ChrisWeigant.com

The Persistence Of The Resistance

[ Posted Thursday, December 14th, 2017 – 17:59 UTC ]

Donald Trump's election spurred a political backlash. Diverse groups took it upon themselves to protest what had happened to their country, from the massive Women's March On Washington (held the day after Trump's swearing-in) to the "Indivisible" groups that soon spontaneously popped up across America. "Resist!" was the battle cry, leading some to name the entire movement "the resistance." Cynical observers of Washington politics (and yes, I was among them at times) wondered whether the whole thing would eventually peter out or whether it could continue long enough to be a factor in the 2018 midterm elections. After a year's time, though, there are no signs that it is waning. In fact, this resistance is showing a dramatic degree of persistence.

Many political movements have their day in the sun, make a lot of noise, and then fade into obscurity. They might significantly change the political conversation, but in the end they can be completely unsuccessful at sparking any real political change. Two examples immediately spring to mind. I write this on the five-year anniversary of the slaughter of children in Newtown, Connecticut, and note that no significant gun safety laws have been passed in the intervening time period. In fact, the cycle of mass shootings has only accelerated, and yet no matter how big the outrage, nothing ever seems to happen. The second example would be the Occupy Wall Street movement, which began roughly six years ago. While they did change the conversation (the "one percent versus the 99 percent"), Congress is on the verge of passing a tax bill that will only make the problem of inequality far worse.

Granted, both failures can be chalked up to Republicans controlling Congress. The danger for any political movement, though, is disillusionment when things fail to appreciably change for the better. A big protest (like the Women's March) provides an emotional spasm of outrage, but real change comes from determination setting in afterwards. But often times, that determination can fade away over time. "What's the use?" people begin to wonder, and they stop volunteering, participating, and even voting.

That doesn't seem to be happening to the anti-Trump movement. In fact, if anything, it appears to be growing. Trump, being Trump, is really his own worst enemy in this regard. If he had ever managed to make the long-sought "pivot" to acceptable behavior, it might have weakened the intense feelings against him and what he stands for. But he can't help himself -- he loves wading into an issue and tossing a few verbal hand grenades around, just for the attention it brings him. This has led to the resistance being continually reinforced, because Trump never lets anything die down to the point where people might begin giving him the benefit of the doubt.

In fact, what now appears to be happening is that Trump's own base are the ones who seem to be getting disillusioned. His average job approval poll numbers stayed largely above 40 percent throughout the first half of 2017, but this week hit a new low of 37 percent. Individual polls put him as low as 32 or 33 percent. One recent poll even showed a sharp dropoff of Trump support among (gasp!) Fox News fans -- the easiest possible way to identify Trump's base, really. There even may be a new wave of Trump supporters burning their "Make America Great Again" hats in protest, although the evidence for this is purely anecdotal at this point.

Earlier this year, there were five special House elections held to replace people who had taken better jobs. Four of them went to the Trump administration and one went to Jerry Brown's government in California (to replace newly-elected Senator Kamala Harris). All five seats stayed within the same party, but the voting patterns shifted noticeably Democratic, even in the races Republicans won. In the past two months there have been three major elections held, and in two of them Democrats picked up seats from outgoing Republicans. The first two were held in November, and Democrats picked up the governorship of New Jersey from outgoing (and incredibly unpopular) Governor Chris Christie, while Democrats also held onto the governorship of Virginia. This week, Alabama elected the first Democrat to the Senate in a quarter-century.

In all three recent elections, two major groups showed up in overwhelming numbers: suburbanites, and white women with college degrees. You'll note there is a lot of overlap in those two demographic groups. But they were the ones who actually increased their turnout numbers relative to the rest of the electorate. Outside these groups, there have been other trends worth mentioning, as African-American voters and young voters have turned out in large numbers to vote, as well as other traditional Democratic groups. African-American women in particular may have been the most impressive group to turn out in Alabama (since an astounding 98 percent of them voted for Doug Jones). All of this took place while traditional Republican groups of voters stayed home, in large numbers. So overall, Democratic voter turnout is up, Republican voter turnout is down. Even in races where an accused child molester isn't on the ballot.

But it's the suburbanites and college-educated white women who seem to be actually shifting their political allegiances. An increasing number of both groups used to reliably vote Republican but are now fervently voting Democratic. This is the most positive trend for Democrats yet, because there are a whole lot of Republican House districts which contain suburbs and a lot of college-educated women. And this trend keeps showing up in race after race, no matter the state and no matter who actually wins the race. Even in the special House elections where Republicans won, these demographics are shifting away from the Republican Party.

This is the easiest way to measure the persistence of the Trump resistance, at least so far. But there are other metrics that also show strong determination, such as the vast number of first-time Democratic candidates signing up to run for office all over America. Democrats -- including a huge number of women -- are personally eager to wage a political campaign to oust Republicans next year. Who knows how many of them will succeed, but currently the Democrats are seeing an overwhelming effort to depose sitting Republicans in Congress, and very early in the process.

Republicans, on the other hand, haven't seemed to realize how unpopular their agenda actually is with the public at large. They keep pushing hideous legislation, oblivious to the voices raised against it (many from their own base). For instance, their tax plan (if it passes) would hit precisely the people who are already beginning to desert them -- suburban homeowners. Far from pleasing their base voters (as they keep telling themselves it will), this may be the biggest political blunt object to be used against them in the midterm campaigns.

If Republicans lose the suburban voters that have regularly kept them in office, then they may well lose control of the House of Representatives as a direct result. So I guess it's no surprise that there are now rumors that Paul Ryan is considering stepping down soon. It'd be a lot better to make an early exit on your terms than be stripped of the speaker's gavel next November, after all.

As always, it remains to be seen -- even if the Democrats do win big next year -- whether they can follow through on what their supporters are now demanding. That's a different problem of disillusionment, though, one that we'll all have plenty of time to dissect if it comes to pass.

For now, though, the persistence of the resistance is what is notable. Democratic voters are making their voices heard in the most effective way possible -- in the voting booth. They have not become disillusioned, instead it is Trump's base who now appears unenthusiastic about voting. With Steve Bannon fanning the flames against the Republican leadership in Washington, this is going to be a hard problem for Republicans to overcome. If the resistance continues to grow and maintains the levels of outrage that Trump's election gave rise to, then it could create a Democratic wave election next November. If that happens (and with my apologies to the Borg, of course) the resistance will not be futile.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

81 Comments on “The Persistence Of The Resistance”

  1. [1] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    "Republicans, on the other hand, haven't seemed to realize how unpopular their agenda actually is with the public at large. They keep pushing hideous legislation, oblivious to the voices raised against it (many from their own base."

    I have a hard time believing this. These are politicians, no? Skilled in getting elected, skilled in figuring out how to get re-elected? Granted, I loathe the GOP agenda and can't understand the thinking behind a tax cut that clearly benefits the top tier at the expense (in both tax cut benefits, and upcoming cuts in social services) of the vast majority of the country. But I am not a Republican voter. Surely the Republican leadership and congressional delegations are not clueless about how to remain in power in a democracy...

