Previous Post
Next Post

During the inaugural episode of the now Letterman-less The Late Show, new host Stephen Colbert asked presidential candidate Jeb Bush about gun control. The question and Bush’s answer didn’t make the cut. Thankfully our good friends at The Trace flagged the omission and linked us to the YouTube upload of the missing Q&A. Bush’s answer probably pleased billionaire ballistic bully boy Michael Bloomberg’s pseudo-journalists . . .

The former Florida governor touted the Sunshine State’s 72-hour waiting period for [non-CHL] handgun purchases and sang the praises of their background check system. More than that, Bush the Younger II agreed that the NRA fights mental health checks and suggested that the way to “fight back” is “at the state level.” It gets worse.

Jeb! reiterates his position that gun rights should vary from state-to-state. You know: New York City isn’t Vermont.

Colbert pushed back – amazingly enough. He pointed out that the right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional right. One of those federal deals. The aspiring President played the 10th Amendment card: the states can take that right away, right away.

And right away we can see that Jeb Bush is not the pro-gun Republican presidential candidate pro-gunners are looking for. The best that can be said is that he’s not actively in favor of gun control. Pretty weak beer. Not to coin a phrase, stay thirsty, my friends.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • He has an A+ rating with the NRA after several years of being under the microscope. He may not understand the plight of the POTG, but he knows how to support what the NRA is supporting and so far he’s done so 100% of the time. Not 99% of the time, 100% of the time.

      • Obviously the “A+” NRA rating means diddly squat in this case. Psuedo-anti statist Republicans are worse for the 2a than blathering statist democrats. Wolf in sheep’s clothing, and all that.


        • Florida’s crime rate didn’t drop because of any gun control nonsense, it dropped because of concealed carry Shall Issue laws passing there in the early 1990’s. It dropped so precipitously for Florida residents (because any random person might now be armed) that the criminals went to robbing mainly disarmed tourists leaving the airports. This happened so much, with deaths involved, that Germany .. for one .. told its citizens to stop flying to Florida.

          ’72-hour waiting period’, what an idiot.

        • “This happened so much, with deaths involved, that Germany .. for one .. told its citizens to stop flying to Florida.”

          Florida used actual ‘common sense’ and required all rental cars to remove all decals that identified the car as a rental and made the license plate indistinguishable from private cars.

          The predators could no longer identify rental car ‘prey’…

        • Well said. I will not vote for another statist. The difference between another Bush and a democrat statist is a matter of style and not substance. Won’t get fooled again.

        • Exactly. The NRA also drooled all over Romney and even lied about his anti-gun record, purely because he has an R after his name. Hell, the fact that Christie has a C rating from the NRA shows how biased they are.

      • The NRA likes to preserve access and not burn bridges, too. Having a seat at the table counts for a lot. So some grade inflation is par for the course.

        Also, the NRA doesn’t necessarily grade by the same standard as you or I might. They’re ok with NICS and background checks, for example. I’m not. So a given grade may not have a universal interpretation.

        • I could get behind NICS real well, with a few changes. 1) If you are refused, when you should have been approved, your firearm is free, the ATF pays for it (full retail price) out of their operating budget, which is not increased. And 2) If you are refused, and you should have been refused, you spend at least the next 5 years in a Federal prison. The way it works now, it costs a fortune and accomplishes nothing.

        • Even with those changes, NICS would still be a de facto gun registration scheme, which I oppose.

          The closest to any of that which I might support, would be a big stamp across your state-issued I.D. that reads ” PROHIBITED POSSESSOR” or similar indicator of inelligibility. That way everyone is checked in advance and there’s no government record of the purchase transaction.

          That gets into the whole issue of disqualifiers (nonviolent felonies?), but we’re already in that issue as it is and probably should re-evaluate the criteria.

          Failing that, we might at least consider throwing open NICS to any and everyone to check out buyers, not just FFLs. The Dems routinely reject that, though, because they want to preserve that choke point of FFLs so they can throttle them out of existence.

        • “2) If you are refused, and you should have been refused, you spend at least the next 5 years in a Federal prison.” So, lets say an angry ex girlfriend files a restraining order on you that has not been served. You have no knowledge of the RO and you should be sent to prison for this if you are refused a gun purchase? Think before you post. Dont think it doesnt happen because during an interview for a security clearance is how I found out about an RO from 2 years prior that was never served.

      • @roy

        Did you not read the article and watch the video.

        Bush supporter till the end even when he’s a democrat in republicans clothing. This is why this country is turning to shii.

        Same with women voting for Hillary just cause she’s a woman.

      • At Roy

        Roy, supporting the 2nd means nothing if your actions change our culture to the point were the public is against it.

        His views on immigration favors more mass immigration from the 3rd world/Latin America…Guess how they vote?






