Guns and the Might of the Majority

woman gun open carry constitution

(AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

By Mark PA

“Majority rules.” So those of us were taught when, once upon a time, civics was part of public school curriculum. But what of the legitimate rights of minorities? As a practical matter, they no longer exist. Perhaps they never did.

E pluribus unum — ”out of many, one”.  Our nation’s Constitution was cobbled together by representatives of a diverse nation of states, each with its own sentiments, customs and prejudices. Each was jealous of encroachment by greater states or coalitions of lesser states. The rights of minority interests were paramount in their minds.

The ultimate manifestation of this principle was the insistence on a Bill of Rights. And so ensued the never-ending struggle to realize a meaningful expression of, at least, those few enumerated rights.

Nevertheless, majorities rule. Or, more pointedly, might makes right. The will of whichever coalition of interests with the might of the majority will ultimately prevail over any sentiment to the contrary. This phenomenon seems clearly manifested in the example of potentially dangerous products wanted by a majority of avid users. Alcohol, automobiles, firearms, the list is endless. One example worthy of examination is…batteries.

Lithium-ion batteries are as ubiquitous today as the internet. Arguably, Americans would regard it their inalienable right to keep and bear such batteries as they defend their enumerated right to speak via the internet or travel using cars. Nevertheless, the means to speak or drive puts lethal power in the hands of those who deploy them. Yet, we persist in defending the rights to speech and automobiles. And we will defend our rights to lithium-ion batteries for the same reason. They provide us compensatory, overwhelming utility.

Bigstock

You may not be aware of the hazards of lithium-ion batteries. Briefly, lithium-ion batteries which do not meet safety standards for internal construction. They “. . . can overheat from moisture exposure or low-quality insulation layers between the cells. … Once the highly reactive lithium ignites, it cannot be put out with fire extinguishers … Using water to put out a lithium fire is debated, since it re-ignites, but this method is approved for airlines.” [More technical information can be found here.]

In a single incident, 32 passengers and one crew member of the Conception dive boat died in a catastrophic fire that was likely caused by lithium-ion batteries. In another incident, a “lithium battery for an e-cigarette exploded inside a woman’s purse during a Boulder City, Nevada, city council meeting Aug. 8, [2017] sending alarmed bystanders running.”

We don’t allow civilians to carry firearms onto airplanes. TSA strives mightily, though not always effectively, to screen passengers for guns. Yet they pay no attention whatsoever to batteries. They don’t even require that only certified lithium-ion batteries be brought onboard planes, whether as luggage or in the passenger compartment.

We accept this hazard because there is nothing practical that government or the airlines could do about civilian use of such batteries. They are ubiquitous.

Congress could, of course, regulate the manufacture, import, and use of lithium-ion batteries. BATFE could become BATFEB. The .gov could insist that all such batteries be certified to industry established standards. Some foreign countries would likely follow suit.

If the EU, Canada, Japan, South Korea joined with the US, the market for uncertified batteries would likely shrivel to the point of non-existence. Then, as the industry discovered better technology, standards could be raised. Prices for batteries might rise a dollar or two — a small price to pay for public safety in airplanes, subways and other crowded and therefore at-risk venues.

But this is not going to happen. The majority has ruled by the wallet and the purse. We have a right to bear lithium-ion batteries in our cell phones and e-cigarettes alike, obtained from any source, standardized or not. No use is too trivial to countenance infringement.

There are two lessons to take from this:

First, once use surpasses some threshold, it is not politically feasible to prohibit a product or practice. Alcohol prohibition failed miserably because too large a fraction of the population enjoyed using it. Marijuana prohibition has failed for the same reason. Gun prohibition would fail for the same reason.

marijuana law guns

Bigstock

Second, in some crude way, societies rationalize the utility of dangerous products. Just as the utility of lithium-ion batteries is overwhelmingly obvious (e.g., for cell phone calls to the police, fire department or emergency medical technicians), guns are overwhelmingly the preferred response to assaults on one’s home or family.

We keep and bear arms just as we keep fire extinguishers at home and (some of us) carry them in our vehicles. When seconds count, 911 is minutes away. At best. Three million Americans bought guns for the first time this year when they first awakened to the intransigent physics of the space-time continuum.