    Surely (he said, buying into an almost conspiratorial mindset) they have a PLAN to remain in office having passed, or tried to pass, such legislation, while supporting a president whose personal style is erratic verging on insane, but whose executive branch decisions are equally favorable to the top 1%, or 0.1%, of the country?

    I admit that, since the 2016 election, I believe I have no idea what makes American politics tick. So maybe you're right: the GOP, having overreached, will take a fall next fall. Maybe.

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The persistence of the "resistance" is not what is notable. It is the deception of calling anything the resistance that doesn't include resisting the Big Money Democrats along with Trump and the Big Money Republicans.

    There is no valid reason to wait for the Big Money Democrats to regain control and see if the Big Money Democrats follow through. They haven't before and they won't this time either.

    You can only be disillusioned if you buy into the illusion in the first place.

    If the Democrats don't have the courage and integrity to stand up to the Big Money interests by refusing to take the Big Money contributions during the campaigns then they won't have the courage and integrity to stand up to the Big Money interests as legislators.

    Until we get the Big Money out of politics than it won't matter whether we elect Democrats, Republicans or Borgs because they will be working for the Big Money interests instead of us.

    It's not warp drive technology!!!!

    Some may call what you have described as the resistance. It is not the resistance- but it is futile to vote for Big Money candidates of any party. And if you keep pretending that what you described as the resistance is the resistance then the apology that you should be offering is not to the Borg but to the people that read your articles for the deception, intentional or not.

  3. [3] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    "No significant gun safety laws have been passed in the (five year) intervening period."

    That's because nobody could think of any realistic new laws that would solve the problem. Every gun law that will stand up to constitutional muster as already been passed years ago.

    Short of banning firearms, everything has pretty much been done that can be done.

  4. [4] 
    Paula wrote:

    The resistance has been fueled and sustained by women. Millions of women were jubilant on election day morning, celebrating what we thought was going to be the first woman president. The disappointment we felt was about more than HRC specifically - it was also about the glass ceiling's remaining unbroken. On top of that, the criminal traitor that ascended to the presidency, instantly crapping all over it, represented steps backwards for women everywhere on every level. Pence was biter icing on the cake, as he represented an entire additional layer of harm to women.

    I spent the first 10 days post-election swimming in online activity, which quickly moved into a series of invitation-only groups on Facebook, the largest of which was Pantsuit Nation, which was started by a group of Hillary supporters. It went from a few thousand to a few million members in about 48 hours, and within days groups began splintering into Pantsuit (state) and Pantsuit (city) sub-groups. The groups included men, but women outnumbered them. As a rule I prefer not to make "gender-based" statements or assumptions, but I have to say I think women understood the threat DT represented long before many men did. When Blotus stalked HRC on that stage, we felt it. (Well, many women did, anyway. Ask them.) Predator/harassers focus on women as a rule, but their abuses don't stop there. These types abuse people in numerous ways and are the worst people on earth to hold power.

    I'll go out on a limb and say I think the women who hate DT do so with a ferocity most men don't match, and plenty of men hate him.

    Anyway, as CW noted, Indivisible groups sprouted, and hosts of others large and small.

    We were all bumbling around at first. Then came the Women's March, which galvanized millions around the country and world. That's when the Resistance really crystalized, I think. And as DT and his Republican co-traitors continue their various attempts to rape and pillage the country they refuel us. Every assault generates backlash and every success we enjoy teaches us.

    So no, I don't think the Resistance is going to fade, at least, not until Blotus and Pence are gone. But it ISN'T a "movement". It's a response to a specific set of threats and when they are beaten people will return to normal life, just like returning to peace-time after a war. Hopefully with a set of lessons learned and with a never-to-be-forgotten understanding of the importance of civic responsibility. There are people who are now politically engaged who were not at all prior to 2016. Hopefully that won't change.

  5. [5] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Short of banning firearms, everything has pretty much been done that can be done.

    Really? How in the world do you figure that is the case? Because the NRA has said it is so?

    How about starting with a national registry for firearms? That hasn’t been done. Would a registry have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre? Not likely, but it is not outside the realm of possibilities that it could have. How? Adam Lanza had serious mental issues. If the registry had been in place when his mother had to call 911 for assistance in getting Adam under control or taken to a hospital, the officers could have removed the firearms from the house had a registry warning alerted them that multiple guns were registered to the address where they were responding.

    Everyone says they don’t want those with mental issues to have access to guns, but until there is a way to identify that someone diagnosed with a mental illness is known to have purchased a gun prior to being diagnosed with a mental illness, we are not serious about keep guns out of their hands!

    The registry would also allow ATF to have full inventory of firearms sold at gun shops (Something that the shops are not REQUIRED to provide the ATF, for some crazy reason). It is one way to help track where stolen guns originate from.

    The biggest thing that we could do would be to repeal the Dickey Amendment. We have made it so that the CDC could lose their funding if a study on gun violence pointed to gun control laws as a way to lessen the number of gun deaths in this country. Republicans love to say that the CDC isn’t restricted from doing studies on gun violence, they just won’t admit that it is a huge risk involved in conducting one.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's because nobody could think of any realistic new laws that would solve the problem. Every gun law that will stand up to constitutional muster as already been passed years ago.

    Short of banning firearms, everything has pretty much been done that can be done.

    Exactly...

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would a registry have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre? Not likely, but it is not outside the realm of possibilities that it could have.

    Bullshit...

    There is no gun law that hasn't been already applied that will prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings and is in keeping with the 2nd Amendment..

    NONE... ZERO... ZILCH... NADA....

    All you have are WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws that won't accomplish ANYTHING but push a Dumbocrat agenda...

    A gun registry?? Won't do diddley squat to PREVENT gun violence. It will just make it easier to solve gun crimes after the fact...

    Further, the ONLY logical reason to have a gun registry is to make gun confiscation easier..

    Anti gun nuts need to come to grips with the FACTS and reality..

    Anything that CAN be done under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment HAS been done...

    You want more gun control?? Repeal the 2nd...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    I write this on the five-year anniversary of the slaughter of children in Newtown, Connecticut, and note that no significant gun safety laws have been passed in the intervening time period.

    Let's not forget that it was DEMOCRATS who doomed anti-gun legislation in the after-math of the Sandy Hook shooting...

    As a matter of fact, it's been DEMOCRATS who have objected to and stopped ANY meaningful legislation that would actually prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings..

    Russ, you want a national registry???

    How about a national registry of mental health patients???

    Nooooooo Democrats won't support THAT because of the social stigma and privacy issues...

    Responsibility for every crowd-based mass shootings can be laid at the feet of the Democrat Party because they have stopped ANY meaningful mental health legislation that might have prevented these kooky dooks from obtaining weapons.....

    418

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Huckabee Sanders vs. Reporter On Sandy Hook: Can You Tell Me One Gun Law That Would Have Prevented This?
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/12/14/huckabee_sanders_vs_reporter_on_sandy_hook_can_you_tell_me_one_gun_law_that_would_have_prevented_this.html

    And there it is...

