No products in the cart.

News

Trump Debate Responses on Guns Make Unacceptable Concessions

screenhunter_01-sep-28-07-22
Note the backdrop assertion from the Declaration of Independence: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…” [C-SPAN screen shot]
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump raised eyebrows among rights advocates Monday night in his debate against Democrat pick Hillary Clinton. While the entire exchange lends itself to evaluation against delegated Constitutional authority, two of Trump’s proposals centered on guns stick out.

“Now, whether or not in a place like Chicago you do stop and frisk, which worked very well, Mayor Giuliani is here, worked very well in New York,” Trump proclaimed. “It brought the crime rate way down. But you take the gun away from criminals that shouldn’t be having it.”

In addition to the Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment search and seizure concerns are raised. Some will no doubt point to the Supreme Court’s Terry ruling allowing police to search based on “reasonable suspicion.” That can be a subjective call, and if the state can play fast and loose over one subset of the citizenry, it’s not that far of a stretch to ask if wearing Oath Keepers garb might prompt suspicion, with officers taking their lead from fusion centers painting members as “extremist threats.”

Extra care and attention needs to be given to any such proposals to see if a balance is even possible between liberty and the Constitution not being a suicide pact. With that in mind, Trump waved another red flag.

“First of all, I agree, and a lot of people even within my own party want to give certain rights to people on watch lists and no- fly lists. I agree with you,” Trump told Clinton. “When a person is on a watch list or a no-fly list, and I have the endorsement of the NRA, which I’m very proud of.”

And there’s the rub, because NRA has promoted “kinder, gentler” Republican versions of watch lists, and endorsed the politicians offering them. While words like “due process” are thrown around as some kind of reassurance, the fact remains that a fundamental right is being denied to citizens who have not even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. And what real terrorist, assuming he went to an FFL in the first place, wouldn’t view a NICS denial as a good indication that he’s been made?

The applicable truism is that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. But in order to make that happen, real due process must be afforded.

Trump has been problematic on guns in the past, and now presents his NRA endorsement as all the approval he needs. But gun owners are hardly a monolith. Many have criticized NRA in the past over political endorsements, pushing for preemptive surrenders, and for the deliberate indifference it has shown to the immigration/pathway to citizenship threat.

Two thoughts come to mind – voting for the “lesser of two evils” and an admission from “progressive” icon Carroll Quigley:

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”

It’s a big club and you ain’t in it. [NSFW]

So what can we do?

Some no doubt will argue voting doesn’t matter, and our best course is to prepare for the inevitable conflict. Others will still try to employ remaining peaceable means of redress from the Constitution, and work to elect representatives who will legislate and confirm judicial nominees consistent with Founding principles.

Will voting matter?  Trump may end up betraying us.

May. Then again, enough will want to see him stumble into an impeachment that he may decide he needs continued support from his base and won’t want to cross them.

We know what Hillary wants to do.

The only certainty – and even that’s predicated on no out-of-the-blue surprises – is that if Trump is not elected, Hillary will be.

UPDATE: Oath Keepers has taken some email heat from a member (who also took GOA to the woodshed for its report on Trump’s “stumble”) screaming at us to shut up.

I call everyone’s attention to how this column ended: If Trump does not win, Hillary will. The stakes are understood.

We need to be aware of Trump’s flaws because those opposed to Hillary will be expected to defend him, and already the leftists are using his statements to try and undermine gun owner support.  Plus as I also pointed out, he’s taking a lot of his lead from NRA.  My hope from the article — and the reason I sent it to his campaign — was to let him know he needs to walk that back  or it will jeopardize trust he’s getting that hasn’t really been earned yet.

The bottom line is the leftists are all over it. Nothing we can do about that.

If we stand by and say nothing, we cede the ideological battlefield to our enemies rather than try to appeal to those who may be swayed by those pieces clearly intended to divide and conquer.

I sent this piece to the Trump campaign with the hope that it will give him pause to consider the implications, including of taking the fire out of the bellies of those otherwise inclined to give him a chance to prove himself.

As for my critic who called Oath Keepers “stupid” for posting this, I invite you to bring your comments to this forum. Just be sure you can cite some examples where sticking heads in the sand resulted in victory.

NOTE FROM STEWART:

David, along with GOA, is doing the Trump campaign a favor by pointing out how badly Trump is cutting his own throat with gun owners by supporting the use of government “watch lists” to strip people of their right to keep and bear arms (all without a trial – just some bureaucratic weenie typing your name into a database) just like Trump is also cutting his own throat with millions of Ron Paul Republicans, libertarians, and constitutionalists by being in favor of stop and frisk, which obviously violates the Fourth Amendment.  People who understand the Bill of Rights, and take it seriously, can see that both policies violate the Constitution.

Yelling at us to sit down and shut up is not going to help Trump win.   Trump is the one who is alienating millions of gun owners and constitutionalists, with his own words.  We are just conveying the warning to him and his supporters that he is making a terrible mistake.  So, don’t shoot the messenger.

Imagine this:  Trump is standing on a stage.   He pulls out a big knife, sticks it deep into one side of his neck, and begins to pull it across, from ear to ear.  As he starts to slit his own throat, we yell out “Stop!  You’re slitting your own throat!” and then some Trump supporter yells “Sit down and shut up!  Don’t you dare yell at our guy about how he’s cutting his throat.  Leave him alone!”  Now, who is helping him, and who is hurting him?

We’d love nothing better than for Trump to correct his course to avoid the disaster of losing gun owner and constitutionalist support.  And the gun owners and constitutionalists are not going to stop supporting him because we point this out – they are going to stop supporting him because of his own statements.

You want to help Trump?   Tell him to stop cutting his own throat.  – Stewart Rhodes

PS-  Also see the comments here, during the debate, on how Trump was blowing it.

0

DavidC

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Oath Keepers Merchandise

88 comments

  1. * What has always bonded people together in communities— hunting-and-gathering, nomadic-slave, feudal or capitalist—was/is the assumed objective to secure their socio-economic positions and possessions; what old Karl Marx called “The reproduction of their Social Existence.”

    * Joined in communities, people create philosophies and convictions which justify and direct the cooperative practices they engage in to realize the indicated objective; beliefs they embrace as TRUTH.  With rare exception, individuals do not consider “true” ideas which will expropriate them if they act upon them as valid.  Communities of people NEVER DO; a material fact that’s either a miracle akin to walking on water and raising the dead, or, irrefutable evidence that we build a defense of our Social Existences into our understandings of reality as reflexively as we dodge from the path of an onrushing car.

    * To date, when confronted with a crippling economic crisis, finding their productive-distributive system was inadequate for maintaining everyone’s Social Existence, national majorities have drawn together to oppress or eliminate weaker elements at home, and/or abroad by going to war; stimulating their economies with armaments’ production; and, if they were victorious, with new acquisitions.  E.g., World Wars I and II, with the accompanying fascist oppression in Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union.  

