Dems Want Your Guns…All of The Democrats in the Ohio Debate Made That Clear

Screencap via CNN.

The Democrats at Tuesday night’s debate (watch live link) fell all over themselves talking about how to take your guns. Yes, they want to take your guns away from you. As in mandatory confiscations. Putting modern sporting rifles into the National Firearms Act registry. Banning normal capacity magazines. Suing gun makers into bankruptcy. On and on.

We heard a lot of stories about dead folks supposedly killed by black rifles. Of course, in reality, more dead folks are killed by blunt force instruments and fists. And there was no mention of prohibited people wielding those guns or others. But why let facts get in the way of a good soundbite. Especially in lieu of commenting on the political corruption of the Biden family.

How bad was it? “If you’re not going door to door, it’s not really mandatory,” said Julian Castro.

Not a single one of the candidates came even close to defending Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.  Not even close.

Instead, it was “I’m going to take on the NRA.” As if the National Rifle Association is killing people on the streets of Chicago, Baltimore, or any of these other rat-infested Democrat-run districts in America.

But that’s what passes for a mainstream position in the Democrat party in 2019.

comments

  1. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    They are BEGGING for a demonstration of the utility of the 2nd!!!

    1. avatar guest says:

      Trump says thanks.

      1. avatar Tim says:

        Good. Make the binary choice as stark as possible. Let no one conflate democrats with freedom-loving Americans.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          at this point the lines are pretty clearly drawn…very little middle ground here….

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      The un American demokommies are proving themselves the domestic enemy the founders warned of,how does one run for a office of a country and Constitution that one hates.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Green Mtn. Boy,

        … how does one run for a office of a country and Constitution that one hates.

        The answer is simple and actually makes sense: if you don’t like something you should actively try to improve it rather than just complaining about it. And that is exactly what today’s Communists Progressive adherents aim to do.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          @uncommon_sense

          Better yet swear a oath to it,to uphold it and defend it,all the while intending to dismantle it.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Timothy Toroian,

      I fear that we will likely have no other option.

      Progressive Democrats view liberty (including common ownership of firearms and even Free Speech) as threats to their goals and want government to eliminate such threats.

      At the risk of stating the obvious, there is no righteous basis/authority for such action. Instead, such action is offensive (not defensive) to suppress a disfavored demographic (e.g. Hillary Clinton’s famously described “Deplorables”).

      Tragically, History demonstrates with alarming regularity that a ruling class which starts out actively suppressing a disfavored demographic invariably escalates to outright exploitation, abuse, imprisonment, and even murder of that disfavored demographic.

      THAT is precisely why we have the Second Amendment and why we will never give it up willingly.

  2. avatar Johnny Go Lightly says:

    What the hell is the BOYFRIEND LOOPHOLE that Klubafart mentioned ?

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      They’re referring to the fact that in many jurisdictions if you’re not married it’s not technically a “domestic violence” conviction if a guy beats on his girl.

      Where a married man would, upon conviction, be a prohibited person a boyfriend may not be and therefore could still go and legally buy a gun. A gun the Democrats suggest would likely then be used to murder the girlfriend.

      1. avatar Ragnar says:

        I support the GIRLFRIEND LOOPHOLE. If boyfriend beats girlfriend, local government immediately provides a firearm to girlfriend. Boyfriend then stops beating girlfriend, one way or another.

        (In the name of equality, this can also be reversed, as some girlfriends are the violent abusers.)

        1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          A late friend of mine became a gun owner, an OCer, and second amendment activist because her husband was abusive. She thought that would keep him in check. In the end he walked up behind her when she wasn’t paying attention and shot her in the back of the head. With his state issued weapon, as he was a state prison employee. Then he shot himself in the head with a shotgun. When you live with your killer there is not a thing in this world that can protect you.

        2. avatar The Red Pill 2017 says:

          “..GIRLFRIEND LOOPHOLE..” Women’s abuse of men is very real. While men are more likely 53%, women commit violence in 47% of instances. In other words men are just as likely to be victims of relationship violence.

          CDC numbers above from the movie “The Red Pill” 2017, it is an excellent movie by a former feminist that took a journey down the rabbits hole and learned the truth.

      2. avatar DaveL says:

        It’s not “not married”, it’s “never were married, never cohabited, never had a child together”. Basically they want to take the “domestic” qualifier right out.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          They have argued (I don’t know how correctly) that children and cohabitation don’t matter in some jurisdictions.

          I personally have not taken a survey of the domestic violence laws in all states and jurisdictions but they, they being the antis, have argued that there are places where this is true.

          Again, their argument, not mine and if it’s not true, well, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time they lied.