    THAT is the $64,000 question...

    Can ANYONE name a law that is in keeping with the 2nd Amendment and that will prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings??

    No.. No one can...

    All ya'all every have is WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws that do absolutely NOTHING but push an anti-gun agenda...

    So, how about this. Until such time as the hysterical anti-gun crowd can repeal the 2nd Amendment, how about they just shut up...

    Four Hundred and twenty...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really? How in the world do you figure that is the case? Because the NRA has said it is so?

    No, because anti-gun nuts cannot come up with a SINGLE law that fits the parameters..

    1. Will prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings..

    2. Is allowed under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment..

    But hay... here's your big chance... The chance to shame not only the infamous Michale but also the NRA....

    Come up with a law that meets those 2 criteria and you will be rich beyond the dreams of avarice....

    Ready... Set.. GO....

    421

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    And also, ya'all need to keep in mind that gun ownership is as much a constitutional right as freedom of speech is...

    So, any "reasonable" restriction ya'all want to place on the constitutional right of gun ownership will also be conferred on the constitutional right of freedom of speech...

    Fair is fair...

    423

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a well known fact that Sweden has very liberal and loose gun laws. EVERYONE owns a firearm and usually carries a rifle in the vehicles at all times...

    There is a story.

    Hitler threatened to send his 10 million man army to attack the 5 million citizens of Sweden back in the 30s.

    "What are you going to do about it?" asked Hitler...

    Prime Minister of Sweden simply replied, "We'll just have to shoot twice."

    Dunno if the story is true or not...

    Fact reality, people.. There are simply NO FACTS that support a correlation between gun ownership and gun violence...

    In the case of CBMSs, the facts indicate just the opposite..

    In a crowd-based mass shooting where none of the crowd is armed the average number of deaths is 11...

    In a crowd-based shooting where one or more of the crowd is armed, the average number of deaths is 4....

    At least in the case of crowd-based mass shootings, there is a clear correlation between the presence of armed "good guys" and the number of fatalities...

    Further, It's very easy to PROVE beyond ANY doubt that, when it comes to gun violence, guns are NOT the problem..

    424

  13. [13] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula hit the nail on the head when she wrote "But it ISN'T a "movement". It's response to a specific set of threats and when they are beaten people will return to normal life.... Hopefully with a set of lessons learned..."

    And that is why what Paula and CW are calling the Resistance is a false resistance. It is only directed to a specific set of threats and it is not a movement. All it is designed to do is provide advantage for the threats that are not part of the specific threats targeted by the false resistance over the targets of the false resistance.

    What Paula describes as a return to normal.

    And if that's what you are calling a resistance and is your goal then it is clear that the lessons that needed to be learned have not been learned.

    If you haven't learned that it is not just Trump and/or the Republicans that are the threat- it is the Big Money interests including the Big Money interests that control the Democratic Party then you still have some learning to do.

    Tuition free education available at http://www.onedemand.org

  14. [14] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I have come to believe that all modern U.S. Presidential Elections are wave elections. At any given moment, the political winds in all states, Red, Blue and Purple, tend to blow in the same direction favoring one of the two major party candidates. In most cases, only the Purple states matter, since all others are pretty much locked-in for one of the two major parties. All the above is simply rehashing the obvious.

    Trump was an exceptional candidate in several ways:

    * Never held, or even ran for political office before

    * The oldest candidate (beating even Reagan)

    * Recently affiliated with the party he was running against

    * An exceptionally long and well documented record of lying, evasion and just plain bad behavior in his business and personal life.

    The political breeze in the US is largely driven by big media; Cable and broadcast TV, social media, printed media. In the last days of the campaign, the media focused negatively on Clinton's E-mails. This was a rogue wave, that swept a Rogue into the White House. Thank-you electoral college!

    Trump's performance as President in the first year has been unorthodox to say the least, and even gleefully oblivious to appearances. He trying to govern by fiat. That's fiat with a small "f." - although the automotive brand with the large "F" is in fact historically associated with unreliability (Fix it again Tony) and the blowing of smoke (blue, black or white).

    All the above is driving (no pun intended) sustained resistance to an unpopular man promoting unpopular policies. There is no magic to The Resistance, it's all mechanics.

  15. [15] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig is right that there is no magic to the "resistance".

    But whether it was Trump or the Russians all they did was take advantage of a system set up to be manipulated by the Big Money interests. Those interests are upset that someone else manipulated the system they set up for them to manipulate and are now suckering people into the false resistance to try to regain control.

    The Electoral College is not to blame. The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the citizens that don't vote and that keep voting for the Big Money candidates.

    And on the media that should and might know better but keep pretending that the show is real.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's performance as President in the first year has been unorthodox to say the least, and even gleefully oblivious to appearances.

    Com'on, Stig.. You can say it..

    President Trump has ignored political correctness..

    Which is EXACTLY what he was elected to do..

    All the above is driving (no pun intended) sustained resistance to an unpopular man promoting unpopular policies.

    Your argument is subjective and, as such, is only applicable to half the population...

    425

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The People Front of Judea is not the real resistance!

    The Judean People's Front is the real resistance!

  18. [18] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [3]: There is a simple solution to the current gun violence epidemic: personal responsibility.

    People are not responsible won't act responsibly unless they are forced to (e.g. if you removed all auto laws there would be constant accidents, so we'd have 10,000's more deaths. Also auto companies would sell cheaper cars without airbags, reliable steering or brakes, etc. as they would be cheaper and some people wouldn't care. There would be no financial recourse because most would not buy auto insurance).

    So to make reduce traffic deaths and make auto work most effectively as a tool in our society we force personal responsibility on everybody who uses or owns one. Autos are ubiquitous, and don't need a Constitutional amendment to make them available - they already are available.

    Simple to do the same with guns. Registry of owners. Third party insurance in case they are used irresponsibly so innocent victims can be compensated for e.g. medical bills. Decent safety laws that protect the owner and society. All perfectly legal under the 2nd Amendment (this isn't my idea, it is a Republican one).

    We could solve most of the problems with guns with some simple laws and about three years to get them in place - and all based on that principle that I hold as one of the most important - personal responsibility.

  19. [19] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    President Trump has ignored political correctness..
    Which is EXACTLY what he was elected to do..

    But what Trump apparently can't ignore is the reaction that ordinary people have to him. A cut-up at a party is only entertaining for so long, but once he soils the punch, he's pretty much worn out his welcome.

    Face it, the Trump base is shrinking. The Trump agenda has stalled. It turns out that he's neither the master negotiator nor the brilliant guru that he claimed to be. The Senate is starting to reject his wildly unqualified nominees, and the incompetence emanating from his administration is looking less like revolution and more like Amateur hour.

