According to Gallup’s latest polling, support for a handgun ban has fallen to just 20 percent and support for an “assault weapons” ban has cratered to just 52 percent. Gun bans were a constant call from both President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris over the last four years. President Biden often combined the call with dubious factual, legal, and historical arguments.
I previously wrote about the failure of politicians to acknowledge the limits posed by the Second Amendment and controlling case law. While there are good-faith objections to how the Second Amendment has been interpreted, the current case law makes such bans very difficult to defend.
In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms.
Yet, the 2024 campaign showed a belated recognition that the Administration has failed to galvanize public opinion in support of gun limits and bans.
Harris came under fire during the campaign when she suddenly seemed to embrace one of the very guns that she previously vilified as it became clear that she was too far left from much of the country.
Years ago, I wrote that the rise in gun ownership in the United States, including among minority gun owners, was strikingly out of sync with the Democratic talking point.
In 2019, support for an assault weapons ban stood at 61%. It is now barely at a majority.
The drop in support for a handgun ban is notable in that only 33 percent of Democrats support such a ban.
The rise in gun ownership and the drop in polling raise another issue where Democratic candidates seem to be speaking to an increasingly empty room. The gun ownership rates are a problem for the party because most political issues do not involve a large personal investment by citizens. When someone becomes a gun owner, they spend hundreds of dollars on the weapon, ammunition, and other costs. The ban campaigns become more of a personal and financial issue for them.
Harris’s attempt to appeal to gun owners fell flat after years of calling for limits and bans. The question is whether the party is ready to pivot on this and other issues — and whether it can given its political base. That 33 percent is the core voting block in primaries even as the rest of the country moves toward the center of the political spectrum.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
My rights are not subject to polls.
Indeed, if 52, 63, or 100% of the populace supported slavery would that make it right? The answer is obvious. One final point, owning a weapon, whether a spear, sword, handgun, or AR15, isn’t a “right” that governments give out willy nilly since rights are only given by God. God has commanded us to “Love your neighbor as yourself” which means doing everything that is within one’s power promote your neighbor’s good by doing no harm nor allowing any harm to come to your neighbor. That is best accomplished if you are armed to stop the threat of evil doers; today the best way to be armed is with guns.
Besides that they’re a heck of a lot of fun to shoot!
Molon Labe
Primitivism.
Every man for himself!
Me first!
“Primitivism.
Every man for himself!
Me first!”
Deep thoughts from the government dependent “The Rich Don’t Pay Me My Fair Share” coastal commie crowd.
liberalism.
what was yours is now mine.
you last.
Floyd posted: Blacks are a patron group of the Democrats, so they are simply incapable of blaming blacks for any aspect of the rotten conditions in the black community. And I use the word “community” very loosely.
Given that violent crime is overwhelmingly monocultural i.e. black offenders overwhelmingly victimize blacks, Latino criminals overwhelmingly victimize Latinos, and the same for whites, nothing could be better for racists from the Democrat party than permitting violent black criminals to flourish. All the more so when black Americans are 16 times more likely to murder than whites and Latinos are 6 (?) times more likely to murder than whites. That’s one way of willfully doing harm to black Americans who Lincoln apparently didn’t begin deportation proceeding for after they were freed.
The black community envisioned is very loose indeed; it certainly isn’t uniformly behind Black Liars & Marxists screaming “defund the police”. While the Democrat-Mainstream Media Propaganda Complex does their best to ignore facts, most of the real pushback against soft on black criminal crime doesn’t come from white Republicans. It comes from black American mothers and fathers at the community level; it never comes from the Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Kamala Harris crowd.
When black Americans at the community level get loud enough about any kind of crime, Democrat politicians both black and white do respond. That was the impetus behind Operation Exile – a campaign that focused on felons obtaining firearms and committing further crimes due to their contempt towards the law prohibiting them from having firearms. Arresting them when found possessing firearms and then straight to a court and a federal prison sentence.
It was a very successful crime reduction strategy, whether the felons arrested and jailed for possessing firearms were black, brown, or white.
