The pundits warn us that we can expect tonight’s Presidential debate, the third and final, to be the nastiest of an extremely nasty campaign. Will Trump cry, “B*tch of Benghazi”? Will Clinton snarl back “Fascist f*ck,” a term she has reportedly applied to her adversary behind closed doors? One flings an old hot mic dialogue, the other’s riposte is the latest from Wikileaks.
NRA this month points out that a President Hillary Clinton would be likely to: “Ban semi-autos; Mandate “Universal” background checks; Overturn Heller; Shut down gun shows; Implement Australian confiscation & registration; Use tax dollars to promote gun control; Secret government list bans; Ban online gun advertising; Extreme executive actions on guns; End lawful access to guns; (and) Repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.”
In a campaign that’s already looking a bit like Saturday afternoon wrestling, will the candidates go all the way with that and throw their debate stools at each other?
After all, they’ve been throwing another kind of stool at one another for a while now…
Mas,
I just read, “Understanding the Gun Debate, Part 2” on this website. Excellent as always, I learned a lot. I only wish I could make it required reading for the whole world.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump prove one thing. Even though a person may have lots of money, they can still be “white trash.”
I will listen to tonight’s debate as much as I can on the radio, because I’m at work. I will vote for Donald, and I’ll be glad when this election is finally over. I’ve been following it since June 2015, and I’m sick of it. Most Americans are clearly politically and economically ignorant. We don’t deserve the blessings we have.
Just for discussion, if she wins and does accomplish these goals, I just don’t see a compliant population of overnight criminals submitting to being stripped of an inalienable right peaceably.
Without looking up the exact figures, if memory serves, there are reportedly some 300 million guns scattered among the populace. The media has been pushing that these are concentrated in the possession of a relatively small percentage of citizens, leading some to think that these restrictions would only affect a small number, for the greater good, don’t you know.
Personally, I believe the total numbers of guns in private ownership is much higher than estimated. I also believe the percentage of the total population owning these guns is much higher. I also believe that, as much as I personally detest the thought of civil disorder and rebellion in my beloved country, this possible eventuality could be the catalyst that brings this about. I would like to believe Hillary is just naive, not realize this possibility, but alas, I believe she knows and does not care.
Mass, I know you are on the right side of this argument. However, I think we should give the crude and un-practiced politician Mr. Trump the benefit of the two arguments. Let’s just pray for the one candidate who has not proven to be a liar, crook, and craven politician who would let brave men die in her stead, and who wants to abolish all rights that Americans have to protect themselves against their government.
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows all conquerors who have allowed the subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.” Adolf Hitler
In support of that I offer the following: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”. – Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Nazi Propaganda
Does any of this have a familiar ring??
It was civil, but between a guy who is not a deep thinker and a pathological liar and incompetent. The two minority candidates not debating may not be from planet Earth. We are all in deep &@$$.
When you are suddenly visited by angry barking dogs with armed soldiers wearing powder blue helmets, white vehicles marked with “UN” on the roof, hood and doors, with local police support nowhere in sight, you’ll know then that your time has run out
The Constitution lives or dies on Nov 8th.
When Hillary wins this thing, it’s going to be one of the most prolific gun purchase seasons ever in history. Might want to buy some now to avoid the scarcity that will inevitably happen.
I feel we have history on our side. And, if she wins or looses, I feel we’ll have a fight on our hands. The people in our country just don’t think, tyrants will ever come to power, like they did in Germany in World War II.
I learned a lot from Hillary. For instance, I did not know that there were thousands of toddlers shooting people with guns in DC. This is deplorable.
If the diabolical HillBilly cons their way back into the White House and implements their evil war against freedom and anti-gun agenda, it will be in gradual steps, not sudden overnight confiscation.