    He didn't drain the swamp, he restocked it with financiers, conspiracy theorists and corporate lobbyists. Just take a look at the new tax plan and tell me if there's anything "new" or "revolutionary" about it. It's mostly a Wall Street Christmas, with big gifts under the tree for The Club for Growth, the Chamber of Commerce, and Trust Fund kids everywhere. It's not even Trump's tax plan, certainly not what he outlined on the campaign trail - it's mostly the same draconian tax plan that Paul Ryan would have drawn up and submitted whether the President was Trump, Cruz, or Clinton.

    Has anything been drained, save civility, decency, competence, standards and reason? Only the reputations of the Republican Party and the United States of America. Both will take time to restore.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Simple to do the same with guns. Registry of owners. Third party insurance in case they are used irresponsibly so innocent victims can be compensated for e.g. medical bills. Decent safety laws that protect the owner and society. All perfectly legal under the 2nd Amendment (this isn't my idea, it is a Republican one).

    Is it??

    Apply the same thing to Freedom Of Speech and tell me again how "perfectly legal" it is...

    Further, explain how any of those ideas would prevent or help prevent CBMSs...

    You can't because they won't...

    The ONLY reason for these WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws you put forth is to make gun ownership so much more onerous that people will simply not buy guns..

    THAT is your goal...

    We could solve most of the problems with guns with some simple laws and about three years to get them in place - and all based on that principle that I hold as one of the most important - personal responsibility.

    OK.. FIRST we implement your restrictions on Freedom Of Speech...

    THEN we can talk about implementing them against gun owners..

    426

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    But what Trump apparently can't ignore is the reaction that ordinary people have to him.

    But what Trump apparently can't ignore is the reaction that ordinary Democrats and NeverTrumpers have to him.

    There.. Fixed it for you..

    Face it, the Trump base is shrinking.

    You keep saying that..

    FACTS say otherwise..

    What you are doing is making the assumption that EVERYONE feels the same way about President Trump that you do..

    And you know what happens when you make an assumption, right??

    It makes an ASS out of U and Umption....

    427

  22. [22] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Can ANYONE name a law that is in keeping with the 2nd Amendment and that will prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings??

    ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

  23. [23] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    FACTS say otherwise..

    CW just said otherwise, based on available data.

    Have you got better data?

  24. [24] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://www.rawstory.com/2017/12/new-mexico-school-shooter-was-radicalized-on-white-supremacist-pro-trump-websites/

    William “Bill” Edward Atchison, the 21-year-old who shot and killed two students and himself last Thursday at Aztec High School in Aztec, New Mexico, was a secret white supremacist, spending time on websites like The Daily Stormer and spreading pro-Trump memes across the internet, the Daily Beast reports.

    Blotus scores high on the "inspire murder" chart.

  25. [25] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    LWYH

    I take it you skipped over the "realistic new laws that would solve the problem" part, right?

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kansas Dem Andrea Ramsey, accused of sexual harassment, will drop out of US House race
    http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article189931704.html

    Again, I have to ask..

    What *IS* it with Democrats???

    428

  27. [27] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But what Trump apparently can't ignore is the reaction that ordinary Democrats and NeverTrumpers have to him.

    That's true, because the numbers of both are increasing. You want facts? CW just wrote them down: depressed Republican votes across the board, increased Democratic votes, particularly among women and suburban voters. He didn't invent those numbers.

  28. [28] 
    neilm wrote:

    Those Mornings

    Those mornings I wake up and I'm just angry with everybody. I keep working because I've got three kids at University and a lifestyle that everybody around me likes funded at its present level. But frankly, once the kids are off the payroll, all the rest of the trappings are chains rather than garlands as far as I'm concerned, on those mornings.

    Those mornings I add up everything and calculate how much I could generate if I dumped it all in the markets, diversified and just took off down the road, with the missus in the passenger seat screaming blue murder at me.

    Those mornings when I just don't give a fig are the mornings I would also say screw it and get solidly behind my new party - the party of business and capital. The party of the 2017 Tax Bill - this is the party that has convinced a lot of people that it cares about their religion, their gun fetishes, their conspiracy theories (except for the ones that the real party leaders engineered for the rubes for business reasons e.g. climate denial), the homophobes, the racists, etc.

    Those mornings I want a badass party that laughs at the peons while it gets them to be dedicated little tools.

    Those mornings I just want me some unfettered capitalism and a political party that uses the useful fools effectively to subvert democracy to make my money work harder for me so I can bunk off and do whatever the hell I want.

    Then I remember I have a wife from New Jersey and I value my male parts.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    I take it you skipped over the "realistic new laws that would solve the problem" part, right?

    Of course he did..

    That's the only way Democrats can talk about anti-gun legislation..

    By ignoring the facts..

    429

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW just said otherwise, based on available data.

    Based on cherry picked POLLS...

    And it's a FACT that Trump supporters all but ignore Polls...

    Have you got better data?

    Yep.. Talking to actual Trump supporters...

    But there is a one link limit so I can't post ALL of the data that proves Trump's support is holding strong..

    ... Oooops.. I mean PRESIDENT Trump's support is holding strong. :D

    430

  31. [31] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale [26]:

    “In its rush to claim the high ground in our roiling national conversation about harassment, the Democratic Party has implemented a zero tolerance standard,” Ramsey said in a statement Friday. “For me, that means a vindictive, terminated employee’s false allegations are enough for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to decide not to support our promising campaign. We are in a national moment where rough justice stands in place of careful analysis, nuance and due process.”

    To be honest, Michale, this bothers me. It seems that acolytes of Catherine McKinnon's slash-and-burn style of feminism are on the warpath.

  32. [32] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [30]Based on cherry picked POLLS..

    From actual voting patterns, not polls. Believe it or don't believe it, a vote is a solid number.

  33. [33] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    It's a well known fact that Sweden has very liberal and loose gun laws. EVERYONE owns a firearm and usually carries a rifle in the vehicles at all times...

    Bullshit. Sweden has fairly restrictive guns laws. All guns must be registered with the National Police. All guns must be locked in a safe when not in use and must be unloaded and secured when transported in a vehicle. By "EVERYONE" you really mean about 16% of house holds own guns. The guns owned in Sweden are mostly hunting rifles and shotguns with handgun ownership about an order of magnitude lower than ownership of long guns. To own a gun, you must take a year of hunting courses and must show competency at a target range or be a member of a hunting club for six months.

    But hey, if you are advocating a move to a more Swedish like gun regulatory model, I'm totally with you...

    Fact reality, people.. There are simply NO FACTS that support a correlation between gun ownership and gun violence...

    There is a strong correlation as I have posted many times. But that correlation is tempered somewhat by countries with strong gun regulation, Israel and Switzerland being the previous examples you have tried pawn off without understanding their gun regulations.

    Dunno if the story is true or not...

    Not. Sweden's neutrality and lack of invasion in WWII had more to due with politics, iron ore and Hitler's need for troops to be elsewhere.

    At least in the case of crowd-based mass shootings, there is a clear correlation between the presence of armed "good guys" and the number of fatalities...

    Lets see you back this up...

