This is What My Representative Said:

[Strykervet]

When asked about gun ban shit:

"Thank you for contacting me about gun safety in our country. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
Over the years that I’ve been honored to serve as your representative, I’ve gotten calls and emails on this issue more than perhaps any other. I’ve heard from responsible, law-abiding folks who follow the laws and own guns for sport, hunting, hobby, or home protection. And I’ve heard from folks who are heartbroken after a tragedy has occurred or who have been personally affected by a shooting. I respect all of those perspectives. Like most folks in our area, I don’t support legislation that would take away guns from law-abiding citizens or infringe on their Second Amendment right to own and buy firearms. I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and understand that the vast majority of gun owners follow the laws.
There are common-sense steps Congress could take to address the problem of gun violence that respect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Recently, the House of Representatives took up such legislation, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act (H.R. 8) and the Enhanced Background Checks Act (H.R. 1446). In my view, this legislation – which is consistent with current law in our state as passed by the voters via initiative – doesn’t impede the rights of responsible gun owners but can make it harder for felons and those with a serious mental illness to acquire a weapon.
Ultimately, everyone agrees that we want to live in safe communities where we don’t have to fear going to concerts, or malls, or church, or movies, or school, or work. I am hopeful that our country will continue to engage in a constructive and respectful conversation on this issue.
I encourage you to continue to share your views with me on this topic or any other issue. Thank you for reaching out. I am honored to serve as your representative."

So what do you all make of it? Placating? I don't agree and my reply centered on "So then, when does it stop?" with a promise to follow up. In fact, I'm gonna step it up --I'm going to make appointments to visit them in their office. A visit is worth more than ten thousand letters and a thousand phone calls I understand.

He's right in that neither of these bills will much affect WA sales --we already got stuck with that over the initiative (which was numbered confusingly next to a no tax on groceries and antis were able to get signatures for one initiative by selling it as the other --when that came to light, oops! "But we're not fixing it"; bullshit).

I somehow doubt this will be all he votes on, I noticed he didn't mention Frankenfeinstein's bill, which passed the senate of course.

What do you guys think? Discuss away.

But please, write these bastards. If for no other reason than to say you did all you could in the event this goes south, which it looks like they're hellbent on doing.

 

[myronman3]

brother, they are LONG past caring what we think. the open and blatant fraud of the last election should have cemented that for you.

 

[Kein Mitleid]

I called mine, when I spoke to them I simply asked them to name the “common sense law” which has shown to reduce crimes committed with gun and does so in a manner provable with statistical analysis.

The other end of the phone ‘...uhhhh’. ‘It’ll be like a car registration’..

My Response was ‘so the bill you intend to vote for will do nothing to reduce crimes committed with guns but it will further burden me with a tax on
Ownership and restrict my rights’

I requested them to vote ‘no’ since this is a representation government after all and my concerns should weigh in the same as anyone.

These representatives should hear about it from people who are on the other side of this issue (from their perspective). The people who want government intervention into every aspect of life are incredibly noisy.

 

[Maggot]

Banging on their doors can work, it did a lot here in Virginia, though not all. We still got the univresal background check but I think Northam got the message when something like 100 out of 105 counties voted themselves 2A sanctuary counties. Now we've got the former POS Terry McAwful trying to get elected again on a strong anti gun platform.

 

[E. Bryant]

Your rep said everything that needed to be said with this:

"In my view, this legislation – which is consistent with current law in our state as passed by the voters via initiative – doesn’t impede the rights of responsible gun owners..."

Put another way, he just said "I know you'll still vote for me in 2022 because you're not going to vote for the other guy and the likelihood of me getting primaried is about zero."

 

[supercorndogs]

Most guns used in crimes are stolen. No background check law ever has or ever will, "reduce crime."

 

[candyx]

A little known fact about any elected representative, they don't have to do what you want which everyone believes they do. I learned this from the local level of government years ago when I was a volunteer fireman. Our little town size of a postage stamp had 5 companies four pumpers and one ladder which the town wanted to downsize to four companies. It was our company the ladder to be shut down and given to one of the pumper companies. We had meetings with our council people and the one guy who received lot of votes from all of us as we asked him to support us said no. We asked him why since we helped him get elected. His response was he didn't have to support what the people wanted , thats not why he got elected.He got elected by the people for the way he thinks and his ideas, thats why people voted for him.
Politicians once in office can do what they like regardless of what their constituents want them to do, yes they face backlash for re-election but at the federal level they can over come that with money.

 

[Choid]

Feinstein's bill hasn't passed the senate, FWIW.

One of my senators and my rep are hard no on every gun restriction. My state has been passing pro gun bills like its pants were on fire since the new governor came in. He seems more than happy to sign them. Jon Tester is a turd who will vote no on a gun bill if it won't already pass, but will happily sell Montana out of it makes a difference. That may change in return for a bite of Krispy Kreme, though.

