What could get “right wing” to support gun control

What would make right-wingers support gun control?
By vonMesser | March 30, 2018 | Uncategorized
I came across this on QUORA the other day and felt it needed to be shared everywhere.

The question was: ‘WHAT WOULD MAKE RIGHT-WINGERS SUPPORT GUN CONTROL?”

It was answered, by, among several others, a gentleman named Paul Feist, who is an NRA instructor, NRA Life Member, Gun Collector, Competitive Shooter, and Author. Here is his response, and it is one of the best answers to the Gun Control mob I have read in a long time:

Several things would help your (the left side of the American political aisle) case.

First – it would be very nice if you could ask the question without the politically charged epithet “Right-wingers”. Unless you would like the answer to contain “liberal nazi goons”, which also sets a negative tone and doesn’t further a useful discussion – avoid this sort of language.

Let me give you some positive ideas to consider;

Genuine Compromise

Since National Firearms Act of 1934, the anti-gun side has considered “compromise” to be “Give us some of what we want now, free, and we’ll come take the rest later”.

Here’s a radical idea – How about you offer something WE have wanted for a long time? I can think of two things – National Concealed Carry Reciprocity, and the removal of the Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986.

No tricks, no adding rider amendments to pull those out at the last minute, at 2am before a Senate vote… an actual, genuine offer.

Now, to be honest, those of us who have been following the debate for 40-ish years wouldn’t buy it. We’ve seen it before. Any gun control bill of any kind with any sort of actual compromise in it gets re-written at the last minute before the vote to remove any provisions that might interest the pro-gun side in voting for it – hoping that it would get enough votes to pass anyway.

You wonder why the pro-gun side is so steadfast against any form of legislation? Well, that’s because we’ve never ONCE seen a bill that ONLY does what the proponents say it does. Ban “armor piercing ammo”? Sounds reasonable… except it was written to ban virtually any ammunition of any design – on purpose. Even the generally positive “Firearms Owners Protection Act” of ’86 got that little “gotcha” slipped in to take the rate of crime from lawfully possessed fully automatic weapons from ZERO point ZERO percent, to.. what exactly was the point of that? Since 1934, NOT ONE SINGLE CRIME had ever been committed with a lawfully tax-stamped full auto weapon. Not one. And yet, the Hughes Amendment closed the registrations for them for law abiding citizens.

You’ve screwed us enough times we’re not buying into it any more. Our shields are up, and we’re not believing you any more when you offer “compromise”.

You want us to consider a few things? Show us you’re not just trying to tighten the noose on all firearms ownership. Compromise – for real this time.
Prove it will work here, now, in the 21st Century America.

You can point to different cultures, like Japan, or Europe, or the UK, or Australia – guess what: we’re not any of those places.

Show us how disarming law-abiding citizens will make a statistically significant difference in the overall violence in this country. Don’t cherry pick the data – show us how the number of people killed with hammers (which is more than those killed with rifles) is going to change with a particular law and you might just be shocked when we voice support for it.

You see, MY AR-15 has harmed no one. Nor will it ever. You need to make a pretty strong case that me giving up MY rifle is going to affect anything.
You also need to show me how my more accurate, longer range, bolt action rifle is not “next up” on your agenda. That again is going to be a long hard road for you to regain that trust – we’ve seen it before. One thing gets banned, then within DAYS, you’re looking for something else.

Don’t give us that bullshit about how “we banned gun violence research”. We did no such thing. We stopped the CDC from actively seeking gun control legislation. If you don’t recognize the difference between doing research which is, and has always been, perfectly legal for the CDC to do, and pushing a political agenda from a bully pulpit with tax dollars – then we really don’t have any common ground for discussion.

Accept that the Second Amendment is a RIGHT, and an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT that shall not be infringed.

We get it. You want to ban all guns. You’ve been saying it for more than 50 years. “We’ll ban this now, and ban everything else later!”. Yeah, that’s why we oppose unequivocally each and every one of your “little steps” towards that.

If you really want responsible gun ownership, and gun safety, then you’re going to have to accept that the second amendment exists, and that it means what the Founding Fathers said it means in their other writings. It’s an individual right. And it shall not be infringed.

You want to talk about improving mental health reporting? Felony reporting? Keeping criminals from purchasing firearms? Improved background checks?