        2. avatar DaveL says:

          They lied. This is federal law we’re talking about here, so it stands to reason the term is defined in federal law, in this case section 18 USC Section 921(a)(33)(C):

          · is a misdemeanor at federal or state law, AND
          · has as an element the use or attempted use of physical
          force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, AND
          · – is committed by
          * by a current or former spouse, parent, or
          guardian of the victim,
          * by a person who is cohabitating with or has
          cohabitated with the victim as a spouse,
          parent, or guardian, or
          * by a person similarly situated

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          Nice of the feds to provide a overarching, and reasonably brief, definition rather than leaving it up to the states.

          After reading your prior comment I went and looked up the laws in a couple states I’ve resided in and found that they did indeed vary a bit. Some could arguably cover a roommate or former roommate with whom there was no romantic, legal or family connection.

          Thanks for providing the federal statute.

        4. avatar Stuck in the People's Republic of New Jersey says:

          States (such as mine) unfortunately can and do make broader definitions of “prohibited persons”, broader definitions of “domestic violence”, and broader definitions of “mentally unfit”, and use these broader definitions to deny citizens the RKBA. In my state, you have to get a state “Firearms Purchaser Identification Card” in order to purchase or transport any firearm, and then a “Permit to Purchase a Handgun” (which expires in 90 days) to purchase any handgun, and for those forms, my state uses stricter definitions than the Feds.

          The Federal definition of “Prohibited persons” is the minimum that states may use, not the maximum. But shhhhh, don’t spread this news to other blue states.

    2. avatar Mike says:

      Girls cant have a boy friend with out a permit from her mother.
      She must have a back ground check first…..

      1. avatar James D says:

        Haha! Mom’s permission? You don’t know girls to well…

    3. avatar PMinFL says:

      boyfriend loophole is another way of saying straw purchaser.

  3. avatar Scott C. says:

    I tell you what. Have any one of these clowns come to my place with no police, no armed guards, no guns, no way to protect themselves in any way and demand that I give up my constitutional rights. Let’s see how serious they are after that.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      So…you want one of them to come to your door unarmed and “not dangerous”? And you’ll do what, then? Shoot an unarmed person because you don’t like his/her opinion?

      The RKBA is not for defending against loudmouths. It’s for defending ourselves against those who attempt to take our liberties and property by force.

      Let the loudmouths keep loudmouthing.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        You say that as if loudmouths aren’t the problem. Historically the leaders are the ones that cause the worst of societies. The allies had to beat Germany into the ground but it wasn’t because Hitler wasn’t the one physically herding people into camps and flying sorties over London, it was because they had to go through everyone else to get to him.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          “You say that as if loudmouths aren’t the problem.”

          ****
          Read what I said above again. Nowhere did I say loudmouths aren’t the problem, right? I said our RKBA isn’t for shooting loudmouths. Wait until you see the gun in their hands and the whites of their eyes. Otherwise, they’re simply exercising their own rights…to free speech. And who’s to say they don’t think WE are the loudmouths?

          If we don’t support rights for all, we can’t support rights for ourselves.

      2. avatar Merle 0 says:

        I want them to keep talking like this. They’re open and honest About what they’ve wanted all along.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          So as recently as earlier this year, and definitely previous years, were they all liars or just had a change of heart? Remember the constant “we’re not coming for you guns. That’s just NRA and Fox news fear mongering conspiracy theory stuff.”

      3. avatar James Campbell says:

        Hey “I haz a question”, read Scott C post again…”Have any one of these clowns come to my place with no police, no armed guards, no guns, no way to protect themselves in any way and demand that I give up my constitutional rights”.
        In NO way does he state a willingness to shoot anyone over their opinion. He’s stating if someone comes to his home to DEMAND his firearms, and violate his constitutional rights, he will use deadly force (if needed) to protect those things.
        Claiming his statement shows he condones shooting “loudmouths” was TOTALLY off the mark.

        1. avatar James Campbell says:

          IHAQ, with this statement …..”Wait until you see the gun in their hands and the whites of their eyes. Otherwise, they’re simply exercising their own rights…to free speech.”, you seem to think as long as the confiscators are without firearms, the gun owners have to allow the collection of their arms (and violation of their rights). Reality check. A property owner has FINAL decision on allowing people onto their home. And if the dems think a national ban of ANY firearms gives them the right to enter homes to confiscate arms (armed or otherwise), they need to roll those dice. I don’t see it going well. Be sure to outfit those gun confiscators with jackets that convert to body bags, this will save a logistical step in the dems 2A violation process.

  4. avatar LazrBeam says:

    Since I’m not interested in any of these bozos I’m not watching the clown show. They’re all too far left for any coherent person’s consideration. They’re positions are already well known.