Interstingly, Daines and Rosendale will give real responses while Tester will not. Actually it isn't interesting, it is a sad commentary on the state of the two parties in MT.

 

[W54/XM-388]

Put another way, he just said "I know you'll still vote for me in 2022 because you're not going to vote for the other guy and the likelihood of me getting primaried is about zero."

That's why we probably need to take the hit and show the idiots that we'd rather have an open enemy than a friendly traitor.

We need to make it loudly clear to those greedy Republicans politicans that we WILL vote them out of office even if it does mean we have to get a Demonrat in office instead. We need to let them know clearly that if they betray us, we WILL primary them out, or if they rig that, we'll vote Demonrat if we have to to get rid of them, and then they can kiss their cushy political careers goodbye as the left wing side doesn't need has been traitors either.

We have to both make that loud and clear to the idiot Republican politicians and then be willing to follow through with our promise and get them out of office either in the primaries or by voting Demonrat in the general election if they betray us.

 

[Choid]

That's why we probably need to take the hit and show the idiots that we'd rather have an open enemy than a friendly traitor.

We need to make it loudly clear to those greedy Republicans politicans that we WILL vote them out of office even if it does mean we have to get a Demonrat in office instead. We need to let them know clearly that if they betray us, we WILL primary them out, or if they rig that, we'll vote Demonrat if we have to to get rid of them, and then they can kiss their cushy political careers goodbye as the left wing side doesn't need has been traitors either.

We have to both make that loud and clear to the idiot Republican politicians and then be willing to follow through with our promise and get them out of office either in the primaries or by voting Demonrat in the general election if they betray us.

I'm sorry, but this is the height of stupidity. Do you see what Democrats do with power? If you do this, you are the problem.

 

[broncoaz]

Vote your conscious in the primary and your party in the general. Voting in more enemies to spite the fair weather friends ends in more restrictions sooner.

Living in Massachusetts now I don’t think there is any point in writing my “representatives”. It would probably get me put on some list to be cancelled at the earliest opportunity. Hopefully there is something left when I return to AZ for retirement in 20 years.

 

[Longshot231]

I changed some wording in the reply that your Representative sent. Imagine how pissed off the average person would be if this affected their ability to drive a car. If everyone who drives an automobile had to go through a background check, there would be a lot of surprises over who could NOT legally get behind the wheel.

"Thank you for contacting me about HIGHWAY safety in our country. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me.
Over the years that I’ve been honored to serve as your representative, I’ve gotten calls and emails on this issue more than perhaps any other. I’ve heard from responsible AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS who follow the laws and own MOTOR VEHICLES for RECREATION, TRAVEL, RACING, or WORK. And I’ve heard from folks who are heartbroken after a tragedy has occurred or who have been personally affected by AN ACCIDENT OR DEATH CAUSED BY A DRUNK DRIVER. I respect all of those perspectives. Like most folks in our area, I don’t support legislation that would take away AUTOMOBILES from law-abiding DRIVERS or infringe on their TRANSPORTATION NEEDS, to own and buy AUTOMOBILES. I am a strong supporter of the EVERYONE’S NEED TO DRIVE A CAR and understand that the vast majority of AUTOMOTIVE DRIVERS follow the laws.

There are common-sense steps Congress could take to address the problem of HIGHWAY SAFETY that respect the TRANSPORTATION NEEDS of law-abiding Americans. Recently, the House of Representatives took up such legislation, the Bipartisan AUTOMOBILE DRIVER Background Checks Act and the Enhanced AUTOMOBILE DRIVER Background Checks Act. In my view, this legislation – which is consistent with current law in our state as passed by the voters via initiative – doesn’t impede the rights of responsible DRIVERS but can make it harder for WRECKLESS OR DRUNK DRIVERS and those with a serious mental illness to GET BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR OR TRUCK.
Ultimately, everyone agrees that we want to live in safe communities where we don’t have to fear going to concerts, or malls, or church, or movies, or school, or work. I am hopeful that our country will continue to engage in a constructive and respectful conversation on this issue.

I encourage you to continue to share your views with me on this topic or any other issue. Thank you for reaching out. I am honored to serve as your representative."

Conversely, what would people think if their right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press or to peaceably assemble were curtailed.