We could bring organized rioting and looting to a screeching halt by banning lithium-ion batteries, making cell phones useless for organizing rioters and looters. It’s not going to happen. Nor can we eliminate violence done with guns by deluding ourselves that we can keep them from the lawless.

Alcohol, automobiles, batteries, guns, marijuana and so forth will always be with us. The majority rules — if not a majority of voters, then those with the plurality of power in whatever issue is in play. Alcohol is regulated and taxed as are automobiles, batteries, guns and pot. All, in an earnest effort, to keep them out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. And all failing, always.

 

‘MarkPA’  is trained in economics, a life-long gun owner, NRA Instructor and Massad Ayoob graduate. He is inspired by our inalienable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and holds that having the means to defend oneself and one’s community is vital to securing them.

This article originally appeared at drgo.us and is reprinted here with permission. 

comments

  1. avatar Sam I Am says:

    To be completely ghoulish, there will come a day when Li batteries are completely banned in the U.S.: the day an Li battery causes mass deaths at a suburban, white-dominated school.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      ….and a Las Vegas country music festival? And a Gilroy Garlic festival? And a Father’s Day weekend in Chicago? And to assassinate a President in Texas? And a Walmart? And, and, and, and….

      Didn’t happen. Ain’t going to happen….. “But California banned AR-15’s and you’re from California!” ….. Yes it did, and yes I am. And, I, and millions of other Californians, don’t have any AR-15’s….. right? Of course….. keep telling yourself that.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Um, CA has not banned AR-15s. I just took mine to the range after church today.

        1. avatar James Campbell says:

          Is that AR-15 Cali compliant? With the Cali key for no semi-auto, and modified grip
          /paddle, that makes it less comfortable to hold?

  2. avatar anarchyst says:

    The same could be said about gasoline. Gasoline is a useful product with a high potential for misuse and even death, but we have learned to live with it, recognize both its danger and excellent energy potential. We even allow untrained individuals to dispense it themselves.
    Maybe, that is why there is a push for “electric vehicles”.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      You Do know that Liberals want to ban gasoline Correct? It all begins when they work to make gas more expensive. Raising the gas tax. Requiring gas be made with blends that cost more to produce.
      They are doing the same thing with guns. Their regulations are making guns cost more. Mostly in blue states.

      1. avatar Someone says:

        It’s hard to come up with something that Liberals don’t want to ban or at least tax to death.

      2. avatar Ing says:

        The stupid ethanol blending mandate in my state ruined my lawnmower’s engine. Cost me $400. Small potatoes, I know. But over time, even small potatoes add up to a big damn pile.

        Same with progressivism; the people who call themselves progressive liberals (because they live in bizarro world where everything is backwards, apply the proper antonyms to arrive at the truth: regressive authoritarians) are social vampires and economic parasites.

        You’ll never entirely get ride of people like them, just like you’ll never get rid of ticks, leeches, and mosquitoes. But we’ve got to keep swatting them and pulling them off the body politic whenever we find them. Over time, the parasite load adds up, too, and fatally weakens the host. Removing them is a matter of survival.

        1. avatar James Campbell says:

          Saul Alinsky defines this situation in Rules for Radicals.
          The leftard game plan is to overload the host until it dies. This shows just how evil the Dem party actually is.

    2. avatar Red in CO says:

      Yep! The most lethal school massacre in American history was carried out with a whole lot of gasoline, some chains, and a single bullet from a .22

  3. avatar LifeSavor says:

    So, what actually constitutes a majority in today’s political arena? The majority of media outlets going anti-gun (and anti-Trump). The same for social media. Google and Facebook have de-monitized many conservative voices and are censoring conservative thought. Even gun stores have had their ability to transact business limited by financial processing agencies. Almost everyone on TTAG sees what is happening. These powerful agents may not represent the majority of US citizens, but they control the largest centers of speech. They are actively and (I think, criminally) working to shape our elections.

    It seems that almost everyone agrees the lithium-ion batteries are convenient; some even think they are necessary. No conservative-liberal conversation about that.

    But on the political front, majorities can be shaped by powerful interests that are not elected, but willingly given their power by their user communittes. This is a dangerous trend, a dangerous time for our Republic.