    * Because people do not want to see themselves as wanton killers, at such times national majorities have made a pact with an egotist: : “We’ll give you all the honor and credit for whatever killing and oppressing becomes necessary,  In return, we ask that you keep us ignorant and innocent of the gory details; and, if and when our cooperative brutality starts to fail, you must assume all the blame”: Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin.

    * Today, the United States’, French, German, Russian, Chinese, et al. economies are in a deep and deepening crisis.  The U.S. has been easing its crisis by laying waste to the Middle East to procure cheaper oil, and by attempting to expand our profitable relations in that Region and the Ukraine, driving Russia back in the process, printing money to buy the armaments required to carry out the decimation.

    * However, while such practices have momentarily enabled us to prevent the catastrophic rupture of our economy, our most perceptive prognosticators uniformly contend that in the near future they will cease to work at all, that our national economy is preparing to break.

    * We have armed our police forces sufficiently to execute whatever fascist oppression is then found utilitarian within the U.S.  

    * However, we would need to improve our military’s ability to carry out more grand-scale fascist incursions against other nations. 

     *  And, given the labyrinthine character of today’s global economy, we would need a  shallow-minded egotist with the mental and moral flexibility of a wet noodle to lead us, a leader who considers himself and his kaleidoscopic opinions so indispensable that he won’t flinch if heinous brutality becomes necessary at home and/or abroad.

    While Trump appears to meet that requirement perfectly, Hillary Clinton has time-and-again demonstrated she would not be remiss, overseeing/celebrating our country’s Middle East slaughter, and urging that we double down in Syria.

    In effect, American voters are being asked to choose between entering fascism with Hillary on a ballooned and flowered float, or, doing it while riding on (or run over by), a tank with Trump.

    Maybe the time has arrived when we must ask whether the financial-industrial-elite (i.e., capitalist), system for producing and distributing material wealth used in Western Europe, Russia, China and the U.S., like hunting-and-gathering, nomadic-slave and feudal systems before it, has been drained of its ability to enable our species’ survival; and if so, what we will need to put in its stead.

    * By all appearances, a very dark night is approaching, making it imperative that we begin to turn on a few lights and to build.

    1. I am a Trump supporter — big time. If I could fashion my perfect candidate, Trump’s not it. At the same time, it is unlikely I might have selected an unwanted, unloved, over-the-hill, cigar chomping, drunk to save the world during World War II.

      There were a lot of possibilities the snippy, vacuous Brits might have chosen, but I doubt there was another human alive who could have saved Britain — and the world, then. Churchill did it, almost entirely alone, by force of will.

      Unlikely as it may be today, this is not an election of same ole, same ole, or be prissy and supercilious about your “inferior choices.” There is only one person — strange as he may be — who can pull the sword out of the stone: Trump.

      Be pompous and condescending and cluck a lot like old ladies criticizing the town’s “bad girl” but there ain’t no one else going to save you, brothers. …..Lady in Red

      1. You are right; Trump isn’t Churchill – or King Arthur – but he may well be America’s version of Churchill.

        1. I thought Churchill is known to have admitted he took orders from men behind the scenes, so I don’t understand this praise? Furthermore, I understood it has been established Churchill and FDR planned Pearl Harbour?

          1. While I suspect that Churchill worked with FDR to force the Japanese to attack the United States “in the Pacific”, I cannot prove his complicity in FDR’s eight-point plan. However, I can assure you that you are correct regarding your understanding that FDR instigated the attack on Pearl Harbor. He went through the Office of Naval Intelligence and a Lt.Commander McCollum, who drew up for FDR an 8-point plan to force Japan to attack. The most recent of three U.S. Senate investigations into Pearl Harbor concluded in the year 2000 that Admiral Kimmel and General Short were to be completely exonerated and their names cleared, owing to the fact that ONI, under FDR’s personal orders, deceived Kimmel and Short about the location of the Japanese fleet — and the fact that FDR had the attack plans on his desk days before Pearl Harbor.
            I know that many reading here will not want to believe this, but I will try to furnish sourcing if and when I can make time to answer queries here. Thank you, personally, for bringing this up.
            Salute!
            Elias Alias, editor

          2. Anyone can say anything about someone else – any links to evidence?

            If not, I’ll stick to my belief that if Churchill had not been at the right place at the right time, the Brits would have lost.

            And if it is true that the Muslims were playing footsies with the Nazis, then Britain would have likely been overrun with Muslims in the forties, instead of now.

            I am fond of England and the British, and I would have hated that, just as I hate seeing them being overrun with savages now.

          3. Jeanette, we have all been massively deceived.
            Please set aside what you think you know and realize this one simple fact — FDR and Churchill both sat down with Josef Stalin, the communist leader or Russia, in 1945 and the three of them together created the United Nations. (They had several “important” meetings, and the photograph below is from 1943 when they met in — ready for this? — Iran.) (My how politicians can change things from time to time, eh?)

            The Big Three 1943

            If you can accept that fact of history, that Churchill and FDR worked with Stalin to create the United Nations, then you are ready to start digging into the humongus pile of hidden history which will show you that we have been seriously deceived all our lives. WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and lots of others woven in between, all based on lies from our government leaders and all laid on the backs of the somnambulistic, trusting, oblivious American tax payer who cannot believe that his own government would do such things to him. You can go backward from the the meetings of the Big Three, and you can go forward in time from there, and the ugly truths will parade past your mind’s eye in a steady stream of astonishing revelations. Bon Voyage!

            The only hope for America is “We The People”, and that hope will remain dormant until we get outside the popular perception which has convinced the public that it makes any difference whether a damned democrat or a damned republican gets into the White House. To want a “Leader” is to choose to be a follower. I prefer to be my own authority, which is what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written to not only protect, but to encourage. To get my respect, politicians will take the national government back to Article 1, Section 8, and keep it there. (I ain’t holdin’ my breath.)

            Salute!
            Elias Alias, editor

          4. Is there more evidence than photos?

            Obama went to Shimon Perez’ funeral, but it doesn’t mean he was conspiring with the Israelis, or even that he gave a damn that Perez had died.

      2. I agree with all that Lady In Red has stated. And my first thought is to ask Oath Keepers if whether or not they have tried to contact Donald Trump. To the best of my knowledge, as little as it is, I believe Donald has a CC Permit and very proudly admits to it. NOW, perhaps Donald should be made aware of the Oath Keepers concerns, I certainly think so. Like myself, Donald may find your points to be valid, well thought out points that should be taken into consideration. The POTUS has to have advisers, no one, not even the POTUS can think of everything. America truly needs a Winston Churchill and hopefully Donald is that person.

        1. We will do our best to contact him, but I can speak from prior experience with other campaigns and candidates that candidates are often surrounded with “handlers” who shelter the candidate from even urgently needed information and advice, because it didn’t come from the handler/inner circle, and they like to protect their turf. Sad, but true.