        If you bring in millions of them they will make America the same poverty stirken, 3rd world slum they have left…’

        We have taken in the 3rd world for too long, time to secure the border, deport the illegals, and limit legal immigration.

      • Recall that Jeb!’s daddy was an honest to goodness NRA member. And then remember how well that worked out for 2A rights.

    • Several on the Republican side. NONE on the demtard side.

      The eurotwits will HATE any of the conservatives which is good enough.

      • >> The eurotwits will HATE any of the conservatives which is good enough.

        Hm… are you seriously implying that your primary criteria for a candidate is how much he’s hated by people you dislike?

        • You didn’t ask me but I’d say mostly ‘yes’, when those other people are pure evil. Not a different opinion not misguided, not even merely wrong. EVIL.

          If they are against it,must be something right about it, whatever (or whoever) ‘it’ is.

          • Given that I’m probably one of the “EVIL people”, what with my overall liberal bend, I’m not sure if this will even be heard, but I do have the duty to at least point this out: if you don’t know why the “EVIL people” hate it, nor can you yourself identify why it is good, then perhaps it’s not actually good, and the “EVIL people” hate it for a reason that has nothing to do with being good or evil?

            I mean, Hitler hated meat, being a vegetarian and all. But I don’t think that should count into your moral computation regarding whether meat is good or evil, and you certainly shouldn’t order vegetarian just to spite the Nazis.

    • I wouldn’t call the average ammosexual “sane.” Also wouldn’t say that they were of decent moral quality and fit to have any say in the directions of the country, either.

    • Why the F do you care? Do we start question which insane left-wing statist politician you Swedes find acceptable? Plus, I figure you had bigger things to worry about, like the horde of Syrian, mostly young men “refugees” coming your way.

    • I hate to say I told (all of) you so, but… I told you so, yesterday. Under the question of the day, I posted a comment, of which I’ll paste a small section here: I’m not sure if I trust those high ratings of any candidate who is not a gun owner. And guess what? I was right. According to that chart, Jeb is not a gun owner, yet he managed an A+ NRA rating. It’s rather obvious to me that as someone who doesn’t own guns, Jeb might have no problem taking gun rights away from others. Which is exactly what he’s talking about now. The sad thing is, he could be the nominee.

      • He could be the nominee, but I think it’s extremely unlikely. He has way too much baggage and way too much “moderate” stigma to survive long in the Republican primaries. The only reason he has any traction at all now is because he has a few really rich friends bankrolling him and because the media loves the idea of rehashing all of his brother’s failings (both real and perceived) through his candidacy.

      • He has been working for years to get into line for the presidency. He has been more forward thinking than Mit Romney who joined the NRA in 2006 in anticipation of running, while JB has been a NRA member since 1986.

        The Colbert “interview” seemed scripted/pre-planned and by extension designed to tell the audience “what they want to hear”.

        I think there have been enough Bushes and Clintons in office, no more.

    • Go to pencil in an acceptable candidate. That’s what I will do. It won’t make much practical difference, I grant you. But you can at least face what comes next knowing that you did what you could, with honor.

      I was big on the concept of holding my nose and voting for a RINO if that’s what it took to get back the legislature and at least slow down the leftist agenda in 2014. Then they stabbed us in the back. I won’t be fooled again.

      • Everyone needs to go out and cast their vote it’s very important to Put your $0.10 worth Intuit. So that we can get a really good turnout this election this November And remember I don’t care who you vote for Just make sure it’s a pro guns pro Second Amendment candidateOr this country will be in real trouble So everybody needs to vote. Please!

        • I don’t think I could pull for Hillary anymore than Bush, but yeah I get your point. Might as well do it while I’m still healthy enough to be of service to the cause.

        • If the problem is the R and D parties keep giving us interchangeable candidates, the answer is to quit voting Rs and Ds into office.

        • Invest in popcorn. 99% of ammosexuals are cowards and aren’t going to take on the police and military. Of the 1% that try it will be a good cleansing of the worst elements of our society and a decent show.

        • You don’t have to vote Democrat, do what I have done, what RINOs like to call “throwing your vote away”. There will be people you’ve never heard of on the ballot, pick one. He/she won’t win, but it will be recorded that you got up, and went to vote. Neither candidate earned your vote, so you voted as close as you could get to “None of the above”.

      • I’m torn on the concept. I’ve done both, held my nose for a RINO, and voted for the Independent/Libertarian candidate. Yeah I voted, but neither option made any difference and I didn’t feel there was any honor in the process. I’m starting to feel there is more honor in refusing to participate in the charade the parties have made of the electoral process. And I have voted in every presidential election since Ford-Carter.