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK.. FIRST we implement your restrictions on Freedom Of Speech...

    We already have these laws for freedom of speech. If you incite a mob to hurt or kill somebody, you can be charged.

    But the number of people killed per year by ridiculous hot air is minimal - otherwise you'd be a mass murderer.

    This is simple deflection because you can't point to real reasons that demanding personal responsibility would not work.

    Nice try. Now try to explain why personal responsibility wrt to gun ownership in countries like Sweden (that you use as an example) don't work when the death statistics show that they clearly do.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    We already have these laws for freedom of speech.

    Really??

    You have to buy SPEECH INSURANCE????

    You have to register with the federal government to speak freely??

    Where???

    This is simple deflection because you can't point to real reasons that demanding personal responsibility would not work.

    You have yet to explain how it WOULD work...

    Would ANY of your WOULDN'T IT BE NICE LAWS have prevented Vegas... Or Sandy Hook... or ANY of the CBSMs???

    No..

    Nice try. Now try to explain why personal responsibility wrt to gun ownership in countries like Sweden (that you use as an example) don't work when the death statistics show that they clearly do.

    My Sweden "example" was a joke.. Nothing more...

    Kinda like your WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws..

    My joke had the advantage of actually being funny, though.. :D

    431

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    Free speech aren't involved 30,000 deaths per year. Guns are.

    Stop trying to change the subject.

    Why won't personal responsibility work?

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Free speech aren't involved 30,000 deaths per year. Guns are.

    Bullshit... the vast majority of those deaths are suicides..

    NO law will prevent a suicide....

    Why won't personal responsibility work?

    You have yet to provide ANY facts to support the claim that it would prevent crowd-based mass shootings..

    I can refute your facts if you don't have any facts to refute...

    432

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Free speech aren't involved 30,000 deaths per year. Guns are.

    We have registration and insurance for cars..

    Yet there are still 40,000 deaths from cars every year..

    Obviously "person responsibility" when it comes to cars doesn't prevent car related deaths..

    Why do you think it will prevent the 10,000 odd thousand of non-suicide gun related deaths??

    Answer: It won't..

    It's nothing but WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws to serve an anti-gun agenda...

    433

  39. [39] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    The reason European's murder rates are so much lower than ours is that their ethnic diversity is also so much lower than ours, and has little or no relation to the prevalence or absence of guns. Europeans span the spectrum of gun ownership, from far higher than ours to much lower than ours, but their murder rates are ALL much lower than ours.

    There are many advantages to being a "melting pot", but low murder rate is not one of them.

  40. [40] 
    neilm wrote:

    Bullshit... the vast majority of those deaths are suicides..

    NO law will prevent a suicide....

    Suicides go down when the alternatives are more painful and slower than pulling a trigger. The numbers from Australia show this.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stop trying to change the subject.

    The subject is constitutional rights...

    Gun ownership is as much of a constitutional right as freedom of speech...

    If you have no problem curtailing one of them you, by default, have no problem curtailing ALL of them..

    434

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Suicides go down when the alternatives are more painful and slower than pulling a trigger. The numbers from Australia show this.

    And if Australia had our demographics, then you would have an argument.

    But it doesn't, so you don't..

    The simple FACT is that your "personal responsibility" doesn't work with car deaths..

    Why don't you offer ANY facts to prove it would work with gun related deaths..

    Because you can't because you don't have any..

    435

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    The reason European's murder rates are so much lower than ours is that their ethnic diversity is also so much lower than ours, and has little or no relation to the prevalence or absence of guns. Europeans span the spectrum of gun ownership, from far higher than ours to much lower than ours, but their murder rates are ALL much lower than ours.

    There are many advantages to being a "melting pot", but low murder rate is not one of them.

    Exactly.. Comparing American culture to European is like comparing apples to alligators...

    There IS no comparison to be made..

    436

  44. [44] 
    neilm wrote:

    NO law will prevent a suicide....

    Also, mental state could be taking into account for firearm purchases, and will almost certainly be for insurance rates - that will have a dampening effect on suicides as well.

    Let's face it, this is a personal responsibility based solution that relies on market forces to work - it is a right wing wet dream solution but you have been trained to be a gun nut by the firearm manufacturers, and this would definitely be bad for them.

    With this proposal we could get rid of all the ineffective laws on "assault rifles", etc.

    Insurance for a normal person with a shotgun and a handgun, and maybe a hunting rifle, would be minimal - hell we could have Ryancare for poor hunters where you get a break on insurance if you can't afford it but are deserving.

    This works. It is legal. The only losers are gun manufacturers - why do you care about them so much?

    Your worship of gun manufacturers (and I don't hear you asking for auto insurance and registration to be removed) is costing in the region of 15,000 to 20,000 innocent lives per year to gun related deaths. Why?

  45. [45] 
    neilm wrote:

    I mean at least the libertarians are consistent nut cases - they want to get rid of driving licenses, auto registration, safety requirements, etc. because it infringes with their ideal of freedom from Government.

    But let's take away all the sign posts. Let's let people decide which side of the road to drive on that suits them best. Let's let 5-year-olds learn to drive on freeways without nanny-seat-belts or 3rd party insurance.

    From the 2016 Libertarian Debate: Johnson was the only candidate who said he would require drivers to have licenses, citing possible dangers -- such as blind drivers. The crowd responded by booing loudly.

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    The reason European's murder rates are so much lower than ours is that their ethnic diversity is also so much lower than ours, and has little or no relation to the prevalence or absence of guns. Europeans span the spectrum of gun ownership, from far higher than ours to much lower than ours, but their murder rates are ALL much lower than ours.

    Gun ownership:

    U.S.: 101/100 residents (there are no higher countries, despite the "reprsentation" above).

    Serbia: 58.2/100
    Only over 18 year olds with a permit which is denied to those with a criminal history, mental disorder, or history of alcohol or illegal substance abuse. There is a thorough background check with police having the final decision. Firearms must be stored in a "safe place", and may be confiscated by police if the owner is found irresponsible.

    Cyprus: 36.4/100
    Strict gun control laws - no handguns or rifles. Shotguns allowed by licence from police

    Finland 24.2/100
    Licences are granted only for a reason. In general, this excludes all but hunting and sports guns from non-professional use

    Norway: 31.3/100
    A firearms licence for rifles or shotguns can be issued by police to "sober and responsible" persons 18 years of age or older, with a clean police record, who document a need for the weapon. This may require first obtaining a hunting license or sports-shooting licence. For handguns, the minimum ownership age is 21. The firearms or their vital components must be stored securely in the residence, and the police may make inspections after a 48-hour notice.

    So there goes the "some have more" nonsense and no gun control.

  47. [47] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    Your definition of "gun ownership" is bogus. It implies that because there are more firearms than people, that gun ownership exceeds 100%, prima fascia illegitimate.

    The legitimate definition would be 'what percentage of the population owns guns?', and how many total each individual gun owner has is beside the point.

