search
top

We Will Survive Trump, Or Hillary

Seen on the Internets, via Tam:

At this point we’re going to get a probably anti-gun president or a definitely anti-gun president.

What I’m trying to avoid is the constant losertalk of “OH MY GOD BURY YOUR GUNS AND BUY ALL THE PRIMERS” that I had to put up with in ’08 and ’12. We’ve beat this before and we’ll beat it again. Now send some dough to the NRA-ILA, SAF, and GOA, then hop out of the wagon and help pull this thing.

I am by no means pleased Trump is the presumptive nominee, but I do not join with many on the right with all the doom and gloom. If there’s one thing I won’t be in the business of this election it’s predicting Donald Trump.

I actually don’t think Trump will be too bad on the gun issue. I know, I know… he’s said anti-gun things in the past and he’s duping people and lying to us. The truth is they are all lying, except the rare pol who’s actually a shooter. They arrived at their position on this issue by cold political calculation, and as many other interests as Trump has goofed and fumbled, he’s been more consistent with us.  So I don’t worry about Trump on the gun issue too much. Though on everything else…. that’s a different story.

But even if the worst case happens and Hillary is President for the next four or god forbid eight years, we’ll weather. Oh, we may have setbacks. Some may be quite severe. But if you look at the success of the concealed carry movement, the gun rights movement is probably the only movement active today that could pass an Amendment to the federal constitution, and I think we should be prepared to pull that wagon should it become necessary. I hope folks at NRA are reading. I think we will likely need to think about a federal constitutional amendment to do what the Second Amendment should have done in the first place. It’s a hard wagon to haul, but I think we can do it.

31 Responses to “We Will Survive Trump, Or Hillary”

  1. great unknown says:

    Have to disagree. We will not survive Hillary because the Constitution – already shredded by Obama and the Courts – will not survive Hillary.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      I’ve heard the same thing since Clinton-Reno. The opposition has only gotten stronger. Right now the opposition is (mostly) non-violent. I fail to see how it stays that way any longer if what you claim plays out.

      So, get back down off the ledge and enjoy your life.

      HW6

      • Zundfolge says:

        If Hillary replaces Scalia the Constitution is dead. Period.

        She’s already said she wants Australia style confiscation and she intends to bring Heller and Citizens United back in front of her shiny new anti-constitutionalist court. That happens and the first and second are gone, soon to be followed by the rest of the constitution. They will rubber stamp whatever evil she and her fellow travelers want from here on out and the only way to restore the Constitution is by violence.

        I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if she has Army troops quartered in our homes by the end of her fist term.

  2. “the gun rights movement is probably the only movement active today that could pass an Amendment to the federal constitution”

    Really? 2/3 of the states would vote for a constitutional convention for gun rights? 2/3 of both houses of congress would vote for a gun rights amendment?

    Then, 3/4 of the states would ratify the amendment?

    If those numbers existed we’d have national CCW and it would have been won with a POTUS veto override.

    I wish the anti-trumpers would stop telling us that they’re taking their ball and going home. Just go and stop talking about it. Others have already shown up on the playground and brought their balls.

    The same crap went on in ’12 with the “I’m not voting for Mitt” people. Unless it’s your name on the ballot, every candidate is less than ideal and represents a compromise.

    • Sebastian says:

      I think it could be possible, especially if there’s something that generates a lot of anger…. like the federal courts reversing Heller and McDonald.

      • It took a decade to undo prohibition. Think about that. Alcohol was made illegal and it took a decade to undo that. Do you really think there is any political will or would ever be for a gun issue? There’s optimism and then there’s delusion. I’m more optimistic that the U.S. will break apart before we see a firearms related amendment coming up for any votes.

    • Ian Argent says:

      2/3 of the states is 30. 3/4 of the states is 38. I count 7 states plus DC that are not de jure shall-issue or ConCarry, plus illinois, whose shall-issue law was forced upon them. That’s a decent margin for the 3/4 of the states count.

      Not to say it’ll be easy, but it could happen. In some ways I think working a constitutional amendment would be easier than legislation because you don’t have to get bogged down in details. The only reason I don’t think we’ve pushed one up till now is because by doing so we would admit the 2A is a dead letter, and that would be tactically bad, until someone manages to make it so.