    No matter how displeased you are with Trump, support him in this upcoming election.
    The alternative is mob-rule.

  4. avatar Dennis says:

    What we now have is, “might of the noisy”!

  5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I am going to propose a counter-argument: massive passion rules the day rather than a majority versus a minority.

    While massive passion usually coincides with majority interests and therefore public policy, minority interests do prevail if massive passion is weighty enough. This takes on two forms:
    1) brute force
    2) majority capitulation

    In terms of brute force, if the minority interest is sufficiently passionate and ruthless, they will impose their will on the majority via brute force and rule the day (or week, or year, or decade, or century, or …).

    In terms of majority capitulation, the majority still opposes the minority interest — the majority is simply too apathetic to actively oppose the minority interest which is then able to prevail. An example of this would be the movement in the 1990s that homosexuality is okay/good and the majority should accept it. Well, the majority rejected homosexuality as being okay/good — and were too apathetic to actively oppose it so the minority push prevailed.

    And elections are examples of majority capitulation. In some elections the majority of the population supports Candidate A and yet they are too apathetic to vote so a minority of the population supports and votes for Candidate B who wins the election. The very same dynamic also applies to some United States Presidential elections, where a majority of the population supports one major party candidate and yet the other major party candidate wins the election and becomes President.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      U_C,

      Your thesis works because the majority of ‘news’ and social media are backing the minority. Corporations, also. The ‘noisy’ minorities are doing the bidding of much more powerful forces that want to re-shape (destroy) this country.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I agree — and that is simply another example of majority capitulation.

        Let’s put it this way. Suppose our nation learns tomorrow beyond a shadow of any doubt that a famous multi-billion dollar corporation was in the process of rounding up a million women from the United States and shipping them to North Korea to be sex slaves — and that the United States government refused to hold that corporation accountable. The majority of the people in our nation would NOT support that and WOULD take it upon themselves to exact justice on that famous multi-billion dollar corporation. Thus, even though a powerful corporation was a minority and wanted to do something, the majority would not capitulate.

        The problem is that the majority in our nation does not care enough to effectively oppose the minority interests trying to dismantle our nation. Thus, the majority is capitulating even though they do not agree/approve/support the minority push.

    2. avatar California Richard says:

      If that’s true, then why do leftist maniacs always destroy liberal cities and stay away from (R)ed or even purple voting districts? ……. maybe because it never ends well for them: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11890037/tiny-blm-protest-heavily-armed-counter-rifle-ohio/amp/

      Even out here in Blue California, they’re scared to venture in to the (R)ed parts of the state. They limit their destruction to San Francisco, Los Angels, and Oakland/Berkeley (Berkeley is esentially a radical liberal suburb of Oakland).
      http://rynerohla.com/index.html/election-maps/california-maps/ (click on: 2016 GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS BY PRECINCT)

      1. avatar James Campbell says:

        A friend in CA sent me links to a few vids of the “protestors” (violent and obnoxious type) who ventured into his more conservative neighborhood.
        Several of the protesters who stuck around (and pressed their luck too far), ended up running off with little more then a single shoe and their pants still on. The majority of the residents where yelling for their neighbors to break off the confrontation, and allow the little leftards to run home to their mommies and secure basements.

    3. avatar 9mm Johnson says:

      You can’t be both pro-freedom and anti-homosexuality. Anything two or more consenting adults want to get together and do to each other is cool with me, regardless if you think it’s “icky” or not. I can’t believe our Supreme Court even had to rule that you can’t fire someone from a job because of who they choose to have sex with or identify as. Believe whatever you want, but quit trying to inflict your beliefs on everyone else.

      Equal means equal. All people.

      1. avatar Peter Gunn says:

        I’ve always found it curious why so many people who espouse steadfast support of “freedom” are also inordinately obsessed with other people’s sexuality and what substances other people choose to consume. Frankly, it’s bizarre.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Believe whatever you want, but quit trying to inflict your beliefs on everyone else.”

        Everyone tries to inflict their beliefs on everyone else.

        All law is belief. All law inflicts beliefs on others. There are no objective standards for any law, only the opinion of the powerful (or the majority, or both). People who object to having someone else’s beliefs forced upon them, are at the same time attempting to inflict the opposite belief on their alleged oppressor.