It’s real simple – Accept that these are not just a “step towards banning guns”.

Don’t talk out of one side of your face saying “Oh, yeah, I’m a hunter, and I think people should be able to own hunting guns”, while supporting banning handguns, etc.

Accept that a free country, with free citizens, is based upon The People having arms for their own defense, defense against a tyrannical government (heaven forbid it should ever come to that – believe it or not, gun rights supporters do NOT want to overthrow the government, we just want to be certain that the government is never overthrown from within and can act with impunity against the People…), AND hunting, target shooting, etc.
If the political left were unequivocal and vocal about that, and backed it up by stopping support for any legislation that infringed upon that – you would be flabbergasted by how fast we could work together on legislation that improved how we conduct background checks, track felons, and keep firearms out of the hands of those adjudicated mentally incompetent.

Until then – we know (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) well you’re going to load any such bills with little “Gotcha’s” that classify wanting to own a firearm as a “mental disorder”.

Don’t say you won’t, we’ve seen it happen in the early 90’s – it’s in the Congressional Record. “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”.

Finally;

Let’s have a talk about whether you want to reduce crime or just “ban guns”.
You want to reduce crime? (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman), so do we! I’ll bet that with all of 20 minutes of discussion, we could come up with 20 ways to reduce crime, and violence, that have nothing to do with banning guns.

You want to reduce crime? Let’s talk about education, prison reform, and maybe have a long talk about how we treat ex-cons in this country (often leaving them (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) little choice but to return to crime, because virtually no jobs or job training is open to them).

If you just want to “ban guns”, the conversation is going nowhere – and you know that.

Understand and accept what the National Rifle Association is, and isn’t.
The NRA is an association of its millions of members. It is not a trade association, and it’s not a “think tank lobbying organization”. And it’s not a “Firearms Industry Lobby” (that’s the NSSF).

The NRA is between five and seven million gun owners that, of their own choosing, pay their membership dues to support the NRA and it
s subsidiary organization, the NRA-ILA.

When you say “stop the NRA” – you’re not talking about a faceless corporate lobbying group – you’re talking directly to me, a life member, and when you call the NRA murderers? You’re calling me a murderer.

You cannot insult me into agreeing with you. In fact, I have a very long memory. I was called, to my face, a murderer for being a gun owner back in the early 90’s. That was when I put down the first payment on my Life Membership.

Recognize that I am not a criminal. I am not mentally incompetent. I do not have a “gun fetish”. I am a citizen that has committed no crime, threatened no person, and enjoys collecting and shooting firearms for competition, sport, and keeps a couple for self defense in full accordance with the law. Attacking me, personally, or by association, will not serve your goals – it will turn me into an active voter and campaigner against you.

I will not forget, and I will not forgive, past transgressions, insults, and lies directed against me and my fellow gun owners. If you want my cooperation, you need to begin by making amends – then, maybe, we can work together to solve the problems you say you want to solve.

You work on those five points. Then we can have an honest, genuine, conversation about how to reduce crime and violence in 21st century America.

Unfortunately, it is my belief that the “left” does not want to have any sort of reasonable or ligical, oe genuine discussion. They want to dictate.

Wow. Read this top to bottom and then tell me why you're not an NRA member.

Lot of common sense in there

Bottom line is compromise.

Good read but half our government will read it and tear it up as like it says it don't fit their agenda on taking our guns.

The question should be directly asked on why they are so bent on taking our guns?

It's not crime or worry of safety for the kids as facts show there are lot more dangerous things out there. So why are they so bent on taking the guns?

Is it for control and some day they can turn us communism without us having a way to defend ourselves?

I don't mind compromise. What the left demands is complete CAPITULATION under the guise of compromise!

As the writer points out, the "compromise" proposed thus far is just incremental creep in only one direction.

Pete

Exactly !


Show me again where/when "compromise" has ever resulted in MORE liberty.