It was a very successful initiative. Right up until the ACLU paired with the Democrat Black Caucus to condemn it as racist and attempt to gut it. And that was the end of any further meaningful Operation Exile law enforcement.
In a January 2021 statistical brief, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics addressed the issue of the race and ethnicity of perpetrators of violent crimes in 2018.
Based on data compiled by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, it found that while Black people make up 13% of the U.S. population, they were 33% of persons arrested for non-fatal violent crime (NVC), which includes rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and other assaults. Black people were 36% of those arrested for serious non-fatal violent crimes (SNVC), including rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
Similarly, Hispanics make up 18% of the US population and were 21% of those arrested for serious non-fatal violent crimes.
Whites, who are 60% of the population, were 46% of persons arrested for non-fatal violent crimes, and 39% of those arrested for serious non-fatal violent crimes.
Professor Turley suggests, “While there are good-faith objections to how the Second Amendment has been interpreted…” I wish he would elaborate on the good faith arguments against the 2nd amendment being an individual right. Its context within the Bill of Right places it surrounded by individual protections. I see no good faith arguments based on a well regulated militia argument.
Exactly – 2A is surrounded by amendments guaranteeing individual rights, and its operative clause secures the right “of the people,” not the rights of militias.
While Professor Turley is a stellar voice for legal sanity inside a legal world gone mad, his use of these kinds of weasel words in his written essays on this blog is somewhat infuriating. This is the exact kind of smarmy miasma that this country just rebelled against in re-electing to the presidency a plain-spoken, trash-talking business man whose clarity of position is a balm against the hazy smoke-filled platitudes and pandering of most other pols. Perhaps the good prof has his reasons for saying things he knows are not true, perhaps it has to do with his position in academia, who knows? But for people thirsty for clarity and straightforward expression, it is surely an irritant.
” I wish he would elaborate on the good faith arguments against the 2nd amendment being an individual right.”
That would be very interesting, wouldn’t it? Several decades ago, left-loon jurist Lawrence Tribe was insisting that the 2nd A. applied only to formally organized, official, state-sponsored, militia groups. To his credit (it hurts me to write that) when he was challenged on that position, he did some additional research, and subsequently revised his opinion to reflect that the 2nd A DOES indisputably guarantee the right of an INDIVIDUAL US CITIZEN to keep and bear firearms. Or course, he made no apology for his previous error, and buried his admission in a flurry of caveats and other garbage, but at least he conceded the basic point. Does that mean our host takes political positions to the left of L. Tribe? I also note that while he admits to being a Democrat, and that he voted that way in previous Presidential elections, including for Biden in 2020, afaik he has not made a peep about how he voted this year. Now, everyone has a perfect right to decline to disclose their vote, but considering how forthright he has been about his past record, and the force with which he castigated the policies of Biden, Harris, et al regarding free speech during the campaign this year, I find that quite a curious omission.
Here are the Heller opinions. In reading much of Scalia’s majority opinion, my overall impression was that he was having a good faith disagreement with the dissent.
Oops — Here it is: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
The reason why Democrats blame guns for all the violence, is because they can not blame the young black thugs (and older black thugs, too) who are actually responsible for most of the violence. Blacks are a patron group of the Democrats, so they are simply incapable of blaming blacks for any aspect of the rotten conditions in the black community. And I use the word “community” very loosely.
In fact, I think it is the failure of the Civil Rights movement to accomplish much of anything good, which first drove the Democrat Left, and then the rest of the party to madness. J H Kunstler did a great article on this a while back. If you were not aware, his main website was mysteriously destroyed just prior to the election, and he has had to rebuild on substack:
Anyway,
“Mostly this expressed itself in Jewish support and involvement in the Civil Rights movement, since the end of discrimination against anybody was considered a good thing for the Jews as well as humanity in general. The country needed a moral repair job, especially after defeating manifest evil in the big war. That effort climaxed in the mid 1960s with the federal legislation that ended Jim Crow policy in voting and public accommodations. Much of the actual on-the-ground work to make this happen was accomplished by Jewish lawyers. This is a fact, not an accusation.