        There is a difference between freedom and liberty. Won’t go into that now, but you may find the reading interesting.

        Freedom ultimately means unbridled licentiousness*. Any restraint on human activity is anti-freedom. Anyone proposing to limit licentiousness is imposing their beliefs on others.

        Essentially, “don’t inflict your beliefs on me” is a vapid response from someone wanting to have others restrained, while demanding exemption for themselves.

        *in execution, utter chaos/anarchy

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Sam I Am for the win!

          I only oppose homosexuality for one simple reason: that it is destructive to society.

          Now, before everyone foams at the mouth and screams, listen to the simple and compelling explanation. All societies need two things to be strong, stable, and enduring:
          1) mentally and spiritually healthy core families
          2) strong young people up-and-coming to replace aging people

          Without those two things, a society is finished in short order — they either go extinct or an outside society takes over when the existing society is sufficiently weak which is inevitable sooner or later.

          The problem with homosexual behavior is that it provides an alternate outlet for sexual gratification that undermines a solid marriage and family — and fails to produce the next generation. Let’s be honest: there are a large number of sacrifices and great challenges to a happy and productive marriage as well as raising children. Why go to all that trouble if you can divert to homosexual gratification without any responsibilities?

          Now to really blow your minds. A deeper investigation reveals that, when a society accepts and embraces homosexual behavior, that is simply a symptom of a much greater underlying condition: that society has elevated self-gratification, immediate gratification, and zero-responsibility above all. In other words feelings are supreme over everything else. And when a society gets to that point, they soon descend into chaos, become disorganized and weak, and enable an outside society to take over. When that happens, at best the outside society simply absorbs the selfish and weakened society. A more bleak result: the outside society exploits/enslaves the selfish and weakened society. And the horrific potential result: the outside society simply annihilates the selfish and weakened society.

          Like it or not, those are facts. Of course the people who elevate feelings above all will foam at the mouth and scream and yell anyway. Nevertheless, I choose to promote liberty and strong, healthy traditional families.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Glad you found my rant interesting enough to read it through.

        3. avatar Peter Gunn says:

          “Like it or not, those are facts.” Common nonsense.

          There has always been, and will always be homosexuality- and it is not exclusive to primates. There are more humans on earth now than ever before- human population has always grown. Always. And there’s always been homosexuality. Always.

          I’ve always found it bizarre how obsessed people get over other people’s sexuality. Most peculiar, really.

        4. avatar Peter Gunn says:

          And it would be remiss to disregard the concurrency of frailty and brutality manifested in the enigmatic male ego.

        5. avatar James Campbell says:

          Sam I Am wins best post of the day here on TTAG, hands down.
          I’m always amused at how the trolls on TTAG attempt to bait regular commenters with terms accusing them of being gay. “Light in the loafers” for example.
          Just because most here are not gay, doesn’t mean we disagree with (or hate) a person who lives a gay lifestyle.
          It seem to me the term “liberal” is more a Republican value then a democratic one.

        6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Peter Gunn,

          I have always found it bizarre how obsessed people are with supporting homosexual behavior — an unnatural choice and a genetic dead-end that weakens a society.

          I will leave you with a simple question: does John Q. Public have the “freedom” to share top secret military weapons systems designs and top-secret national defense strategies with China or North Korea? The answer is an unequivocal, “NO!” because that would weaken our nation and make us vulnerable to takeover and/or invasion. In the same vein, I do not support homosexual behavior because it weakens our nation and makes us vulnerable to takeover and/or invasion.

          People who support homosexual behavior are equivalent to people who don’t want to pay road taxes because they exclusively use bicycles instead of cars on the roads. They want all the benefits of roads and the requisite taxes that everyone else pays without paying any taxes themselves. So it is with people who choose homosexual partners rather than marriage and children: they want all the benefits that married couples (who produce the next generation) bring to society without incurring the costs of marriage and child bearing themselves.

          Other than that problem, I could care less what people do in their homes.

          As for the world’s population: the world’s population would go to zero within 110 years if everyone chose homosexuality over marriage and childbearing. And using your argument, murder is okay as long there are a lot of people in the world to keep things going.

          Of course homosexual supporters don’t care about the facts — just like I predicted earlier.

