By All Means, Keep Running on This!

Head of Louisiana Dems wants to repeal the Second Amendment:

The chairwoman of the Louisiana Democratic Party is the most high-profile Democratic official in the country to date to call for a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Karen Carter Peterson on Tuesday shared a New York Times op-ed by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who argued that the Second Amendment should be repealed because the initial reasons for its creation are “now a relic of the 18th century.”

Thank you Justice Stevens, that gift is continuing to give. You see, the issue in building a coalition that includes working class whites is that they are historically unreliable voters. But I can’t think of anything that will get them out to the polls more than making 2018 a referendum on gun control with prominent Dems calling for repealing parts of the Bill of Rights.

I just listed factors working against us. Crazy ass shit like this coming from our opponents very much works in our favor. The mask is off. They don’t support the Second Amendment. It’s always been very apparent when they say it, it’s disingenuous. Now they are putting their cards on the table.

31 thoughts on “By All Means, Keep Running on This!”

  1. Gah! How are we ever going to clean out the rot in the R team if the D team keeps winning the crazy Olympics every two years?

    1. Problem is we can’t afford to sit out for a cycle to clean our own house – we have to fix the engine while the plane is in the air. Imagine if we didn’t hold office and legislature this term. Sucks. I hate politics, and I hate my local political party. Most are of a slimy, vile nature, unprincipled, quite pompous, blind to the party’s vulnerabilities, and embodying many bad stereotypes of social conservatives.

  2. They are going for broke: This is the next phase of the coup- they want it all. If they win a majority in the Congressional election this year, they are going to get rid of the 2A, impeach Trump, and overthrow the Government. I know it sounds alarmist, but they have blatantly stated that to be their goal.

    If they win, it’s game over.

    1. Oh no doubt. And because of their bubble, they think that being open about it is a great strategy. I doubt it will go the way they think it will.

  3. Sorry about the many comments again everyone, but they just keep gifting us.

    Breitbart just put this on their Website. Joe Biden, making a defacto agreement with John Paul Stevens, saying that at minimum, the 2nd Amendment is about a “Standing Militia”, not an Individual Right.

    If Joe Biden is the 2020 Democrat Presidential Nominee, he is basically dogwhistling that he would appoint Supreme Court Justices to overturn Heller and McDonald. They’re out in the open and declaring War on us, and the Bill of Rights.

    1. Every Supreme Court justice appointed by a democrat has voted against the Second Amendment, that is nothing new.

      1. Not just the 2nd Amendment, but the entire Bill of Rights.

        They’re now out in the open about their intentions. The fuming anger of the Left, still fresh after Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016, is just throwing everything at the wall now, simply because they though a Clinton Victory was in the bag to enact their true political intentions now.

  4. Breaking News: Vermont did it.

    How disappointing.

    Buy your magazines while you still can…

    1. 9 States now have those B***S*** “High Capacity Magazine Bans”. If 1 or 2 more States passes that, you’ll have the Left, and at least 1/3 (the Bush-Establishment) wing of the GOP calling it a “National Trend” that the Federal Government should “institute nationwide”.

      There are 43 States with “Shall Issue” Concealed Carry, 15 States with Constitutional Carry, 37 States with Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground, and 40 States with legalized suppressor use. We can’t get any of those passed through the Federal Level with the HPA, or National Reciprocity.

      Everything else in our favor is a trend, but then again, the Stalinist Progressives only see “trends” that advance their Agenda.

      Pisses me off.

  5. I think they know that this is their last stand. Unless something changes, national reciprocity will pass in the next few years. Once that happens, gun culture spreads to CA, NY et al and they’re doomed. This is their last chance to derail that.

    They think that a Democrat wave election is inevitable. They may be right. (We’ll see Hillary was inevitable too.) If that happens, despite a big gun control push, they can claim that gun control is no longer politically toxic and use that as cover to push for major gun control.

    The silver lining in this is that by adopting this strategy they may sink the Democrat’s very real chances of taking over Congress this November.

  6. I dunno. The dynamics have changed since the 90s awb backlash. Then around half of households had a gun. Now a third do. Gun owners have been purged from the ranks of the Democratic Party as well, and have demographically concentrated in certain states. Tons of guns have been sold in the last decade but it seems to be a relatively few owners stocking up based on the poll data, which doesn’t help us when voting. We may well be approaching a tipping point where the left can call for this stuff and not face much backlash on election day.

    1. I would be highly suspicious of those surveys which claim to show a long term decline in rates of firearm ownership.

      1) Not all surveys agree. Some show relative stability.

      2) The surveys which claim long term decline must have enormous error rates, judging by the wild gyrations in their data points.

      3) There are common sense reasons to suspect the accuracy of polls showing long term decline in ownership rates.

      A) how honest are the people polled? Would you tell a stranger on the telephone that you owned guns? Would you have answered differently depending on the national political mood of the time? 1975? 1995? 2015?

      B) Firearms are a luxury consumer product, and also a product with enormous persistence. No ‘planned obsolescence’ or wearing out as quickly as a car.

      Every consumer product has become more affordable to every class of American citizen as the national GDP has grown over the decades. It is economically nonsensical for average rates of firearm ownership to have declined over that time.

      1. All of this. We can’t trust these surveys, for the reasons you listed, and especially because those doing them might have a motivation to undercount gun owners as well.

        I mean we don’t have any idea how many guns are actually in this country. The current thought is 350 million, but somebody did an estimate based on NICS checks that says 450 million to even as high as 600 million might be more accurate.

        1. (RIP) did some very interesting analysis which supported the higher number estimate.

          I very much miss his voice, particularly now under recent circumstances.