It may start with banning firearms which fewer people own and therefore not heavily defended by the good guys with their limited resources. Expect bans on .50 BMG caliber and selective fire weapons first. Once she gets a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, HillBilly may try to revoke the right carry concealed guns, claiming she will hire more police officers to protect us lowly peasants from the criminal elements who adore and worship (and vote for) her, and to prevent accidental shootings because we gun owners are so incompetent with our nasty firearms.
Next will be the banning of semi-auto firearms as they are the most efficient weapons for stopping attackers, whether they be street thugs or government paid thugs. When it’s time to forcibly take guns from the population, the raids will be well planned and surgically implemented, first on the perceived leaders and the most vocal of the gun patriots. These people will be made examples of by local cops, coordinated and/or controlled by the government’s alphabet police to intimidate less defiant gun owners. Of course, by that time the only firearms legally allowed by our malevolent rulers will be bolt/lever action and single shot guns, possibly in .22 rimfire calibers only. All others will be classified as “Terrorist Weapons” so if they are used, their possessors will be labeled as criminals and enemy combatants and quickly given the death penalty.
Gun owners, unless they are highly organized and have a network to communicate and respond immediately to protect each other, will be very vulnerable when the stormtroopers kick in doors under cover of darkness to confiscate property and eliminate any resistance by any means. Individual gun owners will stand no chance against evil government forces as they have to sleep at some time and most do not have the bodies, hard body armor, machine guns, chemical agents, and armored vehicles that the feds have in unlimited quantities at their disposal. The only way to fight back is to wage total war against the attackers before they come for you and that is something many Americans are loathe to do, especially since the stormtroopers will be wearing masks to conceal their identities so the victims have no idea who they are. These scum know that if their identities are known, they will be ambushed and terminated with extreme prejudice when not on duty and don’t have their many donut munching black garbed partners to protect them.
These are not pleasant thoughts to have, but one must consider all factors and prepare mentally for them, depending on your own level of defiance.
Many of us will fall, but it will be for a good cause, and that is the American spirit. If our ancestors back in the 1700’s did not have this fighting attitude, we would still be speaking with a British accent.
One thing that the folks who are planning civil disobedience if popular guns are banned forget is that, even though you are “keeping” your banned guns you can’t enjoy them. What’s the point of having something if you must keep it hidden?
Simple refusal to turn in prohibited guns, magazines, etc. will not work. These edicts must be resisted until changed and not just ignored. What will it take, if for example, ALL “assault weapons” are banned, to change that law or POTUS ruling or Executive Order? I fear it will be the showdown; the test to see if the American people have become sheep or will they stand and fight for the American principles that this country was founded on.
November 9th will set the stage; January 20th will be the opening of Act one.
May God help us all but remember that God helps those that help themselves…
This is the sorriest presidential campaign that it has ever been my displeasure to see. Just stop for a minute and consider the “weighty” issues that have been at the top of this campaign:
1) How many lies has Hillary told? (Do numbers go that far?)
2) Trump’s locker room talk from a decade ago.
3) How many emails did Hillary delete? (See comment on 1 above).
4) How many women has Trump groped (or will be accused of groping) before election day?
5) The corruption of the Clinton foundation.
6) How big are Trump’s hands? Does his hand size make it difficult to grope women?
7) How many interns will Bill grope once he is back in the Whitehouse? (What are the Vegas odds?)
8) Will Trump promise to be a “Good Boy” and just slink off after Hillary kicks his @$$?
Such is the “high level” of political discourse that we have been brought to by the flyweight, airhead “journalists” that make up the mainstream media in American today. Aliens observing our election from afar would be totally justified in believing that we all have our minds in the gutter!
Pitiful……….
Might I suggest that what is already known about the activities of the ongoing criminal enterprise that is known as the Clinton Outfit isn’t even a fraction of what is there.
What she intends if she becomes president is quite clear, and equally unacceptable. Get ready to give in, become an instant criminal by refusing to give in, or fight (and I mean fight, not complain on an internet forum). Those are your only choices.
If she wins, you Never Trump folks are going to own the results.
Think about that.
