umm, . . . the part that SPECIFICALLY authorizes “enhanced background checks” (UNDEFINED, as even a halfwit illiterate like you should be able to parse out) ONLY for persons 18-21. Since you obviously flunked logic, debate, and rhetoric (if you even know what those words mean, or took the applicable classes), let me ‘splain it for you: A group of people defined by an immutable characteristic (their birthdate, for example, or their skin color, or their sex, maybe, you illiterate dolt??) constitutes a “class”. Now, some “classes” are more protected than others (a serious flaw in our system; we are ALL supposed to be equal under the law). So, pudding-brain, specifying a group of people who are LEGALLY CLASSIFIED AS ADULTS, but don’t meet your “magic” age range, WITHOUT ANY OTHER PROOF OF WRONGDOING, are put through additional administrative tests and hoops before purchase of a firearm. That is per se unconstitutional (age is, actually, a “protected class”, you ignorant idiot). So, YES, you dolt, an age requirement (particularly since age IS a protected class) IS an improper unequal treatment (as ALL unequal treatment SHOULD be). Again, you are either ignorant, or a liar (but embrace the healing power of “and”!). The “under 21” limitation is blatantly unconstitutional. Now, if you want to have a discussion about the “age of majority”, I’m happy to discuss that – but PICK ONE, @$$hole. You don’t get to jack the age around to suit your narrative. If 18 year olds can vote, they can buy guns, alcohol, tobacco, etc. You Leftist/fascist couldn’t SPELL ‘consistency’, let alone actually achieve it. This comment from you was stupid at the beginning, and you’ve just continued to “double down on stupid”. Been taking lessons from MinorIQ, have you????

          2. You pathetic idiot, you CANNOT write a “Red Flag” law that does NOT violate “due process”. How far up your arse did you have to crawl to even parse out the “you can write a ‘constitutional’ Red Flag law???? No, pudding-brain, you CAN’T. Just as a thought experiment, WRITE a “Red Flag” law that provides:

          (a) Notice and opportunity to be heard (REQUIRED by the Constitution – yes, there are ex parte procedures; go study them, and the decisions around them, and explain how ANY of that would apply to a “Red Flag” law. Go ahead; we’ll wait.)

          (b) The right to CONFRONT YOUR ACCUSER, and the witnesses against you (ALSO guaranteed by the Constitution);

          (c) The right to counsel PRESENT for your defense (yep, right there in the Constitution);

          (d) The right to present evidence on your own behalf (yeah, that’s in the Constitution, too, AND it requires that you have the right to do that BEFORE your “life, liberty, or property” are taken);

          (e) The PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE (yeah, that’s been established Constitutional law since about, oh, 1798, dumbass);

          (f) The fact that you may NOT be deprived of “life, liberty, or property” without all of the above (yep, it’s right there IN THE DAMN CONSTITUION, lackwit).

          You are, seriously, a sllghtly stupider version of MinorIQ – which makes you about on the level of a planaria, or maybe a slime mold. “But, but, WHY can’t we do all these things that WE think are ‘reasonable’?????” Because the freakin’ Constitution SAYS you can’t, pudding-brain.

          Like I said, go micturate up a cable. Your wasting everyone’s time with your idiocy, and giving me a SERIOUS case of the ass. Go away. Take your stupid elsewhere.

        • LOL Sean I can say definitively you do not work for Soros they at least are smart enough not to get filtered their first day. Don’t know or care if you are individual, reddit farm, school project, or other you just happened to stand out as unfamiliar and inconsistent. Good luck with your next handle or linger on like our other resident antigun trolls.

      • To LampofDiogenes
        1. Well, the entire point is that not every agrees that 18 and 21 are equivalent levels of “adult.” We don’t let full on children buy firearms. Then, when they hit 18, you can buy whatever you want, with no buffer space in between? That’s a little weird. Having taught 18 year olds, as well as older college students, there is an absolutely massive difference in maturity. I mean, we accept that there’s a need for a middle space in driving licenses in the form of learner’s permits, where someone goes from being a child completely unable to drive to an adult fully driving with a buffer space in between. In trades, we accept there’s a middle period between being a complete novice and a fully trained technician. Compared to something like that, this is nothing.

        In this case, they’d still be able to buy anything they want and their background check would take slightly longer. This is hardly restricting their 2nd Amendment rights in any real way. They can still buy whatever they want, they can still own whatever firearms they want, in whatever number they want. Nothing has been infringed, as you don’t have to modify your behavior in any way to be compliant with the law, provided you aren’t a violent sociopath.

        “Depriving” someone of something means they’re cut off from it. This proposal simply doesn’t cut off 18 year olds from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights in any way.

        As for red flag laws, AGAIN, a legislature could simply write them with provisions that all the aspects of due process you mentioned could be included. Just because some states write them poorly doesn’t mean they all will (in fact, many state’s red flag laws are enforced and performed in accordance with all the procedures you mentioned). According to the data, red flag laws primarily target people discussing suicidal thoughts or violent people making open threats. Pretty open and shut cases.

        Why, in your mind, does a red flag law HAVE to ignore due process? Many state’s red flag laws DO include notice to the accused, gives the accused opportunity to face their accuser and gives them the right to present evidence, with consul. Someone makes the initial petition and it goes through the full process. Sure, the leftists probably don’t like that but who cares? How would that deprive someone of due process? These petitions don’t just fall out of the sky. If there’s no evidence that you’re a danger to yourself and others, you’re out the door.

        AGAIN, you’re discussing “red flag laws” like there’s only one way to do it and as if these proposals have a specific type. All this proposal does is offer funding these laws. Every state can come up with whatever system they want to prevent suicides, mass shootings, murder, and terrorist attacks. Some states will opt out. The ones that pass truly unconstitutional red flag laws will be challenged and overturned. The good ones will stay and save some lives. That’s federalism.

        And by the way, this is a much more interesting conversation now that you’re engaging. Cut out the middle school insults (I see you’ve censored out the homoeroticism, cool cool) and we’d really be cooking.

        • In the first instance, Sean the stupid, I use middle school insults to deal with your f***tardery, because your alleged “logic” is . . . middle school f***tardery. You want “respect”, champ??? EARN IT. Bring some logic, and knowledge to the table. Demanding respect, while acting like a Leftist/fascist @$$hole? Might work with MinorIQ or dacian the stupid, but cuts exactly ZERO mustard with me.

          Now, let’s FURTHER take apart your f***tardery:

          “Well, the entire point is that not every agrees that 18 and 21 are equivalent levels of “adult.” ”

          Of course, you Leftist/fascists will attempt to chop logic to get to your desired result. SCOTUS has been dodging this one for years, being the cowards that they are, but YES, in fact, drawing age distinctions AMONG the class of “adults”, based on age, violates EVERY SCOTUS opinion out there on “equal protection”. Don’t expect you to know that; but you should. That YOU think “well, there are ‘adults’ and then there are ‘adults'” speaks volumes. How about, “Well there are protected classes, like African-Americans, then there are REAL ‘protected classes’, like us white folk.” Does that work for you, too? How about making the voting age for women 35, since there is a DEMONSTRATED and documented shift in women’s voting patterns at that age? I mean, “rights” don’t REALLY mean “rights” do they, fascist??? Only if YOU agree that they do, amirite? Again, HAPPY to have a debate over what the age of majority SHOULD be, but who the f*** are you to decide which of MY rights I get to exercise, when????? I know all you Leftist/fascists think you are the smart ones (which absolutely amuses the hell out of me!), so you should get to decide this stuff. Go pound salt in your @$$. My INHERENT RIGHTS are not yours to impede or bargain away. You treat yours any way you like. Go hang out at Parris Island or Camp Lejeune and tell all the 19 year old Marines they’re not “smart enough” to own guns, or buy booze. Just let me know when; I want to watch. Being an intellectually inconsistent, illogical nitwit is NOT a good look, and is a pathetic attempt at self-justifying sophistry. ‘Splain to me, Lucy, why allowing a 16 year old to DRIVE A FREAKIN’ CAR (research driving stats for 16-20 year olds), and 18 year olds to VOTE, make sense, but owning a gun doesn’t. And YES, it DOES infringe their rights, “a right delayed is a right denied” ring any bells?????? And what “additional” checks are done, and why are they applicable ONLY to 18-21 year olds??? I know LOTS of 25 and 30 year olds that aren’t “adult” in any sense I’d recognize, and more than a few 16-18 year olds that are far more adult than, well, you for example. The “framework” VERY INTENTIONALLY did not indicate HOW MUCH these “enhanced background checks” would take, what “additional” steps they would include, etc., but . . . they’re just peachy with you. Hell, while we’re at it, let’s repeal the 13th and 15th Amendments. I mean, that’s not REALLY an imposition on anyone’s rights, is it??