No compromise. Not on this.

very well said

I have a compromise
first lets compromise that an adult is anyone who has reached 12:01 am on the date of their 18th birthday for those born on February 29th "leap year" 12:01 am March the first since they will not turn 18 on a leap year. thus all reporting must report minors as minors and adults as adults.

there now you know when an adult becomes and adult you need to plan accordingly to meet that dead line and have your children ready for that change to adult.

how about another compromise if it is not possible to determine if the shooting took place at 11:58 pm or 12:02 am on either the eve of adult-hood or the morning of adult-hood we will split the difference if the person was shot not in the commission of a crime they may be counted as a minor but if the person was shot or was the shooter and was in the commission of the crime they should have known they were approaching adult hood and the risks and responsibility that are associated with that by 10pm on the eve of adulthood.

next up, no injury or death resulting from firearms discharge can be counted as an accident if the person shot or shooter was in the commission of a crime or involved with controlled substances trafficking.

going to give big time on this one legalize medically assisted suicide , clearly people are concerned about the dangers of firearms suicide but since a significant number of firearms suicide are adult Men who are already terminally ill how about medically assisted suicide after all we want to reduce the danger.

inner cities seem to generate a unusually disproportionate number of shootings per-capita , how about we authorize Urban firearms safety and Marksmanship education grants from the pitman-roberts monies if training includes live fire marksmanship training for participants 12 and older.

I am sure I can find a few more compromises I can live with , I will think about it.

No more compromising. You never gain a thing. We always lose.

Yup done and dusted. not one more inch

"rightwingers" are already supporting gun control. been several good ol boy dyed in the wool redneck trappers on this site say insta check , full auto licensing, concealed carry licensing, no direct mail order, age limits, and criminals who have been released from custody disallowed their rights, are all good things.

This is true.

As a side note to Missourians, here is a real second amendment advocate running for U.S. Senator as a republican. He was a Libertarian presidential primary candidate in 2016. Austin Peterson.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-...aign=user-share

The federal laws as they exist are pretty workable from my point of view. The gun free school zone law could go away but I am exempt from it in Kansas....I am also able to by pass instacheck at a ffl if they allow that as per Kansas law. Still have to fill out the paperwork but it does not get called in.

All in all I am happy.

Two in favor of firearms freedom, eh? you're OK so to heck with others? And I guess you are "right wing". I think this is what I talked about the other day. I'm not picking on you Marty because you are pretty much the example of Tman gun control enablers.

I certainly am happy with the freedoms I have in Kansas. Never said to heck with others...the federal laws are really not a big issue at the moment. That's my opinion. If you live in Kansas and want to be able to carry in gun free zones and avoid the instacheck call in then get a ccl. Simple.

full auto controls, instacheck are not going anywhere so I just accept it as it exists. Here we can carry concealed without ccl. I do not think a rapist/murderer that has been released form prison should be able to go and buy/possess a gun legally....guess I am anti gun...

If you want to hold up a copy of the second amendment and say this means absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership go ahead. Personally I do not feel the restrictions in place in the state that I live in are very adverse. If your state is not similar then you have the option to move.

If you want to go on the white house tour carrying a full auto ready to fire your not a realist. Just my opinion, but it is based on reality.

If you like your infringement, you can keep your infringement.

Thanks, finn..

I appreciate that.

I agree murderers and rapists are dangerous. I would prefer those that escape the death penalty get life. A real life sentence. No parole. Dangerous people don't really care how many laws they break including the one that says they cannot be armed

I would prefer that I was rich and handsome.

The thing is the question asked is moot, right and left are both in favor of gun control and have been since Hitler showed the way. There was a world wide acceptance of socialism in the early twentieth century and gradually all the individualists have either died off or been educated until today socialism is accepted by all but a handful of Libertarians and some outlaws.

I think your confused...no offense.

95% of u.s. high school students will say our country is a democracy and absolutely not socialist. percent may be higher for their teachers

The United States is a Republic of Laws. The best country on the planet.

The youngest American who voted for any politician who passed the NFA of 1934 is now 102 years old. This was the same class of Americans who voted for Roosevelt 4 times. That class ushered in the first major federal gun control and we have had the doors blown open ever since. Time to slam them back shut and put the monster back in its cage. That will only happen if we stop compromising and go on a political offensive. Of the MILLIONS or BILLIONS of dollars spent by NRA and Republicans we have yet to do that in any large degree.

I believe that any political offensive may be a tough sell, if tman is a cross section of society, as there are plenty here who are comfortable with current infringement.