If they took the same draconian measures against people with a driver's license we'd see an uproar. Now imagine what would happen if your congress critter said this:

"Thank you for contacting me about FREE SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY in our country. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

Over the years that I’ve been honored to serve as your representative, I’ve gotten calls and emails on this issue more than perhaps any other. I’ve heard from responsible SPEAKERS, JOURNALISTS AND MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY who follow the laws and EXERCISE THEIR ABILITY TO SPEAK, WRITE, PREACH AND ASSEMBLE. And I’ve heard from folks who are heartbroken after a tragedy has occurred or who have been personally affected by SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE HAS SAID OR WROTE IN A NEWSPAPER WHICH OFFENDS THEM. I respect all of those perspectives. Like most folks in our area, I don’t support legislation that would take away THE RIGHT TO SPEAK from law-abiding PEOPLE OR MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY or infringe on their ABILITY TO GATHER IN PUBLIC, to own and buy PEN & PAPER, AUDIO EQUIPMENT OR COMPUTERS USED IN SOME OF THOSE ACTIVITIES. I am a strong supporter of the EVERYONE’S DESIRE TO SPEAK FREELY and understand that the vast majority of MEMBERS OF THE PRESS follow the laws.

There are common-sense steps Congress could take to address the problem of OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE AND HATE SPEECH that respect the FREEDOM OF THOUGHT of law-abiding Americans. Recently, the House of Representatives took up such legislation, the Bipartisan SPEECH, PRESS, RELIGION & ASSEMBLY Background Checks Act and the Enhanced SPEECH, PRESS, RELIGION & ASSEMBLY Background Checks Act. In my view, this legislation – which is consistent with current law in our state as passed by the voters via initiative – doesn’t impede the rights of responsible CITIZENS but can make it harder for OTHERS THAT SAY OFFENSIVE THINGS OR ENGAGE IN HATE SPEECH and those with a serious mental illness to SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT OR WHENEVER THEY WANT AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T OFFEND SOMEONE OR HURT THEIR FEELINGS.

Ultimately, everyone agrees that we want to live in safe communities where we don’t have to fear going to concerts, or malls, or church, or movies, or school, or work WHERE WE MIGHT HEAR OR READ SOMETHING THAT IS OFFENSIVE. I am hopeful that our country will continue to engage in a constructive and respectful conversation on this issue.

I encourage you to continue to share your views with me on this topic or any other issue. Thank you for reaching out. I am honored to serve as your representative."

 

[W54/XM-388]

I'm sorry, but this is the height of stupidity. Do you see what Democrats do with power? If you do this, you are the problem.

Quite the opposite.
The Republican party at the federal level and in many states, has been treating their voting base with distain and thinking nothing of brazenly lying and doing the exact opposite of what they promised their voting base they would do or what their voting base wanted them to do.

Just look at the recent votes on the banana republic style impeachment of trump after he was already out of office, you had republicans voting for it, who most likely only got / kept their positions due to riding along on Trump's coat tails. Or for that matter the recent house vote on gun control where some RINOs thought if they betrayed their constituents, they would win praise from the media that hates them.

The Republican party feels like they can do anything they want because well, their supporters won't dare vote demonrat right?

Well this is crunch time, and we are simply asking them to hold the line and vote NO on things that affect our freedom and rights.
IF they can at least do that, then we'll keep voting for them. BUT if they vote to destroy our freedom and rights, what's the point of keeping them in office.

This is a game of Deterrence, and you have to be willing to follow through and your counterpart has to understand you will be willing to follow through.

If the Republicans vote away our rights and freedoms, then we don't need them anymore and we'd be better off getting rid of them and taking over the primary process of the Demonrat party.

You may not like it, but you have 2 choices, either take a stand and tell them don't be traitors to civil liberties and our rights or we get rid of you.
Or you let them continue to lie to you and then turn around and backstab you for a few kudos from some media pundits.

The Republican party is in serious need of a wake up call, and the only thing that they fear is loosing their country club membership with all it's cushy perks.

I don't want to vote for a Demonrat, but I will make it clear to my Republican representatives, that IF they can't just simply say NO to destruction of our rights and vote with the Demonrats to take away our rights, then I have no use for them and WILL first try to vote them out in the primaries and if that fails, I'll vote Demonrat & if their entire stinking GOP party collapses because of it, more the better, that will make room for those that actually are willing to fight for freedom to pick up the votes. Hopefully the folks that do, will actually be willing to vote to get back our freedoms which is something the GOP has refused to do. They promise big but can't even do a single thing like the HPA when they totally control the government.

Even in Texas, the Party top leadership has been rather unfriendly to expanding any freedom and rights.
They need to understand that it's bring home the bacon or don't come home time.

But let me be very clear here, I'm NOT saying I'm going to go wholesale voting for Demonrats or anyone else should, rather that IF individual republican politicians betray their constituents and vote against their wishes, voting to destroy their liberties, rights and freedoms, then they must be held accountable in the elections and not allowed to get away with it. Even if it means a Demonrat takes their place (which if the Republican already voted against your gun rights, then what's the difference?)

 

[E. Bryant]

I'm sorry, but this is the height of stupidity. Do you see what Democrats do with power? If you do this, you are the problem.