        • Here’s how I’m thinking about it right now. The Constitution is a contract, binding on both parties, under which the people consent to relinquish a portion of their sovereignty in exchange for certain services needed for a strong and successful nation. Part of our end of the contract is to cast informed votes. One could make a very sound argument that the feds have been in breech of this contract at least since Woodrow Wilson, but that’s not the point at the moment. If there comes a time when a large group of Americans feel that the Feds are in serious enough breech that the Feds no longer have any legitimate authority, I want to know in my heart that I myself was not in breech. I suppose at that point the only prize for having honored the contract will be the ability to smugly pat ourselves on the back. But that does mean something to me.

        • @Old Ben

          “One could make a very sound argument that the feds have been in breech of this contract at least since Woodrow Wilson…”

          One could make a sound argument that the fed has been in breech of contract since Jackson’s presidency beginning with federal land purchases around the turn of the 19th century. He even remarked upon the questionable legality of his action and worried about the precedent it set.

          It only got worse from there. Lincoln, Roosevelt, Wilson, Roosevelt, etc. We could all name presidents who overstepped. More importantly we should point out that incrementalism happens whether it’s part of a long-term plan or not. Erosion of the freedoms won from England began the day our forefathers earned them.

        • I have always felt that it was my duty as a citizen to vote, and I believe that the Constitution represents the best political construct that man has created, however no one living ever signed it as a contract, although there are a number of politicians that have sworn to uphold it. I’ve never sworn an oath but I’m willing to voluntarily uphold my end of the bargain. When I see how Bush interprets states rights and the 2A, it concerns me that he’s not interested in holding up his end of the deal. When you have access to the job description, I expect you to read it before the interview, and in his case have an accurate understanding.

      • Great, all you die hards want to hand the country over to the otherside and have at least another 4 years of Obama type leadership. Oh wait, you want to hit the reset button — for what a civil war? Which too many of you are ill equiped to deal with — mentally, phsyically, logistically.

        Jev isn’t my first choice. Not even my second. But if he wins the nomination, we ae left with Him appointing the next 1,2 or 3 suprme court judges. And if not him, and any of the Heller 5 leave, then you can kiss Heller/McDonald and anything else we won at the Court goodbye.

        While many of us are displeased with what the Court has done this past year, it remains the best way ot overturn laws in states where we have no hope of gaining the majority in the legislature or Governor’s office.

        Yea wirte in Mickey Mouse, stay home, skip the race onthe ballot. and all you do is hand CSGV and all those creatins on facebook the means to live out their objectives.

        • If we elect Hillary (or Sanders, or any other dem), we get leftist justices. If we elect Bush, we get more like Roberts who will go along with what he perceives to be the populist position instead of deciding based on the law. Either way, we get lawless justices.

          On other fronts, Bush will do little to reverse the horrible policies of Obama. Like all RINOS, he’s just fine with growing government, since he is convinced he can run the show better than the other guy. And, of course, he could run it better than the other guy. But the beast will still grow, things will continue to slowly get worse, and the idiot voters will decide to give someone like Bernie a go. Then, the leftists will be back in the cockpit, with a bigger and better machine that the GOP helped build for them.

          I’m done. If it comes to that, let it burn. The farking idiots who elected, then re-elected Obama may not be capable of learning. But, judging by the number of drooling Bernie supporters, it seems like they haven’t had sufficient instruction yet. And if, heaven forbid, we truly are past the point where this can be fixed at the ballot box, we gain nothing by allowing the collectivist authoritarians to prepare for another four years.

        • Reset doesn’t start with a revolution, it starts with a collapse.

          The government is out of money. When the majority of tax dollars are going to entitlements and interest on debt there is no longer a functioning entity. Government is collapsing.under its own weighty incompetence.

          So the only option, is to continue to raise taxes. When the choice is between providing for your family or paying taxes, guess who wins?

          If there were a balanced budget, sure I would agree with everything you said, but that’s not the case. The Courts and the rule of law evaporate with the governments ability to meet its obligations. Nobody works for free.

    • If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain about the results.

      You can always do what Old Ben suggests and write in a candidate. But vote.

      • Of course you have the right to complain, especially when the electorate is given two candidates that are essentially the same.

        • Always vote your conscience, even if it has no effect.

          They cannot force you to vote for anyone. Don’t buy into their false-dichotomy.

        • As Wilkow likes to often say “We have only been given the option of voting for the bakers, not the ingredients”.

      • This is one of those things that people love to say, but it really has no basis in reality. You show me an election settled by one vote and I’ll show you an election that wasn’t settled through actual voting. Aside from that, when the system regularly gins out candidates from both sides who favor increased state control over individuals, you explain to me exactly what my write-in vote accomplishes. The Republicans and Democrats aren’t exactly quaking in their boots when I write in Ron Paul or Rand Paul or Gary Johnson or whoever.