          Do you ever listen to yourself? Like, when you speak???
          And the 2A does not say “deprive” you gormless twit, it says “infringe”. Go look it up. Damn, ithe 2A is only 27 words, a person MIGHT be able to at least get those right, perhaps?????

          “As for red flag laws, AGAIN, a legislature could simply write them with provisions that all the aspects of due process you mentioned could be included.”

          No, they actually couldn’t, because then they would be the ALREADY EXISTING laws to allow a person PROPERLY ADJUDICATED mentally incompetent, in a noticed court proceeding in which the person to be deprived actually GOT TO APPEAR, be represented, present evidence, face their accuser, and enjoy the presumption of innocence. We ALREADY HAVE such procedures in place, with the NECESSARY due process safeguards. “Red Flag” laws IGNORE due process, IGNORE presumption of innocence, do NOT ALLOW the target person to be present or even represented at the procedure, and requires THEM to go in (at some undefined future time) and PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE. NONE of that is constitutional, for all the reasons I’ve given you, over and over again. Saying “well, the legislature COULD write a constitutional ‘Red Flag’ law”, is nonsense. If it’s so easy, do it. Ah, but if you actually wrote a constitutional “Red Flag” law, it would be . . . not a
          “Red Flag” law. It would be the existing procedure to have someone declared mentally incompetent, which ALREADY exists in all 50 states. Not sure if your just so ignorant you’re not aware of that, or so dishonest you just want to lie about it, but NO “ex parte” proceeding which deprives a person of “life, liberty, or property” without due process can POSSIBLY be ‘constitutional’. What part of that don’t you understand?

    • All of the suggested new laws are simply an extra layer on top of laws that already exist that make the activities they’re trying to outlaw already illegal.

      • I agree, properly funding and executing existing laws is a far better solution than some “assault weapons ban” horseshit.

        That’s what these proposals do, so I guess we’re good?

        • How so? What specific issues do you have with these proposals? And not future legislation, but these specific ideas. I’d honestly love to hear it.

        • “And once again, still no answer on why these proposals would impede the 2nd Amendment from either of you“

          Don’t hold your breath.

          Of course, you can expect plenty of ad hominem attacks featuring same-sex focused wishful thinking and juvenile gems from the schoolyard.

        • Such BS.
          Everything not specifically defined reverts back to the individual states.

 is to ensure citizens 2A rights are NOT infringed by the states.

 addresses mental health issues.

          Oh, REPEAL THE NFA ACT OF 1934!

        • To Miner49er
          Yeah, I mean, I don’t judge but there’s a weird vibe with some of these comments….

        • “. . . there’s a weird vibe with some of these comments.”

          Yeah, some of us are intolerant of lackwit Leftist/fascists, who think OUR inherent rights are YOURS to bargain away. Take it, fold it ’til it’s all corners, and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Your request/demand that I “compromise” MY inherent rights is summarily denied. F*** right the hell off.

      • To James Campbell
        Agreed, get the NFA out of there. And true, although the federal government offers funding for countless other state projects (infrastructure, law enforcement, education, military assets in the state, etc), this would be nothing new. And thankfully, these proposals all seem to be around funding state initiatives or modifying things that are already federal, like NICS.

    • only the (cowardly) fool, would let the stupid, dictate the rules to them, while stealing HALF of what they produce (slaves). Your master tells you, “you are free” and you believe them?

  4. Gotta wonder if turncoats like Cornyn and the rest are being paid to vote the way they do or they’re just runnin scared!

  5. I would consider it to be more on the states to allow teachers to be armed. Just like Ohio did.

    Personally, I would rather get rid of ‘gun-free-zones’.

    • Cornyn does not have to run to California. Sadly, California is running to (and ruining) Texas, just as they have run to, and ruined Montana and Colorado. Also, it is ironic, in that it is only ever the spineless Republicans who are willing to bend over and “compromise….reach over the aisle”. Demon-Rats do not compromise anything. Also, I do not think that someone like Cornyn knows how to be ashamed.

  6. “He has ashamed Texas,…”

    The majority of voters elect and re-elect Cornyn. Those voters represent Texas. They don’t seem ashamed.

    • What you get when incumbents aren’t primaried. Cornyn knows he is safe for at least 3yr.

      What you get when send damn lawyers to Congress.

      Congress needs MANY more canes in hands of real Congressmen (historical ref).

      What the hell is the “boyfriend loophole” and WTF did it come from?

      • “What you get when incumbents aren’t primaried.”

        What, exactly, is the expected outcome of launching a primary fight? Defeating the incumbent does not guarantee that the new candidate can win the full election. If the new candidate does win, there are no alliances upon which to call in order to get legislation written, put forward, and successfully passed. Given that the majority of voters want a whole menu of things from representatives, why would a rational person forfeit 80%-90% success in getting what they want, for the sole purpose of promoting “gun rights”?

        It is kinda like term limits. They already exist. However, forcing people from office because of a date on a calendar does not ensure the replacement will not simply continue as did the person term-limited. Term limits do not promise “new blood”, or a reversal of the limited politicians policies and intentions. So it is with eliminating a sitting member of the House or Senate.

        What we have never seen is the track record of the winners of primary challenges. Do they generally go on to win the actual election for the position? Do they achieve anything remarkable after winning the position? Do they last more than one or two future election cycles? Do they become significant influencers in/of party politics?

        Not saying a politician should be exempt from challenge, but to understand the implications (manage expectations). Make shrewd decisions.

  7. I’d say there’s a good chance we get 50-state concealed carry reciprocity if the SCotUS rules carry outside the home in public is expressly constitutional. Civil rights don’t end at the state borders.

    What we must push for is a legal means to travel interstate while armed without the jack-booted thugs harassing us… 🙁

    • “I’d say there’s a good chance we get 50-state concealed carry reciprocity.”

      The Dims have been pretty successful ignoring Heller. Not seeing that change with yet another “favorable” (to gun owners) decision from the SC.

      • “The Dims have been pretty successful ignoring Heller.”

        That was intermediate scrutiny.

        All bets are off when the ‘Strict Scrutiny’ card gets laid on the table…

        • “All bets are off when the ‘Strict Scrutiny’ card gets laid on the table…”

          SC justices are all lawyers. Please don’t underestimate the ability of the SC to define “Strict Scrutiny” in a way that doesn’t apply in every case regarding 2A.

          Even if Thomas were assigned to write every “gun rights” case, he must obtain enough agreement to keep a majority pleased together.

        • Sam,

          c.f., the 9th Circuit and it’s “three-pronged test” . . . which, depending on the case, may be two prongs, or it may be four, but sometimes three. And NONE of them bear any relationship to anything Scalia wrote (as weak as I think his opinion was).

          Putting our faith in SCOTUS is only slightly less daft than putting our faith in Congress. Our “representatives” aren’t representing us very well, are they??

    • Agreed, that’s the worst. National reciprocity is long overdue and it’s my hope that’s what the SCOTUS implements, just like they implemented same-sex marriage nationwide.

      I just wish the damn abortion ruling wouldn’t have happened this term. That is the second angle biggest threat to seeing a massive red wave in November.

      • “National reciprocity is long overdue and it’s my hope that’s what the SCOTUS implements, just like they implemented same-sex marriage nationwide.”