This is, like, the elevator pitch for the past 20 years of the Sean Hannity show

I'm growing tired of conservatives who self-describe as "to the right of Attila the Hun" and who brow-beat everyone they encounter with their various ranting, but then will walk into a voting booth and pick some shithead like Mitt or Jeb or Cocaine Mitch because "it's the least worst choice" or "they're more electable" or whatever other excuse they can generate for violating their principles when it really matters.

 

[Choid]

Quite the opposite.
The Republican party at the federal level and in many states, has been treating their voting base with distain and thinking nothing of brazenly lying and doing the exact opposite of what they promised their voting base they would do or what their voting base wanted them to do.

Just look at the recent votes on the banana republic style impeachment of trump after he was already out of office, you had republicans voting for it, who most likely only got / kept their positions due to riding along on Trump's coat tails. Or for that matter the recent house vote on gun control where some RINOs thought if they betrayed their constituents, they would win praise from the media that hates them.

The Republican party feels like they can do anything they want because well, their supporters won't dare vote demonrat right?

Well this is crunch time, and we are simply asking them to hold the line and vote NO on things that affect our freedom and rights.
IF they can at least do that, then we'll keep voting for them. BUT if they vote to destroy our freedom and rights, what's the point of keeping them in office.

This is a game of Deterrence, and you have to be willing to follow through and your counterpart has to understand you will be willing to follow through.

If the Republicans vote away our rights and freedoms, then we don't need them anymore and we'd be better off getting rid of them and taking over the primary process of the Demonrat party.

You may not like it, but you have 2 choices, either take a stand and tell them don't be traitors to civil liberties and our rights or we get rid of you.
Or you let them continue to lie to you and then turn around and backstab you for a few kudos from some media pundits.

The Republican party is in serious need of a wake up call, and the only thing that they fear is loosing their country club membership with all it's cushy perks.

I don't want to vote for a Demonrat, but I will make it clear to my Republican representatives, that IF they can't just simply say NO to destruction of our rights and vote with the Demonrats to take away our rights, then I have no use for them and WILL first try to vote them out in the primaries and if that fails, I'll vote Demonrat & if their entire stinking GOP party collapses because of it, more the better, that will make room for those that actually are willing to fight for freedom to pick up the votes. Hopefully the folks that do, will actually be willing to vote to get back our freedoms which is something the GOP has refused to do. They promise big but can't even do a single thing like the HPA when they totally control the government.

Even in Texas, the Party top leadership has been rather unfriendly to expanding any freedom and rights.
They need to understand that it's bring home the bacon or don't come home time.

But let me be very clear here, I'm NOT saying I'm going to go wholesale voting for Demonrats or anyone else should, rather that IF individual republican politicians betray their constituents and vote against their wishes, voting to destroy their liberties, rights and freedoms, then they must be held accountable in the elections and not allowed to get away with it. Even if it means a Demonrat takes their place (which if the Republican already voted against your gun rights, then what's the difference?)

This is, like, the elevator pitch for the past 20 years of the Sean Hannity show

I'm growing tired of conservatives who self-describe as "to the right of Attila the Hun" and who brow-beat everyone they encounter with their various ranting, but then will walk into a voting booth and pick some shithead like Mitt or Jeb or Cocaine Mitch because "it's the least worst choice" or "they're more electable" or whatever other excuse they can generate for violating their principles when it really matters.

No, it is stupid, and though Sean Hannity is a fucking moron, on this point he is correct. The problem is that you two don't seem to understand how party politics works. The point isn't that your party needs to be full of people who vote perfectly, but rather that the party with the most representatives controls the issues that come up for vote. So while you have a turd like Adam Kinzinger voting for background checks, he is only doing that because the Democrats hold power in the chamber. If the Republicans did, there would be no vote. So Kinzinger, as bad as he is, is valuable vs a Democrat who might vote EXACTLY the same way, because he votes with Republicans as to speaker, and thus as to controlling which issues come up for vote. This isn't rocket surgery. It is just reality.

Again, this is why Georgia senate mattered while all the smooth brains were tilting at the windmill of a stolen election. Democrats win because they are smarter than you about all how things really work.

 

[Baron23]

So what do you all make of it? Placating?

CYA form letter where he tried to placate the 2A crowd while still be a fucking liberal anti-gun cock sucker.

Look....felons...gang bangers, thugs, rapists, car jackers, etc...... aren't buying their guns at gun shows.

The 800 gun murders a year in Chicago ain't from legal guns purchased at gun shows.

Do you live in a WA coastal area or is this shithead from one of the inland counties?

 

[candyx]

Government if forcing everyone eventually to buy through the underground market. Lets face it the only time the government gets an illegal gun is after a crime has been committed. It would make life easier if someone broke into your home and you defused the threat. When the authorities show up you explain this armed assailant broke into your home threaten to kill you and your family so you were forced to fight him off fought and "his" gun went off.