        I wish we lived in a country where your point was valid, but it just isn’t. The sooner people realize that, the sooner we might actually be able to fix things.

        • Here’s a little wisdom for the hardcore statists here that think voting will make a difference.

          ” A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” -Lysander Spooner

          There is no “social contract”. There is no “consent” of the governed. You are tax slaves with the illusion of freedom (a comfortable cage). Keep voting, then vote harder when you don’t get what you want. You are lost until you see the truth and start raising children that aren’t hopelessly brainwashed into thinking government works for them.

        • @Rambeast

          THANK YOU!

          The “Social Contract” is the most insidious of lies we’ve been fed since birth.

    • The point is if you do not vote you get Hillary a much worse choice. It matters because of the appointments to their incompetents.

  1. He was on my absolute “no” list even before this. Wouldn’t vote for him in the primary if I was a republican. Won’t vote for him in the general if he gets the GOP nomination.

  2. My name Ricardo Montalban And welcome to my island Fantasy Island! Yeah wheat beer more like urine and a glass That guy Is almost anti gun Like literally inches away from falling in a hole labeled anti gun.

    • There is a three day waiting period in place for those who don’t have a concealed weapons permit that are purchasing a firearm from an FFL.

      • In the state of Florida there is a 3-day 72 hour wait on handguns only Long guns Are same day delivery unless you have a concealed weapons permit which gives you same day purchase on handguns as well. There are some counties that have a 3 day wait on long guns as well Here in our grand state of Florida

    • I never heard of it either, but I don’t hesitate to believe the former governor who states he signed it into law! Especially when that just confirms that I will never vote for him. For so much as dogcatcher.

  3. Plus his brother the Texas Shrub said he would sign an AWB if it crossed his desk.

    The entire family has the intelligence of the common plant they’re named after.

    • If you want to use blood guilt against JEB, riddle me this (and can this be said about any president not named Bush?)

      Q: How many weeks elapsed between GHWB’s presidential inauguration and his first executive order gun ban?

      A: a single digit number.

  4. A question: if we accept the fact that Rand Paul’s campaign is, regrettably, DOA (he’s polling low single digits) who is the Republican candidate the POG should back?

    • Carson or Fiorina because f*** the establishment. Republicans especially. And vote libertarian locally. If we want the third party to take off, they have to prove themselves at the lower level first, then go state level, and finally federal. Rubio and Cruz come in distantly behind for me.

    • At this point, I’d consider a R vote on November if (in no particular order) Walker, Fiorina, Cruz, Trump or Carson were on the ticket. Paul too, but he’s almost as bad as JEB on illegal aliens. Carson is kind of squishy on 2A, but I think his heart’s in the right place, which is a LOT more than I can say about JEB’s daddy.

    • Honestly, I am voting for Kasich in the primaries. Yes, he voted for the Clinton AWB after being convinced it would work by Leon Panetta, but he has come around on the issue, admits gun control doesn’t work and has been a great pro-gun Governor here in Ohio.

    • I find it curious that not a single person mentioned Trump, even though it was all rah-rah-rah about him a few weeks ago here. What changed, guys?

      • I think reality is beginning to to slowly seep in.

        Personally, Trump is the kind of guy you want for the kind of business’s he’s in, if he fvcks it up, it’s his money on the line.

        Running a major country is a different critter, you had better have the skill-set to get along with many different types of people, or at least be able to delegate authority effectively.

        As an example – suppose Putin makes a serious move in the Baltics (like Estonia or similar), I’m not sure Trump is the guy for something like that.

        It would be entertaining as hell to see him make a go at it, but I’m not sure I want give him the opportunity.

        My .02 and worth half as much…

        • “if he fvcks it up, it’s his money on the line.”

          Well, or yours, if you give it to him. In the end, that’s what bankruptcy means – you played with other people’s money and lost – and the guy did it 4 times.

          I see what you mean about it being entertaining, though. Yeah, if we could save the game IRL, it would be an interesting experiment, along the lines of “so what exactly happens if I strap C4 to a train and detonate it in GTA5”? 😉

        • I was thinking more on the lines of a cruise missile with a conventional explosive EMP than the train, but hey…

          “In the end, that’s what bankruptcy means – you played with other people’s money and lost – and the guy did it 4 times.”

          He stayed within the rules of the game as they were at the time. As I understand it, his actions were in line with the others playing by that rule book.

          Perhaps the lawmakers should put more thought into the laws they passed.

          I can tell your politics are a bit towards the left, not too surprising, for a few years I worked with a guy who jumped the Iron Curtain, and his overall attitude – general outlook is similar to yours…He was rather fun to work with…

          Eastern European people seem to be wired a bit differently than westerners…


          • >> He stayed within the rules of the game as they were at the time. As I understand it, his actions were in line with the others playing by that rule book.