        Several thoughts:
        – Re-read the plaintiff filing in the NY case; it is not about
        reciprocity, but movement of personally owned firearms within NYC
        – – the matter at hand is not “shall issue”
        – – SC is very unlikely to stretch movement within a metro area into mandated “national reciprocity” regarding government permission slips.

        – Heller established “reasonable restrictions” as constitutionally valid
        – – NYC could still restrict personal carry in “sensitive” areas
        – – NYC could allow transportation to and from, without establishing personal carry by an individual between points when not in private or public transportation. I.E. no one can just walk around NYC with a gun in their pocket.
        – – – finding ways around law are what lawyers were created for

        Biggest thing to remember is that same-sex marriage is politically popular across the nation. Not so with ownership, presence, and movement of firearms. I would say that if there were no state permission slips for carry of firearms, a good lawyer would argue that same-sex marriage without a permission slip does not require any other state to recognize such marriage. Thus, states would have to have a permitting system in place as a fundamental element is establishing “reciprocity”. People in states with no permitting system would be ineligible to possess their firearms in states requiring permits. If there are no permission slips, there is nothing with which to apply reciprocity.

        • I believe all states should have to acknowledge every US citizen has the right to keep and beer without government infringement. Seems simple I think someone even wrote something about that.

        • Sam,

          Overall, I completely agree with you. I don’t THINK it’s going to happen, but there is a bare possibility that Thomas (supported by the other four) have gotten tired of seeing the federal district courts and appellate courts micturating all over their prior opinions. They could use NYSRPA (or, more likely, one of Judge Benitez’ opinions) as an opportunity to say, “Sorry, idiots, what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ are you not grasping?”

          Don’t expect it, certainly won’t be shocked if it doesn’t happen, but . . . think about Roe v. Wade. SCOTUS had a VERY simple issue, that they could have dealt with with a narrow ruling, but they chose to invent a “constitutional right” out of whole cloth. There are literally DOZENS of SCOTUS opinions that took a simple issue and decided to craft a “new day” ruling out of. Some I agree with (Brown v. Board of Education, for example), some I don’t. But the fact that SCOTUS tends to decide narrowly doesn’t mean they can’t choose otherwise.

          Like I said, I don’t expect it, but . . . the opportunity is there. The 2A is pretty straightforward, and a definitive explication would probably head off a whole LOT of frivolous, Leftist/fascist litigation in the future.

    • National reciprocity will work only if the non-free states are forbidden to dictate the terms. I could see a NR “compromise” where California, New Jersey, or New York dictates national CW properties like limited muzzle energies, caliber, dimensions, or (their favorite) microstamping. Leftist lawmakers regularly craft laws to achieve their agendas while the terms look like compromises. I don’t trust ’em.

    • I’m not sure why no one has ever litigated for national reciprocity under article IV of the constitution:


      “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.“

      For years in West Virginia, CCW permits were issued by an order of a judge, thereby making the issuance of the permit a judicial proceeding which would fall under the scope of article IV.

      • MINOR MIner49er Are you really that STUPID? Art IV of the Constitution applies to the FEDERAL government, not the State of West Virginia.
        Someone has to teach you about the Constitution. Can I recommend you take the Constitution 101 course on line at Hillsdale College. It’s right up your ally. It’s free. Then you can take Constitution 102.
        But alas, I don’t think you could pass the course.

        • “Art IV of the Constitution applies to the FEDERAL government, not the State(s)”

          Lamprey, perhaps you might enjoy reading the actual text, you seem to have missed it in my initial comment:

          “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.“

          It requires each of the States to recognize the “public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.“

          Your Texas drivers license is recognized by the state of Iowa, your Virginia marriage license is recognized by the state of Florida, your Nevada divorce is recognized by the state of Rhode Island.

          And your State issued concealed carry license should be recognized by every other State in the Union.

        • MINOR Miner49er. I don’t know anyone can be so wrong. “Full faith and credit does not mean that each state has to recognize any other state’s laws. Drivers’ Licenses are recognized by each state’s granting the privilege to any other state that recognizes theirs. Same with marriage, etc. A Nevada divorce is NOT recognized in NYS for your edification. Nor does any other state have to recognize any judicial proceeding that did not originate in their state or was not given judicial recognition. Example: a monetary judgment granted by a NYS court is not recognized in any other state where that state’s court did not review and approve such. Seems you don’t know what you think you know. Going by your way of thinking my pistol permit from NYS is recognized by every other state. NOT!

        • And, once again, MinorIQ can’t even keep track of who he’s responding to. You would be easier to afford a degree of respect if you weren’t such a complete @$$clown, MinorIQ.

          Try to keep up. If you can.

    • the pro-atheist, racist, murder, theft, ignorant, you MUST buy something, 87 genders and “don’t know what a woman is” Supreme Court? you been asleep since 1962?

  8. I assure you that creep Cornyn isn’t stuck living on a congressman’s salary. He definitely gets something big in exchange for anything he does. Unfortunately, what he’s selling is us.

  9. I am not so sure most of his constituents will forget in four years. In 2018 then Gov. (now Senator) Rick Scott signed into law knee-jerk regulations in the emotional wake of the Parkland Massacre. Two years later he BARELY won the senate seat he now occupies. I think he only won because of what the Democrat senators did to now Justice Kavanaugh. Floridians have not forgotten nor forgiven now Senator Scott. We also are keeping our eyes on RINO Marco “Red Flag” Rubio who is up for re-election this year.
    Texans and Floridians take our constitutionally protected rights seriously.

    • “Texans and Floridians take our constitutionally protected rights seriously.”

      Cornyn has not changed a bit since first elected. Why would one think the voters would reject him now?

      You might be badly surprised to know just how few voters (of any party) are actually single-issue, “gun rights” voters. In Texas, or anywhere else.

      If “gun rights” were the single-issue for the majority of voters, how did “squishy” Repubs get elected, and re-elected, only to let “gun rights” erode to the point that we even have a discussion about them? Hint: “gun rights” are low on the list of importance for most voters.

      Sad truth is that the majority of voters aren’t as much concerned about their “rights”, as about their “gets”. It is how the nation devolved to its current condition.

      • Sam,

        The word is that Cornyn is retiring BECAUSE he fears/suspects a primary challenge, FWIW.

        Yes, ultimately, if we keep re-electing the same, spineless idiots, we have no one to blame but yourselves. And our pols have become past masters of the “art of the pork” – give folks a new parkway, a new school, and throw a few pork dollars around, and you’ll get re-elected. You and I know that, but the ones who REALLY know it are snakes like McConnell, Schiff, Cornyn, Swallowswell, and above all, Pelosi. How generous of them; they bribe us with our own money.

        I think our goal should be to defeat pork-pushers one at a time, as they come up for election. If we can’t do that, we get the government we deserve (and on this point, I totally agree with you). But we have to start SOMEWHERE. As a comedian (whose name I can’t remember) used to say, “The U.S. Senate is living proof that there are at least two lyin’, cheatin’ booger-eatin’ morons in every state!” Pretty much.

        • “The word is that Cornyn is retiring BECAUSE he fears/suspects a primary challenge, FWIW.”

          He has four years remaining, and already the scuttlebutt is that he will not run for re-election? He has 2022 and 2024 to test the winds as to his longevity. Thinking the “talk” of his retiring is wishful thinking.

          Yes, it is fun, and self-satisfying to talk of “primarying” politicians, but as noted in other comments, the risks of losing overall are quite high. The Dims would love for us to get enmeshed in self-destruction (BTW, “open primary” states are grand locations for Dims to destroy Repub hopes). “Primary” whomever you like, but there is no complaining if the results bite back.

        • Sam,

          No, he hasn’t officially announced retirement (that I am aware of), but . . . neither did Lisa “I inherited this seat!” Murkowski. Hope she enjoys her retirement. Cornyn is going to retire, or get (successfully) primaried. Happy to make a side bet on that.