        7. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Right on! Also applies equally to the question of choice.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Thanx, Larry

          There have been too many (4) positive responses to my commentary on this. Beginning to fear someone will take my Idiot card away.

      3. avatar former water walker says:

        Sure I can…millions of blood bought Christian’s believe it’s a sin. Happy “marriage” was voted down in a myriad # of states. Hijacked by unelected black robed judges. And now a so-called conservative judge(Kavanugh) is the leader of the pack. Argue all you want-I don’t care!

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          OOoo. New terminology, possibly just made up? Dafook manner of superstitious nonsense is a “blood bought christian”. Sounds like rampant silliness, is it supposed to mean something special? And I’ve been in a happy marriage for near 53 years now, somebody made that illegal?

      4. avatar Peter Gunn says:

        And the most vociferous exculpation of malicious judgement consistently comes from those who have been indoctrinated, from their formative years, to believe that evil thoughts and actions are permissible when sanctioned by the divine.

        1. avatar James Campbell says:

          This is the reason the left is working so hard to remove the terms trust, faith, and “God” from everything.
          The left want to see the government and associated beauracracy replace it.

        2. avatar Peter Gunn says:

          sanction verb
          sanctioned; sanctioning /saŋ(k)-​sh(ə-​)niŋ/
          1: to make valid or binding usually by a formal procedure (such as ratification)
          2: to give effective or authoritative approval or consent to

          I should have used the less ambiguous ‘sanctifying’ for better clarity.

          sanc·ti·fy verb
          sanctifying /saNG(k)təˌfī/
          1: to set apart as or declare holy; consecrate
          2: make legitimate or binding by religious sanction

          And, yes- I believe the government does indeed aspire to be more autocratic than religion.

        3. avatar Peter Gunn says:

          Correction: ‘sanctified’.

      5. avatar Female' jackson says:

        Keep that garbage to yourself…. WE DON’T FKN CARE WHAT KIND OF SICK CHIT YOU DO…. BUT WHEN YOU CAN’T OR WON’T SHUT YOUR DISGUSTING MOUTH ABOUT IT, THAT’S WHEN THE PROBLEMS ARISE….
        Go stick a dildo up your keister and GTFO OF MY KIDS HEADS…. YOU SICKO CREEP…

  6. avatar Peter Gunn says:

    You’re all fools
    The mob rules

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      I love this album! RIP Ronnie James Dio. I never saw him with sabbath. But the two shows I saw him in nashville were INCREDIBLE!!

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        btw
        “The sign Of the Southern cross”
        Chilling, spine tingling.

      2. avatar Ing says:

        Horns up! \m/

        1. avatar James Campbell says:

          \m/

  7. avatar LifeSavor says:

    MarkPA,

    In my post above, I forgot to say thank you for the thought-provoking, and well-thought essay!

  8. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    The mob rules when it is allowed to rule. my mob is good, your mob is bad. Only problem is controlling which ever mob is in action, after a while they are uncontrollable by their creators.

    1. avatar PMinFl says:

      Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss………………

  9. avatar GS650G says:

    When they start rounding up people for their own good the people with guns will be the last to go. And they will take a few with them. They don’t give a shit about crime prevention, it’s about creating the environment Germany, VZ, Cambodia and other fun factories had.

    When you are faced with the choice you won’t have any choice.

  10. avatar Shire-man says:

    Majority rules = lowest common denominator.

    It’s great if you have a room temperature IQ or want to lord over people with room temperature IQs. For everyone else, the actual human minority, it’s a miserable state of affairs rife with cynicism and self medicating until time erases you and morlocks inherit the earth.

  11. avatar Darkman says:

    Majority or Minority…The more important factor is Courage. As I see it now the vocal Minority is winning the battles because they have the Courage to fight for their cause. They are by far getting the agenda advanced while the silent Majority sits back and allows it to happen. Whether out of disgust of the cause, waiting for law to be restored or fear of reprisal. Regardless they are winning and will come out ahead in their cause. Because they were/are willing to fight. Not sit behind a keyboard and commando.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Darkman,

      Professional, paid agitators stoking the looting and burning. Not a grass-roots movement. Much more difficult to organize a grass-roots ‘silent majority’ as a counter. I cannot agree that it is apathy on the conservative side; people recognize that going head-to-head with Antifa or BLM could lead to violence. In the liberal cities, where much of this is occurring, the police will not keep the peace and will be ordered to side with the protesters/rioters, coming down hard on the conservatives.