 

[7.62willdo]

this is Pierce county so probably not a coastal community......

 

[Baron23]

this is Pierce county so probably not a coastal community......

Ya tink? Tacoma...off of I-5? Def a WA coastal area to me with attendant politics. Get to the other side of the Cascades and then we are talking! haha

 

[E. Bryant]

No, it is stupid, and though Sean Hannity is a fucking moron, on this point he is correct. The problem is that you two don't seem to understand how party politics works. The point isn't that your party needs to be full of people who vote perfectly, but rather that the party with the most representatives controls the issues that come up for vote. So while you have a turd like Adam Kinzinger voting for background checks, he is only doing that because the Democrats hold power in the chamber. If the Republicans did, there would be no vote. So Kinzinger, as bad as he is, is valuable vs a Democrat who might vote EXACTLY the same way, because he votes with Republicans as to speaker, and thus as to controlling which issues come up for vote. This isn't rocket surgery. It is just reality.

Again, this is why Georgia senate mattered while all the smooth brains were tilting at the windmill of a stolen election. Democrats win because they are smarter than you about all how things really work.

You're assuming that there are two parties, and that they are diametrically opposed along some sort of clear and consistent lines. That's basically how an ideologue might have felt in 2005.

I know that you read the term "smooth brain" on Vox last week and think that you're very hip for having done so, but you're kinda wearing it out in just a few days (oh, and Bender was several months ahead of you on this one).

 

[Choid]

You're assuming that there are two parties, and that they are diametrically opposed along some sort of clear and consistent lines. That's basically how an ideologue might have felt in 2005.

I know that you read the term "smooth brain" on Vox last week and think that you're very hip for having done so, but you're kinda wearing it out in just a few days (oh, and Bender was several months ahead of you on this one).

I’ve been calling you morons smooth brains for months. Never read vox. Nice try though. I guess you never know what you don’t know.

Your analysis of my point is equally trenchant. It has nothing to do with diametrically opposed ideologies. It has everything to do with how power in legislatures is expressed mainly, these days, in deciding what comes up for a vote. Perhaps you’d like to list all of the votes on universal background checks in republican majority legislatures. I’ll wait.

 

[UKDslayer]

When asked about gun ban shit:
law-abiding folks who follow the laws and own guns for sport, hunting, hobby, or home protection

Yeah, uh no.Those things are important, but thats not what 2A is about. Its about protection from tyranny of our government.

 

[whiskeytower]

Hi fellas. life is better if you put dumbshit up there on ignore. He is a LOLbriterian and completely useless in interacting with him.

 

[Choid]

Hi fellas. life is better if you put dumbshit up there on ignore. He is a LOLbriterian and completely useless in interacting with him.

I may be a dumb shit, but I am not a libertarian.

 

[E. Bryant]

I’ve been calling you morons smooth brains for months. Never read vox. Nice try though. I guess you never know what you don’t know.

Your analysis of my point is equally trenchant. It has nothing to do with diametrically opposed ideologies. It has everything to do with how power in legislatures is expressed mainly, these days, in deciding what comes up for a vote. Perhaps you’d like to list all of the votes on universal background checks in republican majority legislatures. I’ll wait.

The search function says you're a liar Or did you just admit to having a sock puppet account?!?

I'll wait for you to list all the times that Republican majority legislatures voted to improve my gun rights. We can probably use the same list for all the times they balanced the budget or rolled back other infringements on civil liberties or fixed health care.

 

[W54/XM-388]

. Perhaps you’d like to list all of the votes on universal background checks in republican majority legislatures. I’ll wait.

How about when the conservative voters propelled the republican party to have full control of the government back in 2016 and the party leadership refused to allow a vote on the HPA to go forward because they wanted to play nice for the folks that hated them and idolize the demonrats?
Even though that was a big part of their election campaign?

How about when the republican party leadership that had championed for years how many times they got the house to vote for a straight repeal of ObamaCare (knowing it would never go anywhere under Obama), and then as soon as they had all the power... oh sorry we couldn't allow another vote on what we already voted because well, we must save obamacare...

When just recently several RINOs in both the house and senate betrayed their constituents and voted for that banana republic sham of an "impeachment", because they wanted to look good in the media, do you think they would have any problem pushing for taking away your 2A rights even if they were in power if the media told them it would "look good" for them to do so?

The Republican party has proven time and again, the only time they do anything for their constituents is when they are truly scared politically and afraid they will loose too many members in the club house.

Also remember, under Obama we got bumpstocks and pistol braces...