          OF COURSE, you can always do worse. I just don’t think “stick with the devil you know” is really a good guiding principle in politics. “A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, else what’s a Heaven for?” Yep, there are definitely worse options than Cornyn. There are certainly better ones, as well. It’s easier to primary a one term senator than a three term senator. If we primary Cornyn, it will be easier to primary his replacement, if whoever that is proves to be a McCain-like mistake.

  10. Look – this “framework” is going nowhere. When the bill actually gets written, you’ll see virulent objections emerge from the fringes on both sides. The progressives will tank it as “not going far enough”, the conservatives will tank it for it’s infringements.

    The name of the game now is stalling. SCOTUS’ NY ruling is coming soon, which may very well change the level of scrutiny applied to the 2A. And November is coming.

    The only threat this bill poses to 2A rights is if it gets passed quickly, before those things happen.

    • “The only threat this bill poses to 2A rights is if it gets passed quickly, before those things happen.”

      All legislation is temporary…awaiting new legislation overturning the previous legislation. Thus, when the Repubs massively take over House, Senate, Presidency, anti-gun legislation can be eliminated.

      Except, it won’t. Anyone got a count on the number of repeals of prior legislation? Probably too few instances to research and find.

      There has to be a reason that in the face of likely thrashing of Dims in November, Repubs decide to facilitate the Dim agenda.

    • If there are 2 Conservative Senators worth 2 cents, they can stall this meaninless theater until after the 4th (and SCOTUS decision)

    • “My Rights are not theirs to give away.”

      Of course they (rights) are. Been happening for the last 75yrs that I personally experienced. If one cannot legally exercise a natural, human and civil right, existence in theory is ineffective.

      One can quietly make all sorts of “banned” weapons at home, but if caught with them, “shall not be infringed” will not prevail in court; you will suffer the consequence. So much for rights that can’t be negotiated away.

      Even in the “land of the free, and the home of the brave”, political power rules the day; not principle.

      • You basically claim there is no such thing as the rule of law, only the rule of men? In which case, it’s ultimately foolish to be law-abiding, because laws end up being the opinions with the most guns behind them.

        • “You basically claim there is no such thing as the rule of law, only the rule of men? In which case, it’s ultimately foolish to be law-abiding, because laws end up being the opinions with the most guns behind them.”

          “…laws end up being the opinions with the most guns money behind them.”

          However, there are advantages to the rule of men, rather than the rule of law.

          There simply must be.

        • Sam,

          I am in awe. I thought I was the most cynical SOB I knew. You, sir, are one cynical mofo. Not incorrect, but DEFINITELY cynical!!

  11. They negotiate like an insecure grade schooler who wants to fit in.

    All it takes is for one of the cool kids to say “I’ll be your friend” and they’re handing over the lunch money like the loser they are.

    • Not just THEIR lunch money, Shire-Man. They’re running around stealing lunch money from others, to give away.

      • “Not just THEIR lunch money, Shire-Man. They’re running around stealing lunch money from others…”

        Thinking I would have left it there. You said a mouthful.

  12. People give up their freedom for security every single time. Every time. We’ve seen it happen over and over the last fifty years. The Federal government bribes the states to do its bidding, on roads, health care, schools, 2A infringements, and a host of other issues. Leviathan grows stronger while the states and the people are subjugated.

    Can it be stopped? That’s the question of the decade.

  13. As a transplant to Texas, I am extremely disappointed in Cornyn , and this isn’t the first time, he’s always been week on 2nd Amendment support. He needs to be replaced with a true conservative.

  14. That was a good article. I don’t have much to say except that I agree with the author and RINOs should be afraid of the midterms, also.

  15. “He needs to be replaced with a true conservative.”

    The thrust of “replace him/her/whatever” seems to be, “I don’t care about anything else, just so long as the Second Amendment is treated as absolute”. The underlying assumption appears to be that the replacement will 100% support everything else a person expects. Is that assumption truly warranted?

  16. Enough passivity and complaining, all. Hold his feet to the fire. Flood his offices with calls. Contact your state legislatures about laws that will nullify these abominations. The problems will not go away by themselves.

  17. @Tired of the bs
    “I believe all states should have to acknowledge every US citizen has the right to keep and beer without government infringement. Seems simple I think someone even wrote something about that.”

    True indeed. But that was the US Constitution. How is it legislation will do what the Constitution cannot? How is legislation more forceful than the Constitution? How is it that legislation is more difficult to overcome than is an enumerated right identified in the Constitution?

    • Sam
      Good questions.
      Why legislation trumps the constitution it because we the people have allowed it to for far to long.
      That horse got out of the stable and ran away a long time ago.
      We have allowed our legislative scumbags to lie to us and lull us into believing them. To our detriment.
      Trying to get the control back to the people, where it belongs is a serious uphill battle.
      They have control and they want more. They feel untouchable. They need to learn otherwise.
      Soap box, ballot box, etc.

      • “Trying to get the control back to the people, where it belongs is a serious uphill battle.”

        The question remains, “How does mere legislation provide better protection than the Constitution?”

        Legislation is totally dependent on whoever holds the majority (not super majority) political power in a state. Thus, any “relief” is temporal, at best, subject to the whims of the majority of voters in a state. Just as “permitless carry” was established by legislation in 25 states, it can be disestablished in any, or all, of those states in the future, upon simple majority vote.

        If the constitution can be successfully evaded through legislation (and even the SC), how much easier is it to evade (or dismantle) state legislation intended to preserve a right of “we the people”?

        • Sam
          Thats the problem we allow state and federal legislators powers they should not wield. They do not uphold their oath of office by ignoring the rules laid down by the constitution.
          Simple example is Heller, how many states ignore that ruling with no consequences?
          There are many more. They write and pass laws they know are unconstitutional, bamacare for example, but they still do it with no repercussions.
          To many sheep and they all fell asleep.

  18. @LampOfDiogenes
    TBH, I think you are giving them WAY too much credit. Not a single name among the group of Republicrats was EVER a 2A defender in any real sense. Why 10? ”

    If, if, the Repubs are running a game, they must make it look legit. Thus, the “10” indicate that the votes are available in the Senate to pass whatever the Dims want. This is important when the Dims blow things up, because the Repubs can claim the Dims had everything they wanted, then prove Dims are not negotiating in good faith. Repubs get credit for preserving “gun rights” without having to say anything to their base.

    When evaluating actions from the perspective of “running a game”, nothing should be viewed if it weren’t a game. In this case, the game would be run against both Dims, and “conservatives”.

    Even assuming this is all BAU, and not a shrewd game, what do the Repubs know, that we don’t? All reports are that the Repubs will have super majorities in Congress, and can do what they want? Why play nice with Dims? If it is not a game, we should be concerned that the Repubs see a pending disaster for themselves, and are trying to limit losses, rather than maneuver for wins.

    • Sam,

      Isn’t a chance in hell the Republicans will come out of 2020 with a 60 vote majority in the Senate (and the Dims hatred of the filibuster will evaporate like the morning dew). My personal prediction (recognizing that now ’til November is nearly a lifetime in electoral politics) is that the Repubs come out with a solid majority in the house (at least 12+ votes, IMHO) and a NARROW majority in the Senate (maybe 51-52 votes). Mitch the Bitch knows this, as does Kevin McCarthy (IF he becomes Speaker, which I privately doubt). A “veto-proof” majority in EITHER house ain’t gonna happen in my lifetime. I think the filibuster will survive for a while, but not long-term.

      As my favorite Instapundit says, “We have the worst political class in our nation’s history.”

      Rope. Tree. Politician. Some assembly required.

      • “Isn’t a chance in hell the Republicans will come out of 2020 with a 60 vote majority in the Senate”

        Agree with the one or two vote majority assessment. Repubs have been losing so long, winning is painful to contemplate.

  19. @TheBSonTTAG
    “But this is another one of your Republican heros like Trump. How can this be? They all love guns. Oh wait they are on the same path as the Democrats, just at a slower pace.”

    Possibly the largest political truth of all.

  20. The major item in the proposal that was not deleted and should never be agreed to are Red Flag Laws. Most states that have them deny you due process because they take your firearms based on a complaint without you having any say until afterwards. Supreme Court has ruled no one should be entering your home without a warrant.

