ChrisWeigant.com

The Question To Ask Moscow Mitch: WWRRD?

[ Posted Thursday, September 5th, 2019 – 16:21 UTC ]

Mitch McConnell is upset. He's in a tizzy because mean people keep calling him "Moscow Mitch." Mitch does not like this. He does not like it one tiny bit. In fact, Moscow Mitch is in a snit.

I'm sorry if that sounds a little like a very bad Dr. Seuss rhyme, but that's about the size of our political discourse these days, like it or not. And McConnell is doing nothing to elevate things, because he has taken to accusing his detractors of practicing "McCarthyism."

He's wrong about this, of course. McCarthyism originally meant using the political practices wielded by Senator Joe McCarthy, who accused many of either being communists or having communist sympathies without a shred of actual proof of his accusations. The term has now evolved into meaning any unsubstantiated political attack which is indiscriminate and has no basis in fact. Mitch is right that he's being accused of something similar -- being a puppet of Moscow -- to the accusations McCarthy made. But the term just does not apply, because the accusations against him are very specific indeed -- that his inaction on any election security bills in the Senate is giving Russia green light to attempt to attack our election system once again, in 2020. That's about as specific as it gets, and it is backed up by fact. McConnell has been blocking all such bills from the Senate floor, and he has the ultimate power to do so since he is the majority leader. His refusal to act is indeed aiding and abetting Russia, by any interpretation. Hence, Moscow Mitch is an entirely appropriate moniker.

McConnell insists that the Moscow Mitch label is a travesty, and points to his own "Cold Warrior" (his words) record as proof. He has always been for beefing up the military budget, and he stood shoulder-to-shoulder against the Soviet Union back in the days of Ronald Reagan. How dare anyone accuse him of doing Moscow's bidding, with this long and splendiferous record of standing up to the commies?

Since McConnell is harkening back to the Cold War, let's apply some contemporaneous hair-splitting to his inaction. Back in the coldest part of the Cold War, when Tailgunner Joe McCarthy was in his prime, there were distinctions made between differing levels of support for the communist cause. The most committed, those who had actually joined the Communist Party, were called "card-carrying communists." Then there were those who hadn't actually joined the Communist Party but still (to some degree or another) supported the aims and goals of the communists. They were called "fellow travellers." And finally, there were those who may not have even been aware that their actions helped the communists and certainly hadn't intended to do so. They were called Moscow's "useful idiots."

The first category contained a lot of people who may have flirted with communism in their college days, only later to change their political philosophy. It also contained people who still fervently supported communism. The second category contained (according to people like McCarthy) liberals who advocated for any change in American politics to the left of true-blue conservatism. Fellow travellers were "doing Moscow's bidding" even if they didn't actually receive orders from the Communist Party, because what they advocated for played right into the communist takeover of the planet, at least according to the Cold Warriors (and if you think that is exaggerated, then you need to read up on Cold War political tactics and McCarthyism in general). But the useful idiots were people who never even realized that their political views helped the communists out in one perceived way or another. They had been propagandized to the point where they didn't even know what they were doing was aiding communism.

By these rules, McConnell is quite likely not even a fellow traveller, but is rather nothing more than Putin's useful idiot. McConnell has declared war on all Democratic election security bills, because he thinks they all represent some sort of evil partisan power grab. He's never adequately explained his reasoning, but such as it is, that's what he's been saying -- it's all some sort of dastardly plot by Democrats. But this doesn't address the fact that McConnell is also refusing to bring up bipartisan election bills that have originated in the Senate with the full support of Republican senators. McConnell thinks he's waging the good Republican fight against some sort of underhanded attempt by Democrats to steal elections (again, he never specifies how), but this extreme partisanship does indeed play right into Vladimir Putin's hands, because in the end it means nothing will get done and our elections systems will be less protected against foreign attacks than they could have been. This will make Russian attempts to attack our elections all the easier. And McConnell doesn't even realize how he's being used -- hence, he's a useful idiot.

As the Senate reconvenes after their month-long August vacation, this issue will be raised again and again by Democrats (and, to their credit, some Republicans) who are frustrated by McConnell's inaction in the face of danger. The #MoscowMitch hashtag is already getting under his skin, obviously. But there's an even better way to strip bare what McConnell is doing -- better, because it resonates so well with Republicans. Chuck Schumer (or, really any Democrat in the Senate) should stand up and give a floor speech which directly asks the most pertinent question imaginable.

