Last night’s Democratic debate was something of a snoozer. Uh . . . Where was I? Oh right, former First Lady Hillary Clinton reckons that “guns in and of themselves will not make Americans safer” and “it’s not the appropriate response to terrorism.” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders doesn’t want to discourage people from owning guns, apparently. All he wants to do: “create a consensus” on gun control. Judging from Bernie’s wish list, that word doesn’t mean what the self-avowed democratic socialist wants it to mean . . .
Sanders reckons gun owners are down with strengthening the background checks, closing the “gun show loophole” and making sure that “military weapons designed to kill people are not in the hands of civilians.” How do we join this consensus of which you speak? You know what? Never mind.
After that pronouncement, Governor O’Malley bullied his way in to attack Sanders and Clinton for their waffling on guns, and went on a tear on “combat assault weapons.” Hello? What good would a ban do given that there are millions of “assault rifles” already in circulation? Would you confiscate them? “No I would not,” O’Malley finally answered, with a straight face. He then went on another tear on “combat assault weapons” and his opponents’ records on gun control.
Dander up, Bernie referred to “fully automatic rifles” in his subsequent wander down gun control memory lane, mistakenly claiming the pro-gun side wanted to protect the sale of machine guns. Well I do, but you know what I mean. Anyway, win! When Democrats scrap over who’s the more rabid gun control advocate everyone knows on which side of the firearms freedom fence they sit. The wrong side.
Statists do not allow the citizens to reach consensus, they impose consensus.
They were like a pack of wolves fighting over a piece of meat.
More like hyenas. Much more.
Probably a closer analogy than you think, since female hyenas have a vestigial penis.
TMI?
All mammalian females have a “vestigial penis” – it’s called clitoris. In hyenas (and some other species), it’s just large enough as a matter of norm to be prominent.
Democracy – two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
Why do we as a nation have to put up with such nonsense?
Isn’t there anybody on the national stage who represents all those pro-gun Democrats we keep hearing about hereabouts?
There was Jim Webb. Too bad O’Malley seems to have beaten Webb for the Dem #3 spot, and as a 2A supporter Sanders is a friend of Fudds at best. But no surprise, our electoral system encourages left-right polarization in the primaries.
I don’t think I’m going to far out on a limb to predict that Webb would have folded, gun-wise, if he had advanced farther into the national Dem scene. Even with generally left-friendly polls coming out showing a solid majority of Americans opposing more gun control generally, and “assault weapons” bans particularly, all of the Dem candidates are doubling down on both.
I would rank them from best to worst on their opinion on guns as follows:
Sanders
Clinton
O’Malley
But that is like trying to decide which state is best between, CA, NY and NJ. They all are bad. But then only a few of the republicans are really strong on gun issues and really understand the issues.
It’s more like arguing virginity among whores…
You’re right about there being some RINOs who are weak on guns, but any Republican is better than the three above.
Agreed. Even Christie is better and it is hard to believe he is better than anybody.
Are we sure Christie is “better” and not just “different?”
This is telling. After all the gun control bluster leading up to these debates, it seems to me they are really soft pedaling gun control here. They are mentioning a couple of the “hot button” terms, but where is the call for the repeal, rewording or even just dissing 2A we’ve heard earlier? Where is the “Australian-style Program?” Re-enabling full lawsuit rights against gun owners and seller? National gun registry? Mandatory sharing of state databases on guns and gun owners? No guns allowed for anyone convicted of any crime or even been accused of domestic violence or who has any condition that could make them mentally unstable? No semi-auto weapons at all?
It think that shows how scared they are of the gun vote. I hope none of us is fooled. I think we should make sure their fears are realized.
The key takeaway: Regardless of who the republican nominee is, the POTG need to rally behind him/her. I knew a lot of people who refused to get behind Romney because he was/is a RINO. You know what? He would have been better than the alternative. Sometimes you have to suck it up and support the lesser of two evils.
Cthulhu 2016
Why choose the lesser evil?
WWCC (What Would Cthulhu Carry)?
Well, and I can’t believe I’m saying this as a 9mm man, but if stealing souls is in question, wouldn’t Cthulhu carry a .45? In a 1911 platform?
Unfortunately, I agree. Vote your conscience in the primaries, but after that, vote republican if you don’t want more gun control. I still remember people saying Obama wouldn’t try any gun control. And now we have import bans attempts at ammo bans and possibly more executive orders coming.