          But we will try and we’ll let you know how it goes.

          Stewart

      3. You say…………….”but there ain’t no one else going to save you, brothers”

        Um, if you in fact believe that the election of anyone to the office of POTUS… and I mean anyone… then I question your ability to reason, assess and grasp the whole of the situation.

        1. And I agree with you. The mechanism is now too large, too mechanized, and too much out of control. The powers who place presidents into the White House will not allow any true statesman, such as Ron Paul, into that office. I refused to waste my time watching the dog-and-pony show called a presidential debate, having already too much realistic work to get done at my office. I realized about fifteen years ago that both Republican and Democrat parties have dominated U.S. history across the 20th Century, and both bear the blame for where we’re at today as a nation.
          No one “out there”, no “external authority”, can “save” anyone. One’s salvation is to be found within one’s own soul, which is born with the absolute sovereignty borne upon “Unalienable Rights” and which is not subject to any man-made government. My message to anyone is — “Look within oneself for one’s authority and accept personal responsibility instead of delegating one’s responsibilities to another.” As Jesus is reputed to have said, “What? Know ye not that the Kingdom of Heaven is within you?
          The whole political circus is a massive brain-wash. I’m done with their BS. I am quite awake, quite aware, and quite in touch with my soul; therefore I am unwilling to place my salvation in the hands of any other mortal. And yeah, it’s damn lonely up here, for “few there be who find it”. But I will not go back to sleep like the media-fed frenzied crowds who “believe” that any politician can be their spiritual surrogate.
          To thy own self be true, eh? Thanks Bro,
          Salute!
          Elias Alias, editor

          1. Thank you Lady in Red. I hope you don’t change your mind when you discover that I am an onery ol’ coot, an eccentric hermit, a reclusive old fool on the hill who is owned by cats, and a well-practiced unemployed poet. I never know what I might say next, and it could easily happen that I may chance to say something that you don’t like, but if that happens, please remember that I’m harmless and friendly. 😉
            Thank you for reading at Oath Keepers.
            Salute!
            Elias Alias, editor

      4. You’re missing the point. See my added comment to David’s article. Trump is losing support among gun owners and constitutionalists because of his own statements. We are just pointing that out, in the hopes he will change course, so he will have their support.

    2. There are only so many financial systems to choose from; if capitalism is going to be abandoned, what do you think should replace it?

      I’ll say up front that I’m very concerned about what the answer will be.

        1. Oh, dear; there’s the word “social” which I expected to see in some form.

          I looked at several random articles on this plan. It appears to have failed on more than one occasion in the past, and seems to be generally what I think of as “pie in the sky.”

          It was concocted in a time quite different from ours. For instance, none of the articles addressed the problem of western civilization, which has long since gotten its birth rate low enough to maintain a manageable population, being forced to support the breeding programs of people in the part of the “Social Organism” who think nothing of having 18 or 20 children.

          This smacks of socialism, and socialism has proven to be deadly to both people and countries for its whole existence.

      1. Many people don’t realize it, but America has dispensed with a Capitalistic economic system for at least decades. Capitalism means “free market”, which mandates there be NO interference or intervention by the STATE. So pretty much and for quite a while, Capitalism in America only really exists in the black market.

        Rather, “America” has been embracing various forms of Collectivism, which includes Socialism, Fascism, Communism, and pretty much every other social-economic-political “ism” which ignores and/or violates the sanctity of our individual and unalienable Natural Rights, including self-ownership and free will.

        This webpage might help give a better visual explanation of the issue that the overwhelming majority of people have not yet grasped:

        Natural Rights Coalition — Philosophy
        https://sites.google.com/site/naturalrightscoalitionsites/principles/philosophy

  2. Even more problematic was his comments about “stop and frisk”. I guess the 4th amendment doesn’t prevent illegal search and seizure any longer? Then Lester Holt twisted the Constitution further by saying it was illegal because it was racial profiling? What?
    Guess we’ll all be on a watch list soon.

    1. The 4th Amendment has long not prevented random — without *any* cause — police stops for possible DUI.

      Where were you then?

      It’s a continuum, but I, for one, am less worried about cops picking off a legal carry OathKeeper than I am that a cop will stop — and take away a gun — from a swaggering teen with a stolen gun who hasn’t a clue what to do with the thing, safely. …Lady in Red

      1. The 4th Amendment does not prevent you rights from being trampled if you choose to submit. It only identifies your rights. To exercise them freely you are at great risk right now depending on where you live. If you want protection move to a Constitutional state where the communities support freedom.

    2. I agree with your comment except for your last sentence. As a Christian, white, male, veteran, conservative, gunowner (I am all of these, some of you are some of these), the liberal/progressive/communist government probably already has us all on a watch list of some kind already. The feds keep these lists strictly and illegally super-classified, so we have no way of knowing if we are on a watch list. That is unless and until the feds link watch lists to gun/ammunition purchases. If we get turned down to buy a new gun, then and only then would we finally know we are on such a list.

      1. Everything Rick says here is spot on. I’m on such a list, and I cannot even fly without the airline first having to call DHS, let them know I am trying to fly, and then get an “OK” from DHS. Every single time I fly. So, it is already happening. Imagine what it will be like when “they” know all they have to do is put one of you “deplorables” on some vague .gov watch list to strip you of your right to keep and bear arms. The floodgates will open wide.

  3. There should be no surprise here. Donald Trump has long shown his collectivist-stripe and his anti-constitution/anti-liberty beliefs and leanings. He amounts to an authoritarian statist-collectivist with populist rhetoric.

    The fact that he modified his rhetoric on the fundamental essential liberty to keep and bear arms, in what should have been an obvious political opportunist move, is and has been right there, glaringly in the face of any thinking man.

    It never ceases to amaze me to see how continuously effective the ‘Paradigm of The Lesser Turd’ is and how America’s lemmings reliably fall in line for ‘party over principle’ time and time again, despite the grumblings and the internet protestations and bravado.

    The is only ONE major party in America as has been the case for decades…a single Globalist-Collectivist Party with a Republican right-wing and a Democrat left-wing. The Constitution has been subverted and abrogated and any belief that a restoration or reset can be achieved by traditional or established means, amounts to wishful thinking and a noble yet foolish pipe-dream.

    The deep-state/controlling cabal will never cede power or control and they will absolutely not continence a return to governance via the actual Constitution. They utterly control the system and its mechanisms and power centers.

    I believe it was Ayn Rand who stated this truism…..’Collectivism inevitably leads to totalitarianism’.

    We are and have been subject to collectivist control for decades. The truism is playing out before our eyes. Question is, what to do about it?

    It is as simple as that.

    1. You stated my thoughts exactly, word for word. Totalitarianism is our future, it’s just a question of when or how we can perhaps stave it off.