          1. I think we handwoven away the polls at our peril. Pew and gss show a roughly 10 point drop that corresponds to the Clinton years (and Waco and Ruby ridge). That from disappeared at the end of Clinton’s term. So at most I suspect there is a 10 point non response bias baked in. Other than a spike at the end of Clinton’s term and a smaller surge after Obama’s election every poll except Gallup shows a gradual decline from over half of households owning guns in the 80s to around a third today. Even if you add a 10 point bump for non response bias we are under half. Of households.

            The pew data also shows that about a quarter of gun owners have 5+ guns and a third of. 2 to 4. If there’s 100 million gun owners in this country then that math works out for roughly 300 millions guns estimated in circulation. 25 MIL x 6 each plus 33 MIL x 3 each plus 42 MIL one gun owners equals 291 million guns.

            If it were a recent statistical aberration it’d be one thing, but the poll trend line is constant over decades.

            Our political system rewards first past the line, winner take all. There’s no prizes for first loser.

            1. The Immigration Issue is also tied into the Gun Rights issue.

              Take a look at Virginia from the late 1990’s to now. From Red to Blue is less than 1 generation.

              1. That is why they brought in all those ‘immigrants’ during Obama’s time. They were dumped in all the red states in hopes of turning them blue.

            2. So what’s your solution Chris? You seem to discount any other option given to explain why one wouldn’t factually respond to a pollster asking about guns. I know I would not disclose numbers to someone calling at random.

              Is your solution to put more guns into the hands of people? How?

              We don’t judge the validity of personal liberty issues based on majority vote/personal stake. Just look at marijuana use. If you went purely by polls / “what the people want!” we would have already decriminalized it federally 10 years ago.

              If you went purely by polls, politicians could care less about gun rights and personal liberty. We’ve already known that for years. It’s only until their power is threatened that they feel like doing something. Want to threaten their power? How about coming into a close election and throwing away the one issue that arguably does drive pro-rights voters to polls?

              1. Ultimately, yeah, we need more people to own guns. As our host has pointed out previously actual live fire experience and ownership gets people to care about the issue enough to vote it. If someone doesn’t own a gun and thinks they never will then odds are they won’t vote based on it.

                A majority of American adults admit to smoking weed. Majorities often get what they want in democratic societies. The courts will only protect us as a minority group so far.

                If the working hypothesis is that Americans are systematically increasing the non response bias in gun surveys over several decades due to fear of admitting gun ownership to a pollster anonymously we also have problems. Someone afraid to “be on the list” would also logically be afraid to get a ccw permit and carry, get nfa stuff to normalize cans and sbrs at their fudd range, write angry letters to politicians, or otherwise get involved in the issue. At some point we need folks to come out of the closet for social and political reasons.

                I doubt polling as well but I think we ignore the trendlines at our peril. There are a LOT of people that don’t own guns. I find it very believable that only one in three households own guns, based on my personal anecdotal experience at least.

            3. Sorry but no. I don’t believe these polls, for all the reasons we’ve mentioned.

              The poll trend can be constant, if the reasons for the incorrect data is constant (like bias and non-response of the targeted group).

              You can’t use bad poll data with other bad poll data to get how many guns there are. For starters, just using NICS data shows there is at least 450 million guns. So that indicates that the poll data is bad.

              See here for more

  7. Np. The data source is the general social survey and CBS. It’s notable that Gallup shows higher rates of ownership.

    1. And, Gallup discloses that their numbers for quantity and rate/per capita of gun ownership, are an “honest minimum” estimation.

      There is no official registration database of Firearms in this country, so the numbers have to be taken as, and disclosed as minimum estimations, as Gallup discloses.

  8. And here’s some prime “I’m a gun owner, but…”

    What’s interesting is instead of being “I’m just a hunter, not like those evil pistol owners” he’s “I’m just a hunter and pistol owner not like those evil AR owners”

    1. Vladimir Lenin coined a term for people like him; “Useful Idiots”.

      Wait until they call his “huntin’ rifle”, a “sniper rifle”.

      Don’t worry; That’s coming sooner than you think.

  9. This is what you guys get for putting all your eggs in one political/idological basket. There is literally no one on your blog arguing seriously with you so you drift farther towards the fringe. People are way less violent than they used to be as a whole in this country (look it up), so a better pitch for you is law, order, responsibility, and leave all the weird ass “lefties are the devil” bullshit to the tabloids where it belongs.

    1. Except less than a half hour later you then talk about how it’s /imperative/ that Gun Rights Folks come up with solutions to the gun death rate.

      Now… that point isn’t invalid, but it’s interesting how in one thread you talk up how violence is going down in the US, and in the other you talk about your fears of being victimized and the imperative of gun rights people to present solutions.

      Your points are not invalid, but the contrast is… interesting.

    2. and leave all the weird ass “lefties are the devil” bullshit to the tabloids where it belongs.

      No argument with that.

      1. I have no argument against it either, and plenty for it.

        I frequent a political forum that leans Progressive Left. It used to be more balanced, but leftist talking points got so vitriolic that it drove off the right-leaning posters. Then the echo chamber effect set in, and these guys started thinking that they were moderates and Hillary Clinton was right-of-center. And they can’t talk to anybody who hasn’t already drank the Kool-Aid.

        I’m a conservative. I voted Republican for the three Presidential elections when I have been old enough to vote. I listen to Ben Shapiro, and I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh back when my car radio works.

        But remember that post you wrote about the dangers of being entrapped by one political party? We need to be a bipartisan rights movement, which eventually means keeping a lid on the left/right politics.

Comments are closed.