    To obtain a warrant, a police officer typically submits a written affidavit to a judge or magistrate. The affidavit, given under oath, must recite sufficient factual information to establish probable cause that a crime was committed and that the person named in the warrant committed it.

    While red flag does require particular people to file a complaint it does not require the same amount of evidence because in most cases a crime has not been committed per se. If an actual crime has been committed then that is a totally different issue.

  21. All hail the 2 party system with its engrained corporate bribery and its dedication to career politics. All hail whatever fool sits at the throne. We submit. We serve. You know what is best for your corporate backers. We serve them.

    When Fact and fiction lose meaning totalitarianism becomes ripe for breeding.

    I will serve my master

    • Multi-party systems are even worse. At least in 2 party systems, you have ostensible majority rule. The way multi-party parliamentary systems work, super-minority parties can wield disproportionate influence because if the plurality party doesn’t secure a ruling majority themselves, they must rely on deals with other parties to do so, or dissolve and hold new elections. Tails wagging to the dog.

  22. Just wrote Cornyn again:
    I am writing in opposition to your support of the Red Flag bill the Senate has been negotiating. I want to know what rights the Democrats are giving back to gun owners in place of the rights you are giving away. Yes, I know that you demanded nothing in return. I am suggesting you demand they agree to include the Hearing Protection Act be included in the legislation. So far the Democrats are giving up nothing in return for destroying due process and Red Flag is ripe for abuse. I have notified Senator Tillis that I am questioning my campaign contributions to his last re-election campaign. Do I need to go looking for your next primary opponent to contribute to? I hope not.

  23. Why is anyone surprised by this? There is not a republican walking around on the planet and that includes that scumbag trump who will give up their power and money for us. We are in fact on our own.

  24. We didn’t get 50-state concealed carry reciprocity considered or the deregulation of suppressors, the removal of short-barreled rifles and shotguns from the NFA when Trump was in the Whitehouse and Republicans had majorities in both houses of Congress – what makes you think we would get it now?

    • “We didn’t get 50-state concealed carry reciprocity considered or the deregulation of suppressors, the removal of short-barreled rifles and shotguns from the NFA when Trump was in the Whitehouse and Republicans had majorities in both houses of Congress – what makes you think we would get it now?”

      I just hate it when someone asks hard questions. This is a blog, a place for making loud noises, an echo chamber. Don’t try to turn it into some sort of forum for critical thinking.

      (Can we get Jamesfromlakegeneva cancelled, here?)

    • “We didn’t get… when Trump was in the Whitehouse and Republicans had majorities in both houses of Congress”

      Well you do have to admit, they did pass a spiffy large permanent tax cut for the billionaire corporations, and a temporary tax cut for everybody else that will expire just after the mid-term election.

      “Many tax cut provisions, especially income tax cuts, will expire in 2025,[9] and starting in 2021 will increase over time; this, by 2027 would affect an estimated 65% of the population and in that same year the law’s provisions are set to be fully enacted,[10] however, corporate tax cuts are permanent.”

      After all, just who do you think the Republicans represent, the middle class?

      And the Republicans real constituents are certainly glad they won’t be paying taxes on their recent price gouging profits:

      “Shell earnings triple to $9.1 billion
      In the first quarter, Shell’s adjusted earnings rose to $9.1 billion from $3.2 billion in the same period last year. Net income rose to $7.3 billion from $5.8 billion in last year’s first quarter.

      BP records $6.2 billion profit, double profit over same time last year
      BP posted its highest quarterly profit in over a decade – with the British energy company announcing on Tuesday that its underlying replacement cost profit rose to $6.2 billion in the first three months of this year, more than doubling the $2.6 billion from the same period last year.

      Exxon doubles profits from last year to $5.48 billion
      At the end of April, Exxon Mobil reported $5.48 billion in profits during the first quarter of 2022 – also more than doubling its profits compared with the same period last year.“

      • MINOR Miner49er. My Gosh! Didn’t you get a tax cut along with the rest of the country? I know I got one. Maybe you did not file your income tax?

        Here is a lesson in economics. When prices go up so do profits. It is a basic tenant of economics.

        • “Didn’t you get a tax cut along with the rest of the country?”

          Objection, Counselor, assumes facts not in evidence.” Whatever made you believe MinorIQ even HAS an income, let alone pays taxes?????

          He’s a Leftist/fascist – he “depends on the kindness of strangers”.

      • Hey, MinorMoron,

        What was the percentage of federal income tax paid by the top 10% of taxpayers under your wet dream, Barry Soetoro, and what is it, today, dimwit??? What are total tax revenues today, vs. what they were before the Trump “tax cut”???

        Are you REALLY as stupid as you sound??? Asking for a friend.

  25. Kinda what I see is some people didn’t get what they wanted and some people rehashed what was already on the books.
    The only thing that might change is a 20 year old owning an AR or similar. Yell I tell yah for awhile thiscstae had a 21 no handgunm law and I could live with that. However I’ve carried or had immediate access to a handgunm at age 16(story behind why dad okayed decision). Change the law to 21 as and for people like me spin the roulette wheel and hope your number dont come up.

    • “Wtf awaiting moderation. What word did I trigger, maybe post to extended? I gotta get this figured out.”

      Perhaps you would have more success if you wrapped your comments in something like the spam advertisements that seem to get through all filters.

    • “thiscstae”
      the juxtaposition of the four central consonants is impossible to pronounce in canadia.

  26. @Tired of the bs
    “Thats the problem we allow state and federal legislators powers they should not wield.”

    Once we understand who “we” is/are, what is to be done about it?

    Government goes to the highest bidder. Why don’t more billionaires adopt conservative principles: less government, lower taxes, balanced budget, more individual freedom?

    The wealthiest of people vote Dim, mostly. Sorta like, “I got mine, and you can get bent.”

    • Sam
      We are the citizens of this country that are Tired of the bs.
      I don’t know all the answers to “what is to be done about it ” wish I did
      This country’s founders said to shitcan the .gov if it gets out of control.
      It’s pretty much there don’t you think?
      It would be great if more billionaire conservatives would step up to help out but I’ve called all the ones I know….. bunch or pussys

      • “We are the citizens of this country that are Tired of the bs.”

        To date, that might be up to nearly half the population (the “deplorables”), but more likely less than even half of that; way less.

        The first revolution (1776) was facilitated by organized militias, and, and, well-to-do and well known members of the community, and colonial governments. These conditions do not exist today. The “rag tag” armies of Vietnam, or Afghanistan had identifiable (to the armed civilians) leaders, and fighting units well known to the villagers from whence they came. I.E. organization, and locally respected leaders. Not only is “s**tcanning) the established government not a viable option, It is a distraction that makes its supporters part of the “fringe” elements of national politics; damaging the message of liberty. If defenders of the constitution cannot win the debate through the ballot box, then “We…citizens of this country that are Tired of the bs.” are at fault, and we get the results of our incompetence.

        The framers of the Constitution did not think of tyrannical government acting in response to the expressed wishes of the population, but a government with a leader intent on ruling by fiat, using the military to essentially imprison the population. They knew full well that it was entirely possible “the people” would decide on their own to allow the nation to fall into ruin. The Constitution enshrines the ability of “the people” to give up their rights, and enact amendments that repealed even the very Constitution itself.

        “If you can keep it” was not a throwaway line.

  27. @”Does the 2nd Amendment state that we can’t have funding for mental health initiatives and school security?”

    The issue is not distaste for mental health funding, or school security. The issue is that such proposals are not presented as stand alone legislation. They are always used in conjunction with, and further restrictions on, the right of “the people” to be armed.

    Too much of 2A activism is focused on “self-defence”. In common vernacular, the Second Amendment is a blatant statement to government that it does not have delegated power/authority to determine “if” Americans are allowed to possess weapons (“arms”), nor the delegated power/authority to determine which weapons “the people are permitted to possess against the possibility a tyrannical government needs to be forcefully overthrown. Very few of we 2A defenders are comfortable saying this “quiet part” out loud.