    2. Cpt1>> You’ve described King George 111 and the pre revolutionary days perfectly. The political elite will not surrender peacefully, you can take that to the(their) bank. It has already been proven that force will be the only line of communication they will ever listen to and very possibly not even then. It’s very quickly boiling down to “Give me Liberty or Give me Death”
      As in pre-revolution days there are people who oppose show of force and those that strongly recommend it. Then there have always been, and always will be, those that point fingers and call names such as (lemmings*) but who otherwise do nothing to improve jacksh.t. Their only goal is to stir the pot and get others, less fearful, to do the risky work for them. The bottom line is you have only one choice left to restoring America back to the “Land of the Free” which is to vote for Donald Trump. It may very well not be the answer we hope for, but wtf do you have to lose? 6 wks to voting day is all the time you have left to come up with a workable alternative. Good Luck.

      1. You say………………..”The bottom line is you have only one choice left to restoring America back to the “Land of the Free” which is to vote for Donald Trump.”

        Please, do tell, just how is voting for and even electing Donald Trump going to restore America back to the “Land of the Free”?

        Seriously.

      1. The only problem with your assertion is Greenspan has been thoroughly discredited within the “Objectivist” movement. Maybe you need to further enlighten yourself instead of posting snarky comments on topics you’re obviously not qualified to comment on?

  4. Well like I’ve been saying….. keep training,keep buying ammo,get your bug out supplies ready and time to put together an oath keepers uniform! And spread the word, our time is at hand get ready!

  5. If you are against “racial profiling” perhaps you are an idiot or a member of the race that commits most of the crime. If this bothers you they how about you get your head out of your ass and teach your children not to commit crime and at the same time stop killing each other. How about this stop committing crimes period?
    When a tiny 6% of a small 13& of the American population commit 53% of the murders and 85% of the crime in the country that is in itself a perfectly GOOD REASON to “racially profile.”

    Isn’t it THE POINT to stop crime before these ignorant miscreants commit it? Seeing as how the “system” itself fails miserably at justice for the victims. Seeing as the whole police detective arrangement also fails MISERABLY as well. Instead the real crimes are the lawyers against the people paying them to ”save the day”. Every day the bureaucracy creates more laws while failing to enforce those already in existence.
    WE do not need more laws, we NEED the system to do what it is supposed to do to begin with.

    1. I just really really love how you automatically go to RACIAL profiling referring to blacks. How about behavioral profiling? And please do not forget that 13% of our population are blacks. About 3-4% of blacks commit 52% of all murders in America.

      Behavioral profiling does not imply a specific race.

  6. The alternative has plainly stated she WILL take our firearms. Please don’t tell me you support the criminal Clinton

  7. Oh dear! Apparently two of my comments have just been lost.

    I would be terribly upset if this is a function of OathKeepers abandonment of the 1st Amendment.

    I will hope that I am merely confused, they are floating in the ether, soon to return to earth.
    …..Lady in Red

    1. We only block trolls, and you’re not one. So, it may show up once approved by a moderator (we, sadly, have to approve comments to keep out spam, and to keep out the always lurking trolls and “false flag” posters from the left, who like to try to insert crap they can then point to as being our views. Let me know if your comments don’t show up OK.

  8. You guys are ALL missing the point here. The “point in question” is WHAT TYPE of SCOTUS justices will TRUMP nominate versus “Hildebeest”. A POTUS can be “gone” in 4 years. NOT SO the justices.

    1. Not to mention, how many TENS of MILLIONS of Muslims will we end up with in America as a result of Hillary bringing in the original thousands of breeding pairs?

      And under Obamacare, which she will keep, we non-Muslims must pay for all of their healthcare, which will divest the rest of the American middle class’s assets and transfer them to the New Americans – the Muslims.

    2. And you are missing OUR point – as I said in my added comment on David’s piece, we are trying to help Trump correct his course, so he doesn’t lose more support among gun owners and constitutionalists. We are not arguing that we are better off with Hitlery, or that it doesn’t matter who is President (that certainly is not my view, or Davids). We are saying Trump is cutting his own throat, and he needs to stop doing that. Support the Second Amendment without apology, along with the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc and he will be fine. But if he continues to support and advocate using .gov watch lists to violate the right to keep and bear arms, and if he continues to support “stop and frisk” which violates the Fourth Amendment, he is putting his chance of winning at risk. That’s not our fault. That’s his.

  9. What someone says in the heat of battle during a phony debate can be left with a grain of salt. I watch all Trumps rally speeches, there is no indication that he believes a person on a no fly list should be on a no gun by list. The NRA is apposed to the no fly list as a means to circumnavigate the 2nd Amendment, but we know how lame the NRA is. Trump has been promoting constitutional beliefs, especially the 2nd. He knows who is buttering his bread.

    As for profiling, I agree with 5WarVeteran. It is human nature to discriminate and we naturally profile in all we do, right down to choosing a tooth brush. If a community of people are behaving badly, then they should be targeted by law enforcement with swift justice. The fact that these groups have been allowed to fester over generations has created that culture of crime. It’s time to end it.

    In the meantime, stay vigilant. Arm up! The imposter in the WH is going to stir the hornets nest on his way out.

    1. Well, here is an article from back in June, quoting Trump saying just that:

      http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/284017-trump-says-those-on-terror-watch-list-should-be-barred

      “We have to make sure that people that are terrorists or have even an inclination toward terrorism cannot buy weapons, guns,” the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said in an interview to air Sunday on “This Week.”

      When asked if his position is that those on the terrorist watchlist shouldn’t be able to purchase a gun, Trump responded, “I’d like to see that, and I’d like to say it. And it’s simpler. It’s just simpler.”

      There you go. It’s not just some off the cuff comment. This is a policy stance he has had for months. Apparently, the NRA talked with him about softening that stance, but as you yourself note, the NRA itself is unreliable, and now Trump has gone right back to agreeing with Hillary to the hilt on this. What he needs to do is appoint Larry Pratt, or one of his sons, from Gun Owners of America as his lead advisor on gun rights, so he will know what he is talking about, and so he won’t continue to screw up. The NRA are TERRIBLE advisors on this issue, since they so often screw up and get it wrong.

      As for your advocacy of racial profiling, all I can say is, Wow, just wow.

      “If a community of people are behaving badly, then they should be targeted by law enforcement with swift justice. The fact that these groups have been allowed to fester over generations has created that culture of crime. It’s time to end it.”

      So, I take it to mean you are speaking of black Americans. You really want the police to target ALL black Americans for “swift justice” rather than using their common sense, observation, intelligence, and discretion to spot and investigate those who are actually engaged in crime? And you think that somehow is constitutional? That it passes muster under the Fourth Amendment?

      There are many black American patriots who served this country with honor in the military or as cops. Some of them are in this org. Heck, some of them are in leadership positions within this org. But you want them to be “targeted by law enforcement with swift justice”?