"Russia attacked our 2016 election. This fact has been proven over and over, to the satisfaction of every single United States intelligence agency. The intelligence community is also currently ringing the alarm bell and raising red flags to warn us all that Russia will attack our elections again next year. So I'd like to ask my Republican colleagues, from Senate Majority Leader McConnell on down, a very simple question. If, in the 1980s, the Soviet Union had directly attacked an American election and we knew about it, and if they were poised to repeat this attack in the next election, what would Ronald Reagan do? Would Reagan hide his head in the sand and pretend it wasn't happening? Would he do what Moscow wanted by refusing to shore up our defenses against such attacks? Would he complain about the names Democrats were calling him while defending his own inaction? Or would he respond by urging the United States Senate to do everything possible to thwart such an attack? Would he denounce these attacks, which our current president refuses to do? Would he have some harsh words for any member of Congress who was standing in the way of protecting our elections against an attack by any foreign adversary, much less Russia? I think we all know the answers to those questions. So I challenge every Republican in this chamber, in the face of continuing attacks upon one of the cornerstones American democracy, to take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves a very simple question: What would Ronald Reagan do?"

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

50 Comments on “The Question To Ask Moscow Mitch: WWRRD?”

  1. [1] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Of course "Russia attacked our 2016 election", and they also attacked our 2018 election, but that was OK with CW and the rest of the Democratics, because they prevailed.

    Internet security is a pipedream, Moscow Mitch and Petrograd Pelosi could squander a ton of taxpayer money doing 'security theater', kinda like the TSA does 'security theater' at our airports. without our elections becoming the slightest bit less vulnerable, much less hack-proof.

    In the first place, the part of the election systems that counts isn't even vulnerable to hacking, in spite of all the Dem nonsense to the contrary, and the social media part is beyond hope for any security.

    If the American electorate is as stupid as the Democratics claim (and it may well be), then be prepared for enduring the Russians "sowing discord" forever, because it ain't never gonna be stopped.

    You Democratics should try living in the world of reality for a change.

  2. [2] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CRS,

    You truly know nothing about cyber security! There are plenty of things that our government can do to prevent Russians from hacking our elections. The most severe would be to shut down their ability to access our part of the World Wide Web. For their businesses and their economy, this would be disastrous. We could also attack their systems and bring their connection speeds back to the levels enjoyed in the early 90’s.

    But as long as Putin’s puppet is in the White House, Putin knows we won’t do anything to stop him. Hell, Trump is counting on Russia to help get him “re-elected”!

    Funny, you keep saying that Democrats were OK with Russian interference in our 2018 elections, yet it has been Democrats calling for tightening our election security since 2016. Republicans are the ones who want to deny it ever occurred. They are also the ones who dropped sanctions on Russian oligarchs with ties to Putin’s interference. It’s becoming clearer and clearer that Republicans have been aware of the Russians interference for some time and they have chosen to look the other way.

  3. [3] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    But the useful idiots were people who never even realized that their political views helped the communists out in one perceived way or another. They had been propagandized to the point where they didn't even know what they were doing was aiding communism.

    By these rules, McConnell is quite likely not even a fellow traveller, but is rather nothing more than Putin's useful idiot.

    You are being extremely generous to Mitch by saying he isn’t aware that his actions are helping Russia! Mitch was the person who threatened to start a partisan shitstorm if Trump’s being investigated for his Russian ties became public knowledge prior to Election Day. Mitch has defended Trump at every turn in Trump’s attempts to obstruct all of the investigations into his campaigns’ and Trump’s actions. There is no way that Mitch cannot know that his actions are helping Russia to interfere with our elections.

    Personally, I think “Moscow Mitch” bothers McConnell so much because he is truly terrified that someone is going to uncover just how much dark money the Russians have funneled into his campaign. He’s a little too rattled by this for it to just be the “name-calling” that bothers him.

  4. [4] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Listen

    Could be true about me "not knowing anything about cyber security". It's only been a short time since I haven't had to call my grandkids to turn the damn computer on.

    However, I'm guessing you're not much better off yourself than I am. Your claim that the Russians "hacked our 2016 election" is pure bullshit, at least in the sense that you mean it. What the Russians actually hacked was the DNC emails, not "the election, and your claim that it is realistic to say that we could do all those things you iterated to stop that from happening in the future is more bullshit.