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      Agreed on not watching the clown show. But we have to keep an eye on the enemies to the Constitution.

    2. avatar Dude says:

      They all scare the hell out of me and I used to be an independent.

  5. avatar Keith Pallo says:

    There will be deaths when people refuse to surrender and the Law Enforcement community in total disregard of their oath to support and defend the Constitution go door to door shooting all those who refuse to turn over their guns. There will be mass arrests. There will be police deaths in association with gun owner deaths as they defend themselves, their families and their Constitutional rights!! This is what the Dems want. We are not Australia!! Let’s see some of these big talk demorats man up and go door to door to take guns! Nope, that is for peons to do! These ass clowns wouldn’t know what a gun was if they sat on it and it went off!

    1. avatar Scott says:

      The latest estimates I have seen are that an estimated 300 MILLION handguns, rifles and shotguns are in civilian (as in neither military or police) hands in this country. They could go door to door and not find half of them.

      And no, I don’t believe in burying guns to hide them. If government has become that tyrannical in defiance of both the 2nd and 4th Amendments, then it’s time to start using those guns on the tyrants and their jackbooted lackeys.

      1. avatar BobS says:

        Latest estimates? That popular “300 million” number dates from 2008, before we hired an excellent gun salesman and gave him a prominent platform for eight years.

        Current estimates put somewhere north of 430 million guns in private hands in the USA. Each month’s NICS stats correspond to adding about another million to the stock.

        1. avatar Randy Jones says:

          As we start throwing numbers around on how many guns are in private hands, keep in mind they generally refer to ‘legal’ guns as they can’t possible know haw many illegal guns exist and secondly, we need to keep in mind that many gun collections are in private hands, one person could own 100 or even 1,000+ guns.

          The truth is we, as firearm owners, are a minority in America. An unprotected minority, given no status and one where our rights are being squeezed. It is unfortunate, but in this country any group of people picks up the reputation of their idiots. You will hear of every idiot that does something stupid or criminal with a firearm, but you will never hear of defensive gun use or anything positive done by a group of gun owners.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Randy,

          Exactamundo. I myself have many guns. All legally owned through various reasons and acquired over many years, but not a single one on the State’s radar. If they pull up my name, they’ll see nothing on their nice computer screens. But I have enough to arm everyone on my block if necessary.

          Multiply guys like me times 1000s or tens of 1000s across this state, and you’ll get an idea of what an “underground” gun economy is like. And I’m only talking about California.

          Beto and the Dems (sounds like a ’60s rock band) have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about when they spout their “we’re coming for your gunz” mantra.

        3. avatar Geoff "Guns. Lots of guns." PR says:

          “…as they can’t possible know haw many illegal guns exist…”

          What? The only “illegal gun” is a stolen gun, and being in possession of it, and the rightful owner wants it back…

    2. avatar Scott C. says:

      What’s funny in a crappy way is that if you go to the Australian government web site, crimes like assault, robbery and rape have increased since they banned guns. Yes, mass shootings and suicide by gun has gone down but has gone exponentially higher for other violent crime by…. wait for it….. wait for it…. criminals that don’t obey the law.

      1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

        But,…, but,…, but what is you made it illegaler to obey the law, maybe then the criminals would obey the law. Of course that means we need more laws to make things illegaler and if that does not work, then of couserse the laws aren’t restrictive enough so we need more laws. Of course it is “common sense” to inconvenience more than a few innocents to assure that maybe one (maybe not) less than innocent does not slip through the cracks. We see how well that has been working with the no fly lists.
        Ohhh, I forgot this is not about stopping crime, this is about disarming the Constitutionally protected public, so that, as no one could opposed the freight trains of the Red Revolution in Russia, the Nazi takeover in Germany, the Socialist Revolution in Cuba, the What-Ever-The-FK it is in Venezuela, the American public will be emasculated and disarmed so that an anachronistic socialist takeover will be facilitated.
        I wish that the “woke” Millennials and the succeeding generation realize that Socialism, be it Democratic Socialism, National Socialism, or outright Communism are anachronistic failed relics from the past. More so than they hate and fear cursive writing, these political ideologies carry a much scarier undercurrent than Fractur carried for Nazis and cursive carries for modern society.
        And, no Che Guevara was not a hero of the people. He was a loathsome murderer who justified murder on some romanticized theory. He got what he deserved as did his companions other than the Castros.

        1. avatar HAnnnnuiUbal Anddd Tahae ElipHaenaebnts says:

          If not is, and what the fcuk is “couserse?”
          Oh, I give up!!!
          Where is the edit function?
          I swear it was typed correctly, and I successfully overrode any spellcheck function on my end.
          Yet, my text appears unintelligible when it ends up posted.
          Gcbrfelsed! vRteniakuhx;o’[email protected] .wskcnp98asdn c jnoiUIY*&^%E%$#SXCJhgjb?
          Oou now wat I meen?! Ittsis fruatrautinnges!