      I urge you to take a step back from the computer screen, take a walk, and rethink that position before you violate your oath.

      Stewart

      1. Wow! No one said anything about race or blacks or natives or whites or Mediterraneans or Asians, or east Indian, etc. It is undeniable fact in human nature to discriminate and profile. So your assumptions and accusations are way off the mark regarding my comments. And no, I don’t need to check myself regarding my oath. Cheers!

        1. OK, then tell me what you meant by this:

          “As for profiling, I agree with 5WarVeteran. It is human nature to discriminate and we naturally profile in all we do, right down to choosing a tooth brush. If a community of people are behaving badly, then they should be targeted by law enforcement with swift justice. The fact that these groups have been allowed to fester over generations has created that culture of crime. It’s time to end it.”

          What “community of people” were you talking about?

          1. Discriminate: to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality, to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately, to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate, to note or distinguish as different, making or evidencing nice distinctions.
            Discriminating: differentiating; analytical, noting differences or distinctions with nicety; discerning; perspicacious, a discriminating interpreter of events. having excellent taste or judgment, a discriminating interior designer. differential, as a tariff, possessing distinctive features; capable of being differentiated. The word ”discriminate” has been hijacked by lefty political correctness.
            “Community of people…” it’s your choice! Oh, I see you already made your choice; you went right to black people. Stewart Rhodes “So, I take it to mean you are speaking of black Americans.”
            You asked, so I answered…I’ll watch for this to be posted. Cheers!

  10. There is one candidate on all 50 state ballots who has a record as Governor of supporting our Constitutional Rights and who knows that the 2nd Amendment is not about protecting hunters and target shooters… but is all about protecting the Republic from tyranny. That candidate is Gary Johnson. It’s OK this time to overcome your high school civics class “two party system” conditioning and vote for Liberty!

    1. Despite his charts and graphs (which were correct), third-party candidate Ross Perot made some very good points, too, and he certainly had the business know-how to have run what can be thought of as the world’s largest company, the U.S. Government.

      I’m sure everyone here knows how that turned out.

    2. OMG. Did you get your JD from a roll in a truck stop restroom? You have no clue what you’re on about. Gary Johnson is a fraud. He’s not a real Libertarian, not even close. He’s a squish on gun rights and his VP Weld is a RINO fraud who actually banned guns in Massachusetts:

      Gary Johnson is a Complete Idiot
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW5gQo43ay4

      Gary Johnson tongues reporter
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXhR41lsEJY

      Gary Johnson Is A Psychotic Clown from Uranus
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI5-b-zLvVk

      Gary Johnson Has Another Aleppo Moment
      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-28/libertarian-gary-johnson-has-another-aleppo-moment

      1. Yep.

        The Libertarian Party has long been co-opted. Johnson is naught but another in an endless line of ‘lesser turds’ that are ‘selected’ and offered up for your vote.

        A staged clown-circus.

  11. My opinion is that IF they want to take our guns they will start a revolution and I for one WIL NOT give up my w/o a fight

  12. Considering this elections cycle… seriously…who was there to actually choose from?

    A third Bush? Another Clinton? A soft spoken doctor? A man who is for governing by the Constitution but the backbone just wasn’t there. How about a candidate that admits that the taking away of the American citizens guns would never work, but would disarm the arm forces and close all overseas bases. Or the very best one yet..a pot smoking ex governor that wants open borders and thinks Alepo is an acronym for something.

    The problem is that the whole election process has been hijacked by lawyers, no offense Mr. Rhoades, sir, and by big money. The Americans now view THE Constitution as no more than a historical document like the Magna Carta. Means little to them anymore. I.e. look at college campuses. Free speech zones, offensive words are banned, he, she are now ze, and please do not get me started on gun free zones, not like Starbucks but like Chicago. .

    We the American public are told all you have to do is vote them out of office. What a crock of horse dung. So far only the local elections, town and county, are still what elections shod be, ought to be, and are slowly going the way of the national elections. Big money and lawyers are moving in on these as well corrupting them. Example.. I live in a state with a small population. One candidate now suing the other for accepting “outside” money.

    All points being, we have lost the right to choose who WE feel would serve US best by a system corrupted by politicians, big money and lawyers. They decide who WE will vote for.

    So for all intents and purposes we are left with basically two choices, Trump or Sic Heilery. Read the Federalist and anti Federalist papers and you will see that both sides were right, a party system would corrupt and divide and that is what happened while the American public slept with their eyes wode open.

  13. After reading the comments here all i can say is WOW! Once again the majority of Americans are acting as if this election will make a difference and bring about change. As if the new boss will be different from the old boss.SCOTUS,POTUS what difference does it make when they wipe themselves with the Constitution?Most if not all of them.Stop and frisk,Racial profiling, How about no. It is human nature to discriminate and we naturally profile in all we do. Yes, but not police.Police are trained to spot criminal activity and respond accordingly(lawfully). Reasonable suspicion anyone? The NRA has turned into a bunch of politicians themselves.Compromising is what politicians do best.Next to lying that is.We are living in a fantasy world carefully crafted to resemble a representative democracy.Presidency:Bought and paid for.Congress: bought and paid for.Same with the senate and supreme court.Anyone that thinks Trump will not side with big business and the Globalists are fools.The game is rigged, and “we the people” keep getting dealt the same losing hand and choices.Just more proof that it must start local.From the bottom up.Town,county then state.Thats all i got for now.

    1. We’re still choosing between

      1)a candidate who will not call Islamic terrorism what it is, and thus supports small children being crucified by the terrorists, as well as people being burned alive, drowned in cages, beheaded, and girls and women being genitally mutilated so that Muslim men can enjoy raping them before they have even healed from the mutilation.

      and 2) a candidate who does not support that kind of behavior.

      That should be enough, certainly for female voters!

      1. Women especially need to “carry” given the number of middle eastern islamic rapists now roaming our streets. When those pricks learn what it feels like to catch some lead poisoning in there testicles, they just might learn we are not living in the dark ages from whence they have been living for the past 1400 years. S&W 500 will do it nicely. The muzzle blast alone will castrate them.

  14. Trump is the only hope we have. Vote for the man and stock up on ammo and more firearms and above all , pray, pray, pray!!!

  15. I contacted ; Donald Trump ; By E-Mail , through Gun Owner’s of America ; Concerning the no fly zone infringement on gun owner’s right’s ! I ‘m very concerned about Donald Trump’s understanding of our Constitution ; The ” Stop & Frisk ” infringement is blatantly unconstitutional , without probable cause !!!

    1. I see Donald’s message evolving since he began his political trek. He has learned from his waking giant supporters that the constitution, the 2nd amendment, the vets, the military and so forth are the issues that are going to make or break his campaign. His initial thrust to the top was mostly on immigration and the insurgent muslims coming here through illegal activism by the mussy in the WH. He has since learned it is the faith based constitutional Christian right along with those fed up with the same old story from life time career politicians giving him his lead. He will win in a landslide because the left is too lazy to vote, except when they are paid to get on a bus and vote multiple times.