    When I lived in Switzerland (admittedly over 50 yrs ago, so maybe different now), they had universal military service, and every single household with one or more adult males had a government-issued rifle in the home, so that had to be damn close to 100%.

    We're never even close to 100%, cause many people own zero guns.

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    You must have missed this, Neil..

    We have registration and insurance for cars..

    Yet there are still 40,000 deaths from cars every year..

    Obviously "person responsibility" when it comes to cars doesn't prevent car related deaths..

    Why do you think it will prevent the 10,000 odd thousand of non-suicide gun related deaths??

    Answer: It won't..

    It's nothing but WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws to serve an anti-gun agenda...

    433

    You still have yet to provide a SINGLE FACT that shows insurance and registration will prevent or help prevent Crowd Based Mass Shootings..

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    neilm

    Your definition of "gun ownership" is bogus. It implies that because there are more firearms than people, that gun ownership exceeds 100%, prima fascia illegitimate.

    The legitimate definition would be 'what percentage of the population owns guns?', and how many total each individual gun owner has is beside the point.

    When I lived in Switzerland (admittedly over 50 yrs ago, so maybe different now), they had universal military service, and every single household with one or more adult males had a government-issued rifle in the home, so that had to be damn close to 100%.

    We're never even close to 100%, cause many people own zero guns.

    WWWWWOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Ooops.. What's that???

    The air running out of the argument.. :D

    There will be no more new gun laws until such time as the hysterical anti-gun nuts can repeal the 2nd Amendment...

    The MOST ya'all can hope for is a minor tweak, here or there...

    If an incident like Sandy Hook will not enact new gun laws..

    NOTHING will...

    When it comes to the best response to CBMSs, I speak from personal authority and experience...

    435

  50. [50] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Obviously "person responsibility" when it comes to cars doesn't prevent car related deaths..

    the validity of that assertion isn't so obvious. in order to scientifically assess whether the licensing and registration of cars prevents deaths, we would have to compare death rates of similar locales, of which some required licenses and others didn't. i'm unaware as to whether such research has ever been conducted, but it's an interesting question.

    JL

  51. [51] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    there's also little to no consequence to driving unlicensed or with a suspended license. even if caught, which is not a certainty, there's frequently no jail time. that's awfully permissive, given the level of danger an unsafe driver poses to society.

  52. [52] 
    neilm wrote:

    Your definition of "gun ownership" is bogus.

    Fine, why don't you publish your numbers that prove your point.

    Switzerland has far more draconian laws than it did 50 years ago according to my friend who lived there recently and a modicum of research that backs up his points about the Swiss laws.

  53. [53] 
    neilm wrote:

    The air running out of the argument.. :D

    Thanks Michale, but I can deflate this argument myself. Nice of you to admit that CRS has some challenges however.

  54. [54] 
    neilm wrote:

    It implies that because there are more firearms than people, that gun ownership exceeds 100%

    OK, I made it clear that I was talking about the number of guns per resident. The fact that you have to willfully (let's hope at least, the alternative is sad) claim this means per household (where the figure would be higher of course) means that you are claiming you don't know how averages work.

    For example, M1 money supply is $112,476/100 residents. Prima fascia illegitimate?

  55. [55] 
    neilm wrote:

    And it is noted that you can't propose counter arguments to a solution based on personal responsibility and market forces.

  56. [56] 
    neilm wrote:

    If an incident like Sandy Hook will not enact new gun laws..

    NOTHING will...

    Well I'm glad you liked Sandy Hook because you think it helped prove that Americans don't want gun control laws.

    How many seven-year-olds should we execute every year in their class so you can feel safe about your 2nd Amendment rights?

  57. [57] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    We've been discussing rates of "gun OWNERSHIP". I used the phrase originally in my post [39}, and you repeated it verbatim in your reply post [46], and then your tried to prove my ownership estimates wrong by switching to 'number of guns per person'. Neither reasonable nor comparable.

    I maintain that a population of 1 million people, a single one of which owns 1 million guns, constitutes a LOW rate of 'gun ownership', whereas a population of 1 million people each of whom owns a single gun, represents a HIGH rate of 'gun ownership', right??

    For statistical purposes, the people who own zero guns still have no 'gun ownership' regardless of how many guns their neighbors have!

    You're undoubtedly correct about things changing in Europe from 50 yrs ago. As a tourist, I bought a brand new Browning O/U shotgun from a little gunshop in Liege Belgium in the shadow of the factory where Browning firearms were made, in the summer of '59, never had to answer a single question nor show a single piece of identification.

  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS

    I feel you are focusing in on the semantics of "gun ownership" because you are not keen to address the proposal I put forward for an effective, legal, and responsible way to address the high gun related deaths in our society.

    Market forces and personal responsibility are key pillars of the Western philosophy, and have been effective in addressing many of the societal issues humans create - certainly more effective than other philosophies, such as communism, the rule of the strongest, or lawlessness. These are also at the core of the Republican Party we used to have.

  59. [59] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yeah Stucki, about post [39] -

    You use an argument that, while common is wholly inaccurate: there are several places in Europe that are every bit as diverse as New York or Chicago.

    You might remember Europe in '59 as a continent filled with white folk - Swiss and German and French and Dutch, with nary a face that didn't glow in the sun. Their recently ended World War, and the genocide and ethnic cleansing that accompanied that horror had a lot to do with that.

    But that's not Europe today. Today, Paris, Frankfort, Berlin and Amsterdam all have growing diverse populations, and several European cities have slums filled to the brim with radicalized North Africans. There aren't many American cities where most of the residents can speak several languages fluently, yet that's common in Europe.

    Add to that millions of folks who fled into Europe from the East when the Iron Curtain fell, and the millions more who have fled into Europe from war zones as diverse as Syria, Libya, and Kosovo.

    So that argument is bogus. Europe's combined population is nearly the same as the US so comparative size doesn't enter into it either.

    And it misses the one fact that completely demolishes that argument's central premise: the top spot in the rogues gallery of American mass murderers (based on body count) is occupied by a white man.

  60. [60] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And, Re: Criminalizing the first amendment -

    TRUMP PROTESTERS FACING FELONIES SAY U.S. WANTS TO CRIMINALIZE THE FIRST AMENDMENT

    The U.S. government told a D.C. jury that six people — including a photographer and two medics — “agreed to destroy your city.”

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    Balthasar [59]

    Every time I hear the "diversity" argument I assume it is code for "Europe doesn't have as many blacks as America and they cause all the gun violence".

  62. [62] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    neilm [61] yep.

  63. [63] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    “How about a national registry of mental health patients???”

    It’s not necessary since police and aid crews can and do enter homes that they are called to for involuntary hospitalizations into their databases already. A gun registry that triggers a warning if police are called to an address where a gun is registered is preferred over basing it on the name of the gun owner. Adam Lanza didn’t own the guns, his mother did.

    A person’s medical history is protected information. Identifying gun ownership is not!

    A gun registry would be a huge step towards better protecting our medics and police on their calls. It would also help track where stolen guns come from.