  28. @Shadow
    “Unfortunately, Sam, I agree with you. At one point will people decide they have had enough?”

    Freedom, it is said, is the natural state of “man”. But history show us it isn’t the common state of “man”. Scholars have often stated that “democracies” last around 250yrs, then devolve into authoritarianism, and often into dust. Have also read that we are in the 5th, or 7th (depending on the scholar) stage of empire: the end stage. If history is the master, the US is in precarious condition. Am not readily aware of any great empire that reversed its decline into minor status among States, or extinguishment. Don’t get me wrong; elements of a once great State may rise again, and even become powerful, but such are not “great States”.

    The territorial space we know as the US suffered two civil wars, and did not founder, or disappear. Indeed, a rather minor State did, afterward, rise to stride the world for a season; and establish an economic empire. But the decline of the last 50yrs was put before us in the string of significant wars since 1945 and now, that the US could not (would not?) utterly win.

    Alongside all that, we all watched on television as the US government used armed force against groups of citizens (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Bundy 1&2). Yet, there was no penalty (nationwide armed rebellion against tyranny) visited upon the federal government. This lack of “push back” seems indicative of the mood of the vast majority of the population. To be fair, however, we are a physically much larger nation (in all ways) than 1776, or 1861. A division based on the outcome of Civil War 3.0 would be unsustainable, not only within the borders, but foreign affairs.

    The State of the Union is to be satisfied with whatever largess government provides, hope it is uninterrupted, and belief that all-in-all, the central government will never really look upon the population as “subjects” to be controlled and exploited.

    End of empire.

    • we certainly did not all watch on television.
      through disinfocation and porpagrande they will make advancements, but not towards small groups of citizens. it sure looks like half the country this time.
      have ye no faith?

      • I have very little faith these days, Tsbhoa. When you have to warn people that coffee might be hot, and may burn you if you spill it. When you have to remind people maybe they should look up from their damned phones when they cross the street first, lest they get run over by a car, then yes, I have little faith in humanity these days. Real humanity is around, yes, but they sure as hell are not running the country.

      • “have ye no faith?”

        In an armed uprising against the Dims? In an armed uprising against the sitting government? Of a successful armed uprising of defenders of the Constitution?


        I do have faith in the arc of history, which is never toward liberty and freedom (excepting limited duration events along the way).

        Left to their own devices, humans are a destructive lot, even to the point of self-annihilation to preserve their concept of personal power. Just look at whatever length of history you think of as “human existence”. Why are we, as a species, where we are today? Why, in all the millennia, have humans not rendered “evil” extinct?

        • Sam,

          Like I said, you are one cynical mofo. You are not WRONG, but you are cynical. A tip o’ the chapeau to you, sir!

  29. @tsbhoa.p.jr
    “denying purchase to <21yr olds violates their rights,"

    History lesson:
    The actual Constitution, does not identify any "legal" age, as in determining a person an adult, for any purpose. The determination of "legal" age remained a power of the individual States. The term "legal" age applies to the ability of a person to obligate themselves to act when "contracting" for services, and being eligible for certain other activities.

    The change in "legal" age was a response to the problem of 18yr olds being eligible to be drafted into the military, yet not legally able to buy beer, cigarettes, and sign contracts. In the effort to put more votes into the hands of the anti-vietnam war politicians, and to ensure states couldn't interfere, the 26th Amendment was ratified in 1971, moving the voting age to 18. Remember, it was Dims who were driving the train.

    Now, we see that the Dims were not really interested in the "rights" of persons under 21, but only being able to include their votes for Dim politicians and policies. Today, Dims are driving the train to make gun ownership "illegal" for anyone under 21. Dims do not find their double standard to be remarkable at all. It was the Dims who embraces, and supported the notion that every contested issue was subject to "situational ethics"; i.e. nothing was absolute, rigid, permanent. Today, it is convenient for the Dims to declare that though an individual is a "legal" adult under the Constitution, that individual is a "legal" adult, "except for". An amendment to the 26th Amendment, via simple legislation, not constitutional amendment. This type thinking is in the Dim DNA (amending the constitution through simple legislation), always has been.

  30. @LampOfDiogenes
    “Our “representatives” aren’t representing us very well, are they??”

    The inescapable, and confounding, question of just who does a representative represent? Themselves? Donors? The “elite”? Opinion? Facts” The majority? The minority? Government? The “greater good”? Based on what unassailable principle?

    The simple answer is that “representatives” represent whatever gets them elected/re-elected, even when the favored vote does not carry the political stance forward. I refer you to James Madison, “If men were angels….”,* because “they” definitely are not.

    *The Federalist #51

    • And, ultimately, if we elect venal morons (as we mostly do), we get the government we deserve . . . good and hard, as H.L. Mencken said. I do believe career politicians are a major part of the problem, but not the ONLY problem. I despise that ancient, alcoholic troll, Pelosi, but I equally despise such trash as Kevin McCarthy. It isn’t (unfortunately) like we have a surfeit of good choices. Like I quoted before, “We have the worst political class in our nation’s history.” But, ultimately, we have the power to kick them to the curb. If we choose not to exercise that power, we have no one but ourselves to blame.

      • “If we choose not to exercise that power, we have no one but ourselves to blame.”

        Yes, interesting that a newspaper cartoon character warned us about it so long ago.

        • “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

          One of my favorite lines of all time.

  31. @LampOfDiogenes

    “…chose to invent a “constitutional right” out of whole cloth.”

    I think the above is a favorite hobby horse that should be put back in the attic, or donated to some charity.

    The framers made clear that not all the “rights” of humans were, or should have been enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution is not, with explicit exceptions codified in the Constitution and subsequent amendments, a list of “rights” people may, or may not have. Amendments 9 and 10 were forceful declarations of that construct.

    “Roe” is not the first SC decision influenced by politics within the court itself. Where they “went wrong” was using interpretation of Amendments to justify their ruling. That was a blatant move to evade the concept of the Constitution (limiting the federal government), as well as the obvious implication of Amendments 9 and 10 (“leaving it to the states”). “Leaving it to the states” is its own legal thicket (legislation vs. amending the state constitution”.

    The SC could have argued that abortion was/is one of the unenumerated, and retained, natural, human and civil rights of the individual, being asserted by an individual against the state of residence. Under the circumstance, the SC could have declared that abortion is a “right” that cannot be adjudicated by the federal government, as the Constitution does not delegate such power to the central government.

    There are many who believe that if RvW is overturned, the states will have unlimited power to regulate abortion as the majority of voters in the state see fit. Because of the decision incorporating the entire federal constitution onto the states, the matter will return (post haste?) to the SC; rather quickly, I submit. (I do hope the intervening period of time results in the assignment of thousands and thousands of Dims to mental institutions)

    • Oh, Sam, I TOTALLY agree that the Constitution is not, and was never intended to be, a complete list of our inherent rights. The Founders were quite clear about that. And I don’t have a problem, in concept, with the idea of a “right of privacy”. But, as always, the devil is in the details. The “right of privacy” invented in Roe (you remember, from the “emanations from the penumbra”) was basically defined to have NO characteristics other than the right to abort babies. Now, I’ve personally had changes of POV over abortion, and like most folks, I could probably accept MOST actual compromises over the issue. But going from “conceptually, we have a right of privacy” to “I can abort a baby up until (or even beyond??) the moment of birth” is more than a bit of a stretch.

      Now, like “owning guns”, abortion is possible (and impossible to outlaw) for anyone with a little knowledge of medicine. By definition, we can’t “prevent” abortions. Just like we can’t prohibit people from having guns. My objection to Roe is NOT that it invented a previously non-existent right out of whole cloth – I actually think there IS a personal right of privacy – it is that it was done in such an intellectually bereft, idiotic manner, for the SOLE purpose of legalizing (and federalizing) abortion. If SCOTUS had said, “Humans have a right to privacy. That right includes the right to make private decisions regarding maintaining or terminating pregnancy”, I might have disagreed on details, but probably would have agreed on concept. My problem was that Blackmun and the other six picked the result they wanted, and wrote a half-assed (if I’m being generous) “rationale” for the result they’d already chose, and Blackmun did a less-than-competent-high-school-debate job of documenting it – and tied it to literally NO other issue. There are no boundaries or definitions to the “right of privacy” other than abortion. We certainly don’t have a “right of privacy” as far as the NSA is concerned.