But then something happened. Several things. One was that not all of black America necessarily regarded the Civil Rights movement as the great moral victory it was touted to be. A lot of black youth in the 1960s opted out early on and went their own way in black separatist movements of various kinds. As a practical matter, it also slowly became obvious that the new Civil Rights laws did not raise up the black underclass out of poverty and misery. Jewish liberal apostates would even argue that the vast federal social safety-net program largess that accompanied Civil Rights Inc. only made the condition of poor blacks worse.
This became a growing fiasco for American Jewish liberals, who, by the 1980s, then strove to impose another set of repairs (more tikkun olam) on American society: multiculturalism, meaning it was no longer necessary to promote a common culture that people would be encouraged to assimilate into, to join a consensus of values and behaviors. Instead, all cultures could behave according to their own rules. That hasn’t worked out so well either, and the world repairers have lately had to resort to coercion such as tyrannical diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and the shoving aside of equal opportunity for enforced equal outcomes (“equity”). That business has only produced additional unintended consequences, such as the new epidemic of institutional incompetence and the resentment of at least half the population against new forms of counter-discrimination (cultural Marxism, in short).
Another poorly understood byproduct of this failure to repair the world is the guilt and shame secretly experienced by the American liberal Left over the apparent failure of the Civil Rights movement they fought so hard for, and the subsequent failed efforts to tweak it and save it (still more tikkun olam). Thus, we see the absurd racist “anti-racism” of the universities, and so many other affronts to common sense and reality itself.
But the worst byproduct of all this tragically misguided tikkun olam is that the main political vehicle for it, the Democratic Party, has gone so insane that it now devotes itself fanatically to the utter destruction of what remains of our country. This is most particularly true in the law, which might be considered the backbone of America. Lawfare attorneys such as Marc Elias work tirelessly to turn American election law upside down and inside out so it becomes increasing impossible to know who is voting and if the ballots are legitimate.”
https://jameshowardkunstler.substack.com/p/the-jewish-american-dilemma
Floyd, thanks for the heads-up on Kunstler’s website. I didn’t realize his website had been destroyed. The silver lining is that it can be linked here, as you yourself do. (Previously the URL had a certain four-letter word that prevented it from getting through the filter on this website).
Yes , That is.
The silver lining in the new website. I am on the porch.I am on the porch typing or talking into my phone.Which is why this looks kind of weird period. But it is a nice day today and the weather is going to get colder tomorrow
* Well, it’s all being prepared now for nuking. Joe is putting the finishing touches.
What an unexpected turn of the plot. No evidence.
Ahoy!
“Well, it’s all being prepared now for nuking. Joe is putting the finishing touches. ”
You referring to Kunstler’s new site, or Kursk oblast?
Professor Turley’s column on the unending Democrat war on the Second Amendment exposes the ugly choice that is the elephant in the room that Republicans have to acknowledge and confront.
Will the Republicans be the party that when in control of the Senate eliminates the filibuster? Or will they leave it to the Democrats to do as most federal Democrat politicians have said they intended to do after they expected to win the last election: eliminate the filibuster to ram their policies through on a simple majority vote?
It is an ugly choice for anybody who believes the filibuster moderates wild changes in governance by requiring at least some modicum of that “reach across the isle” support.
But today’s Soviet Democrats ARE going to eliminate the filibuster when they have the favorable circumstances to do that, and then proceed with the rest of their Communist Christmas List: packing the Supreme Courts, adding heavily Democrat new states to ensure a permanent majority in the Senate and House.
And of course today’s topic: the war on the Second Amendment. After eliminating the filibuster, a whole bunch of new “reasonable gun control” gun rights bans and confiscations to essentially destroy the Second Amendment.
Even with a permanent Democrat Senate, they will never dare run for election on a vow to eliminate or amend the Second Amendment. But they sure can pass some communist “reasonable gun laws” with a permanent majority and no filibuster.