    States could also start requiring service in state militia activities from gun owners. That’s the purpose behind the second amendment, it definitely wasn’t so you can have a hobby. I don’t see how a gun owner could refuse to serve.

    If you want laws that encourage gun owners to take their responsibilities seriously:

    Why not laws that make being intoxicated in the presence of an unsecured firearm a reckless endangerment charge? Leaving an unsecured gun in an unattended vehicle would get the owner the same charge against them.

    Or if children are discovered to be in the home where a gun isn’t secured, child endangerment charges would be filed?

    These won’t infringe on your right to own a gun, they just will help make sure that you exercise your right in a responsible manner.

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    12

    It's a well known fact that Sweden has very liberal and loose gun laws. EVERYONE owns a firearm and usually carries a rifle in the vehicles at all times...

    This is yet another one of those "well known facts" from the right-wing bubble wherein you are fed a steady stream of bullshit and spew it back gleefully like a useful idiot. Sweden does NOT have very liberal and loose gun laws. "EVERYONE" does NOT own a firearm and usually carry a rifle in their vehicle. Utter nonsense.

    I have not read down the rest of the page yet, but I expect someone to call you on this utter bullshit of yours, and then you'll say you were joking or some other such bullshit because your right-wing "facts" are nothing if not daily spoon-fed propaganda from the bubble.

    There is a story.

    Hitler threatened to send his 10 million man army to attack the 5 million citizens of Sweden back in the 30s.

    No. No. No. That was a query of Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albert, eldest grandson of Victoria and Albert, a.k.a. Kaiser Wilhelm II, last German emperor and King of Prussia. Upon visiting Switzerland, the Kaiser asked what a militia of a quarter million Swiss would do if he invaded with an army of a half million Germans. Their response? "Shoot twice and go home." It is a famous postcard in history.

    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/81909286946248010

    Thus far, you have posted a virtually fact-free comment.

    Fact reality, people..

    What you believe to be "reality" is rather a large load of rubbish, and it's thankfully all yours. :)

  65. [65] 
    Kick wrote:

    BashiBazouk
    33

    Bullshit. Sweden has fairly restrictive guns laws. All guns must be registered with the National Police. All guns must be locked in a safe when not in use and must be unloaded and secured when transported in a vehicle.

    Well, I do declare... the truth... exactly right. :)

  66. [66] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    When I lived in Switzerland (admittedly over 50 yrs ago, so maybe different now), they had universal military service, and every single household with one or more adult males had a government-issued rifle in the home, so that had to be damn close to 100%.

    I find this to be a bit disingenuous...mostly due to the fact that it leaves out the requirements for annual requirements of proficiency and reporting on any rounds used at the end of each year, when they are required to receive new ammunition for the government weapon they posses.

    To some extent I find the right wing arguments against responsible gun ownership laws laughable at best. When the second amendment was written you could not just stroll down to the local mega-mart and purchase a gun with no questions asked, nor was little Jefferson Jr. turned lose with a musket without instruction... for gods sake shooting sideways, really?

    As a holder of a CA CWP I have to A). register my firearm/s for use with that permit (I may or may not own non-conforming weapons not associated with said permit) and B) demonstrate proficiency and C) demonstrate a need and that I am capable of carrying the weapon in a responsible fashion. What is so wrong about expecting my fellow citizens to also have to conform to the same rules?

    Personally, I think our country would be a whole lot better off if we were to return to some basic requirements for gun ownership much as it was when our country was founded....

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    And it is noted that you can't propose counter arguments to a solution based on personal responsibility and market forces.

    It's noted that you have not provided ONE SINGLE FACT that indicated personal responsibility and and market forces will prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings..

    Ergo, you failed the challenge to provide a SINGLE law that will prevent or help prevent CBSMs...

    EPIC fail..

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well I'm glad you liked Sandy Hook because you think it helped prove that Americans don't want gun control laws.

    At no point did I say I "liked" Sandy Hook..

    I understand why you have to put words in my mouth after being totally decimated on the issue of your hysterical anti-gun nuttiness...

    437

    But the simple fact remains..

    Democrats shot down the anti-gun legislation in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy, which you appear to admire so much.. I bet you carry a picture of Adam Lanza in yer wallet, don'tcha... :^/

    If Democrats can't get their shit together in the aftermath of such a grave tragedy, then Dumbocrats will NEVER be able to get their shit together..

    This is fact...

    There will never be any further meaningful anti-gun legislation because the 2nd Amendment won't allow it..

    This is also fact...

    Deal with it..

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Still waiting for ANY laws that will prevent or help prevent crowd-based mass shootings..

    438

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    for gods sake shooting sideways, really?

    And who do we have to thank for that??

    Democrat gang-banger thugs..

    C) demonstrate a need

    Totally against the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution..

    Personally, I think our country would be a whole lot better off if we were to return to some basic requirements for gun ownership much as it was when our country was founded....

    Personally I think our country would be better off if we were to return to some basic requirements for freedom of speech, much as it was when our country was founded..

    No freedom of speech on television or the Internet...

    Do you see how totally lame your argument is??

    If ya'all refuse to accept restrictions on Freedom Of Speech, then you have no right or moral standing to ask for restrictions on gun ownership...

    It's THAT simple...

    440

  71. [71] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    You can’t legislate crazy! None of my suggestions were intended to be a guaranteed preventative measure against mass shootings. That’s not to say if Adam Lanza’s mother had been required to store her firearms away from where her mentally ill son resided that Sandy Hook would not have occurred, but it is a possibility. There are things that we could be doing to curb gun violence, you just refuse to admit that an idea is worthwhile unless it fixes everything, which no law will ever be able to accomplish!

    Tell me why keeping the Dickey Amendment is needed? Why are ammosexuals so afraid of science?

  72. [72] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Democrat gang-banger thugs..

    Glad to see no bigotry there....

    Totally against the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution..

    Evidently not... It is the law of the land in a majority of states if you want to walk around with a concealed weapon.

    Personally I think our country would be better off if we were to return to some basic requirements for freedom of speech, much as it was when our country was founded..

    No freedom of speech on television or the Internet...

    Do you see how totally lame your argument is??

    You might have to help me figure out the pretzel you have contorted yourself into to deploy this argument...here.

    Talk about histrionics... sheesh, come back to reality doode.

    If ya'all refuse to accept restrictions on Freedom Of Speech, then you have no right or moral standing to ask for restrictions on gun ownership...

    So, I guess you don't accept as limits on free speech restrictions on what words you can and cannot use in your scientific papers produced for a government agency. I guess the obscenity laws ( otherwise known as the 7 dirty words) are also not a curb on free speech. How about the laws against how one can protest on the public square? Let us not forget the regulations governing speech and activities on local government property. How about laws on pornography? Is regulation on what can and cannot be sent through the mail an infringement? or how about the protection of commercial speech or that owned by others? Do I need to continue?

    The simple fact of the matter is there are plenty of restrictions on "Free Speech", especially when one takes into account the context in which you are trying to use it...