    And I do realize that you Democratics have been complaining about Russian interferance steadily for some time, but unlike 2016, you did not cry FOUL after your 2018 victory, like you did after your 2016 defeat.

    Once again, you people need to learn to live in the world of reality.

  5. [5] 
    Paula wrote:

    [3] Listen:

    Personally, I think “Moscow Mitch” bothers McConnell so much because he is truly terrified that someone is going to uncover just how much dark money the Russians have funneled into his campaign. He’s a little too rattled by this for it to just be the “name-calling” that bothers him

    Yep.

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @CRS,

    russians did not only hack the DNC. they hacked state voter databases, and the intelligence community has confirmed attempts on all fifty states. further, mueller's report stated that many other countries are preparing to replicate these sorts of attacks on state voter data.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/russian-hacking-elections.html

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    He's wrong about this, of course. McCarthyism originally meant using the political practices wielded by Senator Joe McCarthy, who accused many of either being communists or having communist sympathies without a shred of actual proof of his accusations.

    Just like none of you have any actual shred of actual proof of ya'all's accusations.

    All ya'all have is hate and bigotry..

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course "Russia attacked our 2016 election", and they also attacked our 2018 election, but that was OK with CW and the rest of the Democratics, because they prevailed.

    Yep.. Exactly..

    What's funny is that Russia has been "attacking" our elections back when Russia was the USSR and even before that...

    But it's never been an issue before because Dumbocrats never lost an election is such a dramatic and boneheaded way..

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    russians did not only hack the DNC. they hacked state voter databases, and the intelligence community has confirmed attempts on all fifty states. further, mueller's report stated that many other countries are preparing to replicate these sorts of attacks on state voter data.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/us/politics/russian-hacking-elections.html

    Yea.. That's what the NY TIMES says..

    And yet, we have EVERY Democrat up to AND INCLUDING OBAMA who stated for the record that Russian meddling did NOT affect the outcome of the election..

    Russia tried... Russia failed.. And Trump had nothing to do with it.

    "These are the facts of the case.. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I do realize that you Democratics have been complaining about Russian interferance steadily for some time, but unlike 2016, you did not cry FOUL after your 2018 victory, like you did after your 2016 defeat.

    Yep..Once again... EXACTLY

    When Democrats lose, it's Russia hacking..

    When Democrats win, it's because they are totally awesome and overcame the nefarious Russia hacking..

    And what is so darn comical is that they actually BELIEVE that unbelievable tripe... They are so certain of their delusion..

    Once again, you people need to learn to live in the world of reality.

    Would that they could... Would that they could...

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Mitch McConnell is upset. He's in a tizzy because mean people keep calling him "Moscow Mitch." Mitch does not like this. He does not like it one tiny bit. In fact, Moscow Mitch is in a snit.

    *laughs*

    Yes, the "Whiny Little Mitch" is in a Moscow Slump:

    And when you're in a Slump,
    you're not in for much fun.
    Un-slumping yourself
    is not easily done.

    You will come to a place where the streets are not marked.
    Some windows are lighted. But mostly they're darked.
    A place you could sprain both your elbow and chin!
    Do you dare to stay out? Do you dare to go in?
    How much can you lose? How much can you win?

    And IF you go in, should you turn left or right...
    or right-and-three-quarters? Or, maybe, not quite?
    Or go around back and sneak in from behind?
    Simple it's not, I'm afraid you will find,
    for a mind-maker-upper to make up his mind. ~ Dr. Seuss, Oh, the Places You'll Go!

  12. [12] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    poet

    So, the evil Ruskies "hacked (meaning accessed, NOT revised) all the states' voter data bases."

    What are you worried about, that they will discover your real name, and even your address, 'cause that's what "voter data bases" are, lists of names and adddresses of registered voters.

    And let's say just for fun that they DID change your name or your address, or even maybe ADD THE NAMES OF SOME RUSSIANS TO THE LIST, ohmygawd!! Do you think those Russians would actually show up at the polls on election day??

    This is simply paranoia, compounded by stupidity.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of McCarthyism...

    San Francisco's branding of NRA as terror organization panned by Washington Post, LA Times

    Two columnists on opposite coasts didn’t mince words Thursday in disagreeing with a San Francisco Board of Supervisors resolution labeling the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization.

    Los Angeles Times columnist Michael McGough said the label may be good politics but is “irresponsible.”