I'll concede some felons should regain their rights after sentence is served. The ones who don't should be hanging from the gallows, as they would have in the 18th century.

So FF you're saying now is the time to make full autos available over the counter? Next your going to tell me a libertarian can get elected president.

Well, rat, we're not getting any younger. At what point will it become politically comfortable enough to stand up for the 2nd amendment?

If it is a tough sell its because people are afraid. When permitless constitutional carry became law in KS some people were mortified. It has become more than obvious their fear was unwarranted.

For some reason that I don't understand, people believe the people they should fear will not be armed if its a violation of the law. They also believe that LE can protect them. I believe LE officers would really love to protect people. They know better than anyone all they can do arrest violent people after they hurt somebody. Not to many rapists or armed robbers going to rape and pillage if cops are nearby. People need to be their own first line of defense. A scary truism for many so they just choose not to believe it.

It's not being comfortable it's being feasible.

SCOTUS has ruled that LEO are not obligated to protect people.

Feasibility is directly tied to political comfort.

Yes, but most will if the situation arises

I do not think that criminals are going to obey the law and I also do not think its good for a criminal to be able to walk into the corner store and buy a full auto mp5.

Anyone that agrees with me is for gun control. So what?

Some controls are necessary....criminals used to shoot up the streets with full autos regularly. Now they do not....guess what? Some controls worked.

I will say it again for the dense folks......federal laws as they pertain to firearms are really not much of an issue today.

I'm pretty comfortable that this is not feasible.

Freedom is scary stuff. True freedom probably is unfeasible, at least for people who grew up under the socialism of the 20th century.

Compromise is no more nor less than incremental capitulation.

I don't knowwhat difference it makes if an outlaw buys an mp5 from a gun store or a drug dealer

Probably a bad idea to give the drug dealer a bad review on yelp if the gun doesn't work

The thing is its against the law for outlaws to buy from a gun dealer Danny, that's the difference.

Ever wonder if those super duper extra platinum level NRA members who are wealthy enough to own automatic weapons now would support a stance that would drastically reduce the value of their investment if the NFA were repealed?

I say let's make it the wild west, guns for everyone. Also to be truly free, no paying taxes or obeying any laws on the books. That's true freedom.

Yep. A felon should have to give up some of his rights.

Kinda of off topic but what is the libertarian view on capital punishment?

"Libertarian perspectives on capital punishment. Most libertarians believe that the capital punishment (death penalty) is an extreme exertion of state power and is of little use in a free society, while it is of great use to a tyrannical government."
From Wikipedia.

What if I don't like my state's position on voting? Or slavery? Or which church I choose to attend? Or what I'm allowed to say in public?

Should I move? Or should I stand up and demand that my rights be recognized?

Mike

If they are able to buy it there is no difference. But availability is the key there...there is no difference if someone murders you with a legally purchased weapon or an illegally purchased one...your still dead. But if they were not able to get the illegally purchased weapon easily you may be alive. If you cannot understand that your beyond help.

Stand up, sit down...whatever you want. Have at it. I choose to live where I like what the laws are. I guess I could move to NYC and stand on the corner with a sign. But I choose the logical way. Some places are beyond help and so are some people. Just look at the opinions here.

If you're killed with an auto mp5 or a semi mp5 you're still just as dead.

You'll get a dozen different answers on this...

I'm not a card carrying member of the Libertarian party. But I believe the Constitution is the standard by which Americans should judge government. And in a gray area the default decision should err on the side of freedom.

The 5th amendment says no person shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty, or property without due process.

Just my opinion.

Mike

so how do you decide when gun control is reasonable? you support strongly a persons right to freely buy a semi. is a semi less likely to kill somebody than an auto? if your right as a citizen to arm yourself is a measure of protection against tyranny why impose a restriction on what you may freely buy and own?

So you're cool with the fact that constitutional rights are cherry picked based on arbitrary things like geography?

That's not a constitutional republic... That's a democracy. That means when enough morons move to KS, you're screwed.

Mike

there are plenty of morons in Kansas.

put me in charge with absolute power and I will fix it all....otherwise we need to work with what we have and not allow more.

your not going to get less....unless you are in a fantasy land.