    As someone around here once said...It's THAT simple...

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    None of my suggestions were intended to be a guaranteed preventative measure against mass shootings.

    I am not looking for a guarantee..

    But NONE of the suggestions will even HELP prevent crowd-based mass shootings..

    They are nothing but WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws..

    You can’t legislate crazy!

    But you CAN legislate to prevent or help prevent crazy people from acquiring weapons..

    If Democrats cared more for innocent lives than they do for their Social Justice agenda...

    457

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Evidently not... It is the law of the land in a majority of states if you want to walk around with a concealed weapon.

    Bullshit...

    Only 11 states in the US are "MAY ISSUE" states...

    The rest (39) are "SHALL ISSUE" states.. Now, I don't know what planet YOU are on, but on good ole planet Earth, 11 is NOT a majority of 50, but 39 IS a *vast* majority of 50...

    Just in case your ignorance extends to the definitions:

    MAY ISSUE means that if you haven't demonstrated a "need", then the state won't issue..

    SHALL ISSUE means that you don't have to demonstrate a need to be issued a carry permit..

    You might have to help me figure out the pretzel you have contorted yourself into to deploy this argument...here.

    It's simple, but I am not surprised you missed it. :D

    The constitutional right to gun ownership is as much of a right as the constitutional right to free speech...

    So far???

    So, if you want to turn the clock back 260 odd years to apply to the right to gun ownership, it's only fair that you ALSO want to turn back the clock 260 odd years to apply to the right to free speech..

    See how easy that is??

    The simple fact of the matter is there are plenty of restrictions on "Free Speech", especially when one takes into account the context in which you are trying to use it...

    Just as there are also "plenty" of restrictions on gun ownership..

    But the POINT is that the hysterical anti-gun nuts want MORE restrictions..

    The nutz want to heap restriction upon restriction upon restriction until such time as there is a de-facto gun ban in effect...

    This is fact..

    So, it seems to me that, if ya'all want to restrict ONE constitutional right to the point of a ban, then it's perfectly clear that ya'all would ALSO not have a problem with doing the SAME thing to the constitutional right to free speech....

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T Kirk

    As someone around here once said...It's THAT simple...

    Happy ta see I am making an impact.. :D

    458

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Further, Delaware & Connecticut, while being MAY ISSUE states, state laws say that applicants for CCW do not need a valid or reasonable reason to have their application granted..

    So, now yer down to just NINE states that require good cause to carry...

    Once again, FAR from the majority...

    459

  76. [76] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    based on supreme court precedent, limits on constitutional rights tend to follow the 'my fist, your face' principle. just as my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins, the rights to both free speech and firearms may be limited in situations when failure to limit them constitutes a "clear and present danger" to the public safety.

    differences of opinion exist as to what is or is not such a danger. for example, the current administration seems to think it endangers the public safety to allow the words "fetus" or "transgender" to be used in CDC budget documents. see, some people think unlicensed guns are dangerous, others think words for human embryos and people of minority sexual identity are dangerous. it's perfectly equivalent...

    JL

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    differences of opinion exist as to what is or is not such a danger. for example, the current administration seems to think it endangers the public safety to allow the words "fetus" or "transgender" to be used in CDC budget documents.

    Facts to support???

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was hoping to get a concession from GT regarding his bogus claim that the majority of states require "good cause" to issue a CCW...

    I guess I'll just have to be content with the FACT that he was wrong...

    I'm used to it...

    482

  79. [79] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    I guess I'll just have to be content with the FACT that he was wrong.

    I am sorry your mangina is full of sand, while I allowed you a metric fuckton of time to respond, which indicates you had to use the googles... or bings... I am evidently not allowed the same amount of time... GTFU some of us have to stuff ourselves into small metal cylinders and hurtle through the sky at a few hundred knots, and our paymasters, er benefactors do not always allow for the booking of flights with the interwebs on them.

    I find at best your cherry picked classification of how CCW are issued to be either willfully ignorant or cherry picked at best. As a former LEO and self proclaimed "MI Elite" I expect you of all people to be well versed on the requirements...unfortunately you have chosen either to ignore them or cherry pick what you need to make the argument you want.

    So let's start shall we?

    MAY ISSUE means that if you haven't demonstrated a "need", then the state won't issue..

    SHALL ISSUE means that you don't have to demonstrate a need to be issued a carry permit..

    Your definitions are found to be wanting. MAY issue simply means that the local sheriff or responsible law enforcement agency has the final determination on if you receive your permit. SHALL issue means that local law enforcement has no say in the matter and shall issue said permit. Both require that you meet the criterion for receiving said permit.

    It is convenient that you ignore reciprocity states and unrestricted states in your argument and lump them into the number 39 you state... to me the unrestricted don't count against any tally...

    Speaking of "unrestricted" am I also ignorant on those? or do you just want to lump them in? How about those MAY or NOT issue Jurisdictions?

    you conveniently ignore that SHALL issue states also have restrictions on who can carry... although I will concede they are a lot more liberal than SHALL states.

    So, it seems to me that, if ya'all want to restrict ONE constitutional right to the point of a ban, then it's perfectly clear that ya'all would ALSO not have a problem with doing the SAME thing to the constitutional right to free speech....

    How about trying to speak to my points? I am pretty much against a gun registry, however, I do support gun owners demonstrating proficiency in owning a gun, especially if they want to carry it concealed on the "street". Personally I want to be able to depend on my fellow citizen to protect me in a firefight vs worrying that they may not know how to use their firearm...

    I kinda think that it is not what the framers wanted when the VULCAN was invented... or the AK-47... or the RPG... If you want to own them fine, however, you will need to demonstrate a certain level of proficiency.... and nothing in the wording of the second amendment prohibits that...

    Given your lack of protest at the limitations currently in place on free speech... I can clearly see you support those and at the same time everyone should be allowed to buy and own whatever gun they want.... perhaps if even they should not be allowed to...

    where is the sanity in that?

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Given your lack of protest at the limitations currently in place on free speech... I can clearly see you support those and at the same time everyone should be allowed to buy and own whatever gun they want.... perhaps if even they should not be allowed to...

    where is the sanity in that?

    There is no sanity in that which is exactly why I never said anything of the sort..

    Why can't you just admit that you were wrong and the "majority of states" do NOT require "good cause" to issue a CCW???

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am sorry your mangina is full of sand, while I allowed you a metric fuckton of time to respond, which indicates you had to use the googles... or bings... I am evidently not allowed the same amount of time... GTFU some of us have to stuff ourselves into small metal cylinders and hurtle through the sky at a few hundred knots, and our paymasters, er benefactors do not always allow for the booking of flights with the interwebs on them.

    Fair enough..

    But it seems that every time I catch one of ya'all being wrong, ya can't get away fast enough..

    I'll try and endeavor to remember that ya'all actually have lives and jobs and such.. :D

    Being retired is often a curse, because you forget how the other half lives..

    My sincerest apologies.. I'll try and improve..

Comments for this article are closed.