Those who disagree with Democrats making the Second Amendment a dead letter can argue their case before the Democrats newly packed Supreme Court, also thanks to the elimination of the filibuster.
It is an ugly choice. But unless Republicans find a way to tie the Democrats up to the current filibuster such that they can’t eliminate it when they get the win they hoped to have under Biden and then under the DEI Hire, they WILL eliminate the filibuster.
When those who want to destroy you and your rights and freedoms repeatedly tell you they intend to do that, you should believe them.
Whether they’re Iran’s Mad Mullahs or the DEI Hire, Warren, Another Odd Communist, Sanders, Schumer, Pelosi, Tampon Tim Walz and the rest of the Soviet Democrats.
I like the filibuster, no matter who holds the majority. It is an ultimate check on passing legislation that several duly elected Senators view as anathema to the nation. Since it typically takes more than 2 Senators to continue an effective filibuster for any significant length of time, the vital interests (in theory, anyway) of multiple states are being defended. At worst, it stalls the passage of legislation for a relatively brief time. At best, others reconsider the wisdom of the legislation being stalled during that time, and change their opinions for the better. If the constituents of the Senators running the filibuster do not believe that it was justified, the Senator(s) will not win re-election. To me (being essentially a libertarian, I am opposed to most legislation 🙂 there are far more positive than negative aspects to the practice/
I like the filibuster, no matter who holds the majority. It is an ultimate check on passing legislation that several duly elected Senators view as anathema to the nation
I not only like it; I think it is critical to preventing political hegemony in the federal government.
But that is the ugly choice. The majority of today’s Democrat politicians are fully onboard with eliminating the filibuster in order to pack the courts, add new heavily Democrat states, etc. If you believed that Chuck Schumer et al have abandoned that intent, then you’re likely to believe the DEI Hire changed her mind on gun confiscation, banning fracking, packing the courts, etc.
Republicans have to decide whether they’re sure the Democrats will never eliminate the filibuster the next time an election leaves them able to do that. Or whether they’re sure that the Democrats will eliminate the filibuster the next time they have the political power to do that.
I’d rather Republicans make ugly choices in order to preserve the republic, versus being magnanimous principled losers down the road after Democrats follow through on their intention to eliminate the filibuster and become the political hegemony in Washington DC.
I am open to anyone who believes they have a rational argument that Schiff, Harris, Newsom, etc will never use eliminating the filibuster to add states, pack SCOTUS, and then add two Democrat states to ensure permanent political power.
Followed by gun bans and confiscations that make the Second Amendment merely a historical dead letter.
Why not change it from a Senate rule to law? Could that law be repealed? Sure. But then every member of both the Senate and the House who wants to eliminate it would need to go on record in that regard, as would the President. I suspect that would be a significantly greater hurdle for its opponents to clear.
Or would that require an Amendment? I don’t see why it should, unless I have overlooked some Constitutional restriction on passing laws regarding Senate procedure.
It could absolutely be made law. And so could eliminating “reconciliation”.
Yes it could be repealed, but it would take a 60 vote majority to do it.
That would be my preference then. Maybe we should urge our Congresscritters to do just that, instead of rewarding them for what in most cases is inconsequential posturing…
It demands to be noted, that every congressional sponsor of a gun control bill just HAPPENS to be Jewish.
Prove this wrong.
Bob Doughton was the sponsor of the National Firearms Act of 1934. A single example is enough to prove you wrong.
The Brady Act of 1993 had 155 co-sponsors, all of whom count as a “congressional sponsor.” Most were not Jewish.
I found these examples in five minutes through Google searches. I imagine you could have as well.
Yowsir!
“It demands to be noted, that every congressional sponsor of a gun control bill just HAPPENS to be Jewish.”
Don’t you morons get it? It’s those filthy Jews that are responsible for all our problems! NOT Democrats who aren’t filthy Jews, you fools.
Get up on the wrong side of the menorah did you?
“Get up on the wrong side of the menorah did you?”
Hamas and Hezbollah refused to accept you? Or you knew they’d email you one way from the rooftops when they found out you were a member of Queers For Hamas?