The republic will fall into a bloody fight before anymore unconstitutional gun control laws are passed. Will you do your part?
Is he saying “Combine Assault Weapon”? What is that?
Played too much Half LIfe 2…
Bernie Sanders is as pro-gun as Australia and the U.K. You can still get guns their too but only the guns that Sanders would approve of as well as the bureaucratic obstacles that go with it. Pass.
Clinton, nothing to say here that has already been said about her.
O’Malley, haha you are wrong you tool you can still get those evil type of guns you don’t like in Maryland, the state you claimed where you successfully banned them, you just limited the pool of availability but you can still get AR’s in their normal configurations albeit in different calibers or heavier barrel (5.56), Vz-58’s, SCAR’s, and slews of new ones coming out. By the way, the U.S. is not Maryland so you won’t be able to shove your pet ideas down our throats like you can in your gentrified playground you came from which you should go back to. This from an ex-Marylander that you drove away with your hostile policies to my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
*gerrymandered playground
Thanks for taking one for the team RF. I was able to handle 30seconds-I saw the hildebeast blathering on and started puking in my mouth. What a pathetic trio…vote Republican.
Same thing happened to me–as soon as Hillary! started bloviating I had to quit.
I can’t believe no one’s giving these people crap about squirreling the debates away at night on a Saturday, when the Republicans are on prime-time. And then they have the gall to talk about ‘consensus’ and ‘popular support’ from such a cloistered position. You don’t ‘create’ consensus, you recognize it. Consensus is not majority public opinion; it recognizes the needs of the minority and their civil protections.
That was worse then picking the best between 3 evils.
There is something fundamentally wrong with them all over there. Including the audience.
Do they even live in the same country most of us do??
Even sadder. Do they actually believe themselves??
I could go on forever……………..unbelievably sad.
Communist here to say the proletariat must stay armed. The democratic party is a liberal joke. The gun control paradox in this new era of liberalism comes twofold: in the face of gun control the bourgeoisie will still retain access to firearms in the face of gun control, but it is they who need it the least. This is why you must not vote republican either, they, with their worship of neoliberalism, will succumb to the social demands of the American left of center just as they have to economic interests of the bourgeoisie. The only sure protection of the marginalized and the workers is by self-reliance,community organization, and the barrel of the gun.
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party.” – Mao Tse-Tung
“mistakenly claiming the pro-gun side wanted to protect the sale of machine guns.”
Oh, he’s *not* mistaken. I absolutely want to protect the sale of machine-guns. I want to roll back and repeal the NFA of ’34 and the Hughes Amendment and make buying a BAR or Thompson by mail through the Sears catalog as easy and red tape free as it was back in 1930.
Bernie’s mistake is in thinking that saying “wants to protect the sale of machine guns” is an insult or something that any of us should wince away from and protest against the “unwarranted” characterization.
Our response, and the response of any so-called Pro-gun candidate on our side, should be “Yes. So?”
And then nail him to the wall on it and make *him* defend his assertion that it’s a Bad Thing.
” I want to roll back and repeal the NFA of ’34 and the Hughes Amendment and make buying a BAR or Thompson by mail through the Sears catalog as easy and red tape free as it was back in 1930.”
Oh my word, yes.
BAR or Thomson. Please. By mail order. Or direct sale. No NICS. No 4473. No tax stamps.
No infringement.
(you picked two of my dream guns as your example!)
That was no debate.. it was a bunch of idiots comparing their ideas in a way that leaves the viewer wonder how they are going to pull off tuition free school for everyone, free health care for everyone, a fossil fuel free society, and wiping out ISIS…all that and salvage the middle class too… I cant believe anyone with an internet connection would believe these idiot pie in the sky ideas, when the interest only payment on the debt will be 1 Trillion by 2020…
The sad & frustrating truth is that the internet is merely a larger echo-chamber than the msm alone. The left and low-information voters can’t be bothered to click outside their comfort zone, and search-engines helpfully provides only links that don’t run contrary to anything other than their favorite outlets of liberal pablum.
It’s amazing how these politicians keep repeating the same false statements over and over and over. Generally, when people prove something I say false I adjust my theories and statements.
What is it with this lady??? If it’s not a “village” being required to raise fatherless children, it’s a “coalition” to take our guns away, and make people that could/would be a hero, totally defenseless. Why does she think it’s always got to involve a large number of people to solve a problem?
Comments are closed.