      1. And I agree with him on the border, illegal immigration (invasion) and also on the dangers of wide-open, unvetted Muslim immigration. And you are correct that those issues are what won him the nomination. But he is at risk of losing a massive block of voters among gun owners, Ron Paul Republicans and other constitutionalists (such as Constitution Party supporters) and libertarians (see Reason.com) because of his bone-headed statements in support of both stop and frisk and using .gov watch lists to deny firearms purchases and ownership. He is, at this moment, unnecessarily alienating a significant part of his own base. Who, exactly, among people on the political right, is not going to vote for him if he opposes the use of .gov watch lists to deny you or me the ability to buy a gun? v. who will not vote for him (who will just stay home) because he supports such a blatantly unconstitutional abuse of the 2nd Amendment, the 5th Amendment, and the 6th Amendment? Along with violating the 4th, on stop and frisk. The answer is obvious.

        1. We are on the same page. He must not lose sight of who put him into the running. If he listens to the old guard political pundits, he will lose; it’s that simple. How he speaks at his rally’s needs to carry over into the debates and not waffle on unconstitutional/constitutional inconsistency. We are not interested in being ruled by the fear of being on a corrupt governments watch list, or any list. We are already on the “enemy” list; proudly I might add.

          As a successful business man (person for you snowflake PC types) he is accustomed to speaking what comes to mind without consequence. His savvy business actions produce his wealth. This campaign has shown him that freely speaking out off the top of his head can be both good and bad for the campaign. We are now his customer, his campaign has a marketing plan and a product. Now we see if his goods/product can be delivered as promised.

  16. Here is what I just added to David’s article:

    David, along with GOA, is doing the Trump campaign a favor by pointing out how badly Trump is cutting his own throat with gun owners by supporting the use of government “watch lists” to strip people of their right to keep and bear arms (all without a trial – just some bureaucratic weenie typing your name into a database) just like Trump is also cutting his own throat with millions of Ron Paul Republicans, libertarians, and constitutionalists by being in favor of stop and frisk, which obviously violates the Fourth Amendment. People who understand the Bill of Rights, and take it seriously, can see that both policies violate the Constitution.

    Yelling at us to sit down and shut up is not going to help Trump win. Trump is the one who is alienating millions of gun owners and constitutionalists, with his own words. We are just conveying the warning to him and his supporters that he is making a terrible mistake. So, don’t shoot the messenger.

    Imagine this: Trump is standing on a stage. He pulls out a big knife, sticks it deep into one side of his neck, and begins to pull it across, from ear to ear. As he starts to slit his own throat, we yell out “stop! You’re slitting your own throat!” and then some Trump supporter yells “sit down and shut up! Don’t you dare yell at our guy about how he is cutting his throat. Leave him alone!” Now, who is helping him, and who is hurting him?

    We’d love nothing better than for Trump to correct his course to avoid the disaster of losing gun owner and constitutionalist support. And the gun owners and constitutionalists are not going to stop supporting him because we point this out – they are going to stop supporting him because of his own statements.

    You want to help Trump? Tell him to stop cutting his own throat. – Stewart Rhodes

    1. I understand your point, but my female friends and I are much more worried about something ELSE being cut by the Muslims, should Hillary get into office and infest America with an unknown number of Muslims.

      After all, she seems to love the Saudis, and they practice female mutilation (and legal rape, and slavery and all the other evils that Muslims seem to find delectable).

      1. I don’t care that Trump said the “no fly list is in play”. There are way more things to worry about than that!!!! And let us not forget that Ted Kennedy was on that no fly list, do it is definitely flawed.

        Maybe we should be asking for a review of every name on that list?! But it is easier to say Trump is cutting his own throat.

        He is not cutting his throat, the supposed “smart people” are simply by saying he is cutting his own throat which is a plus for Hillary.

        1. Fine. Keep believing that. That’s the same mantra we heard from the Romney and McCain supporters who said much the same thing – “don’t point out our candidates screwed up policy statements! That only helps the enemy! Just sit down, shut up, and vote for him, and tell others to do the same!” while ignoring the fact that their candidate’s own policy statements were sinking their campaigns by alienating millions of Americans who take the Constitution seriously. And they lost. Hell, they lost because they were demonstrated, spectacular oath breakers, who millions of patriots simply refused to vote for.

          But since Trump has not served in public office, voters don’t have an official record to go off of. But they do have his own statements. So, all Trump needs to do is not stick his foot in his mouth by making statements of his support for policies that millions find unconstitutional.

          The “smart people” here, who have been around the block a few times in politics, can see what is happening, because we have seen it before.

          You yelling at us to stop talking about it is not going to change the fact that Trump’s own words are pushing away voters on the right. The voters don’t have a political record to go off of, but they have his statements.

          And they hear those statements from Trump himself, and make up their minds based on those statements, not on what David or I say. Get it?

          If we do as you want, and “shut up and sit down” those same voters will still hear what Trump says in support of unconstitutional crap, and they will still make up their minds just to stay home that day. That has nothing to do with us and everything to do with Trump.

          But go ahead and shoot the messenger. That is easier for some folks, rather than working to get their candidate to catch a clue.

          I tried. That’s all I can do.

    2. Very true. I hear you. Trump is not perfect. Most Trump backers never thought he was anywhere near perfect. It’s very disappointing, but hardly surprising, that he just followed NRA’s subversive lead on no fly. (see http://www.ammoland.com/2016/06/pro-gun-groups-call-on-nra-to-stop-support-for-secret-list/#axzz4Lm2i1czZ )

      However, some other perspectives to bear in mind:

      His regrettable statements will no doubt cost him “support” with true conservatives, at least in the sense of almost needing political fluffers to maintain our enthusiasm for his campaign, as opposed to just backing him as the obvious lesser of evils. But if “losing support” means supporting Hillary by…

      1. voting directly for Hillary
      2. indirectly voting for Hillary by literally staying home
      3. indirectly voting for Hillary by figuratively staying home (not lifting a finger to defeat Hillary, helping demoralize other conservatives to do the same, etc)
      4. indirectly voting for Hillary by “voting your conscience”, by backing a ticket that would be vastly *more* destructive to the USA even than Hillary, i.e., the phony “Libertarian” Johnson-Weld ticket (gun-grabbing, rapid and irreversible cultural terraforming via unlimited legal immigration and invasion-occupation-amnesty, injections at the point of a gun, baking cakes for gay weddings at the point of a gun, etc, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW5gQo43ay4 )

      Then I would have to question the judgment and wisdom of that position.