How many times can you actually name recently when the Republicans have been in effective power to where they actually knew they could push through legislation without the opposition stopping it, that they brought up and voted on bills to restore our 2A rights and freedoms?
The only reason we don't currently have an AWB is because the Clinton one had a sunset provision shoved in by folks who were willing to get something done even if they were in the minority at the time.
The Republicans couldn't be bothered to remove it, rather they just punted and waited for it to expire, while Bush Jr, made noises about how he would sign an new one if it came to him...

IF conservatives wish to actually take back control of the government, they have to be willing to get out of the mindset that we must have the Republicans in at all cost no matter how terrible they are. Make sure the guys you get back in after the next swing back and forth understand their first order of business is restoring rights taken away or they are out the door, they've got 2 years and then you start showing them the exit to the country club as fast as the 4 and 6 year terms come around.

Remember, all we are asking of the Republicans right now is simply to vote No on things that are against our freedom.
If they are such spineless cowards they can't even do that, then it's better to vote them out sooner rather than later, so we can work on getting in folks that actually will do as they promise.

 

[Choid]

The search function says you're a liar Or did you just admit to having a sock puppet account?!?

I'll wait for you to list all the times that Republican majority legislatures voted to improve my gun rights. We can probably use the same list for all the times they balanced the budget or rolled back other infringements on civil liberties or fixed health care.

You may then look at all of the state legislatures, dominated by rep that have recently instituted constitutional carry and other second amendment securing bills. That wasn’t very hard.

The two are, of course, not the same in the same way that punching somebody and not giving them a hand job are not the same, or fundamentally in the way that if you start at zero and get to -1, it is not the same as starting at zero and not getting to 1.

thanks for playing but you started with a shitty hand.

 

[Choid]

How about when the conservative voters propelled the republican party to have full control of the government back in 2016 and the party leadership refused to allow a vote on the HPA to go forward because they wanted to play nice for the folks that hated them and idolize the demonrats?
Even though that was a big part of their election campaign?

How about when the republican party leadership that had championed for years how many times they got the house to vote for a straight repeal of ObamaCare (knowing it would never go anywhere under Obama), and then as soon as they had all the power... oh sorry we couldn't allow another vote on what we already voted because well, we must save obamacare...

When just recently several RINOs in both the house and senate betrayed their constituents and voted for that banana republic sham of an "impeachment", because they wanted to look good in the media, do you think they would have any problem pushing for taking away your 2A rights even if they were in power if the media told them it would "look good" for them to do so?

The Republican party has proven time and again, the only time they do anything for their constituents is when they are truly scared politically and afraid they will loose too many members in the club house.

Also remember, under Obama we got bumpstocks and pistol braces...

How many times can you actually name recently when the Republicans have been in effective power to where they actually knew they could push through legislation without the opposition stopping it, that they brought up and voted on bills to restore our 2A rights and freedoms?
The only reason we don't currently have an AWB is because the Clinton one had a sunset provision shoved in by folks who were willing to get something done even if they were in the minority at the time.
The Republicans couldn't be bothered to remove it, rather they just punted and waited for it to expire, while Bush Jr, made noises about how he would sign an new one if it came to him...

IF conservatives wish to actually take back control of the government, they have to be willing to get out of the mindset that we must have the Republicans in at all cost no matter how terrible they are. Make sure the guys you get back in after the next swing back and forth understand their first order of business is restoring rights taken away or they are out the door, they've got 2 years and then you start showing them the exit to the country club as fast as the 4 and 6 year terms come around.

Remember, all we are asking of the Republicans right now is simply to vote No on things that are against our freedom.
If they are such spineless cowards they can't even do that, then it's better to vote them out sooner rather than later, so we can work on getting in folks that actually will do as they promise.

The problem is that the country is not right wing enough to elect a legislature that would please you. Would that it were. So dealing with that reality we have to compromise somewhat to end up with the best legislature we can. That means Susan Collins where that is the best possible, and somebody further right where it possible to do so. To put the absolute power in Nancy pelosi’s hands because you didn’t get everything you wanted in order to teach republicans a lesson is madness.

and fwiw I practice what I preach. I think Donald Trump is a wretched cunt, and always have, but I but the bullet and voted for him, twice, because it was better than the other option. The game sucks, but you lose if you do not play.

 

[Baron23]

If you don't hold the majority in any sort of representative legislative chamber, you don't hold shit.

That is REAL politics. Ignore it and....well, you end up with WH and both chambers of Congress in Dem hands....oh shit, that already happened.

 

[Cowpokey]

This sums it up pretty well.

 

[theLBC]

it seems like common sense to check and see if somebody is a criminal before they can buy a gun.
this logic is catching even some on the right and some maybe even on this forum.
but the logic has 2 flaws.
- this will not have a significant impact on the ability for criminals to obtain guns, and if anything, the black market will just grow and improve.
- the first step to taking guns from law abiding citizens is knowing which ones have them.

didn't anyone watch Red fucking Dawn?