            Absolutely, he did. As do people who live off welfare without even trying to look for a job, which is routinely decried hereabouts. There is a difference between what’s legal, what’s moral, and what is reflective of a good businessman. To me, four bankruptcies of companies that he owns indicates that he’s not all that good of a manager as he claims to be, for one thing. It indicates his usual approach is basically throwing shit at the wall and see if it sticks, and if not, he just cuts his losses and walks away. Yeah, it’s legal, but try to mentally translate it to running a country. If he runs it into the ground, there isn’t exactly a bankruptcy option (or if there is, it’s not pretty).

            BTW, don’t forget that the laws are what they are to a large extent because people like Trump pay politicians for them to be. It’s a positive feedback loop: you have ultra-rich guys utilize various legal loopholes to get all that money, then use a small portion of it (that is still huge in absolute value) to bribe lobby politicians to enact laws creating more loopholes, which nets them more money to use on bribes lobbying. It’s an unfortunate quirk of representative democracy with no right to recall, where, once elected, politicians don’t have to be representative of their electorate at all.

            >> I can tell your politics are a bit towards the left, not too surprising, for a few years I worked with a guy who jumped the Iron Curtain, and his overall attitude – general outlook is similar to yours…He was rather fun to work with… Eastern European people seem to be wired a bit differently than westerners…

            It varies from country to country. E.g. Baltics are technically Eastern European, but they’re generally very right-wing economically, more so than others.

            I would say that many of us tend to be center-left on economic issues, to a large extent because we’ve seen first-hand how rapid extreme market deregulation aka “shock therapy” can ruin economy and society – those policies were pushed by the likes on IMF on many of those countries in the wake of the collapse of Soviet socialist, and there were many starry-eyed economists and politicians who thought that, since communists were bad, doing something that’s diametrically opposite would produce the best possible results; people who read Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard and accepted what’s there as gospel.

            Some countries struggled through those experiments better than others, but I’m not aware of a single instance where there were no significant downsides to it, and people tend to remember such things for a long time. In Russia, for example, the terms “shock therapy” and “democrats” (the latter really referring to laissez-faire economists, but by extension applied to anyone who was supportive of western economic and social policies) became outright profanities, which later helped Putin come to power when he placed himself in populist opposition to these things. Here’s what the consequence of these economic policies was for Russia:


    • At the yearly in RA meeting I got a chance to speak to Donald Trump’s sons About AR 15’s and they both have quite a few and really knew the ins and outs of them I’m a custom AR 15 rifle builder here in Florida And was quite pleased to hear that both of them knew the workings inside and out of the AR 15 rifle That being said How much influence do they have on their father I do not know but they seem to be a close-knit family.

      • I’ve heard, but not confirmed, that Trump was (like on so many issues) for bigger government control in the past, but he at least changed with the 2A for the better after being consulted by his son(s) who own firearms.

    • It’s not enough to be Pro 2A. There are several that claim Pro 2A bonafides. If you claim to be Pro 2A but then demonstrate a willful lack of understanding of the US Constitution and its amendments I don’t believe you.

  5. Looks like Jeb’s about as “pro-gun” as Christie, but lays off the donuts. I won’t vote for either one, but both are better for gun rights than Hrod or Bernie.

    Trump could be unstoppable, but not sure how he’d be on gun rights. I think Cruz is easily the best candidate, but I’d love to see him as a SCOTUS judge.

  6. Where did you ever get the idea that Jeb Bush was a Republican?

    Didn’t they make some kind of moniker for people like him…. RINO or something?

  7. The more politicians talk about gun control, the more people are going to go and buy guns.

    The more politicians that stigmatize mental illness by associating them with dangerous people, the less that mentally ill people will seek treatment, because they know they’ll be looked on as dangerous.

    As the APA recently said, people with mental illness are not responsible for an oversized share of violence. Even trying to pick out who amongst the hundreds of thousands of people who have schizophrenia will bear no fruit in finding out which one is the next guy to snap, lose it, and kill everybody around him. They’ve become the black sheep, and to the detriment of all, because the less people that seek treatment for fear of stigmatization or losing rights, the more episodes that will happen. It’s a losing proposition to keep scapegoating the mentally ill as a “common ground” between gun owners and gun control freaks.

  8. In defense of Jeb… he’s got an A+ rating from the NRA after several years of being under their microscope. His answers on guns in this interview turned me off, but let’s keep it in perspective. The A+ rating means he votes with the NRA 100% of the time. Not 99% of the time, but 100% of the time. He may not be in to guns or understand the plight of gun owners, but he does understand how to vote with the NRA and he has and will do it. If you’re wondering who else is a good candidate to back… TTAG posted it (kind of) yesterday. Just look for the rating.