Like the japanese said before pearl harbor, Torah torah torah!
LOL!
Or like they say in Spanish: “Jamas shall be defeated!”
(¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!)
Just trying to respond in the same vein.
My jamas were recently defeated when I lost 20 lbs… No, you don’t want to visualize…
McGovern of Massachusetts is not Jewish, few democrats are and he would love nothing better than to fornicate the 2nd Amendment into marxist oblivion. Your neurosis is wining in your battle for your grasp of reality/
Harris’s attempt to appeal to gun owners fell flat after years of calling for limits and bans.
Like much of her campaign, it was also based on a transparent lie, just like the claim of having worked at McDonalds. But these were just symptoms of Harris’s overarching problem – that she was as phony as a $3 bill. (She was the phoniest candidate on a presidential ticket since John Edwards in 2004). Many on the left didn’t care about that, but many in the middle did, and they made up enough of the electorate that, when combined with Trump supporters, they were able to deny her the presidency . . . for which they are forever thanked.
“Many on the left didn’t care about that”
They all had TDS, and grotesquely overestimated the number of voters so afflicted. Harris wasn’t Trump, and the delusional fools assumed that was enough.
Good, common sense gun control is simple. Smooth steady breathing, uniform trigger squeeze, and front sight discipline.
Ti317,
Great comment! Sight picture and as always, apply the laws of proper gun safety.
Lt. Co.Jeff Cooper, USMC firearms instructor, literally wrote the book on handgun safety and combat shooting. I printed his safety rules on a poster in a very large font, and posted it to the front of my gun safe.
Jeff Cooper’s Rules of Gun Safety
https://thefiringline.com/Misc/safetyrules.html
(a summary follows, navigate the link for full rules and explanations)
“RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY
RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET”
Law Enforcement Today
“FBI: More people killed with knives, hammers, clubs and even feet than rifles in 2018”
— by: LET Staff 2019-10-02 Source: Law Enforcement Today
https://lawenforcementtoday.com/fbi-more-people-killed-with-knives-hammers-clubs-and-even-feet-than-rifles-in-2018
“In 2018, more than five times as many people were killed with knives than were killed with all rifles. The same year, more than twice as many people were killed with personal weapons like hands, fists, or feet. Remember the list of potentially banned items, I forgot to add feet. When all was said and done, gun owners had no reassurance that there was any limiting principle to the anti-gun committee members’ prohibitive intentions or that they were willing to learn anything that would influence their decision-making.”
“Indeed, one could imagine that long after semi-automatic rifles were banned, the exact same hearing could be held on the next class of firearm law-abiding gun owners would be forced to surrender because the guns were used in crimes they did not commit.”
———————————————-
And just to prove the writer’s point…
The Brits, who have already banned guns abandoning their citizens right to protect their own lives, have also recently focused upon knives as they became the substitute of choice for random terrorist attacks on the street.
But wait! Now it’s baseball bats. Those deadly weapons of war commonly carried on large killing fields with a pitcher’s mound and home plate.
———————————————-
“The baseball bat: a modern day cudgel”
–by C J Lightbody, C MacIver, Crosshose Hospital, Kilmarnock, Glasglow, UK
“Baseball bats, although meant for recreational use, are commonly used as assault weapons. Here in the UK, assault is more likely to occur with body parts only: however, a trend for using baseball bats has been observed both by emergency departments and the police. The bat is an easily acquired weapon, a simple wooden one being available for £15 at a sports store. At present there are no restrictions on the purchase of these bats that represent a major cause of morbidity and occasionally mortality when used in assault.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2658185/
Don’t let the Dims see that. They’ll want me to have a permit to cut up my steak.
Don’t forget trayvon martin’s weapon of choice- A concrete sidewalk.
“Remember the list of potentially banned items, I forgot to add feet.”