Everyone here (except me, I think) is from the right/Republican side of the aisle. I find it odd that most of you bewail Trump as your candidate when you chose him through YOUR primary system. Practically no one thought him to be electable since he first entered the race, yet you chose him anyway. Sounds like buyer’s remorse to me.
On a larger scale there are some similarities to the psychology of a mass shooter: they know that ultimately they’re going to lose, perhaps catastrophically, but they’re so mad that they just have to show those people what’s what.
> armed soldiers wearing powder blue helmets
“Mommy, they’re here to take our guns!”
[click-CLACK]
“No, honey. They’re here to give us theirs.”
Liberal Dave,
You know quite well that there were seventeen Republican candidates. Trump was not the first choice for many of us. Our nation is all about compromise. When you compromise, you don’t get exactly what you want, you just settle for what you can get. Hopefully, what you settle for is close to what you want, or at least it is bearable. I “chose” Rand Paul, and maybe Ben Carson. I would have settled for any one of the seventeen.
I think it was the loud voices who “chose” Trump. All the people groups in this country tolerate each other, and settle for what they can get. None of us tries to impose our will over those who disagree with us. Pushing too far will lead to violence.
So now you’re comparing us to mass shooters by saying we have a similar psychology. If we know we are ultimately going to lose, I would compare us to the defenders of the Alamo. I could compare us to those who were sent to concentration camps, but they didn’t know that they were actually death camps. They thought they could survive if they just obeyed their overlords, so the comparison to the Alamo, or the “bridge too far” (Operation Market Garden) or the defenders of the Philippines and Singapore may be more accurate.
Do you really see good times ahead? Do you think one hundred years of liberalism has improved American life? Are we heading toward better times, or even some utopia? We patriots/conservatives/Republicans are simply trying to hang on to principles which made this country great. These principles WORKED, and they created a country that the whole world admires, half the world wants to live here, and even many of our “oppressed” people groups stay right here when they could easily LEAVE.
Oh, I get it. You are an eternal optimist, and science will solve all our problems. Soon we’ll be colonizing Mars, and living for 200 years.
The only things which have improved in the past 100 years are technology and race relations. Everything else, was better in the past, than it is today.
I’d like to think so, but if it comes to a fight against tyrants, well have to fight it like a war, go after communication, as one example.
As for trump, he was nothing but a wrecking ball to wreak havok against the Republican Party candidates. Those polls, that showed Trump with such a lead were probably polsters, working for the other side. If so, that was brilliant strategy.
If a tyrant does occupy the White House in 2017 and implements her evil agenda which includes disarming all the lowly peasants under her control except the one protecting their new Dear Leader, we will have only a few short months, if that, to decide on our course of action.
HillBilly if they are well prepared, will already have lists of enemies who are destined to die defending themselves or be captured and quickly disappeared into remote camps where they will eventually die from ‘natural causes’ or accidents. Freedom promoters like the NRA and GOA will be declared terrorist organizations and forcibly disbanded for the greater good of the regime.
The government have all the advantages when it comes to confiscating property. They pick the victims and times and have the element of surprise, not to mention overwhelming force. The typical gun owner with a wife and a few children, will probably be asleep when the stormtroopers attack. The assault team will outnumber their victims, be heavily armed and protected, and most importantly, be rested and ready for action, while the gun owner(s) will be tired after a long day at work. There will be no time to call friends or other family for help, and even if that’s possible, aid will not arrive in time to do any good. The forces of the Dark Side may or may not announce their presence prior to breaking down the door, immediately shoot any pets as they are considered a threat, then head for the master bedroom, which have been located using house design plans before the attack. The disoriented homeowner, awakened from a sound sleep, will not be very effective, and if he/she grabs a gun, will be hosed down with a stream of suppressed submachine fire. Of course, all the attackers will be masked so witnesses cannot identify them later. The authorities will claim the stormtroopers are wearing masks to protect them from flammable materials or debris, not to conceal their identities in case friends or family of the victims will later try to get revenge.