I doubt that we will ever need full autos to overthrow a tyrannical government. I truly believe that our military will be on our side and help us create well regulated militias and arm us with whatever we need. If that turns out to not be the case, then we are through as a free people with or without legally owned full autos.

Why wouldo anyone be OK with a stalemate? Push the issue as hard as possible while we are young enough to fight, politically or actally to throw off tyranny . It isn't very patriotic to tread water until we all die of old age and pass the political fight to those not born yet.

Perhaps.

But keep in mind that Obama went through and cleaned house and replaced generals with people he felt he could trust... And then he opened the gates wide to allow all kinds of people into the military.

Will Trump undo that? Maybe.

But the next guy down the road may stack the deck even more with "loyal" personnel.

When I joined the Army I swore an oath and I take that oath seriously. But some snowflake unsure of its gender and looking for a free reassignment surgery would probably march you into a gas chamber out of sheer gratitude to Uncle Sugar.

Mike

Colorado is right next door Marty... They'll move in and vote your rights away just like they did there.

Mike

Still the same pathetic excuses for not supporting any organizations. Same people probably can't take responsibility for their own actions. It's always everyone else's fault.

They do not want to come here or Ok. They are going north.

What was the stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment?

Paul, I would say there is none. The "well-regulated militia" clause is merely prefatory. The operative language is "shall not be infringed."

The language of the Second Amendment was the result of political compromise of the times, and was left ambiguous in places on purpose.

Jim

Hmmmm, I'm still buying more guns, lol.

The federalist papers 29 and 46 gave the reasons behind the 2nd amendment.

Madison on the 2nd - https://bearingarms.com/glyon/2013/10/05/madison-on-the-2nd-amendment-milita-clause/

The Second Amendment seems slightly ambiguous in the modern day, so an examination of what the founders intended the Amendment to mean at the time would be more productive. Here are some quotes by men who wrote and signed the Constitution regarding the use and ownership of firearms:

http://sites.psu.edu/considerconservatis...t-be-infringed/

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, Speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”– Samuel Adams

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … “– Thomas Jefferson

These statements and many others indicate that the authors of the Constitution believed that the right to bear arms was an individual and inalienable right, necessary to protect society from tyrannical governments. Additionally, an argument made for personal gun rights is that the allowance for a government militia or army is present in Article 1, Section 8 of the original Constitution, and the Second Amendment specifically added the rights of the people to bear arms after referencing the militia clause. The entire Bill of Rights was, as indicated by its name, added for the safeguarding of the rights of American citizens and states, and almost all the evidence points towards the Second Amendment acknowledging an individual right to bear arms.

If we are to protect ourselves from a "tyrannical" government, how can we do that with inferior arms? We need to have arms equal to those in government who would wish to impose their will on us.

Absolutely !

I agree with Paul.

I deserve to own a grenade launcher, and some anti tank weaponry . Just in case.

I do not have links to back up my opinion on this but I believe that the founders were against having a standing federal army. As large and powerful and expensive as ours is currently it is mind boggling to imagine it that way, today. However, if citizens were encouraged to own automatic weapons, and other weapons of war I believe we would be an effective defensive force. Personally owned weapons are usually of much higher quality, cared for more correctly and respected more than a government owned arsenal. Imagine the quality of Machine Gun, for instance, that would be available today due to innovation driven by a consumer market rather than being sold in lots of the lowest common denomination to the government only. Thus topic is in the land of fantasy, but it would be nice to at least repeal the NFA. That isn't fantasy.

I think we need a strong military. Every organism needs a defense, and sometimes an offense. There is too much disparity in the world for us to not have a guard up, globally .

The liberals want us to be more like Europe. If you have ever been to Europe. They don't live on their property, they live in small towns. Every few miles there is one. They did this for protection. In some countries they didn't own the land they lived on. They paid rent to the owner. Also, the king or the rich owns the wildlife. It was illegal for the common man to hunt. Also, it was illegal to own firearms.

Here in the U.S.A. we own or land. We live on our own land. Your next door neighbor could be miles down the road. Here the common man can hunt the game on his property. Also, we were living in a hostile land were you depended on yourself for protection.

This is why the second amendment was put in.

Garryowen

Great job Paul!, you are a great American sir. Thank you

Indeed.

I still get a laugh out of the people who call Trump the devil and Hitler, yet would trust only him and the government with the guns.