    "It’s not the business of a county board of supervisors to designate terror organizations," he wrote, adding that it's also a First Amendment concern if officials try to blacklist contractors who work with the NRA.

    "It’s not the business of a county board of supervisors to designate terror organizations."

    Washington Post columnist Henry Olsen called the resolution “McCarthyism: pure and simple.”

    “Words matter,” he wrote, “and there are few words that stigmatize a person faster than calling him or her a terrorist.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/washington-posts-la-times-columnists-slam-san-francisco-branding-nra-a-terror-organization-mccarthyism

    Your "tolerant" and "respectful" Democrat Party...

    :eyeroll:

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is simply paranoia, compounded by stupidity.

    I have to disagree with you here, CRS..

    It's NOT stupidity.. Left Wingers that fully believe this felgercarb are NOT stupid..

    They are simply and hopelessly ensnared with Party loyalty that they can't see ANYTHING past their Party blinders..

    They are not stupid. Just hopelessly misguided and/or dangerously irresponsible..

    "'Dangerously irresponsible'!!?!? Com'on Arthur, that sounds almost gentlemanly. She's a fucking lunatic!"
    -General Ira Potter, THE FINAL OPTION

  15. [15] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So... i was right, you were wrong, and therefore i must be paranoid and stupid. Makes perfect sense to me.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    So... i was right, you were wrong,

    You were right?? When did that happen? :D

    And, I thought you were Left and CRS was Right..

    Hopelessly cornfused...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Triggered "normal person"...

    Liberal author begs 'normal people' not to wear sports teams' MAGA-like red caps: 'You're making everyone scared'
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pulitzer-prize-finalist-maga-hats-baseball-triggered-scared-left-rebecca-makkai-twitter

    This liberal is afraid of ANYONE in a red hat and claims everyone else is too... :^/

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Balthasar...

    I brought this forward because I really want your answer and I usually just ignore past commentaries..

    How about we make the damn AR-15's illegal? They serve no useful civilian purpose.

    Why make them illegal?? What about those specific rifle model that you should make it illegal?

    Because it LOOKS scary?? That's utterly ridiculous.

    You DO realize that there are DOZENS of hunting rifles that have the exact same specs, the EXACT same ammo capacity and the EXACT same (if not higher) lethality..

    So, what is it, EXACTLY, that you want banned??

    What is your criteria for banning a gun..

    My bet is it's SOLELY based on cosmetics..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/09/04/red-flag-laws-spur-debate-over-due-process

    As I have said in the past.. I don't mind Red Flag laws.. It's actually a Mental Health law, not an anti-gun law..

    That's a good..

    I just would like to see some serious punitive measures for those who abuse the law or have an ulterior agenda in pushing firearm removal..

    Here in Florida (and Rhode Island and Vermont) only LEOs can invoke a Red Flag incident.. All the other states that have RF laws allow family members, friends or even joe blow off the street to file a petition to have a person red flagged..

    The opportunity for abuse is very large.. That's why there should be VERY harsh penalties for those who abuse the RF Law..

  20. [20] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    1

    Of course "Russia attacked our 2016 election", and they also attacked our 2018 election, but that was OK with CW and the rest of the Democratics, because they prevailed.

    I believe every commenter here and the author you're disparaging has stated their endorsement that our government should do everything they can to ensure that our elections remain free of foreign interference as is mandated by multiple statutes, FEC laws and contained in United States Code. Maintaining our democracy isn't a partisan issue... or should I clarify to state that it sure as hell shouldn't be.

    Meanwhile, it is you who keeps insisting that our laws designed to limit said interference are unconstitutional due to your seeming belief that certain of our constitutional rights are unlimited in scope... which none of them are.

    In the first place, the part of the election systems that counts isn't even vulnerable to hacking, in spite of all the Dem nonsense to the contrary, and the social media part is beyond hope for any security.

    You're simply misinformed and/or ignorant and choose to recurrently use this forum to spew your incorrect information repeatedly.

    If the American electorate is as stupid as the Democratics claim (and it may well be),

    I would say that you're the living embodiment and demonstrable proof that it is.

    then be prepared for enduring the Russians "sowing discord" forever, because it ain't never gonna be stopped.

    Oh, FFS! This ridiculous spew is like a creepy metaphor for your whining repetitive trolling. Yes, it could be virtually eliminated... not unlike your repetitive bullshit but on a much larger scale.

    You Democratics should try living in the world of reality for a change.