I have laid out this scenario for those who may not have thought out such situations and think they are ready to resist the bad guys with their trusty .45 pistols or AR-15 rifles with a bunch of 30 round magazines. Unless you have lookouts posted on your property or alarms which alert you before the attackers get too close, you do not stand much of a chance. Even if you can get to a gun in time, the stormtroopers will be wearing hard, level 3 or 4 body armor with crotch plates and the first couple of attackers coming in the door will have ballistic shields that will stop any handgun caliber and nearly all rifle bullets less than an AP .50 BMG round.
The only way to fight such evil forces is to wage total war against them and that is to hunt down and eliminate any attackers, whether they took part in any raids. This is quite unfair as there are cops who are not involved in any attacks, but since the raiders are masked, we cannot tell who is a good guy/gal or a bad one. When I was a LEO, I made a promise to myself never to be a part of any gun confiscation scheme, as I took a vow to uphold the U.S. Constitution which includes the Bill of Rights and defend our country against all enemies, either foreign or domestic. I see anyone who advocates confiscation of property without a valid (not just legal) reason as an enemy of our country.
I am not longer a cop, but I’m still and always will be an American.
The key thing is to not allow the American People to be disarmed.
I think that even the readers of this blog, who are very pro-2nd Amendment, still fail to realize the critical nature of the above statement. We think in terms of the 2nd Amendment giving us the means to resist criminals or an oppressive government. However, that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Recently, I have been reading a book entitled “Modern Warfare: A French View of Counterinsurgency (1964)”. It was written by a Col. Roger Trinquier who had extensive experience in counterinsurgency and counter-terrorist operations. In his book, he goes into great detail about how insurgent and terrorist operations are carried out and why they work so well. The one thing that the book has made very clear to me is that an un-armed population is TOTALLY HELPLESS. Without arms, they cannot lift a finger to resist aggression. Therefore, anyone else who is still armed (criminals, terrorist groups, our own government) can FORCE the people to OBEY their WILL and (if the people are disarmed) they will have NO CHOICE but to OBEY their masters. Col. Trinquier showed how, even though the people hated the terrorists who robbed them and made them live in fear, the terrorist groups were still perfectly safe as long as the people were disarmed and unable to resist. His recommendation to free a people from the yoke of an insurgent operation was to (a) organize them and then (b) arm them. After that, the insurgents days were numbered.
It is LITERALLY TRUE that a disarmed people ARE SLAVES to any group that is strong and armed.
On the other hand, an ARMED PEOPLE are the MASTERS. No one can defeat the a people who inhabit a land, who are united and who are ARMED.
I have seen several posts whereby people fear that the government, under a Hillary administration, will try to disarm them by force. Don’t worry about it. The quickest way for a government to be wiped off the face of the earth is for them to provoke an ARMED PEOPLE to rise up against them. Do you think that the mighty U.S. Military, in Hillary’s hands, will be able to disarm us? That our arms would be useless against all those tanks and airplanes and solders?
Well, let me give you a history lesson. The mighty U.S. Military was soundly defeated by the armed people of Vietnam. The mighty Soviet Military was soundly defeated by the armed people of Afghanistan.
If the American People allow the “Creeping Gun Control” of the Left to ultimately disarm us, then we are lost. We will have (willingly) shackled ourselves in chains. However, as long as we hold onto our arms, we are a free people. It is literally as simple as that!
Roger Wilco, “Everything else, was better in the past, than it is today.”?
That’s nostalgia, not reality. I can think of a lot of things that are better today than in the past:
The rights of women improving towards equality.
The rights of LGBTQ folks becoming accepted and recognized and the constitutional recognition to the right of same-sex marriage.
The right of women to safe and legal abortions.
The increasing separation of church and state and especially the ongoing elimination of religion from public schools and government.
The increasing recognition that the War on Drugs is both counterproductive and racist.
The increasing realization that marijuana should be legal for at least medical and eventually recreational use.