      The only thing propping up the gun control movement right now is Bloomberg’s Millions.

      • Mike’s millions are not going to run out anytime soon. He could spend $50m/yr for the next 20 years and it’s not going to make much of a dent in his personal fortune. There are others too. There’s Joyce money and then the soft money and PR machine from hollywood.

        Back to the amendment issue. Your basic count of the states is interesting, but, how many of those shall issues states have a legislature with the number to ratify the amendment? There is a reason the constitution has been amended so few times, it’s a really big hurrle to get over.

        Let’s be real clear here. The next POTUS will get an immediate SCOTUS pick and that very well could flip the court. Trump’s federal judge sister seems to be forgotten here. I’m not saying she’d be a pick, but, the Donald is very good at surrounding himself with experts and relying on their judgement. His sister has been a solid conservative in the 3rd circuit and was a chief backer of Alito. I would find it hard to believe that Trump would not seek the guidance of his sister on his SCOTUS pick.

        Another thing to remember, Trump’s campaign is based on the economy, border security, and overseas military commitments. Hillary is solely running on social issues at this point. She’s very clear what she’ll do to gun owners and we don’t even need to assume what her SCOTUS pick will help to the second amendment.

    • Dave says:

      Mittens actually had a record from MA, which distinguishes himself from Trump quite a bit. His record really wasn’t good, but some tried unsuccessfully to lobby that Mittens was really pro-gun. I think the results speak to that meme. That’s not to say Mittens was bad or wrong on all issues, he wasn’t. He was however a liberal RINO, establishmentarian who conveniently switched his positions when it suited him. He should never have been the nominee.

      Trump was the anti-establishment “want to have” until he successfully annihilated all establishment opposition. I can’t remember that happening in my lifetime in any presidential election. Usually, the republicans flirt with their anti-establishmentarians, gin up some excitement and the party leadership torpedoes them if they survive long enough. To be fair, a lot of times that isn’t needed as more than few have torpedoed themselves. Trump has certainly had his share of changed positions, but he’s not voted, on, against or enforced anti–gun laws. He may not be the most conservative, but he has personality in spades. Maybe not good personality, but he has personality. He is also far, far more charismatic than Mrs. Clinton, or any other republican in the field. Charismatic does not mean nice, personable or decent. There have been charismatic leaders who were good and decent people – Washington, Lincoln. There have been charismatic evil leaders – Hitler, Stalin, etc.

      The republicans now finally have a presumptive nominee who knows that using twitter is tweeting, not twitting, the internet may have been invented by Al Gore, but can be used to win elections, and who knows how fight in a campaign.

      I think there is a great misunderstanding on the part of the voting public that there are substantive differences between the 2 leading political parties. There aren’t. Both parties are engaged in a slow march toward a totalitarian regime, respectively targeting different freedoms we currently enjoy. When was the last time Congress repealed a bad law? How many restrictions have been actually repealed? Both parties want to be able to control us and are just going after that end differently.

      I also think it’s dreaming to think that our community’s political power reaches beyond the ability to swing a close election to actually being able to change law or constitution. That’s a big, big reach that I think denies reality. Even at our apex of political power, you are looking at scores of thousands of motivated gun owners willing to engage on a political issue – like public comment periods or legislative actions. You need orders of magnitude more influence to effect that level of impact.

  3. Brad says:

    I actually agree. I think the gun rights movement credibly could amend the U.S. Constitution.

    That being said, it is pretty clear what a political beast the U.S. Supreme Court really is. After Heller, after McDonald, would they really in the face of precedent, in the face of overwhelming public anger, really violate the Constitution and nullify the 2nd Amendment?

    Back in 2010 I would have said yes. But today? I don’t know. Do they really have the stomach for an action which might destroy the authority of the Supreme Court? That recent unanimous decision regarding stun-guns might be a clue.

    I will even wildly speculate that Roberts is doing some politicking behind the scenes to preserve the constitution and the court’s authority. That might explain the surprises of the stun-gun decision and the Obamacare decision.