I was granted my black belt in Tang Soo Do in 2004, at the age of 55. At that age I was fairly confident I could successfully repel an unarmed attack, furthermore, there was no civilian carry permitted in this state. I also had an aluminum youth league baseball bat I kept in my car, along with a tire iron, and eventually, a steel tubing cane that is nothing but a versatile weapon in disguise. I also used to be reasonably fast on my feet, if it proved necessary to flee from a confrontation. I am now old, woefully out of practice in MA, and have joint issues that more than likely preclude my engaging in effective unarmed self-defense. Running is no longer an option, either. So, although I continue to carry those “deniable” weapons in my car just in case, my handguns are my only practical recourse for defending myself against an attack by miscreants.
By its very name, the “Second Amendment” only survives in a constitutional rule of law system of government. The premise is that the U.S. Constitution “restrains” limited government authority. Some things governments don’t have the authority to do.
If you follow this constitutional system on every right, it strengthens all rights including gun rights. If you violate this constitutional system it weakens all constitutional rights – including weakening gun rights.
Maybe Trump means well but he is weakening the constitutional system ultimately weakening Second Amendment rights.
Trump has already announced a Nixon style “Enemies List” – weakening the First Amendment and also a felony crime under federal law.
Trump has announced he is illegally trespassing on the authority of Congress to control the nation’s purse strings (money) and to legislate.
Trump says he opposes “Project 2025”. He should oppose it since no government official has the authority to impose a religious interpretation onto its citizens. It weakens the constitutional system including Second Amendment rights.
In 1919 women’s voting rights would have been considered “woke” policy by most voters (since only men could vote back then).
Conservatives have confused “woke” policies with constitutional rights (tested in courts). A very conservative U.S. Supreme Court ruled that LGBT-Americans and Mixed-Race couples have the same marriage rights as everyone else. That is not woke, that is a constitutional right. There are ridiculous woke policies that don’t pass the test in a court of law but conservatives don’t seem to distinguish the two.
Trump has promised to weaken the constitutional rule of law system, which will weaken Second Amendment rights also. Can’t have it both ways!
Oh wow, now we’re conservatives again and not MAGA cultists or Nazi’s. Going soft on us are we?
“Trump has promised to weaken the constitutional rule of law system, which will weaken Second Amendment rights also.”
Ah, you left out any link there to show this isn’t just some nonsense you made up to fit your narrative of the day. It appears MSNBC has some openings coming up for the early morning shows…
If you felt that a local official, state official or federal official (Executive branch of government) violated your gun rights and they were enforcing a local, state or federal law (Legislative branch of Congress or state legislature).
You could hire a constitutional attorney to challenge those laws or practices in a court of law (Judicial Branch of government). The branch of government designed to be non-political unlike the other two branches.
The Judicial Branch is not democratic bottom-up, since they are supposed to be non-political upholding constitutional rights and enforcing laws – not appeasing voters.
Following 9/11, conservatives weakened the constitutional system. Conservatives essentially claimed that “the ends justified the unconstitutional means” – opposite of how the U.S. Constitution was designed to function to restrain unconstitutional practices.
After 9/11 Conservatives declared that approximately 3000 deaths nullified all constitutional restraints on authority. The U.S. Constitution was great for bumper stickers but optional-when-convenient not the supreme law of the United States.
Compare that to gun deaths. Liberals could make that same argument, gun deaths far surpassed 9/11 deaths so there is no Second Amendment right – the ends justify unconstitutional means!
If Conservatives ever lose their gun rights blame Bush Republicans not Democrats. They gutted the constitutional rule of law system, Trump merely walked through that open door.
First, you destroy your own credibility with hyperbole to the point of lying, saying things like: “After 9/11 Conservatives declared that approximately 3000 deaths nullified all constitutional restraints on authority.” That’s simply not true, and you know it.