The existence and almost universal acceptance and success of laws preventing government and private business from discriminating on many different bases, including disability.
The beginnings of a system to provide adequate healthcare to everyone.
The fact that increasing immigration to this country from all over the world has not only brought new blood and ideas, but at its most trivial side, new cuisines: Have you had a bowl of pho? You should.
The fact that we have come to recognize that our treatment of Native Americans was — and is — unnecessarily brutal, amounting to holocaust, and that our internment of Japanese Americans during WWII came close to approaching the same.
The fact that legal recognition of rights of the accused such as the right to remain silent, the right to have a lawyer, and the right to be informed of those rights, restrictions on the right to admission of illegally-obtained evidence, and the increasing realization of the uncertainty of certain prosecutorial and forensic techniques due to DNA evidence has improved criminal justice and seen a decline in the use of the death penalty, which is increasingly looking like an endangered idea.
And I won’t go into improvements in healthcare since you’d probably lump them into technology.
I could go on and on. And these are only the relatively recent improvements to American life. If I went further back, I could cite things such as the creation of a legal framework under which employees can organize and bargain for better working conditions without fear of discharge or reprisals and the creation of laws preventing monopolies.
All these are things which have made today’s America better today than in the past.
Liberal Dave,
You know libs registered in record numbers as Republican so they could vote in the primary and make sure the one candidate that Hillary could beat got the nomination, right?
Liberal Dave,
I’ll not debate (at least in this forum) the merits of whether those things you mentioned are good for the union or bad. What I will put forward is my belief that the Constitution is the foundation of our Republic. Many of the “improvements” in your list came about, not by amendments to the Constitution, rather they came about by court interpretation of the “Bill of Rights”, which is a function of those courts/judges, yet, in the process of giving constitutional protection for a “new ‘human’ right, they weaken other enumerated “inalienable” rights, thus weakening the foundation we are built on.
I am reminded of a home project I witnessed in my remote, rural, neighborhood last year. This is a true story. An older couple decided they wanted a new screened in porch added the length of their home. Their home was in a terrible state of disrepair, the roof sagging with many rotting rafters, the foundation was failing, there were holes in both the roof and the floor. Their financial resources were such they could either repair their existing home, or they could build the new porch they had always wanted. They chose the porch. The carpenters plead with them make the foundation and roof repairs first, but they insisted the contractor just build the porch to fit the un-level, sinking house. The builders pointed out the rotting wood in the falling down house precluded the porch being physically attached. They insisted being built free standing if necessary. The carpenters complied and the porch was built. It’s a nice porch. Alas, a portion of the house has since collapsed and is no longer livable. That new porch looks awfully silly now.
The husband died about 6 months after the porch was completed, the wife went to live with her children.
My point? What kind of house did they leave for their heirs? What kind of a house are we leaving for future Americans? One with pretty additions or one with a solid foundation?
Take heart there will be another election in two years for the House and part of the Senate. Predictions are the Republicans will hold the House this go around.
Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states,
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
I hate to help the opposition, but I’d suggest that all of you who believe that Clinton will engage in gun confiscation are delusional. Even if we were to have a Democratically controlled House and Senate, a confiscation bill would be DOA. The NRA has too much power and there are too many gun-owning Dems and Dems from gun-owning regions for anything like that, even one only affecting one particular type of weapon such as pistols or semi-automatic guns, to ever pass. If her election is the bellwether of a complete change in US politics, from heavy red to heavy blue, perhaps such a bill might pass decades in the future. But it’s not passing during Clinton’s first or second term. (And those of you who think that she might do it by dictatorial decree are beyond delusional: you claimed that Obama would become such a dictator, too, and nothing resembling that has happened. You’re like those preachers who keep predicting the end of the world on a certain date and then extending it and extending it when it doesn’t happen.)