    And you should crack a book, old man. You have explained on this forum multiple times regarding your technical illiteracy and your hunting and pecking on your keyboard. Now you're here professing your expertise. Why don't you try that bullshit on a forum of people who share your CRS disease? :)

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The question for CW: WWERMD?

  22. [22] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    2

    You truly know nothing about cyber security!

    And he has admitted as much before but has seemingly forgotten.

    There are plenty of things that our government can do to prevent Russians from hacking our elections.

    I know, right?! You would think that Trump's "Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity" would sound like the venue to tackle that type of issue, but that was put together back when Trump was still blatantly lying to Americans about crowd size and voter fraud and stating that no one in his campaign met with any Russians, and that commission was designed to prove voter fraud to the tune of "3 million voters" on the part of Americans (but only Democrats) that Trump insisted had taken place. Y'all remember that committee don't you... back when Trump was still blatantly lying that no one on his campaign met with any Russians and before Kris Kobach of the now defunct aforementioned committee lost the gubernatorial race in Kansas to a Democrat?

    The most severe would be to shut down their ability to access our part of the World Wide Web. For their businesses and their economy, this would be disastrous. We could also attack their systems and bring their connection speeds back to the levels enjoyed in the early 90’s.

    As for the remainder of your post, that's what I'm talking about... and you're going to confuse him with facts that he'll just forget anyway. :)

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ

    Could be true about me "not knowing anything about cyber security". It's only been a short time since I haven't had to call my grandkids to turn the damn computer on.

    However, I'm guessing you're not much better off yourself than I am. Your claim that the Russians "hacked our 2016 election" is pure bullshit, at least in the sense that you mean it. ~ C. R. Stucki at [4]

    Admits to being technologically stupid and "guessing" and then claims to be able to read your mind and discern your meaning. You've gotta marvel at the simplicity of the sheer ignorance of it all. :)

  24. [24] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Says Ms.PTSD woman, who promised us for three yrs that Trump had committed numerous felonies and that if we just waited for the Mueller report, the orange moron would be a goner!!

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    19

    Here in Florida (and Rhode Island and Vermont) only LEOs can invoke a Red Flag incident.. All the other states that have RF laws allow family members, friends or even joe blow off the street to file a petition to have a person red flagged..

    Wrong again, Mike. Indiana and Connecticut also have firearm removal laws wherein only LEOs or state officials can request the removal of firearms, and all the other states with RF or removal laws don't allow just any "joe blow off the street" to file a petition to have a person red flagged. In Delaware, only law enforcement can petition for ex parte orders. In California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii effective 1/1/2020, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada effective 1/1/2020, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington, family members are allowed.

    Additionally allowed:

    District of Columbia - mental health professionals
    Hawaii - medical professionals, educators, and coworkers
    Maryland - certain categories of mental and other health workers
    New York - school administrators

    No mention of "just any joe blow off the street" in any of the state statues where the procedure generally requires "joe blow" to contact a law enforcement officer regarding such an issue.

    Does it surprise anyone that the hysterical and fear mongering right wingnuts would disseminate misinformation regarding just any "joe blow being allowed to take their guns" when it's a nuanced issue that varies widely from one state to another but is generally decided by Courts across the country via written order after due consideration? I would wager it most certainly does not.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Says Ms.PTSD woman, who promised us for three yrs that Trump had committed numerous felonies and that if we just waited for the Mueller report, the orange moron would be a goner!!

    "Well, that about sums it up for me!!!"
    -Elisabeth Shue, HEART AND SOULS

    :D

  27. [27] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ | TS | JL | Balthasar | Paula | Everybody

    Says Ms.PTSD woman, who promised us for three yrs that Trump had committed numerous felonies and that if we just waited for the Mueller report, the orange moron would be a goner!! ~ Stucki

    "Well, that about sums it up for me!!!" ~ Mike

    While it's been widely known and disseminated here in Weigantia that the board trolls shared the similar traits of outright lying, misinformation, and sheer ignorance, and it's been painfully obvious that Stucki can't remember from one day to the next regarding his prior nonsensical statements while Mike has a demonstrable and repetitive reading comprehension problem, who among us would have guessed that the fake cop would confess not only to his own personal criminal past but also to the numerous felonies of Donald "the orange moron" Trump and to being a woman with post traumatic stress disorder?!