Second, you make no effort to distinguish warmongering neocons from paleocons or today’s conservatives By lumping everyone you disagree with into a single basket which you label “conservative,” you paint a picture reminiscent of Saul Steinberg’s iconic View of the World from 9th Avenue. This is also clear by your reference to “Bush Republicans not Democrats.” Bush Republicans include people like Dick and Liz Cheney, who are now famously aligned with the modern Democrat party. Today’s conservatives view “Bush Republicans” as anathema, indeed virtually indistinguishable from Democrats: favoring annihilation of freedom of speech through governmental censorship, endless wars, policies that favor the wealthy elite over the working class, open borders, etc. IOW, the modern Democrat party. Thus your reference to “Bush Republicans not Democrats” reflects a false distinction: they are one and the same . . . which pretty much blows your entire argument to smitherines.
By lumping everyone you disagree with into a single basket which you label “conservative,” you paint a picture reminiscent of Saul Steinberg’s iconic View of the World from 9th Avenue… Bush Republicans include people like Dick and Liz Cheney, who are now famously aligned with the modern Democrat party.
It looks like you’re lumping every Bush Republican into a Borg made up of clones of Liz and Dick Cheney. Pretty much the same as what you’re pointing out the commie was doing.
You can reject Republicans who believe in practicing politics the Bush way without insinuating that they’re equally supportive of the modern Democrat party of Obama, Clinton, Biden and Harris.
If they were, they would have proved it by endorsing first Biden and then Harris as the Cheney’s did. George Bush himself DID NOT endorse either Biden or Harris. Nor did his supposedly brilliant political campaign strategist Karl Rove.
You can disagree with their failures to provide and push a conservative agenda without attempting to claim they’re all no different than the Cheney creeps in supporting Biden and Harris.
You repeatedly say Trump is weakening constitutional protections but give no examples. You do give an example of how he is rejecting project 2025, and you admit that is appropriate. So WTF are you even talking about?
PS you come off as someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about with your claim that the mixed race couple decision was by a “very conservative” court. In fact that case was decided in 1967 by the Warren Court which everyone knows was liberal, not conservative. You seem to have copied and pasted some generative AI printout complete with its hallucinations.
Biden-Harris trampled on Congress’s right to control the pursestrings with his unconstitutional student loan cancelation. They usurped Congress ‘s role in legislation by such things as arbitrarily defining carbon dioxide as a pollutant. They blazed a trail for Trump to follow.
Trump has already announced a Nixon style “Enemies List” – weakening the First Amendment and also a felony crime under federal law.
He did! Where can we read it other than at a Soviet Democrat campaign platform or speech.
Lots of “BBBBUUUTTTTT…. MUH TRUMP!!!!” in there – and not a single mention of a single Democrats who are still obsessed with obtaining control over who gets to own firearms and which firearms they will allow in this country.
Trump is far from perfect, including on 2A issues. But to go full auto “BBBBUUUTTTT… MUH TRUMP!!!” as a threat to constitutional order, while making no mention of the existential danger to the Second Amendment Democrats proudly proclaim they are going to “fix” is more than a little bit sus…
Seems more like another cowardly Anonymous commie rant about Trump – and not a word of concern about the last four years of Biden/Harris attacks on the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
We need guns, to protect ourselves from the psychotic left wingers who like to commit crimes and kill people, including republican candidates for president.
Not to mention Congressmen on baseball fields and little children at a private school in Tennessee.
Could it have anything to do with the increase of societal fragmentation and chaos courtesy of the democrat party?
what…we don’t prefer illegals and criminals…our government as the only ones with guns?
I suspect this was true before, this is just more honest polling. It would be impossible to calculate the sheer amount of disingenuous info we’ve been fed by the modern left since 2008, *particularly* since covid.
I am cautiously optimistic. We aren’t out of the woods yet though, and it’s a long road to the midterms. Dem polls are now claiming somehow Kamala, who got less than 2% of the vote in her ACTUAL primary years ago because she’s useless, is now leading the pack. They just can’t quit the lies.
Hopefully information like this piece does indeed mean the tide is turning, regardless, and that we simply don’t care what they say or claim anymore.
Crazy man just let out of prison stabbed and killed 3 people in NYC yesterday!
Good things these people are obedient little leftists, and continue to allow their masters to keep them unarmed.