      Moral equivalency, a slippery, insincere way of evading and dismissing reasonable comparisons of both qualitative and quantitative differences between two choices, is the province of Leftists. For a choice to be superior, it must be perfect. e.g., a country that targets terrorists and ends up killing innocent or “innocent” bystanders by collateral damage is portrayed as equivalent to the terrorists themselves. A more or less capitalist country that has some poor people is equivalent to or worse than a socialist country where *everyone* but a tiny ruling class is poor and oppressed. Etc.

      Moral equivalence was used to equate the USA with communist countries. It is often used to argue that Israel is no better than its enemies, including fundamentalist practitioners of the “Religion of Peace” who saw the heads off Christians, Jews, and other sects of Islam, or burn them alive, and Islamic nations like our “ally” Saudi Arabia and our “ally” Turkey, all of which openly and viciously oppress other religions.

      So, for some reasonable perspective, let’s review the bidding:

      Hillary is a known, fully committed, relentless domestic enemy of the USA, liberty, gun rights, sovereignty, and the Constitution. She *will* *continue* to do everything she can to destroy the USA as anything like a free, independent, constitutional republic with liberty and justice for all, as she has done her entire political life.

      By comparison, Trump does NOT appear to be a relentless domestic enemy of the USA, liberty, gun rights, sovereignty, and the Constitution, therefore he has not and *will* NOT do everything he can to destroy the USA as anything like a free, independent, constitutional republic with liberty and justice for all.

      On the contrary. Trump didn’t just inch over to the right a phony smidgen during the primaries, make the usual phony noises every RINO chamberboy makes on gun rights & border control, then move hard left for the general. Trump came WAY over to the right, with landmark positions, and he stayed hard even after winning the nom, when RINOs always move hard left. He told loyal America-First conservatives many things we wanted to hear, he told those things to the entire country, things the country desperately needed to hear, and he made a persuasive, well considered, loud case for them. If it hadn’t been for Trump, those issues would never have gotten traction. Indeed, the other R candidates had clearly tacitly agreed not to go there. I won’t say it if you won’t, wink-wink. So what were we supposed to do, vote for the candidate who was telling us what someone *else* wanted to hear? What the “U.S.” Chamber of Commerce wanted to hear? What the RINO neo”con” establishment elite wanted to hear?

      Trump’s positions reflect more immigration sanity than any R nominee since Eisenhower — who was the last president to honor his oath to faithfully execute & defend our most critical national defenses — our borders & immigration controls.

      Trump’s statements have been more pro-gun than any R nominee in 100 years. e.g.,

      “The Constitution doesn’t create the RKBA, it ensures gvt can’t take it away.”

      “RKBA protects all our rights. We’re the only country with a 2A. Protecting it is imperative.”

      “Anti-gun pols & the media blame law-abiding gun owners when criminals misuse guns.”

      “To fight crime let law-abiding gun owners defend themselves. Law enforcement can’t be everywhere. Personal protection is up to us. That’s why I & tens of millions have carry permits. Go after criminals, put the law back on the side of the law-abiding.”

      “Bans are a failure. Scary phrases like ‘assault weapons’ are really semi-autos & mags owned by tens of millions. Gvt has no business dictating the guns good people can own.”

      “The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at home. Carry permits should work in every state. We do it for driving ­ a privilege ­ we can do it for concealed carry ­ a right.”

      “Banning our military from carrying guns is ridiculous. Let them defend themselves.”

      Trump called for civilian carry and condemned “gun free” zones, loudly, after every massacre. He didn’t have to do that. Trump identified real causes – Islamic immigration exacerbated by “gun free” zones – instead of scapegoating gun owners to hide those causes.

      Trump’s gun rights positions are more loyal to 2A than the NRA’s positions. The NRA and other national sellout groups like SAF, CCRKBA, NSSF & SAAMI are primarily responsible for the Orlando nightclub and other massacre spots being “gun free zones” — which LaPew supports. NRA could’ve ended “gun free” zones in Florida decades ago. Indeed, it put those zones in the law in the first place. The NRA could’ve ended “gun free” zones in Virginia long before the Virginia Tech massacre. But the NRA itself put those zones in the law in the first place and fought VCDL’s valiant efforts to remove them for many years.

      See the position statements on Trump’s website. To the extent Trump is weak in some areas — i.e., no fly no buy during the debate — we can thank NRA for that, since it’s the NRA’s position. The NRA has long supported all sorts of “prohibited person” status without constitutional recourse to trial by jury, and no fly no buy is just one of them. NRA collaborated with gun grabber Carolyn McCarthy to pass her “Veterans Disarmament” bill (GOA’s name for it), which has already turned 200,000 veterans into “prohibited persons” without trial by jury.

      Similar story with Obamacare, which GOA exposed as a vehicle for progressive gun prohibition and confiscation. NRA could’ve easily killed Obamacare had they opposed it as a gun control vehicle, since it passed cloture by one vote. NRA had a dozen “A” rated & several “B” rated pet Democrats who can’t survive in pro-gun states like Montana without phony A ratings from NRA. They could’ve easily been forced to sustain filibuster. Instead LaPierre worked with his “pro-gun champion” Harry Reid to “fix” Obamacare. Wayne LaPierre himself gave Obamacare the extra cover it needed to pass. Remember that when we end up being stuck with govt medicine forever.

      Unfortunately, it’s simply not realistic to expect Republican candidates to take stronger gun rights positions than the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, NSSF, SAAMI, and other betrayal groups. It’s *right* to expect true loyalty on gun rights beyond subversive NRA positions, but it’s not realistic. If we want to stop gun rights betrayals, then we must de-fund and de-member the betrayal groups and build up loyal no-compromise groups. We’ll never get control of the groups like NRA because they’re run by corrupt beltway establishment vampires, access lobbyists, neo”cons”, police staters, secret society types (per David Brock), two-smart-by-half ‘compromisers’, appeasers, and preemptive surrenderers, useful celebrity idiots, fellow travelers, Norquislings and other Bloomberg collaborators, 5th columnists, Fudds, toadies, and go-along get-along pussies.

      Trump is a man who at least may *conceivably* be reasoned with and won over to the true constitutional POV on No Fly No Buy: Not without fair trial by jury as intended by the Framers – the only true “due process”. Trump will be more approachable if the NRA can be forced to adopt a loyal American position on the issue, or failing that, be de-funded, de-membered and superceded by in favor of loyal groups like OathKeepers, GRNC, OFF, GOA, etc.

      That said, I do plan on being disappointed and even betrayed by Trump, but a rational man expects to be disappointed and betrayed a lot *less* by Trump than we KNOW we’ll be hosed by Hillary. And Trump may well address some problems that badly need addressing, like the invasion-occupation-takeover of the USA, neo”con” world police meddling, preemptive foreign quagmires, corrupt idiotic “nationbuilding” debacles, unconstitutional top secret executive “free trade” Trojan Horse deals, Iran deals, etc.

