Right, and in 1991, the guy in the White House had a 91% approval rating. The serious Democrats sat out the election, thinking both that they'd lose and they might as well let the next generation get some experience at running for national office.
How'd that turn out?
I remind myself that at this point in `07, the smart money was betting on Giuliani v. Clinton. We are still months away from anyone formally caucusing or voting.
Last edited by Stephanie B; 09-15-2019 at 09:34 AM.
If we have to march off into the next world, let us walk there on the bodies of our enemies.
“If you know the way broadly you will see it in everything." - Miyamoto Musashi
Can this issue be framed from a perspective of “consent of the governed”?
Beto and the many, many, other folks like him that are on board with confiscation scheme of some sort are thinking about the issue of “gun violence” like a parent with naughty 2 year olds. Kids not playing nice with a toy? The toy gets yanked as punishment and a potential learning moment. It works….
The glaring issue is that the relationship between the governed and the governors is not parent-child, it is an explicit social contract based on consent. Beto et al have completely lost sight and grip of this.
For there to be a true affirmation of consent on removing rifles and other hardware from ‘the governed’ then the 2nd amendment itself would have to undergo referendum for modification. Everything short of this is just a scheme.
This needs to be pressed into the conversation. I’m not a fan of binary or black-and-white thinking but I think this issue needs it. The confiscation discussion, hardware bans, are way too easy to just throw out there. Its too easy to simply assume the executive branch of the federal government can do it logistically and politically. If it were the case that the only way to truly enforce the confiscation was with a modification to the 2nd amendment, then the cost and burden would be way too high.
Want evil black rifles and high capacity handguns off the streets to make you feel safe? Then get your act together and try to modify the 2nd amendment.
Anti-gun crowd: ok…yeah…well…ummm…hmmmm..I’ll get back to you on that.
This is the driving force behind the National Popular Vote movement. It’s an end run to give urban areas powers they were intentionally denied by the founding fathers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...rstate_Compact
Last edited by HeavyDuty; 09-15-2019 at 10:12 AM.
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
Hot take: Beto explicitly calling for confiscation was the best thing that could happen for gun rights rn. The NRA have proven consistently unwilling to challenge Trump when he wanders into gungrabber territory, so maybe having a Democrat throw bombs like this will get them off their ass.
FWIW, this morning on Meet The Press someone said that legislators working on milder gun control legislation have said that Beto just made their lives harder. That's always welcome.
Last edited by perlslacker; 09-15-2019 at 10:38 AM.
New term for making a political faux pas: He shit the Beto...
I prefer the subtlety of the second one, but the actual flag has the words on it.
Too bad I don't do bumper stickers, it would get more exposure. Gonna make one of these a lawn sign.
or................................................ .................................................. ...........
Last edited by RoyGBiv; 09-15-2019 at 10:56 AM.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
QFT.
In CA, they haven't gone for short-term confiscation, but the registration regulation is a generational-timescale confiscation.
A registered "assault weapon" is not heritable in CA. Under current law, you can keep it until you die, but you better move it out of the state before you die if you want your heirs to be able to take possession. I haven't heard any cases of the man coming around to collect the registered property of the deceased, but it would be a natural extension of the existing "knock and talk" practices regarding disqualifying life events occurring involving people with the same first and last name as owners of registered firearms.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.