    Thank you for letting us know how Stucki summed you up so perfectly, Mike. We here in Weigantia will now have to reconsider Stucki's self-professed ability at mind reading. :)

  28. [28] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I have it from reliable sources thet Ms PTSD syndrome wakes up every night screaming from flashbacks of election night 2016.

    She made it uninstitutionalized for almost 3 yrs telling herself that it would all go away when the orange moron got impeached the day following the release of the Mueller report, but now that hope has faded, along with her sanity.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have it from reliable sources thet Ms PTSD syndrome wakes up every night screaming from flashbacks of election night 2016.

    She made it uninstitutionalized for almost 3 yrs telling herself that it would all go away when the orange moron got impeached the day following the release of the Mueller report, but now that hope has faded, along with her sanity.

    Heh.... :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Black unemployment hits record low
    The unemployment rate for African Americans fell sharply from 6% to 5.5%, the lowest on records dating to 1972.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/09/06/jobs-report-economy-added-just-130-000-jobs-august/2224196001/

    Not too bad for a President who allegedly is a racist.. :eyeroll:

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, what is it, EXACTLY, that you want banned??

    What is your criteria for banning a gun..

    My bet is it's SOLELY based on cosmetics..

    That's what I thought.. :^/

  32. [32] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, what is it, EXACTLY, that you want banned??
    My bet is it's SOLELY based on cosmetics..

    And, aside from the huge numbers of people that the gun kills, cosmetics IS another reason to ban it.

    And why not? People buy them cause they 'look cool', even though they have no use for hunting, unless the goal is to mow down an entire herd.

    But the main reason is that it's the gun of choice for mass murderers. I find that compelling.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, aside from the huge numbers of people that the gun kills,

    But what you don't get thru your head is that 90% of the semi automatic rifles on the market are no different than an AR 15.. They have the same ammo capacity, the same fire rate and the same nomenclature...

    So, what you are saying is, in effect, you want to ban 90% of rifles **AND** handguns..

    And you don't think that conflicts with the 2nd Amendment????

    REALLY???

    cosmetics IS another reason to ban it.

    So.. Yer saying because a weapon LOOKS scary.. THAT is a reason to ban it..

    And you wonder why normal every day Americans LAUGH at liberals.. :^/

    But the main reason is that it's the gun of choice for mass murderers. I find that compelling.

    So, the actual SCIENCE means nothing to you...

    It's SOLELY about cosmetics.. Because it's a "cool looking weapon", it needs to be banned..

    MAJOR :eyeroll:

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's the reality that you just don't get..

    Americans have had to get used to 30,000 annual deaths by automobile in order to have the convenience of owning a car...

    Note.. NOT a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT... Just a convenience..

    Until there are actually EFFECTIVE means to combat gun violence that is compatible with the 2nd Amendment..

    Americans will simply have to get used to 10,000 violent gun deaths a year in order to have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to own guns that can protect themselves, their loved ones and innocent people..

    This is the reality of the here and now..

    I know, I know.. You liberals can't accept reality, can't accept facts.. Ya'all are ONLY about your "truth"...

    Tough shit.. This is the reality..

    Deal with it..

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    The World’s First Opinion on Gun Ownership

    You might find this hard to believe, but I’m about to give you the first opinion you have ever heard on the topic of gun ownership in the United States.
    https://www.scottadamssays.com/2019/09/01/the-worlds-first-opinion-on-gun-ownership/

  36. [36] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Americans will simply have to get used to 40,000 violent gun deaths a year in order to have the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to own guns that can protect themselves, their loved ones and innocent people.

    First of all, fixed that number that you put up.

    Secondly, all constitutional rights have restrictions that apply to them. Try your constitutional right to drive a car, to see what licensing restrictions is put upon it.

    Thirdly, the fact that it is a constitutional right means nothing. The constitution was written as a 'first draft'. There were ten amendments to it, even before it became law. One of those was the poorly phrased Second amendment, which if were written today, wouldn't have passed out of a Republican committee ("What's this militia thing in the middle?"). Written at a time when the strongest gun was a musket, it's horribly out of date.

    Even Scalia had to finally admit that there would be restrictions on guns, to allow for things such as the restriction against sawed-off shotguns, for example. There will be more to come.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tell me something, Balthy.

    How would you codify "LOOKS SCARY" into law..

    Go ahead. Write me a law that bans guns based on how they look and ignore specs and nomenclature and ammo capacity..

    Go ahead.. I'll wait..