      I agree, there are MANY rights not listed in the Constitution . . . which behooves SCOTUS (IF you agree with the holding in Marbury v. Madison, which I don’t) to be very careful, reasoned, and deliberate when addressing such “non-enumerated” rights. If you think Blackmun was careful, reasoned, OR deliberate when he wrote Roe, well . . . I think we inhabit different planets. That “opinion” would be an embarrassment to a first year law student at a fourth-tier law school. My Con Law professor (himself quite liberal) discussed the opinion (it came out JUST before I started law school) with derision, and actually said, “Blackmun just pulled this out of his @$$, didn’t he??”

      The whole debate over the BoR takes on a new aspect when you see what happens to the rights that WERE enumerated, dunnit?? I begin to wish our Founders had just said, “The federal government gets to maintain a post office, maintain an army, and NOTHING else. The states get to do two or three more things. The rest of it is up to you folks; work it out for yourselves.”

      The desire of some people to be “governed” is a puzzlement to me. I have seen exactly ZERO evidence that my state or federal government is possessed of any particular wisdom. My father was grew up in the South in the Depression, and was a lifelong Democrat, and a union member. Even he used to say, “Son, the government could f*** up a one-car parade.”

      • “I begin to wish our Founders had just said, “The federal government gets to maintain a post office, maintain an army, and NOTHING else. The states get to do two or three more things. The rest of it is up to you folks; work it out for yourselves.” ”

        Evil never rests. Even the short statement above is a potential hive of mischief. Note how much of government intervention is clearly not based on the constitution, but on the preamble, “…promote the general welfare…

        That move renders the entire wording of the constitution superfluous. Reasoning: Anything in the Constitution and Amendments that does not promote the perceived “general welfare” is illegitimate.

        “…if you can keep it.” even foretold the present era of assuming the Constitution is some sort of self-correcting autopilot, with no need of attention.

        • Sam,


          Our Founders wrote the Constitution for intelligent people. Instead, we’ve raised a crop of illiterate morons (dacian and MinorIQ come to mind), and basically given them free rein. We will, ultimately, pay for that folly.

  32. @LampOfDiogenes June 15, 2022 At 12:40
    “No, he hasn’t officially announced retirement ”

    Moral victories are euphemism for “lost the war”. What you seem to be thinking is that Cornyn is not useful is pushing, supporting, winning on other “conservative” values; i.e. voting for a politician is defined/determined as being “single-issue”, to the possibility of otherwise losing all along the line.

    MacArthur said it best, “In war, there is no substitute for victory”. IMHO, politics is the continuation of war by other means. You don’t destroy an army because a general doesn’t win every battle.

    Some NFL coach said, “When you execute a pass play, there are three possible outcomes; two of them are bad.” When you “primary” (and win) an elected representative, there are 4 possible outcomes: the alternate loses; the alternate wins, but loses the general election (all advantage than flows to the opposite side); the alternate wins, but, due to lack of experience has no chance to influence outcomes, all along the line. the alternate is so well known and connected, that personal history will make the alternate effective.

    I wish things were simple, but life (and politics and computer systems) is like a spider web. Touch one strand, and the result twangs somewhere else. Is one really prepared to the total range of unexpected, unwanted, outcomes?

  33. @LampOfDiogenes
    “You, sir, are one cynical mofo.”

    Maja Rushie is gone. I am no the self-proclaimed “Mayor of Realsville.” “Realistic”, and “cynical” are often mistaken for one another.

    Being a skeptic, I am also a hopeless optimist. However, optimism with a healthy dose of managed expectations. Someone once advised, “For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?”

    Not putting forth that primaries are so risk-filled as to be folly. Admonishing people to be sure they can win the whole prize before doing so.

    Risk matrices were invented for a reason.

    • Wow.

      I would love to sit down with you over a pitcher of beer and talk “practical” politics.

      Yes, your analysis of primaries is correct, on a one-dimensional level . . . but you are overlooking the “pour encourager les autres” effect. Making our political “betters” aware (even those we DON’T primary . . . this time) of our ability/willingness to primary their sorry @$$es SHOULD have a sobering effect on “les autres” (I would like to think so, at least). Lisa Murkowski found out the hard way that “karma is a b***h”, didn’t she? And I suspect the lesson of Murkowski and a few others is in the mind of more than a few of their elected compatriots. AOC and “the Squad” seem to have NO hesitation in primarying Dims who won’t toe the Leftist line.

      I don’t think a primary challenge should be the FIRST approach to an elected rep who makes a stupid call . . . but it should DEFINITELY be in the quiver. And a credible threat of a primary challenge SHOULD at least make an elected rep expend enough time to have a second thought. But, then, I’m assuming that actually representing their voters is their goal – a proposition difficult to find factual evidence of.

      • “I would love to sit down with you over a pitcher of beer and talk “practical” politics.”

        Interesting idea. However, I don’t do beer; orange juice and vodka (two shots) martinis are the staple.

        My intent regarding “primarying” politicians is not that such action should not be conducted, but to caution the wild-eyed to “beware what you ask for”. Or, as earlier noted, count the cost and ensure you have resources to finish the job (turnover, not message sending). Sending messages seems to have little effect on politicians. Failing at a primary challenge emboldens them.

        It is the same with “term limits”. What is the track record of success that indicates the replacement will be “better” (point-of-view dependent)?

        In applying a risk matrix to the matter, an event most unlikely to happen (risk level 1) combined with a potentially disastrous outcome (risk level 5) should not be ignored.

        • Agree, which is why I said primarying someone shouldn’t be the first resort . . . but they need that stick. If we NEVER primary a John McCain, for example, what basis do we have to b**** about a Susan Collins or a Lisa Murkowski? At some level, we need to remind politicians who they (supposedly) work for. And, since we can’t match “Big Corporate” or “Big Union” or “Big PAC” money, all we’ve got is our votes. Sure, write letters . . . good luck with that!

          As for the other? A good martini is ALWAYS appropriate. Personally, I’m a major single malt Scotch fan, but I’ll also be happy to drink a good bourbon. If you can find it (it ain’t easy) Caol Ila 18 (or even better, 25) is the nectar of the Gods.

        • Not sure if you are/were green blue glow or especially rare in the other category but it seems you had quite an introduction into some valuable if extremely annoying planning tools. Was worth learning but made mission planning a bitch.

  34. @Sean

    I really do want to help you, here. Many of your comments are replies to yourself (kinda like you are talking to yourself, out loud)

    When you find there is no direct reply link, just open a general comment box, and put @ in front of the name you are addressing. Makes understanding your thinking easier for others.


    • Yeah, but you’re not denying it, either.

      Never said you weren’t nice, Sam; just said you were REALLY cynical. If I were you, I’d just own that one. A denial, at this point, would not be persuasive.

  35. Now, Now I just got a newsletter from Joe Manchin about just what a good deal this is! I doubt he plans to run again as this one is sheer poison to his constituents. Never voted for him and never will.

  36. The problem as I see it, is that there’s No conceivable way to legislate ourselves out of the fustercluck mess that began post Civil War by all three branches of the government. That’s when these problems really started. A SCOTUS decision allowed States to ignore the 14th Amendment, as various States began Infringing upon the 2nd Amendment. It’s gone on too far and too long to correct it through the soap box or the ballot box. The web of Law is so tangled it’s a fecking Gordian Knot of contradictions.