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

          “Gcbrfelsed! vRteniakuhx;o’[email protected] .wskcnp98asdn c jnoiUIY*&^%E%$#SXCJhgjb?
          Oou now wat I meen?! Ittsis fruatrautinnges!”

          What he said… 😉

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          You have to check the “save my name … etc” box under the comment box to get access to the “edit” function. But do NOT ask me why!

  6. avatar JoeWay says:

    Anyone that does not believe in our US Constitution should not be able to hold any office that requires taking an oath. It’s that black and white. We are taught this in school. 12 idiots with armed guards talking about confiscating guns. Go do it. All 12 at the same time if need be.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      What do you think people would do if they were brainwashed from a young age into believing that the Constitution was out dated and racist, etc? They would want to rip it up and make a new one. The current crop of democrats want to burn it down, and people are electing them to do so.

    2. avatar Stuck in the People's Republic of New Jersey says:

      JoeWay,
      “Anyone that does not believe in our US Constitution should not be able to hold any office that requires taking an oath.”

      I agree. But it would be hard to enforce.
      I suggest they enforce the Oath of Office by arresting for perjury anyone who breaks their oath (in which they swore to obey the Constitution). This would mean a lot of turnover in both parties!

      Making them believe and obey the Constitution would disqualify not only all 18 Democratic presidential candidates, but also nearly all Congressmen (of both parties), some Supreme Court justices, President Donald Trump (who obviously hasn’t read the Constitution because he claimed, “Article II says I can do whatever the hell I want!”), and the previous Republican President, George W. Bush (who famously called the U.S. Constitution “just a Goddamned piece of paper” that he didn’t have to abide by).

  7. avatar John says:

    I’m a Democrat who owns about a dozen guns including several AR’s that I absolutely love and which I would *never* “agree” to part with — under *any* circumstances. What the hell is wrong with the Democratic Party when it comes to guns. Are they fucking NUTS?

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Nuts? No.

      The form of government they desire subjugates the citizen and places them as subordinate to government. That’s kinda hard when the citizens have a tendency, or even a remote capability, to shoot the commissars.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      The democratic party has been hi-jacked by the lunatic left. You, as a dem, have 2 choices. Either kick the loons to the curb or watch your party crushed in the voting booth and the courts.

      Trump is going to win again and fill the courts with conservative justices. We will likely see the gop retake the house.

      It’s up to you. Either clean house or watch it all go down the drain.

      1. avatar SoCalJack says:

        I think the Dem Canidates have lost their focus on their core voters by promising to the far far left.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          They helped to create the mob. It was the easiest way to get in and stay in power. Now they have to ride the wave or get left behind.

      2. avatar Ing says:

        The Democrats aren’t crazy. They’re catering to their true constituency: billionaire globalists and the media/entertainment propaganda machine. The winner gets to campaign with the kind of support that blinded the citizens of my state into voting their own Second Amendment rights away in the last couple of elections.

        I hope you’re right and Trump curb-stomps whoever the Dem nominee is, but there’s an appalling number of people who will believe whatever they’re told by the press. And they will be told in no uncertain terms that those socialist vs. socialist debates didn’t matter and in fact never happened, and that only a Democrat can save them from all the scary problems they see in the news.

        Combine that with the candidate inevitably *not* being as loathsome as Felonia Milhouse von Pantsuit, and we’re going to find out once and for all whether it’s true that nobody ever went broke by underestimating the average American’s intelligence.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          But then I was sure Kamala Harris would be their front-runner by now, so what the hell do I know?

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        jwm, you’re a pessimist. With them getting crazier and crazier, I am planning on the GOP having 60 senators, as well.

    3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      The Democrat Party has never had Arms as a priority. The days of JFK an NRA member are long gone. Their priorities now are Homosexual marriage and destroying traditional marriage. They built the Welfare Industrial Complex and the “gun free” zones that go with it. Replacing the Father and his guns with government $$$ and the guns of a big city police department.

      Also making drugs legal and making your intoxication part of the “free stuff” they want to give you.

      Democrats are Socialist Progressive in their political orientation. It seems you have been asleep for the last 20 plus years.

    4. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Dude, you’ve got to start paying attention!

    5. avatar John in AK says:

      The proper question for you is not whether or not THEY are nuts, it’s whether or not YOU are nuts for continuing to be a Democrat!

      Considering that you own several of the type of firearm that every Democratic candidate for President has stated that he or she wants to ban, ban and tax, or ban and forcibly confiscate, your continued obeisance to that nest of vipers is akin to a German Jew voting for Hitler and his merry band AFTER Kristallnacht.