Guns, scalpels, SUVs, and vacuums, too, bans. People aren’t so green to be fooled by special, peculiar, liberal, and corporate interests that motivate establishment of the Pro-Choice (i.e. selective, opportunistic, politically congruent) religion in liberal jurisdictions and its progressive aftermath.
If you banned crazy, the dems or neo-cons would never win another election.
In Georgia alone, there are approximately 128,000 criminal gang members, and they commit 65% of the crime in the state.
https://law.georgia.gov/key-issues/gang-activity
I submit that is far, far more than the number of hostile Indians in the country at its founding. And that there is
much more mayhem by far today. See also this:
https://truewestmagazine.com/article/how-many-people-died-during-the-indian-wars/
And, the Democrats want to disarm the citizenry???
Professor Turley wrote: While there are good-faith objections to how the Second Amendment has been interpreted
Really? What objection that is purely ‘good-faith’ and not wrapped in emotion, fearmongering, and politics comes to your mind, Professor Turley? Which one? Just one.
And what “gun control” i.e. citizen control law, has proven itself to successfully prevent crime? The National Firearms Act of 1934 in an emotional response to gang wars (which are still ongoing) was added to in 1968 and then again in 1986. Generally, they are an emotional attack on American’s 2nd Amendment rights following media stereotyping crimes i.e. the dreaded “silencer” mostly seen in movies. They have accomplished little other than expanding federal bureaucracy while decreasing civil rights on the basis of falsehoods.
The now expired Assault Weapons Ban was based on the claim that semiautomatic rifles portrayed by Democrats like Tampon Tim Walz were “weapons of war”, regularly used in murders and with no sporting purpose that the Second Amendment protected the right of Americans to choose to own.
Our own Dennis McIntyre reinforced that, warning us that an AR-15 was indeed a weapon of war, and if one was used for hunting chambered in one of the 6.5 calibers or even the original .308 or 5.56, it would “totally destroy a deer”.
Americans had to wait as their 2A right was infringed for years before the sunset date for that odious law arrived and Democrats failed to find evidence the law had accomplished a single thing.
What is the reason for polling only asking Americans if they want further infringement on the Second Amendment? What is the justification for NOT asking Americans in this polling if they support the refusal of governments and their prosecutors to enforce already existing gun laws? Americans and our politicians don’t want to know what Americans think about that?
The 1968 Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. prohibit anyone convicted of a felony and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) provides that the maximum penalty for most prohibited persons in possession of a firearm is 10 years and $250,000.
And yet, despite the fact most “gun crime” in this country is committed by criminals who already have felony records (88.8% according to the US Sentencing Commission), this law is ignored more often than not, allowing these violent criminals to escape jail and be left on the streets to illegally get another gun and commit more violent crimes.
The refusal to prosecute this “gun crime” is most prevalent in the murder centers of America: large cities and districts controlled by elected Democrats who view law enforcement as an identity politics issue.
These are the areas that produce the same Democrats that while refusing to enforce existing gun laws, demand more gun bans and infringements on Americans’ 2A rights. For them, “gun control” is more about looking like you want to do something, rather than actually doing something about violent criminals.
In some instances, the ATF and police join together to claim they have found crimes where no crime exists. Unsurprisingly, this is not uncommon in places like New York where Democrat prosecutors like Alvin Bragg give violent career criminals a pass and focus on law abiding citizens who are hobby gunsmiths, who would never be considered to be criminals in normal parts of America:
Hobby Gunsmith in NYC Convicted After Judge Declares Second Amendment ‘Doesn’t Exist’ in Her Courtroom
https://scnr.com/article/hobby-gunsmith-in-nyc-convicted-after-judge-declares-second-amendment-doesnt-exist-in-her-courtroom_bf9095fc012f11ef9c930242ac1c0002
Professor Turley, the only reason for “gun control” to survive as a Democrat-Mainstream Media Propaganda Complex political issue is the decades of lying and fearmongering they have engaged in to keep it an issue.
When you can get away with declaring your version of facts as the truth while defining the meaning of language, you have a very favorable environment for working towards making the Second Amendment a dead letter.