  9. The little Bushy is getting down right defoliated by Trump in Iowa and New Hampshire. His campaign is as desperate as Jabba the Hutthilarry’s.

    Gun control = the last gasp of the desperate politician.

  10. Jeb is right about the difference between Vermont and New York City. In Vermont you need a gun to fight off 4-legged predators or to hunt. In NYC, you need one to fight off 2-legged predators.

  11. I live in a no waiting period state, colorado, and yet the streets fail to run red….

    Not that we are completely free of course, I’m looking at you, Hickenlooper and all the other slaver politicians in colorado. Never mind that there was absolutely no decrease in any form of violence after that idiot magazine ban, or the constant pain in the butt new rules over firearms transfers. I mean, it’s obvious how stupid it is when I have to spend an inordinate amount of time looking up laws, making calls, and following procedures (because I’m law abiding), and criminals/crazy people still don’t. I’m so tired of these ignorant / statist fools and their silver tongued bull. I don’t care what “side” they’re on, Republican or Democrat. Neither are American (in the traditional sense) or supporting of Natural Rights. They both restrict multiple Rights based on convenience and bias. Sure, the Republican party is notionally 2a , just like the Democrats are notionally Pro 1st ammendment. We see how far that goes with restraints on speech and practice, as well as losers like Lindsey Graham pretending to be Pro 2a with his AR, while supporting excessive measures. Screw all those stupid, money grubbing pricks and their “freedom for me and not for thee” crap. I could go on about the rest of the bill of rights, but what would be the point? I suppose all we can do is bitch about it. That sure feels useful. I can’t wait to tell my grandchildren about how once, we *thought* we were free, then realised we weren’t and then didn’t do anything about it but elect more statist pricks who did nothing about it. Whatever. I guess I’ll just go to work again, and go through another day secure in the knowledge that the most free nation is the world is a farce. FML.

  12. Statists on the left. Statists on the right.

    They all want to control you, it’s just a matter of how much control they want.

  13. There you have it folks, the 10 amendment play by States to F you out of your Constitutional, natural right of lawful self protection.

    Life long Republican not for Bush.

    • Maybe he ought to read 10A again, it does not say states can override provisions which are, in fact, written into the Constitution. Which loses him points for his (lack of) intelligence, at least insofar as I am concerned.

  14. What a buffoon. The 10th Amendment reserves all powers to the States and to the people which the U.S. Constitution did not explicitly prohibit from the States. Last I checked, the 2nd Amendment prohibits the States from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. Ipso facto: the 10th Amendment does NOT enable states to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

    • Seriously. It is physically painful to me that Jeb tried to use the 10th amendment to preempt the 2nd… here’s your sign.

    • If the tenth amendment allows states to override any part of the federal constitution, what’s the point of having the constitution in the first place? It wouldn’t make any sense to spend months writing a 4000-word rulebook, and then at the very end put a line that says “none of this is in any way binding, feel free to ignore it completely and do whatever the hell you want”.

        • I know that, and you know that, but based on his answer to Colbert, it seems as though Jeb doesn’t know that. My point was that his interpretation, taken to its logical extreme, would seem to mean that the Tenth amendment could more or less invalidate the entire constitution. If, as Jeb stated, the Tenth means a state can violate your second amendment rights, what’s to stop that state from eliminating trials by jury, or punishing criminals with torture, or coining its own money using the same interpretation of the Tenth?

      • Understand that the original arrangement of the constitution was as a compact between several fully sovereign states, to delegate some of their power to the federal government that they were forming. Said government was not meant to have any power above and beyond that which the constitution specified. Which is exactly why many people back then have seen the Bill of Rights as rather pointless to begin with, as it was explicitly prohibiting the feds from exercising powers that they didn’t have to begin with (and some, furthermore, pointed out that it was dangerous in a sense that it could later be interpreted as an exhaustive lists of the powers that federal government does not have – with an implication that everything else is allowed). Which, ironically, is by and large what has happened.

        In any case, the people who have enacted the Bill of Rights were only concerned with federal power. On state level, each state would presumably have its own constitution with appropriate protections, judicial checks etc, and they didn’t see it as the business of federal government to intervene and tell states how to run things. They were guarding against a very specific scenario that they have lived through: that of the British government imposing its will on the colonies by force. So all those restrictions on the power of government that came in the Bill of Rights were specifically restrictions on the power of federal government. Again, it was assumed that states would adopt similar provisions in their own state constitutions (and most did), and that would take care of that.

        So yes, Bill of Rights was largely redundant until the 14th Amendment made it binding on the states wrt their citizens.