      “Well, yeah, he wants to kill me and my entire family, but My GOD! his people wear such nice uniforms, we’re talking near full employment, and they have made all of the eastbound trains run on time! Yep, it’s NSDAP for me!”

      What’s WRONG with you?!

      1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        I ask that of my democrat friends in Indiana and Wisconsin. Sometimes I think those democrats don’t read any national news. They don’t thing their rights are in danger. They think republicans are just scare mongering.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          When all you consume is the legacy media, you just don’t realize what’s really happening. I know some hardcore, well-educated democrats. They wouldn’t think of reading or watching any news from right wing sources because “they’re biased.” When you step back and look at everything, you realize that network news, CNN, Times, etc. is actually further to the left than Fox News is to the right. I say this as someone that came from a democratic family, and observed this for myself.

    6. avatar Dude says:

      John, you’re an American first. Democrats are no longer the party that stands up for the little guy. They’re the party that crushes the little guy and ruins anyone that goes against the party line. I don’t know how anyone could logically vote for these fools anymore.

  8. avatar strych9 says:

    Complain as they might every single one of them is a neo-Marxist, the kind of person Jordan Peterson talks about constantly.

    The Left’s general agenda in under 14 minutes by a guy with a soothing accent and a bit of a wit (Not Jordan Peterson).

    1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      So very well and eloquently stated. I am copying this video.

    2. avatar Dan W says:

      Peterson is a mentally ill Canadian socialist. How anyone on the right takes him seriously is beyond me.

      His only problem with the leftists is they are moving too fast and might cause a backlash.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Explain. I’ve found him to be spot-on since his famous Canadian interview that launched him into the spotlight.

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        “Peterson is a mentally ill Canadian socialist.”

        You’re going to need to back up that statement. Lot’s of things have been said by Peterson and about Peterson but I’m pretty sure your statement here is an outlier.

        He’s described himself as a “classical British liberal”, which might be a lot of things but “socialist” it ain’t.

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

    “How bad is it? “If you’re not going door to door, it’s not really mandatory,” says Julian Castro.”

    Well then, we must *insist* it be ‘mandatory’.

    Go big, or go home, Mr. Castro… 🙂

    (He sure is aptly named, don’t you think?)

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      “Hell yes, we’ll take your AR-15s…”
      – Beto O’Rourke

      “If you’re not going door to door, it’s not really mandatory…”
      – Julian Castro

      ****
      We should start repeating these over and over all the way through Nov 2020. Make t-shirts…

      1. avatar Overshoe says:

        …and sell them at Walmart.

        1. avatar J.T. says:

          ….. and Dick’s

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Naw, not Dick’s. Those guys are DICKS!!

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        beto’s comment…”that I trust the American people will comply with the law”…is asinine…the truth is they’ve already demonstrated their intentions not to do so…..

    2. avatar GunnyGene says:

      Door to door wouldn’t do it. Tree to tree & ditch to ditch would be more like it. Think like a mud Marine on offense. Think ambushes, and snipers from a 1000yds. Think shoot and scoot. Forget fixed defenses, like your house. Forget holding territory. Go for attrition. Keep them bottled up. Keep them nervous and scared.

      1. avatar Dan W says:

        Once they’re at your door, you’ve already lost.

        1. avatar John E> says:

          Once you are at their door they have already lost.
          -fixed it for you.

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

          “Once they’re at your door, you’ve already lost.”

          No, it proves the logic is sound of stashing some of them away from your home… 🙂

    3. avatar Dude says:

      So it really is possible to go door to door and round up illegal aliens. Thanks Julian.

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

        Oh, my, now that is *choice*!

        Well-played!

        *snicker* 😉

    4. avatar TommyJay says:

      Castro was alone in also saying that going door-to-door to confiscate guns was a really bad idea. Why? He cited cop Aaron Dean shooting and killing Atatiana Jefferson in TX in her own home.

      And he said that police shootings are “gun violence” too. Implying that confiscation would mean lots more police shootings. This wasn’t the biggest applause line of the night, but it was big. I say, thank you Mr. Castro.

  10. avatar arc says:

    Yep.

    I was also looking for alternatives to my anti-freedom, anti-drug Texas reps and senators (R), but the opposition are all socialists, abortionists, gun grabbers, or have a Mexican name.

    In short, we are screwed.

  11. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    I don’t know whats going to happen after Iowa.
    But Im sure being entertained by a bunch of Libitard idjits.
    Let these headless fools keep opening their mouths. The crap that pours out of them is very entertaining to me.
    The stupider they look on a daily basis the better come whoever tries to beat Trump next year.
    Personally Id love to hear any of my neighbors justify voting for a Demonicrat. Besides for a vote against Trump who they hate for no real reason.
    They just do. I love putting these idjits down to their faces with facts. They have no comebacks. Just dropped jaws and blank stares going humina humina.