Solid proof they ain't thinking right.

As well intended as the bill of rights was, it was still a compromise; Madison intended it all be part of the main body on the Constitution. Not all our Founding Fathers were in favor of freedom, something we tend to forget. Amendments can be revoked, and some day soon there will be a movement to revoke the 2nd.

So, a couple more apparently in favor of firearms freedom, I think that's up to 5-6 now and still so many want restrictions.
Restrictions, no matter how well intended only restrict the law abiding, why do we have so much trouble comprehending that basic fact? This forum is made up of trappers and hunters, people that use guns, the supposed "right"; yet the majority are in favor of gun control. Again, the op question is moot, there seems to be no right wing opposition to gun control.
The apparent stance of the "right wing" is gun control is great as long as I personally can keep a few.

The democrats have shown you exactly where they stand. If Hillary had won things would be a lot different. A few on the right may waver. We need to take note of them and vote them out.


Garryowen

Way off topic and I'm not a Libertarian, but I see stoning at the public meeting place by all the people as the Bible directs.

What is your view?

Garryowen, Democrats and Republicans drink at the same trough and both have little use for Personal Liberty.

That's it right there.

My view is that the punishment should fit the crime.
Now the question. Is there a crime committed that, other than capital punishment, is worthy of the punishment of the loss of constitutionally protected rights?

A movement to repeal 2A has already begun. At this moment it is in it's infancy, only a handful of far left politicians and other extreme liberals calling for it. But it exists.

We should never forget that, during the last election cycle, all three democratic presidential candidates ran on anti-gun platforms. They tried to out anti-gun each other and proudly proclaimed their animosity towards the NRA.

I think one of the main reasons more politicians, especially republicans, don't go that route is because they know gun owners are a significant voting block and they understand that the NRA can and does influence elections. There are many, many cases of politicians losing their jobs because of some anti-gun legislation they sponsored or supported.

And that is one very important reason every gun owner should support the NRA.

That is right. This is a good time to find out were our representatives stand on the issue. If they are for repealing it then vote them out.


Garryowen

Voting someone "out" could result in voting "in" someone worse.

The next couple Supreme Court Justices nominated are going to have a HUGE impact on how the 2nd amendment is interpreted. How long will Ginsberg hold on?

Since there seems to be 5 or 6 people here that believe individuals should have the same weapons as military and law enforcement, what is the current position of the NRA concerning repealing the NFA of 1934 and all successive federal gun control acts? I know, I know, the nra supported and in some instances helped to write some of the Acts when they were drafted; what is the current stance?

This could be impacted 'hugely' by the 2018 mid-terms. If the Senate changes hands, all bets are off.

Alot of law enforcement and game wardens are awarded thier service weapons when they retire.I think it's awsome for thier many years of service they get a firearm instead of a watch lol! Some people think that shouldn't be allowed?

I mean arent they "individuals" again after they retire?

The next two elections are going to be critical. Vote out anybody who has voiced support for gun control measures. Also, let them know why they are being voted out. Mid-term elections are only six months away.

Garryowen

Are these 'service weapons' of a kind that other citizens can not buy? Full auto or something of that nature?

I can certainly see objections to this policy from a fiscal view, a waste of money maybe, because a new weapon would have to be purchased for the replacement officer.

They were pretty quick to say bump stocks should be banned, weren't they?

Cal me a pessimist, but the " burning of books" has already started. All be it in a digital way. Youtube, Facebook etc. erasing gun context, or more precise gun context of things that point towards the 2A. Its still just fine to show videos of ISIS beheading and executing folks in barbaric ways. But ya can't show a video that has a " high capacity " magazine in it. I you can't win an argument with reason. Quieten the opposition. Sound familiar to anyone??
This whole thing smells of a bad history deal to me.