  4. Brad says:

    Aside from the fact that morally stunted pygmies now head the top of each political party, one thing is absolutely clear.

    Like never ever before, gun-control vs gun-rights is a national issue, front and center, because of the Hillary campaign and Bloomberg’s purse.

    This is it folks. If the 1994 AW ban was the Battle of Stalingrad, this election could be the Battle of Kursk. This is the last best chance however slim, of the enemy snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, and we can see them coming. This is no surprise attack, this is a set piece battle.

    Let’s teach them a lesson they will never forget.

  5. Stephen says:

    There’s a simple fact here. Whether you like him or not, on the gun issue Trump has been SAYING the right things. Whether he’ll act on them or not is unknown, but he’s saying he’s pro-gun and pro-CCW.

    If you vote for Trump, you are voting for a pro-gun candidate no matter what he turns out to be. If he wins, it will prove that being pro-gun helps more than hinders in elections.

    If Hillary wins it will mean that a fiercely anti-gun candidate can win, and you don’t need the pro-gun votes to rule everything.

    I’m not a fan of either candidate, but unless some viable reason comes to vote a third party I’m solidly pro-Trump until his stance on guns changes. And if we’re smart in the pro-gun side we’ll make sure he wins.

    Frankly … I wouldn’t be surprised someday we look back on this like the Reagan presidency — to turn out just what we needed. We needed strong foreign policy with Reagan, and now we need someone to promote liberty and Capitalism. Trump may be looked back at as one of the greats.

    Or as a clown. I’m voting for him but I’m not betting either way on the clown vs. great president question …

  6. Sigivald says:

    I think we will likely need to think about a federal constitutional amendment to do what the Second Amendment should have done in the first place.

    Something like “Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, including but not limited to rifles, shotguns, pistols, knives, pepper spray, and stun guns, regardless of magazine size or power, no matter how long their barrels or overall size might be, including concealed on their persons, and WE MEAN IT THIS TIME”?

    (I’d include “even if they fire more than once per pull of a trigger”, but I don’t think we have the support for that.)

  7. Carl from Chicago says:

    “We will not survive Hillary…”
    “If Hillary replaces Scalia, the Constitution is dead. Period.”

    What possesses folks to make such absolute, hyperbolic statements such as these? Jesus Christ. Were you people born yesterday? Because any semblance of perspective is out the window.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      I have no idea, Carl. With the likes of some who hang around here, suicide just might become the leading cause of gun owners after all!

  8. Whetherman says:

    Sorry for repeating the metaphor, but Trump has let the genie of fascism out of its bottle and no one can pretend to know where it’s headed. He adapted and pushed virtually every button the Nazis pushed on their road to power (and Mr. Godwin, take your Law and shove it up your ass.) Trump doesn’t have to win for the genie he loosed to continue doing its dirty work. Most of its adherents don’t even believe they are fascists.

    Fascism is not friendly to individual rights, including/especially gun rights. Eventually rights are found to belong to only the Right Kinds of people. In Germany it was Aryans, here it will probably be some brand of Real American, with dispensations for minorities that toe the line hard and conscientiously enough. But in a fascist ascendancy rights are not going to be universal, and don’t bet that you are going to qualify as a Real American.

    • Stephen says:

      If you were competing in the “Make the craziest statement about how America is going to be destroyed by one election” contest … congratulations! You Win!

      But just to be clear the person most closely following the Nazi model would be Obama, and the person most likely to carry us further down that path (and we still are a long ways from the Fascism) is Hillary.

      • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

        I disagree. Both Trump and Clinton are authoritarians. They’ll both lead us down the same path, just with different styles.

        • Brad says:

          In all probability you are correct. However, rhetoric is not the same as governance. And with Trump he is a blank slate. Sure his past private behavior is suggestive of what his behavior might be as an elected official, but the simple fact remains he has no record in office.

          Wheres Hillary has a record.

          So what kind of authoritarians would they be? Choose your poison.

          Do you want Nixon? Or Jackson?

          • Whetherman says:

            “And with Trump he is a blank slate. . .