        • Wry Irony: That a Russian guy is more solidly educated on the founding of this country. than the vast majority of its citizens…


  15. What Jeb Bush thinks about anything is ultimately irrelevant. He is unlikely to be the Republican candidate, and he is never, ever going to be POTUS. Like a washed-up athlete who is eight years past his peak, Jeb Bush is a has-been.

  16. Hate to say it, this is ruling class speak…..and think. Along with the VIP donor class financing their campaigns.
    Jeb has said that he wants to win without the support of the republican base. How can gun owners not, be part of the republican base? We know there’s a democrat gun control base out there, but is there a democrat, NRA supporter base out there?

  17. I’m glad you posted this bit of info. I didn’t know exactly where Bush fell with gun control. Probably has the same view as his father. He just fell lower in my list of viable Presidential candidates.

  18. This should surprise no one. All one need do is look at the history of that entire clan of squishy moderates.

    The other reason to not vote for Jeb is that Bushes bring us left-center SCOTUS justices. Bush Sr. got us Souter. Bush Jr. got us Roberts. Both have been disappointments to people who think the Constitution should be read as written.

    Fortunately, it appears that the GOP base has had their fill of the Bush clan.

    • W also gave us Alito, who isn’t just solid, he’s spectacular. Alito had the balls to tell off POTUS during his SOTU speech on national TV and he wrote the McDonald decision.

      We need more justices like Scalia (Reagan) and Alito.

      • I’d take two clones of Justice Clarence Thomas before I’d take Scalia or Alito. Justice Thomas, unlike every other justice on the court and most sitting judges in the US, is an originalist on the Constitution. I’ve read most all opinions written by Justice Thomas and people who think him “dumb” because he doesn’t engage in the verbal debate theatre of the SCOTUS are wrong, wrong, wrong.

        Thomas has perhaps the most rock-solid foundation in originalism of any justice in my lifetime.

  19. False assumption: we are a democracy.
    False data: the majority wants what they’re selling.

    The question doesn’t even need to be answered after that.

  20. Yes, FL has a three (business) day waiting period for handgun purchases unless you have a concealed weapon or firearm license issued by the FL Dept of Agriculture. So if you don’t have a CWFL and you purchase a handgun at a gun show on a Saturday from an FFL, you cannot pick it up until Thursday of the following week at the earliest. Long guns also have a three (business) day waiting period in a few counties such as Hillsborough, Broward, Miami-Dade and Sarasota. There may be a few other counties with these restrictions, however, if you live in one of these particular counties there is NO restriction from buying and taking possession (transfer) of a long gun in a county that does not have this restriction/infringment as long as you are a lawful FL resident.

  21. I stated here that JEB! would never get my vote. BTW all you bandwagon Carson supporters-Dr.Ben has a quite similar rural/urban view on the 2A-as in city dwellers are screwed. Do your homework…

  22. Liked his reference to the 10th Amendment which the Dems hate almost as much as the 2nd Amendment. That said, he is well down my list of who I would vote for. Would you rather have him pick the replacement for Ginsberg or any of the Dems?

    Any Democrat will get us closer to the destruction of our country just that much faster.

  23. Question is, WHY did the segment get cut?

    Jebbie is a liberal/progressive. He is an establishment Republican (East Coast establishment, moneyed privilege…all that Southern/Texas connection is merely due to the lower cost of living, which makes the money go further). Jebbie huddled with John McCain (not a hero, dozens of others survived prison camp) to discuss how best to win the nomination WITHOUT having to attract conservatives and Tea Party members. Leftists/progressives/Democrats present the nation with a quick death; Republicans present the nation with a slow death. A distinction without a difference.

  24. I’m fairly sure that in McDonald v. Chicago, the SCOTUS rather pointedly incorporated the Second Amendment against the states via the 14th. So no, Jeb, the states don’t have the right to take that right away.

    Not right away.

    Not ever.

    • Unfortunately, perhaps they do. Let me explain (this is my understanding of the 14th, due to my degree, and interest in constitutional law). The process of selective incorporation is done through the 14th ammendment to selectively apply aspects of the federal constitution to apply to the states. This you know, but by what reasoning is the 14th ammendment used in this fashion? The problem is that selective incorporation is based upon the due process clause of the 14th ammendment, not the freedoms and immunities clause. Due process, by it’s nature, is fluid in definition, making the selective incorporation of rights subject to reversals and modifications (look up judge Felix Frankfurter on due process). These are the stated facts regarding due process and the 14th ammendment, and there is much more.