[quote=FlyinFinn Time to slam them back shut and put the monster back in its cage. That will only happen if we stop compromising and go on a political offensive. Of the MILLIONS or BILLIONS of dollars spent by NRA and Republicans we have yet to do that in any large degree. [/quote]

I agree. The NRA is starting to do it with there dvd’s and spokeswoman Dana Loesch. Everytome time there is a bad guy shooting especially the mass shootings, gun supporters have to go on the defensive. Every time a gun advocate gets interviewed, bring up the fact that many anti-gun politicians and big time media sorts live in gated communities and are surrounded by armed body guards armed with high magazine capacity. Will they give up their safe places and armed protection? Drill it into the public’s head. Tucker Carlson on Fox News does it all the time.When Joe Biden said if a person heard a prowler outside of his/her home, get a double barrel shotgun, go out on the patio and blow off two shots in the air. Although some people said it was a stupid idea I never heard one person give the reasons why it was stupid. In fact, the liberal media praised him for the idea. First of all, besides being illegal in many places, he suggested to leave the safety of your own home in which you will know better than any prowler and completely exposing yourself outside. Second, you are now out of ammunition in your firearm. Biden said the prowler will run away when you shoot. How does he know? The person may just fire back and now you have an unloaded firearm standing out in the open. Why didn’t anybody challenge him face to face about his remark? Or how about the idiot (either a state politician or college professor, can’t remember which) from Colorado telling women you don’ t need a firearm to protect yourself from a rapist. Just urinate on him when he starts to rape you? Just make the rapist more mad so he will smash your head in. Or carry a whistle to scare the rapist away or run into a safe place (as if they are located everywhere a women walks or runs).

Funny you should mention that, my state is the reddest of the red states.

I can drive 2 miles down the road and buy fresh raw milk from a local dairy farm. The dairy farmer is free to sell it to me.

But if he puts up a sign in his yard, "Fresh raw milk for sale" the state will break it off in his butt.

It's supposedly a public health regulation. But I can still buy the milk... The farmer just can't tell me that it's for sale.

Gosh, I wonder who benefits from keeping customers ignorant that they have choices on who they purchase from?

Mike

Scuba, I call you an optimist, but at least you are paying attention and possess logic.

Mike, its not funny to me.

That is an example of crony capitalism by creameries and milk bottling companies.

This x100!!!!

All trhis talk and i'm for this and this means that is only talk in the end. We have to get out this fall and vote Republicans in so if Trump appoints another supreme court justice, he/she will be confirmed.

Voting otherwise is wishful thinking and peeing up wind.

Now is the time to abandon the half steppers en mass and vote for liberty.

Let's see what this Constitution is about.

McCain/McConnell, the widow peeked creep from cheeseheadland co-starring Lady boy and the Cheeto-in-chief have had their day in the sun. Quit voting for mediocrity.

Republican's have had majority in 3 elected branches and, to some, the appointed branch. Yet alls the cry I hear is to send more effing money to the NRA. That's not patriotism, its grabassism.

If you got sick, you would be right in line to sue the farmer.

So a what? If I got sick from mama's, oops, I mean daddy government protected company maybe I'd sue too. You're another half stepper diggerman, you better keep drinking milk from a government approved teat.

Got any candidates you approve of?

IMO, the Senate will not change hands, Democrats have to defend 25 of 33 seats, though I am not sure if there will also be elections held in Alabama again this November, or in Arizona with Flake retiring. I actually look for the Republicans to gain a seat or two there, but as far as the House, all bets are off on that.

Yes, sir. However, you'll do well to discover those that lean into liberty for your own self. If you need guidance in local elections look at lp.org and search for your area. If you can't find anyone start something.

A vote for the Liberty party, until they are big enough to effect change, is a waste of a vote.


Garryowen

Not in Finn's world.

Then help make them bigger MR.garryowen. no sense pulling the lever again and again and again while wondering why it doesn't change.

Go listen to that indignant liberal Ron Zombie, Lugnut. Your name has been recorded in the book of half steppers, too.

Not sure what a halfstepper is but I will be in full stride whilist I am carrying you and the rest of the "dreamers".

That's your boy Mr. Principles.

Curious that you suspend your all or nothing attitude when it comes to Mr. Zombie? Would you still like him if he suddenly turned pro-gun and joined the NRA?

Digger, before you pick up my pack I should warn you that it is heavy, you'll wrench your back and be sitting back in the appeaser seats.

If the House and Senate both change hands, Trump's impeachment and removal from office are almost inevitable.

Jim

Oh jeeZ...then we have 18 Pence?

Ah, I thought you meant stated in the amendment itself.