  12. avatar anon says:

    between this circus and the fact that the courts have ruled a long time ago that law enforcement has no duty to risk their life to protect yours, should have everyone out at the polls voting pro 2a—

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      “law enforcement”

      Wrong. That’s not what the courts have ruled. You need to stop circulating false information. The courts have confirmed that MUNICIPAL POLICE and HIGHWAY (STATE) PATROL do not serve the public, because they are hired by City Mayors and State Governors, respectively. It’s unfortunate, but it’s correct.

      The office of Sheriff, however, is outlined in the Constitution. Sheriffs are elected by their communities, and are sworn to protect their counties(townships).

      1. avatar Dan W says:

        They have some vague general duty to protect the community. You, specifically, getting stabbed by that crackhead, not so much.

      2. avatar DaveL says:

        The office of Sheriff, however, is outlined in the Constitution

        Which constitution is that? Because it sure isn’t the US Constitution.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Whoops, you’re right. I was responding to two different articles and typed a little to quickly before proofreading.

          I meant to say “the office of Sheriff is a constitutionally supported one”. No, it’s not explicitly outlined in the U.S.C., so I rescind that.

          https://ocgnews.com/constitutional-corner-office-sheriff/

      3. avatar Miner49er says:

        “The office of Sheriff, however, is outlined in the Constitution.”

        Right wing fake news, total bullshit.

        Some of you ‘constitutionalists’ need to actually read the constitution.

        Some of you guys are as crazy as Cleven Bundy.

        1. avatar Merle 0 says:

          Cliven Bundy won. Not only did he win in the field, but he won in federal court. Yep. Read it again. He won in federal court. That means he was in the right the entire time. Shows what you know whiner.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Merle, you are incorrect, Cleven Bundy wanted free grazing on publicly owned land, just another welfare queen morning free stuff from the Taxpayers.

          The Supreme Court ruled he was wrong, and he still owes over $1 million to the taxpayers of the United States of America.

          “The ongoing dispute started in 1993, when, in protest against changes in grazing rules, Bundy declined to renew his permit for cattle grazing on BLM-administered public lands near Bunkerville, Nevada.[3] According to Bundy, the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to own vast tracts of lands, an argument repeatedly rejected by federal courts. According to the BLM, Bundy continued to graze his cattle on public lands without a permit. In 1998, Bundy was prohibited by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada from grazing his cattle on an area of land later called the Bunkerville Allotment. In July 2013, federal judge Lloyd D. George ordered Bundy to refrain from trespassing on federally administered land in the Gold Butte area of Clark County.

          Cliven and Ammon Bundy, and their supporters, have claimed that the federal government lacks the authority to manage public lands. These arguments have been repeatedly rejected by legal scholars and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court; the property clause of the United States Constitution grants plenary authority to Congress to manage federal property, including land.”

        3. avatar Eli2016 says:

          “Crazy”? That’s funny coming from you Vlad. A guy who has cleaned toilets all his life should know better. Correction, should smell better. Your taste is in your ass. Now, go get your shine box.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          Eli, you flatter me. Vlad, indeed, how kind of you.

          Regretfully, I assure you, I am not the entity known as Vlad.

          But thank you.

        5. avatar Merle 0 says:

          No you’re incorrect whiner. I’m talking about the most recent ruling. Not the leftist infused one from before the stand off. Not only did he win, but his son won in Oregon too. Get with the times.

        6. avatar Miner49er says:

          Merle, the standoff case was dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct, withholding evidence from the defendant.

          The judges decision had nothing to do with the merits of the case regarding grazing fees and illegal occupation of taxpayer owned land.

          That case has already been decided, and the judge found Cleven Bundy delusional, just like you seem to be.

          “ A Nevada state judge rebuffed rancher Cliven Bundy’s latest bid to force the federal government to cede control of 56 million acres of public lands in the Silver State, characterizing the lawsuit as “simply delusional.”

          In an eight-page ruling, Nevada state Judge Jim Crockett rejected Bundy’s assertion that only individual states — rather than the U.S. government — can own public lands.

          “It is simply delusional to maintain that all public land within the boundaries of Nevada belongs to the State of Nevada,” Crockett wrote in the decision dated April 1 and published yesterday.

          Bundy’s lawsuit had asked the court to declare all public lands within the state, including those lands surrounding his Bunkerville ranch where he grazed his cattle without federal permits for decades, as “property of the People of Nevada and Clark County.”