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even Scalia had to finally admit that there would be restrictions on guns, to allow for things such as the restriction against sawed-off shotguns, for example.

    And we DO have restrictions..

    Your problem is that you think, just because Crowd Based Mass Shootings still happen, it's because there is not enough restrictions.

    You are in error..

    NOTHING short of a complete gun ban would have ANY impact on Crowd Based Mass Shootings..

    And you won't get that as long as the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land..

    First of all, fixed that number that you put up.

    It was accurate.. There are 10,000 deaths due to gun VIOLENCE per year.. You can't count suicides because they are not violent. They are perpetrated against self and if someone wants to kill themselves, they would do it with ANYTHING handy..

    So, the 10,000 per annum is accurate..

    Secondly, all constitutional rights have restrictions that apply to them.

    Yes.. And guns are no exception.. But now you want to BAN guns.. That's like a BAN on hate speech.. It won't happen..

    Try your constitutional right to drive a car, to see what licensing restrictions is put upon it.

    But there are *NO* licensing requirements or insurance requirements to OWN a car...

    Only to actually drive it..

    Just as it is with guns.. It's your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to OWN a gun.. Without any licensing or insurance..

    Now if you want to CARRY a gun (IE Drive Your Car) you have to have a license.. JUST like a car..

    Thirdly, the fact that it is a constitutional right means nothing.

    I know, I know.. Constitutional rights mean nothing to you Left Wingers.. I am somewhat surprised you finally admit it..

    One of those was the poorly phrased Second amendment, which if were written today, wouldn't have passed out of a Republican committee

    Actually first drafts of the 2nd Amendment were quite a bit less restrictive in keeping with MANY State Constitutions..

    ("What's this militia thing in the middle?").

    Which is irrelevant to the Operative Phrase of the 2nd Amendment. So the SCOTUS has ruled...

    The "militia thing" simply gives an example as to WHY the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...

    It could easily have said Due to threat of life limb and property, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

    Says the EXACT same thing.. Just gives another reason why..

    Written at a time when the strongest gun was a musket, it's horribly out of date.

    And the 1st Amendment was written when the "strongest" form of communication was a letter that takes MONTHS to arrive...

    So, OBVIOUSLY the 1st Amendment doesn't apply in the age of the Internet..

    You see your problem? You have NO rational or logical argument..

    Just oooooo it's scary....

    The Supreme Court held:[46]

    The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

    The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

    The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

    The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

    Yer wrong on this, Balthy.. As plain as the nose on your face, you are wrong..

  39. [39] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Don't have to. There are plenty of laws written that have 'automatic' and 'semi-automatic' provisions, that would suffice to start. Small steps.

    I'd also immediately codify background check laws to keep them out of the hands of the most dangerous around us.

    Like most conservatives, you yearn for an imaginary time when guns were plentiful and everyone carried. That's a lie, by the way - guns were much less used in the past than Hollywood makes people think.

    America is a different country today. You're the one who can't see that.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't have to. There are plenty of laws written that have 'automatic' and 'semi-automatic' provisions, that would suffice to start. Small steps.

    Automatic.. .. Yes.. Not Semi-Automatic..

    That's your problem.. Excluding revolvers, semi-automatics make up 95% of the guns in this country..

    You want to ban semi-automatics???

    2nd Amendment won't let you..

    I'd also immediately codify background check laws to keep them out of the hands of the most dangerous around us.

    Fine.. MENTAL HEALTH laws.. I am COMPLETELY with you on that..

    For starters, frak privacy and social stigma.. Give LEOs access to mental health records when conducting firearm checks..

    But you see. YOUR Democrats are against that..

    America is a different country today. You're the one who can't see that.

    And yet, the 1st and 2nd Amendments are STILL the law of the land..

    It's YOU who can't see that..

    So, in other words, you have NO IDEA what you want banned, other than GUNS...

    Guess what sunshine?? It's NEVER gonna happen..

  41. [41] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    NOTHING short of a complete gun ban would have ANY impact on Crowd Based Mass Shootings..

    I'd test that premise. Based on what we've seen in other countries, I'd bet that Crowd Based Mass Shootings would go down.

    Constitutional rights mean nothing to you Left Wingers.. I am somewhat surprised you finally admit it..

    Oh, come on. Right-wingers have their own constitutional rights that they'd legislate out of the constitution, it's just a matter of phrasing.