Jim

https://youtu.be/BY9BHwyZ9Mo

This is the truth right here. I'm not exactly enamored with the Republican party, but I sure as heck ain't voting for no democrats. "Leaning into liberty" sounds great and all, but it ain't happening anytime soon.
For now I'm just thankful every day we don't have cankles pantsuit in the white house.

The fantasies of a twisted liberal mind.

Atta boy. Thumbs up

I wonder if the NRA will endorse Petersen, or if his idea of the second amendment is just a bit too much freedom for their image.

Impeachment? ha ha ha

Can we have a forum space for Flailing Fin and James, heck while we are at it may as well invite Addicted Angler and lump him in there with those two and shut the door. They will be happy ever after It will be like Tmans very own ball pit.

Wait Finn, you can't vote for this guy, he's seeking an NRA endorsement. Aligning yourself with him in anyway would sully your steadfast convictions.

You should probably just go sit back down on the porch and continue complaining and bashing those of us that contribute to imperfect organizations because we the understand the real world isn't perfect. You know, unlike the crystal clear, black and white world you live in.

Austin Petersen wants NRA endorsement.

I think you mean they would be unhappy ever after.

Shhhh now we'll never lure them in there.

Oooops

What candidate wouldn't want free campaign cash? The question is, will the NRA endorse a freedom candidate or will their milquetoast ways prevent them from standing up and saying "get rid of the NFA"? Mmm...we'll see.

Yeah, free money is free money, no matter who you have to get in bed with. Is that what you're saying Finn?

Finn would never stoop so low as to ever advocate taking NRA money. Oh the horror.

If the House and Senate both change hands, Trump's impeachment and removal from office are almost inevitable.

Jim [/quote]

I believe you are right, James. As much as I feel Trump has let we who voted for him down, we may be better just riding out his term and letting the house and the senate try to keep him from doing anything to stupid. If somebody in the republican party doesn't get a handle on the guy, he may ruin any chance of a republican being elected next time. The way things are now, I don't think they want him to be our next nominee.

I agree his impeachment will be immediate. His removal from office won't happen.

Technically speaking, you are probably correct.

The Dems would need to pickup 98 seats or get Rebs. to vote for impeachment. As you need 2/3rds majority unless I'm missing something.

There may actially be hope for this ex-Libitarian. He was actually smart enough to join the Republicans to have any chance of winning a seat.

Hope he wins.

https://www.austinpetersen.com/20171130_american_watchmen

Like i said Finn, we need to vote Republican to stave off the gun control nuts.

"Impeachment" is simply the formal statement of charges. It doesn't mean removal from office although it could lead to that.

In the case of the our current President, I don't believe either will happen.

I was a city cop for 27 years, I took one legally owned weapon from a woman that said she was going to kill herself. Its such a mess I don't see how anybody could vote for anything that restricts law abiding citizens. If you wanted to give up bump stocks I would say, No! Just make them register for a tax stamp! that's not making them illegal, just an added hoop! I saw this video about how that killer florida was bullied for 3 year prior to him popping off! Yes people will pop! It happens no question. Outlawing AR's is not going to work any better than that 3 strikes your out garbage did! There are millions on top of millions of unregistered AR's across this land.

I'm starting to think they want a civil war.....? Its just crazy if they think this generation is going to give up that freedom for free!
I'm also worried about how the education system has turned many kids into sheeple so easily!!!! that crazy, they seem to have no pride what so ever, or patriotism?

The entire thing scares me to be honest. Montana here I come baby!

Trumps already doing peachy...

that had a pile of stats about trump on cnn today! you could see it burned their tails his approval numbers are going up and are only about 4 points below BHO at the same time!!!! LOL

Also, when it comes to the economy, he's waaaaaaaay up! And that just because the dems can't make up lies when it comes to unemployment as easily anymore!

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/04/01/...ings-surge.html

don't you need a permit to even have a screwdriver outside of your home in England?

Seems to be primarily an eastern thing here in the U.S. for gunowners to support "reasonable" gun control. I wonder why that is?

Since we're on the subject of "reasonable" gun control , why is it ok if the NRA supports it?

You need to buy another string for your banjo, you have that one wore out Danny.

My banjo sounds sweet to me. Its a wonderful thing to live in a country where its not only legal but a government recognized right to try and change what you dont like.