      So, conservatives take a different tactic, preparing to defend, and knowing the public violence and hate will weaken the left’s support.

      Then, again, I am a knucklehead optimist who is fully prepared to defend family, neighbors, and self.

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        Loosing is still loosing and seeing the way the pendulum has been swinging over the last 50 years. Especially the last 10. Staying silent, inactive and playing defense has allowed the moral and ethical part of Our society to slowly decay into the rot We see today. This is the same philosophy the Jews applied in the 1930’s. Believing it can’t really get that bad and at some point things will get better. Even the German people turned an eye to what was happening. Believing in couldn’t lead to their downfall. Besides it wasn’t really hurting them. “The only thing necessary for the Triumph of Evil is for good men to do nothing”. Edmund Burke
        Never has there been a more appropriate statement than now. Evil has triumphed in every society that has allowed it to. Sometimes it takes more courage to decide to fight. Than it does to fight. In the end each must decide. Is Freedom worth the fight. Choose wisely.

        1. avatar Darkman says:

          At the end of the fight for Freedom. If it dies. Does it really matter if the protesters and rioters were paid ?

    2. avatar Weapon of War says:

      You’ve got it right, Darkman. Nobody will do anything. Even if Biden gets elected and they start rounding us up. It’s been all talk from the getgo. The Democrat swine will steal the election, then ban the guns and not any action will occur from the right except angry comments on the net. Should’ve been an uprising when fucking algore tried stealing the election back at the turn of the century.
      Wake the fuck up. We aren’t waiting for a civil war. It’s here right now, and the enemy is winning “biggly”. Time to muster! The Redcoats are here! Or are you afraid you won’t be able to make your Harley payment or go on that camping trip? Shit’s about to get real, and really quickly. These Marxists are playing for keeps this time.

      1. avatar George Washington says:

        I wish it were true..I wish it would start NOW!
        It won’t though… whites are pu$$ys…
        The communists have already infiltrated the government…. and nobody is doing anything….
        All I can do is wait and see if the real Americans will stand up….. when/if they ever do, then we will know what to do….

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I did not see your endorsement for a straight Republican ticket in 2020 and 2024.

  12. avatar jwm says:

    Riots happened before cell phones. Before phones. Before electricity.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      And they were dealt with.

  13. avatar Mad Max says:

    That’s why the Left wants to destroy the Electoral College.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “That’s why the Left wants to destroy the Electoral Collare.”

      As an excellent exercise in civics, it would be telling to watch how the leftists/Dims react if Trump wins the popular, and loses the EC.

      1. avatar Elrond says:

        sam sez:
        As an excellent exercise in civics, it would be telling to watch how the leftists/Dims react if Trump wins the popular, and loses the EC.

        that’s how trump got elected, so i suspect most of us would call that karma…

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “that’s how trump got elected, so i suspect most of us would call that karma…”

          That’s one aspect. Would the Dims tolerate claims that Trump actually won the election, and the Repubs were justified in seeking to eliminate the EC? Or would the Dims accept that their election is illegitimate because the EC is undemocratic?

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Not an exercise in anything, if you don’t know the answer you have been asleep for literally years.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Not an exercise in anything, if you don’t know the answer you have been asleep for literally years.”

          It would not be for my edification. I already know everything. Except for what I don’t know. Which doesn’t matter because if I don’t know it, it doesn’t need knowing.

          Or something.

    2. avatar PMinFl says:

      How many states have enacted legislation to allow electors to vote for the candidate with he popular majority? I think it’s 14…therefore Mr. Trump better get both the electoral and popular vote , see it’s rigged !

  14. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    The Constitution was written for a specific group of people, the Founding Fathers and their posterity. In The Federalist Papers, Federalist #2, John Jay wrote the following:

    “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

    Thanks to “diversity” our Constitution no longer works. Diversity always leads to war. Today we are reaping the whirlwind sown by allowing immigrants to come to our nation and to gain citizenship.

    1. avatar PMinFl says:

      Sad but true.

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