 

[Choid]

it seems like common sense to check and see if somebody is a criminal before they can buy a gun.
this logic is catching even some on the right and some maybe even on this forum.
but the logic has 2 flaws.
- this will not have a significant impact on the ability for criminals to obtain guns, and if anything, the black market will just grow and improve.
- the first step to taking guns from law abiding citizens is knowing which ones have them.

didn't anyone watch Red fucking Dawn?

You are right that it is a dumb way to stop come or do anything else positive. But it is an unwinnable fight, at least to roll back the 1968 lines. But the point is to have the ability to set priorities.

 

[Choid]

The way I see it in my lizard brain is when you reduce this argument down to its core, one group is saying that the ideals protected in the original constitutional republic set out by the founders is being bastardized by the democratic process through congress. SCOTUS has largely refused to limit the expansion of federal powers and has allowed rights enumerated in the bill of rights to be converted into second class rights.

The other side is arguing that in light of the current situation, the democratic process although it has taken a larger role than the founders intended, is the only show in town if you want to go to the circus. So, learn how to be a circus monkey and entertain the crowd if you want the crowd’s support.

SCOTUS is only going to go further off the rails even with the most recent appointments. So, unless we decide what our line in the sand is going to be, the only way forward is becoming circus monkeys.

I don’t think this is quite it. A lot of us fall into the first group but live in the real world and realize that the best option given the facts in play is the second.

the reality is les cons gagnent toujours ils sont trop. So you need to live in that world and have enough cunts on your side.

 

[theLBC]

You are right that it is a dumb way to stop come or do anything else positive. But it is an unwinnable fight, at least to roll back the 1968 lines. But the point is to have the ability to set priorities.

they could try enforcing existing gun laws.

why does an illegal alien want a gun when they shouldn't even be here?
why do democrats not want gun dealers to alert authorities when one of them tries to buy a gun?
they don't want to take guns out of the hands of criminals.
they hope your fear of crime will entice you to give up more rights in exchange for more protection.

we only have to look at what happened in brazil to know what happens when you disarm the public when the criminals already have guns.

 

[Choid]

they could try enforcing existing gun laws.

why does an illegal alien want a gun when they shouldn't even be here?
why do democrats not want gun dealers to alert authorities when one of them tries to buy a gun?
they don't want to take guns out of the hands of criminals.
they hope your fear of crime will entice you to give up more rights in exchange for more protection.

we only have to look at what happened in brazil to know what happens when you disarm the public when the criminals already have guns.

I don’t think I am disagreeing with you. I’m just saying that we aren’t going to move away from checks at ffls as we have now, so let’s concentrate an where we can win. Places like you mention.

 

[weaselrunner]

I have mark Warner and tim Kaine as senators and both former virginia governors and worthless pos. Bobby Scott is the rep for my area, another democrap and just as worthless. No sense writing, calling or anything else.

 

[Choid]

You may have a valid point this time that I’m being overly reductionistic but I do not see the administrative state being pulled back, federal powers being kept in check, or SCOTUS becoming champions of the bill of rights.

So, in my mind it’s either the democratic process or ......

Democratic process is mob rule so we essential become circus monkeys fighting for the biggest crowds at that point

I think short term you are perhaps wrong about scotus. Long term yes. I think you are reading too much into the election decisions and are reading them incorrectly, but no need to go down that road again.

my point, perhaps worry, is that democracy, mob rule, is the default state and limited government a total aberration especially when the mob decides it is unhappy. So you can be true to the belief in one while still working within the reality of the other to try to make things better than worse.

the other options are defeatism or revolt. The first is garbage and the second seems to be a favorite call of some of the heroes in here, but ultimately folly given the realities of the mob.

 

[Choid]

Other options?

 

[pmclaine]

I just drove through the Minuteman National Park.....this is the remains of the way that the Minuteman kicked the shit out of the Brits as they retreated to Boston from Concord.

Its 60 degrees and beautiful out.

All these fucks were wearing masks.

If a pol showed up and commanded them to do somersaults, bark like a dog and clap while he abused their loved ones they would do it.

 

[TexPatriot]

Most guns used in crimes are stolen. No background check law ever has or ever will, "reduce crime."

Or bought by straw buyer 'baby-mommas.

 

[Choid]

That wasn’t my point. While you may be technically correct hyper focusing on congressional process of how to limit anti-conservative legislation in the short run, it is a losing long term approach. The more Pierre delecto’s, mcstains, susan Collins, Paul Ryans we have, the less people will be drawn to the conservative side in the long run.

History has born this out.

History is a ratchet moving left, it is all a long term losing approach. I am not sure I would put Susan Collins with Romney and McCain. She is the best possible outcome from Maine, the other two the worst from their states. In baseball terms, her wins above replacement are huge. Ryan is a bit of an enigma.