          But Crockett pointed to a trio of federal court rulings that have rejected Bundy’s arguments against federal ownership of public lands.”

          Bundy has lost his bullshit property claims in both state and federal court, even the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled against him.

          Yep, he’s crazy.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      They sure don’t have to risk their lives to help me get rid of my guns!

  13. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    The second amendment was adopted for this very reason and the democrats seem to think they can step on the people’s throats and stealing from them, this time instead of taxes for people who haven’t paid anything into our system they want to take out rights to further subjugate us. What a shameful demonstration of corrupt people…

  14. avatar Merle 0 says:

    We need to replay and repost this all on a loop from now until next year. Keep talking liberals. Please for the love of God, keep talking.

  15. avatar Nanashi says:

    “As if the National Rifle Association killed people on the streets of Chicago, Baltimore, or any of these other rat and rodent-infested Democrat-run districts in America.”

    Karl Frederick is certainly at least partially responsible when worked to disarm the victims by selling out the Bill of Rights and opposed bearing arms. Orth isn’t particularly innocent either.

  16. avatar Imayeti says:

    and the people in hell want ice water.

  17. avatar "keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

    Wow Im fast, so fast I scare myself, I just caught a flying fly with my left hand and Im right handed. Now what was we talking abouy? Oh yeah somebody taking away my constitutional rights, uhhmm Okay. Whats the plan?

  18. avatar "keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

    May We Never Forget, Whats his name?, The one man army who died for his constitutional beliefs.

  19. avatar DaveL says:

    Well, I’m sure this shouldn’t be a problem for them, since their polls keep telling us 95% of Americans and 180% of registered Democrats support these policies.

  20. avatar FormerParatrooper says:

    What they are doing is firing up their base. Do not forget they have the busses, the community activists and access to voter registration. They can mobilize a lot of new voters, dead voters and they will cheat the system.

    We as working taxpayers, citizens and Constitution supporters need to schedule our time off to vote. If we think enough people will vote our beliefs and we do not vote, we will lose.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      You are correct, all the way.

  21. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    No doubt that the Progressive Left will be stuffing ballot boxes big-time this next election. It’s a big reason they want to get rid of the electoral college. They have no regard at all for human rights or our form of government.

    What they fail to understand is how few it would take to cull the violent socialist movement.

    1. avatar basinman says:

      The only way the Dems can win is to cheat. They are losing a lot of their minority voters, that are jumping ship, so they want to let the illegals in and allow them to vote. They will surely vote for the hand that gives them all the freebies.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I heard Dems are preparing to launch a major push to outlaw fencing around cemeteries, as being voter suppression.

  22. avatar AlanInFL says:

    And the funny thing Chicago and Baltimore are being ruined by the same dumbass party. See the next step that may come if these stupid morons get to run the country.

  23. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Dems Want Your Guns…All of The Democrats in the Ohio Debate Made That Clear”

    And that’s fine, whoever is the most ardent can be the first one through the door…

  24. avatar former water walker says:

    Thanks for taking a boo-lit Boch. I’m sure I’ll see these traitors today on FOX.

  25. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    The Dumbs’ motto for 2020 should be ‘Give us your guns, your money and shut the [email protected]*# up.’ That pretty much covers everything they believe in.

  26. avatar Shire-man says:

    So the Dem platform so far is:
    1. No 2nd Amendment
    2. No 1st Amendment
    3. White people cause all the problems
    4. Rob rich people to fix your problems
    5. Anyone with more assets than debt is rich
    6. All white people are rich
    7. Create better paying jobs by flooding the nation with 50,000,000 more potential employees
    8. Red Flag anyone with a ‘mental illness’
    9. Oh yeah, don’t judge or stigmatize ‘mental illness’
    and the one they’re hoping will make voters ignore all the crazy insane shit:
    10. Orange man bad

    1. avatar bryan1980 says:

      “Orange man bad” should be numbers 1, 5, AND 10!

    2. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Great list!! Might want to add ‘Mandatory attendance at tranny story time at you public library’.

    3. avatar Dude says:

      You forgot the one thing that will put us all in the poor house: outlaw fossil fuels within 10 years.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Nah. Black market will be so prevalent that gas will only go up about 10 cents a gallon.

    4. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Well, at least it’s not Bush’s fault anymore…that seemed to never end…

  27. avatar Greg says:

    Be nice if a predator drone had a ND at the commie debates.

  28. avatar LifeSavor says:

    This is why I could never be a journalist; having to listen for hours to all of those traitorous lies. Thank you, John B. for your time in purgatory.

  29. avatar AJ says:

    … from my cold.. dead hands…

  30. avatar enuf says:

    The 2020 election ain’t looking too pretty, that’s for sure. All of the Democrats are acting stupidly on two vital issues, Gun Control and Health Care. So I cannot vote for any of them.