By focusing on that paranoia, you’re not focusing on what might be the most dangerous gun plank in her platform: Her intention to eliminate the special statutory immunity that protects gun manufacturers from the liability that other makers of dangerous objects face under general liability principles in America. Since the NRA is, at its root, the arm of the manufacturers, that too will probably not be possible, but it’s _far_ more possible than confiscation. Why? To the average person, even non-gun-owners, confiscation seems unfair, even with compensation, and kind of un-American, but that feeling flips when it’s explained to them that gun manufacturers are being given special protections that other kinds of manufacturers don’t get, something that feels equally un-American. Eliminating that immunity could well put an end to gun manufacturing and importation in the US through liability lawsuits and inability to obtain insurance against those suits.
This country is a Christian nation, and abortion is the genocide of the unborn.
Just an observation. Even though there have been several officer involved shootings of black males in the last several weeks, I’ve seen no national media reporting or “spontaneous” protests in the aftermath of any of them. Surely it’s not because of any coordination resulting from Black Lives Matter activists’ White House visits or Hillary’s meeting this week with their representatives. Surely they can’t hold their outrage just because riots might reflect badly on Hillary’s chances.
Our friend, Liberal Dave, is (as usual) sending a bunch of mixed messages.
For example, his insistence that the Donald Trump nomination was “solely” caused by the Republican Party and that the Republican Party is “solely” responsible for his bungling campaign, is so disingenuous that it is rather insulting. It reminded me of that line from the old Clint Eastwood Movie “The Outlaw Josey Wales”. To quote “Don’t piss down my back and tell me its raining!”.
Donald Trump’s nomination was greatly helped by $2 Billion dollars worth of free (and mostly positive) mainstream media support given during the nomination process. The leftist media, in effect, lobbied for Donald Trump to the be selected and you can bet that the Hillary campaign and the DNC wanted it too. A case can be made that his nomination was “engineered” by the left so as to give Hillary a weak candidate to run against and, thereby, further her chances of election.
To then try to saddle Republican with the sole responsibility for Trump is (from this point of view) to add insult to injury. Adding real insult on top of it by comparing Republicans to mass murders is really layering it on.
However, Liberal Dave does make a very good point in that Hillary will not try anything so suicidal as direct firearms confiscation by force. She is far too smart of a politician for that!
Instead, she will try innumerable indirect attacks against the 2nd Amendment. She will follow the leftist playbook of trying to discourage and slowly disarm the honest gun owners of America all the while proclaiming that her actions are actually focused on suppressing crime and terrorism. The classic “bait and switch” strategy that the leftist gun control groups have followed for decades.
Liberal Dave is correct that the most powerful “indirect” strategy that she could use would be to remove the current protections from frivolous lawsuits, which the firearms industry enjoys, and then, once it is gone, do everything in her power to encourage a flood of such frivolous lawsuits so that the firearms industry becomes unprofitable or, at least, the price of firearms and ammo is driven sky-high so as to pay for the lawyers.
This would limit the demand for firearms, by Americans, by attacking the supply end of the business. This is an approach tailor made for a sneaky, deceptive person like Hillary Clinton. No wonder that she campaigned on it.
Our second amendment maybe challenged in the Supreme Court next year.
Read the following article
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/20/supreme-court-second-amendment-case-overrule-heller-2017/
TN_MAN, thank you, although I will vote for trump, he’s by far not my choice. And, like I said earlier the media used trump, as a wrecking ball, to destroy the better candidates.
Trump was made possible by John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and every other RINO in the past several years who, rather than do what’s Constitutionally required, bent over and grabbed their ankles every time Obozo made his demands. They were so afraid of being labeled racist or obstructionist they caved every time.
They told us, “Give us the House!” We did. They said, “Give us the Senate and we’ll defeat Obamacare!” We did and they went back to business as usual.
Now all the old bulls of the Establishment Republican party are in a panic over this impertinent maverick who is disrupting the “get along by giving in” scheme that has been in place for years.
They have been the instruments of their own destruction.
I believe that she uses the term “fascist f*ck” to describe members of her secret service security detail.
Comments are closed.