    We can sit and bicker, argue, piss and moan about the meaning of Shall Not Be Infringed, and a million what if’s and except for’s are bandied about, but there are No What If’s or Except For’s in SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! That is what the Founders meant, it’s what they wrote, and it’s what they believed. Any Limits to that Right were as unacceptable to them, as they should be to us now.
    I really don’t care what the Demented Dipschitt and Pathalogical Liar occupying the Oval Office has to say. He barely made it through Law School and cheated and lied to do that. Like all Democrats, he only dusts off the Constitution to wipe his arse with it. I really don’t care what the nine robed fools do, unless they’re originalists who speak when our Founding Documents speak and shut up when it’s silent. As for Congress, it’s needed an enema to flush the privileged Schitts out since John Adam’s was in office. I tire of all of them, and overwhelming majority break their Oath of Office on an hourly basis.
    It’s Time For Our Government To Be Reminded Forcefully, That They Govern At Our Pleasure, Not Theirs. That This Current Government Has Become The Domestic Enemy Of We The People. We Don’t Need F-15’s And Nuclear Weapons To Take Them Down, Because We Outnumber Them 10,000 to 1, And We Will Fight Your Tyranny With Extreme Prejudice And Summary Justice For All Offenders. There Will Be No Rock You Can Hide Under.

  37. @LampOfDiogenes
    “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
    “One of my favorite lines of all time.”

    ‘How much wood would a woodchuck chuck,
    If a woodchuck would chuck wood? ‘

    – One of my favorites

  38. Cornyn has done what the NRA did for decades: Compromise away our rights a little at a time, gaslighting us into thinking that “it could have been much worse”.


  39. SAFEupstateFML
    “Not sure if you are/were green blue glow or especially rare in the other category…”

    Ok, now. Here’s where I have to admit to not understanding all the words grownups use.

    • In reference to you knowing composite risk analysis and being impressed that you knew some of the black swan issues should be taken into account and not being sure if you came across it in the military, police, .gov, or private sector (where correct application is vanishingly rare). Sorry mix of house cleaning, studying of nontypical pistol caliber AR uppers, and white claw were involved in previous post.

      • “In reference to you knowing composite risk analysis and being impressed that you knew some of the black swan issues should be taken into account and not being sure if you came across it in the military, police, .gov, or private sector…”

        Private sector, PMI project manager training. Only after leaving the Chair Force did I understand how much of flying culture and mission planning were based on risk management principles.

        Most fascinating (to me, when fully in the cups) was learning that Blaise Pascal may have invented the first, formal risk management matrix (Pascal’s Wager):

        • Well shit you are on the rare oddball end that we have to contract out for. While the mil service is not surprising either its amazing how short in supply PMI’s as well as Business Systems Analysts tend to be for that basic but often overlooked (is this a good idea) thinking.

        • Also thank you for the link, while I saw it referenced a few times along with a brief explanation the larger context especially the Misunderstanding section seems especially relevant lately.

  40. @Lamp

    If I had to drink Scotch, I would probably settle for Highland Park 30yr, single.

    But only if you were buying.

  41. SAFEupstateFML
    “Stop appropriating me stop appropriating me.”

    What? Hold there, I say hold on there. I hardly know you. I don’t appropriate until we have been dating for awhile.

        • Hmm some upper double digit prime number of off brand genders or claim of BIPOC status………..yeah may have more injun that Elizabeth Warren but you win this one paleface (yes assuming with no reference or metric to guess your identity and everything).

  42. SAFEupstateFML
    “Well shit you are on the rare oddball end that we have to contract out for.”

    At one company I worked for (product fulfillment distribution center), we had Business Analysts who wrote enterprise computer system software modifications. After a few frustrating weeks of test software that was not even close to appropriate, I asked one of the Business Analysts to describe the business of the company we worked for. Got a general, brochure type answer. Then I asked which business cases he analyzed before working on the coding of a request. The BA said he didn’t analyze anything, just tried to program what the request described.

    I learned BAs don’t like to be pressed about why they program things a certain way, without understanding the business case, and the desired outcome of software changes. This proved to even be the case when joining a company doing enterprise management software installations and maintenance. Overall, it was great fun training programmers to think and understand what the software packages we sold were all about.

      • “Indian BA with a masters degree by any chance?”

        Encountered that working in one start-up company. Mostly, the issue seemed to cross all cultural lines.

        In one software company, found a standard form designed to give a general description of the change request, reference to systems that would likely be affected, elements of existing software that would likely be involved, desired business process flow, detailed outcome (including rudimentary test scenarios. That document saved me quite a lot of time working with BAs

        • Gotcha, your description described about 85% of the BA’s we tend to contract. The remaining 15 percent are a mix of Americans that want to slow down in workload and Indian/Chinese Christians who have a wildly different culture than their national peers (silly way of saying way easier to work with and get desired results without pulling teeth and hair).

  43. @SAFEupstateFML
    “Also thank you for the link,…”

    Happy to be here, grateful for the opportunity, proud to serve.

  44. SAFEupstateFML
    “(yes assuming with no reference or metric to guess your identity and everything).”

    Let me clear it up, for you…

    I pretty much identify as “Master of the Universe”.

  45. SAFEupstateFML
    “…your description described about 85% of the BA’s we tend to contract.”

    At one company, the entire cohort of employees were of about 8 different nations. First day, I was directed to a conference room where 11 of us were working on bits of software code (not all related to a single product offering). After awhile, I began to notice that while the people in the room were from all over, there was a buzz of conversation among them. After about two hours I realized they had developed an ersatz version of English which allowed them to communicate, though their native languages were quite different. It was interesting, amusing even, but seemed to work.

    • Limey variety (most of what we get) or Canadian/American? Either way it is remarkable and a big reason my unit would often use Spanish when discussing anything remotely sensitive during deployment as every contractor at some level spoke enough English to listen for info to sell (big f u to our Turkish and Pakistani contractors).

  46. How about eliminating the NFA altogether? The Second Amendment is absolute, this should be their starting point. Any give away is giving away freedom. Forget national reciprocity. That’s a fools game that will lead to trouble. Remember the 2a recognizes a pre existing right, it does not confer rights. It prohibits the federal from interfering or weakening the pre existing right. To say the federal can mandate national reciprocity is to say they can grant privilege and call it a right. NR will lead to a national ccw and a registry. It will lead to excuses to prevent issue and reasons to confiscate. Gun people learned nothing from REAL ID and nationalization of drivers licenses. The best process for NR is permit less carry by state or state to state reciprocity including a pact if desired, but definitely not the expansion of federal empowerment with a federal NR bill. Freedom requires us to always move to weaken the central government not make it stronger.

  47. “…my unit would often use Spanish when discussing anything remotely sensitive during deployment as every contractor at some level spoke enough English to listen for info to sell…”

    Was once assigned to a base in a country where Spanish was the local language. Grounds were maintained by locals, on contract. The grounds folks spoke Spanish exclusively, though we knew that understood English pretty well. My next door neighbor and I spoke very rudimentary German, so sometimes we would be in the yard while the workers were present. We spoke only German, mostly a string of random words. The gardeners mostly ignored us, but sometimes we would get animated, and look at them, pointing and yelling. It passed the time.

  48. The time is coming. But let’s remember, it is not the politicians in Washington that are the problem. Brandon, Pelosi, and all the others are puppets. The puppeteers are the ones who need targeting. Who is pulling their strings and controlling the narrative? And if you think the talking heads on the nightly news are the enemy, they only spew what is on the teleprompters or only ask the questions handed to them. Their bosses are the ones controlling the narrative. Those are the ones that should be targeted if/when the time come to reset America.

  49. @LampOfDiogenes
    “Yes, Sam, but you don’t IDENTIFY as gullible, now do you??”

    Depends on who is paying me, and in which form.

    The guys down at Duffy’s Tavern will tell you that after a few drinks, I will believe anything.

    • Sam,

      “Hey, baby, have I seen you here before? You know, I identify as gullible!”

      Lemme know how that works out for you.

      OTOH, ‘beer goggles’ can accomplish amazing things. “ALCOHOL: Helping ugly people get laid for over 5,000 years!!”

      • “ALCOHOL: Helping ugly people get laid for over 5,000 years!!”

        Never thought about it that way. I use booze to make everyone look better at closing time. Actually….to make everyone look better long before closing time.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here