    On the other hand there remains no viable challenger to Trump for the Republican nomination. Which is only normal for an incumbent candidate. As detestable as Trump is, my only option is to wait and see who the write-in candidates will be in my state and pick one of those.

    Not that this will matter one bit. All my state’s electoral votes will go to the Republican candidate. There is often speculation the Democrats will manage an upset, but it never happens. What this means for me is that the election season is already decided on the Presidential pick and I can concentrate instead on the rest of the ballot.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      trump’s impeachment remains a real possibility AFTER he gets reelected…if he does…he has few friends among the republicans…

  31. avatar Aleric says:

    AND after next years election the MSM will claim that no one said anything about seizing guns and taking away constitutional rights.

  32. avatar elsullo says:

    Around thirty years ago Canada outlawed semi-auto rifles with large magazines and ordered them all to be turned in, since they were all supposed to be registered already. In all of the Western rural Provinces the law enforcement agencies said, “Ehy?”, since no funds had been budgeted to do all of that, and they did not have any problems with “mass shootings” anywhere near anyway. That new law was repealed in a year or two.

    For what it is worth, in my BLUE state of Oregon most of the Counties have RED law enforcement officers and Sheriffs. Most of the County Sheriffs have publicly announced that they WILL NOT ENFORCE any Federal laws that they view as unconstitutional.

    1. avatar Dani in WA says:

      Same here in your Northern neighbor; 30 of 33 sheriffs have stated they will not enforce certain things. The same thing is going on in places like Illinois and the Southwest.

  33. avatar Miner49er says:

    Fear not folks, the Democrats‘ calls for mandatory gun control are nothing but campaign promises.

    Just like “I’ll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it” or “I’ll sue every woman who accuses me of sexual assault “ or ‘infrastructure week’ or “I’ll repeal Obamacare the day I’m elected and replace it with a better plan that covers more people“ or “I’ll be too busy to play golf once I’m elected“.

    It’s just empty speech to satisfy the extreme elements of the party, don’t get your panties in a wad, it’ll never happen.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      It’s not really a big deal to wildly promise a positive and not follow through. Worst case is you are no better off best case is they actually do what they promised. Promising a negative such as taking your property and denying it to future generations leaves you in the best case no worse off but in the worst case is royally fucking the rights of millions of people.

      Maybe for Christmas I’ll buy you a new car and paint your house vs. maybe for Christmas I’ll come steal your car and set your house on fire.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “It’s not really a big deal to wildly promise a positive and not follow through.”

        OK, it’s good to hear you say that, I guess that means everybody has stopped being upset over Barack Obama saying ”if you like your doctor you can keep him.”

        Or is that somehow different?

        1. avatar Shire-man says:

          That’s not a promise of a positive. That’s a promise there won’t be a negative. Difference.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      Or close camp Xray at Gitmo.
      Or keep your doctor and healthcare as it is.
      Or lower the oceans.
      See how that works pal?

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      the dems have staked their claim that gun control is a winning issue…they’ve been wrong about that before…let’s hope they are this time….

  34. avatar thomaspaine says:

    Lets face some cold hard facts. I am not looking forward to the 2020 elections because its not a question of whether we will have a Democratic President (and House), its just a question of who and no matter who it is some very drastic gun legislation is coming after 2020 that is fact. The real worry is how far the Republicans are going to go when it comes to comprising with the Democrats on new gun control laws. I do not think the Republicans will lose the Senate but many Republicans see it to their advantage to comprise with the Democrats on gun control as many will be up for re-election in 2022. The lower Courts as well as SCOTUS will not overturn new gun laws either that are the result of Republican comprises with the Democrats.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I don’t believe that. If it turned out to be true, that our courts are that corrupt and ignore the will of the people that blatantly, then it will be time to shoot them.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Edit don’t work! Who compromised with whom is of zero consequence to the courts, up until the point when the coalition successfully passes an amendment to the constitution.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        many cases are now moving through the court system….the results, so far….have been promising…let’s hope that bears fruit….

  35. avatar Amir says:

    AND after next years election the MSM will claim that no one said anything about seizing guns and taking away constitutional rights.
    نیوراک

  36. avatar Face Recognition on You says:

    They want guns so they can take all our rights & make us slaves & kill all the troublemakers who object!

    Massive Gas Chambers!

    Go ahead & vote for the person who will kill u & ur family…if ur that stupid.

    People who vote for any of them deserve China or Russia as their new home.

    The founders would of shown them the rope.

  37. avatar GS650G says:

    What time is Mr. Castro going to start his door to door? I need to make sure we’ve got plenty of treats.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email