      Now to my opinion (supported by various legal scholars and judges): what this means is that while on the one hand the 14th ammendment and selective incorporation doctrine weaken state constitutions and the relative power of states to the federal government, it also increases the strength of the federal constitution and through it all federal law. More importantly, it stresses the importance and inviolability of federal law on the basis of due process, which again is fluid, and really amounts to “we followed what we consider to be a proper legal process, making whatever decisions we made constitutional within that framework”. This means that according to this line of legal reasoning, your rights are not your rights because of them being the “freedoms and immunities” accorded to US citizens, but because a legal (due) process was followed saying that they are your rights. This makes your rights open to constant reinterpretation, and in my opinion makes it possible for the judiciary to claim that *anything* is legal or illegal because the modern judicial process is in fact based upon the concept of due process. Then of course we could move into how the 5th ammendment may not be specific enough in what exactly is meant by due process…. Whatever, hopefully someone gets the point: you do not have rights because it is proper, right, and natural that a government respects your rights, but rather you have rights because the judiciary decided you have them. Sometimes. Maybe I’m waffling and nitpicking. Maybe not. This is why I actually consider McDonald v. Chicago and similar cases to be marks against freedom. If I accept your validation and interpretation of my natural right to speak my mind, believe what I will, to keep and bear arms, to expect a proper trial etc., that means that I believe that you get to decide what my rights are. Eat it.

      • It sounds to me like you’re confusing procedural due process with substantive due process. It is the latter which has been used in SCOTUS jurisprudence to limit the states in their violations of the rights of citizens, and its the reverse of what you have described – it’s not that rights are rights because a due process was followed when they were established, but rather that infringing on a right (or rather, as the text of the amendment says, the more vague “liberty”) is illegal when it is inherently not something that can be taken away by a law (even if due process was followed in enacting such a law).

        Yes, this whole arrangement is rather flimsy because the “liberties” in question are largely unspecified, and so what exactly falls into that bucket is pretty much decided by judicial fiat. OTOH, once it is decided that something is in, it’s pretty hard to undecide (i.e. overturn), so it’s not as flimsy as it seems from the first glance. And furthermore, the court rulings establish not just the specific rights, but the processes used to determine those rights, and that also becomes court precedent; by now, it would be extremely hard to argue against pretty much any right that’s explicitly written into the Bill of Rights, for example, even though not all of them have been incorporated in practice. To date, the only rights that have not been incorporated after receiving judicial review were those that were reviewed before the doctrine of incorporation itself was created.

        Furthermore, when McDonald v. Chicago was decided, Thomas, while supporting the majority decision, arrived to that conclusion independently based on the privileges and immunities clause, which is reflected in his concurrence – the first time since Slaughter-House that such a thing appeared on the winning side, to the best of my knowledge – and no-one either in the majority or among the dissenters has challenged the applicability of this clause, which can indicate a tacit agreement that it is in effect and could be used as a basis for other similar decisions in the future.

        • I know, that’s why I like justice Thomas. And yes the difference between procedural and substantive due process ; I suppose my issue is that a) that isn’t made publicly obvious, and that b) (please correct me if I’m wrong) while substantive due process deals with what the government can/cannot regulate, procedural deals with *how* these regulations are applied to people / entities. As such I don’t really consider them separate but linked ;1st one, then the other. I may be wrong and suppose it has been awhile. Still, the flimsiness you mentioned has concerned me for some time. While overturning precedent has been fairly rare and difficult, it has happened, and I suppose that I’m not comfortable with that when it comes to fundamental rights. Then again, it provides a method to overturn clearly wrong headed cases, so perhaps that’s necessary.

          • >> substantive due process deals with what the government can/cannot regulate, procedural deals with *how* these regulations are applied to people / entities.

            It does, but it does so in the context of virtually everything, and is not at all specific to the 14th and its incorporation. It’s basically just a rule that says that for any laws that we have and enforce, we must follow a process that is fair, uniform, and thorough. It’s pretty much a reinforcement of the notion of rule of law. Obviously the specific meaning of each of these requirements is subjective, but it’s still better to have such reinforcement than to have none at all.

  25. The states can take a right away? Really? So if KY agrees with the Rowan Co clerk they can decide gay marriage is not allowed? Considering marriage isn’t mentioned anywhere in Constitution how is it a right to be decided by any governmental body anyway? Jeb is a RINO.

  26. He said the states should decide because….10th amendment. But he’s too stupid to understand what it says:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

    The 2nd forbids (SHALL NOT) infringement on the right to bear arms. I’d say that qualifies as prohibited.

  27. The 10th Amendment does not allow a state to unilaterally take a power constitutionally delegated to the federal government back from the federal government. Jeb! is an idiot and not our friend.

  28. Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd is incorporated against both the feds and the states.

    How does the 10th trump that??

  29. And he’s the smart Bush…

    All the tenth amendment says is that the powers not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution are retained by the States or the People.

Comments are closed.