    And yes, I think that the constitution is alive, not dead, and not sacred. It was created by flawed human beings, and can be fixed, or amended, over time. Which is why blacks are no longer considered property.

    There were several dissents from the Heller case:

    In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law". Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.

    Justice Steven Breyer also delivered a dissent, also joined, which looks to early municipal fire-safety laws that forbade the storage of gunpowder (and in Boston the carrying of loaded arms into certain buildings), and on nuisance laws providing fines or loss of firearm for imprudent usage, as demonstrating the Second Amendment has been understood to have no impact on the regulation of civilian firearms. The dissent argues the public safety necessity of gun-control laws, quoting that "guns were responsible for 69 deaths in this country each day."

    Ever since, the right has been focused on keeping a radical right majority on the Court. You'd better hope that it holds, because the issue will come back, I can guarantee it.

  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Moscow Mitch. Just wanted to say that before we got too far down the rabbit hole. Not that you'd want to discuss it.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    RBG's at death's door.. Beyer is gonna retire soon...

    By the time President Trump is out of office in 2024, the SCOTUS will be 7-2 conservative...

    There will NEVER be a gun ban in our lifetime..

    You might as well get used to that fact..

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Moscow Mitch. Just wanted to say that before we got too far down the rabbit hole. Not that you'd want to discuss it.

    Already shot that one down.. NO FACTS to prove any thing..

  45. [45] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yeah, I saw that...

    What's funny is that Russia has been "attacking" our elections back when Russia was the USSR and even before that...

    But it's never been an issue before because Dumbocrats never lost an election is such a dramatic and boneheaded way..

    Facts? If you say so. But you never answer the central premise of the piece that Chris put up: Why is Mitch McConnell blocking this legislation?

    Surely he knows that, if brought to the Senate floor, it would pass. Seems to me that he's protecting Trump from being overridden yet again.

    By the time President Trump is out of office in 2024..

    Dream on. He's already worn out his welcome.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Facts? If you say so.

    Yes.. I say so.. Comes with tours as an LE, SPI, AFOSI and Army MI...

    Why is Mitch McConnell blocking this legislation?

    Because it's politically prudent to do so.. Because it doesn't do dick but give Dumbocrats a political win.

    DUH... Anyone not a Party slave can see that..

    Dream on. He's already worn out his welcome.

    Yea.. You said that in 2016.. You were wrong.. You ALWAYS have been wrong..

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Moscow Mitch.

    I accept your concession you have no valid anti-gun argument..

    In my line of work, gun control means being able to hit your target.. :D

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    28

    I have it from reliable sources thet Ms PTSD syndrome wakes up every night screaming from flashbacks of election night 2016.

    Wow! That's it? That's all you've got, old man!? The trolls on this board suck at trolling.

    Having said that, allow me again to reiterate what a demonstrable moron and typical uninformed dipshit you are to keep making up bullshit regarding PTSD and anyone else when there are a myriad of servicemen and women and veterans suffering its effects in service to their country and ignorant asshats like you. Of course, there are a multitude of other ways in which people can be traumatized besides military service, but speaking for myself, I can assure you that a dime-a-dozen election night doesn't make it on the list.

    Also, I find it infinitely amusing how the trolling types on this forum prattle on and on endlessly and incessantly regarding the 2016 election as if it's all that's happened in the world... all the while insisting that it's other people who can't get over it. *laughs* Check your mirrors, goobers. :)

    She made it uninstitutionalized for almost 3 yrs telling herself that it would all go away when the orange moron got impeached the day following the release of the Mueller report, but now that hope has faded, along with her sanity.

    Impeachment isn't a process that happens in a day, moron, and impeachment by the House has caused the removal of zero presidents to date. Of course, we've already discussed this, but you Can't Remember Shit and you suck at this.

    Troll harder. :)

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    30

    Not too bad for a President who allegedly is a racist.. :eyeroll:

    Mike, seriously!? You really believe the "black unemployment rate" proves the President can't be a racist?

    It could be down to near zero like it was in the South before the Civil War, but that statistic wouldn't be proof that the guy running the plantation wasn't a racist.

    Please keep supplying the proof of your ignorance. It's funny to watch your flailing, and if the "black unemployment rate" ticks back up anytime soon, we'll have our definitive proof of Trump's racism. *laughs*

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    36

    First of all, fixed that number that you put up.

    Yes, sir. The illiterate moron insisting no one else has any "facts" is hands down the single largest source of misinformation on this forum... bar none.

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]