 

[Choid]

Sure, but that sounds a little bit like defeatism. Instead of hyper focusing on the candidates themselves and looking at each piece of legislation as do or die, I would argue that it is more important to be the party of the people in the long run than it is to hyper focus on each piece of individual legislation. The left loses all the time but they somehow use their losses to be even more persuasive to the people.

Hell, communists used to be arrested less than 100 years ago and now we have commies in congress.

If conservatives can’t even win the culture war on free speech, which should be a softball, then that pretty much sums up about how effective their current persuasion strategies are ...

I'm not sure your last point is right. What is going on is not a single factor argument, and I don't know it has much to do at all with persuasion strategies.

But as to the first, perhaps it is defeatist in the long run, or maybe just an observation. The issue, though, is being the party of the people doesn't lead to governing by restraint, but by popular rule, because that is what the people end up wanting. And frankly, that is what is being shown in this thread, that if we don't get it all, we will withhold all support, which is basically antithetical to the concept of limited government anyway.

Just to add, my "strategy" is that we should try to win wherever we can, and sometimes that means we have to win with people I don't like. But as with Trump, I was willing to support that, because it is better than losing. The left recovers from losing better because their conspiracies and excuses inspire their voters to be angrier at the right AND to vote harder. The right's losses somehow convinces their voters to be angrier at the right AND to stay away from the polls. The left is better at this. Smarter at this. Not to be a broken record, but fucking look at Georgia.

 

[Choid]

That sure sounds similar to the things some people in the 1770’s might have said right before the .... LOL

lame.

Pretty much any comparisons of revolution in the era of kings and revolution in the era of mob rule are lame, though people still love to make them. There really wasn't a sense that mobs could rule pre French Revolution (and yes, I know about Greece) but that reality has changed and the genie isn't going back in. But please be my guest. Run a revolution in a country where everybody has electricity, nobody is starving and politicians are seen as popularly elected. I am sure you will find dozens of followers.

People act like the American revolution changed the world. It didn't. It was the best of the revolutions, but historically insignificant compared to the French. Every revolution since the 1790s has mimicked the French, not one has mimicked ours, and yet people are sure that the next one here would. Madness.

 

[Choid]

So, let’s get this straight ....

the non-democratic checks and balances on limiting governmental powers were failing

a system that recognizes certain innate rights cannot be voted away through the democratic process was wanted while leaving other governmental functions up to the democratic process

worked pretty well for 200 years leading to the greatest expansion of individual non-centralized wealth and increase in the quality of life the world has ever seen

then then built in checks on limited government fail and the mob is the only check on governmental action

Is this your way of equating the historical situation leading up to the Revolutionary War with now? I mean, you can cherry pick pretty much any two situations and use language to make them look the same, but I don't think any keen observer will find them that way. But go and push that revolution given the current situation. I won't be joining you, for many of the same reasons that Edmond Burke was smart enough to seen the difference between the American and French, while Thomas Paine wasn't.

 

[Choid]

You either have mob rule or you have to have some way to repair the checks on limiting governmental power

No, there are many worse situations than this. Look all over the world. Look at any country that has had a revolution since ours. We still do have some limits, arguably more than anywhere else, but decreasing rapidly. I don't know what makes people think that the outcome would be any where near as good as now.

 

[Choid]

False dichotomy

Ha, the false dichotomy was yours. That you either get mob rule or limited government. I pointed out that there were many worse options, and by any definition, many can't be a dichotomy of any sort.

It’s more along the lines that I think that most if they are being honest with themselves will admit that the non-democratic checks and balances are largely near the point of failure and we are nearing the point where the mob is the only check and balance left

you keep going in circles saying you’re a realist and then living in philosophy world where you get to pick the political philosophy but ignoring the realities of the world as it is

I don't know what you mean by the second paragraph. I am not in any philosophy world picking the political philosophy. I don't disagree that the checks and balances are straining mightily, just that there is any historical precedent, other than our revolution, of putting in place a new government that will be self limiting. So realism, all the way down.

 

[Choid]

the false dichotomy is yours where it is possible to describe the built in non democratic checks as failing while also admitting that this is still the county to live in

the two are not mutually exclusive and acting as if they are is a false dichotomy

First of all, that isn't what a false dichotomy is. Second of all, it isn't what I wrote. Third of all, you erased your post, so I am guessing you realized it was dumb.

 

[DarnYankeeUSMC]

@Choid , your argument is... You don't have to suck the whole dick just the tip.

Fuck You!! You are arguing that death by a thousand cuts is better than the guillotine.

 

[Choid]

@Choid , your argument is... You don't have to suck the whole dick just the tip.

Fuck You!! You are arguing that death by a thousand cuts is better than the guillotine.

woo woo.

 

[theLBC]

solution?
just make it illegal to sell guns to criminals. boom!