            Once again flipping the bird to Mr. Godwin, Adolf Hitler was a blank slate, except that he had written down pretty precisely what he intended to do in Mein Kampf. Then everyone was shocked, SHOCKED!, when he did exactly what he said he’d do. And his followers did what he had said he wanted them to do.

            Forgive me if I repeat myself a bit, but I’m hardly the only person in the country observing that our current political scenario is a historic first in a variety of ways. Trump achieved what he did by closely emulating the tactics of the European fascists of the early 20th century. If saying that is a threatening scenario will be the craziest statement of the campaign season, well, I hope you’re right.

            For decades I have participated in the gun owners bull sessions, “What would we do if a totalitarian takeover threatened?” Well, now This Is No Drill, and all I see going on is denial.

  9. Jim Scrummy says:

    In regards to the 2A, Trump is light years better than Hilly. You can thank Trump’s two older sons for this enlightenment. They are both pro-2A in a good way. They both influenced their father to being a better proponent in regards to the 2A.

    With Hilly, Chuckie, and Mikey the “little tyrant” billionaire, in power I would expect to see a full frontal assault ala ATF regulations and backdoor legislation on the 2A. To just blow it off, is not wise with these POSs in charge. I spent 4 crappy years as a corporate lobbyist on Capitol Hill (it sucked, and I sucked at the job), but knowing some of the players, I know how devious they can be with anything and everything. This isn’t an R or D bias, it’s all the bastiches on the “Hill” who will sell you out in a second. I know this because it happened to me as an evil corporatist lobbyist. Is it a “sky is falling scenario”, not yet.

  10. Thatturahguy says:

    Let’s call out the Donald on his supposed support for 2nd Amendment rights: Demand he call on the State of New York to repeal the SAFE Act, New York City to issue carry permits on a “shall issue basis” and New York residents to enjoy gun owner rights on par with residents of say, Thermopolis Wyoming or Harlem, Montana. Draw the line, make him cross it or dance on it….

  11. Whetherman says:

    The following quote is from a column by Andrew Sullivan in New York Magazine titled “America Has Never Been So Ripe for Tyranny.” You may be inclined to hate the quotes below that I’ve selected, but it provides a very thought-provoking assessment of the paradoxes of a democratic system.

    To call this fascism doesn’t do justice to fascism. Fascism had, in some measure, an ideology and occasional coherence that Trump utterly lacks. But his movement is clearly fascistic in its demonization of foreigners, its hyping of a threat by a domestic minority (Muslims and Mexicans are the new Jews), its focus on a single supreme leader of what can only be called a cult, and its deep belief in violence and coercion in a democracy that has heretofore relied on debate and persuasion. This is the Weimar aspect of our current moment. Just as the English Civil War ended with a dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell, and the French Revolution gave us Napoleon Bonaparte, and the unstable chaos of Russian democracy yielded to Vladimir Putin, and the most recent burst of Egyptian democracy set the conditions for General el-Sisi’s coup, so our paralyzed, emotional hyperdemocracy leads the stumbling, frustrated, angry voter toward the chimerical panacea of Trump.

    His response to his third vaunted enemy, the RNC, is also laced with the threat of violence. There will be riots in Cleveland if he doesn’t get his way. The RNC will have “a rough time” if it doesn’t cooperate. “Paul Ryan, I don’t know him well, but I’m sure I’m going to get along great with him,” Trump has said. “And if I don’t? He’s gonna have to pay a big price, okay?” The past month has seen delegates to the Cleveland convention receiving death threats; one of Trump’s hatchet men, Roger Stone, has already threatened to publish the hotel rooms of delegates who refuse to vote for Trump.

      • Whetherman says:

        I was aware there has been a lot of criticism of that column, falling into a lot of categories, most of which seem to miss its important points. That one seems to deny that Sullivan almost went overboard trying to acknowledge the legitimate grievances of Trump fanciers, but, those who focus on their own victim status are seldom satisfied with anything short of being granted martyrdom. And thus emerges the power of a Trump.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » I’ve got all my life to live . . . - […] We will survive Trump or Hillary. Probably. But we won’t be too happy about it. […]
top