      In my opinion, no rational man votes for Hillary directly, or by staying home, or indirectly by voting for someone who is actually worse than Social Democrats for gun rights, liberty, and the USA, i.e., the phony “Libertarian” presidential ticket of Johnson-Weld — effectively immigration-socialists and anarcho-globalists. They believe we have no right to have and enforce borders and immigration limits and they fully intend to subvert them. The believe we have no right to resist invasion-occupation and the theft of citizenship and voting rights. Without borders and immigration limits, we don’t have a country. The USA is up for grabs and it *will* be overwhelmed, transformed, and “redistributed”. Because they fully intend to subvert our borders and immigration laws, Left “Libertarians” cannot honestly take the Constitutional oath or even the pledge of allegiance. The effect of their subversive beliefs, if they were ever allowed to implement them, and the fact that they are able to operate within the Liberty tent because of their phony veneer of Liberty, make them the most dangerous domestic enemies of the USA.

      As opposed to true Libertarians, or “Paleo” Libertarians like me, who believe in property, borders, sovereignty, mutual defense, and non-suicidal limits & criteria on legal immigration, and who recognize the moral right — indeed the imperative — to halt and repel the invasion-occupation-takeover of the USA. This is OUR country. Invasion is aggression.

      So in the end, are true conservatives, true Libertarians, true gun rights advocates and loyal Americans going to stop supporting Trump, thereby passive-aggressively or actively enabling Hillary Clinton to win — a known relentless domestic enemy — because Trump isn’t perfect, because he went with ***NRA’s*** position on No Fly No Buy?

      Seriously?

      Or will we reject irrational moral equivalency, take the vastly lesser of two evils (with some serious stated good), and work to improve his flawed positions?

      1. Thank you, Mr. Perdue. Thank you. Moreover, yammering at The Donald now is a diversion. Once elected, he will come to see the idiocy of much. Deal with The Donald as the Prez.

        He is smart, reasonable…. understands. Stop nattering at him, in this moment. We have little time. ….Lady in Red

      2. This had me rolling: “His regrettable statements will no doubt cost him “support” with true conservatives, at least in the sense of almost needing political fluffers to maintain our enthusiasm for his campaign, as opposed to just backing him as the obvious lesser of evils.”

        “Political fluffers”? Man, that is funny.

        Like I told Tuaca above, we’ve seen all of this before, in the past two Republican candidates, McCain and Romney. Now, I am NOT saying that Trump is equivalent to those two lame sell-outs. As I said to Tuaca, the difference with Trump is that he has not served in public office before, so he is not a demonstrated oath-breaker like Romney and McCain were. So Trump has a chance to win the support of “true conservatives” as you say. Frankly, he has their support – unless he loses it. And he can lose it by what he says.

        Since he has no prior voting record in office, since he has never served in a public office, voters have to go off of what he says he supports and what he says he will do. That is great for him, unless he advocates policies that those “true conservatives” find to be fundamentally unconstitutional.

        The “use the terrorism watch lists to decide who can’t have a gun” is no minor issue. If that policy is implemented, it would be the end of the Second Amendment as any meaningful protection of your right to keep and bear arms, because any nameless, unaccountable, bureaucratic weenie in some office, among dozens or even hundreds of agencies can just type your name into some obscure database and POOF! Your “gun rights” are now gone. You become not just a prohibited person for buying guns, but also for owning them. At this time, they cannot do that to you unless you have been convicted of a felony, or are under indictment for a felony, or have been adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, or have been dishonorably discharged.

        But being on a “watch list” is as easy as a few keystrokes. And no due process whatsoever, no hearing, no trial, no chance to confront your accusers or present evidence in your defense. Nothing. You can be placed on that list at the whim of some .gov employee who just doesn’t like you, or your politics.

        I know, because it has happened to me. I am on a watch list that means I cannot buy a gun without a three day hold going into effect each and every time. And I cannot fly unless and until the ticket agent calls DHS and gets permission for me to fly that day. And when they get permission, my ticket says SSSS on it, and I get extra scrutiny – a thorough pat down and detailed search of my carry on items, each and every time I fly. I get treated like a terrorism suspect, as if I were a member of some Islamic terror organization or support network, like Muslim Brotherhood, each and every time I fly.

        Realize that there are many lists below “no fly” and they contain millions of names. I am one of them. And I am on that list for the obvious reason that I started Oath Keepers.

        I suspect that the list I am on is right below the “no fly” list since it is clearly a “no fly without permission granted for each trip” list.

        But there are many, many lists below that level. For all you know, you are on one right now.

        And Trump wants those lists used to block anyone on them from being able to own or purchase a gun.

        That is no small matter. In fact, that is actually worse than the transgressions of McCain and Romney when it comes to gun rights, since using such .gov watch lists to strip Americans of their right to bear arms really kills the Second Amendment once and for all.

        ” Shall not be infringed” will be a joke when any .gov employee can, with a few keystrokes, infringe the living crap out of your right to keep and bear arms.

        As I said to the others, you can condemn those who stay home, or even those of us who are sounding the alarm bells on this, all you want. Go ahead. Preemptively blame us, for good measure, for his coming defeat. But that won’t change the outcome.

        Just as condemning and telling “true conservatives” during the McCain and Romney campaigns to “shut up and get in line” did not change the outcome, it won’t change the outcome here.

        Getting Trump to change his policy stance will change the outcome. Why is that so hard?

        Why do you accept this as a foregone conclusion?:

        ” Unfortunately, it’s simply not realistic to expect Republican candidates to take stronger gun rights positions than the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, NSSF, SAAMI, and other betrayal groups. It’s *right* to expect true loyalty on gun rights beyond subversive NRA positions, but it’s not realistic.”

        Really? I thought Trump was different. Isn’t he? Isn’t that why he won the nomination over Cruz, Rubio, etc.?

        Is it really “unrealistic” to try to get him to change his policy position on this important issue?

        Again, this is no small thing. It’s really the same as saying “it’s unrealistic to expect Trump to not advocate the destruction of the Second Amendment as a meaningful check on gun disarmament” because that is what is really at stake.

        But isn’t it more realistic to try to change the mind and the policy stance of one man – Trump – than it is to try to convince millions of “true conservatives” to do what you want, by voting for a man who holds a policy position they find unacceptable?

        I think your energies are better spent focusing on one man, rather than on millions, to change the course of history.

        Put some energy into getting Trump to change his position. Otherwise, we all lose.

        1. Attempted to reply to this long ago, but was frozen out. Just checking to see if still the case.

  17. In general, we should, as free men, we should be as equally armed as our government. There are too many examples of the 100’s of millions who have perished due to the imbalance of governments overthrowing it’s citizenry with superior armament. That is a message Turmp needs to recognize, admit, and believe in. If they own it, then I own it. Period.

    1. I think that is part of our problem in this current time. For the most part, we have pistols and/or rifles, while they have tanks, missiles, jet fighters and bombers, submarines, destroyers and aircraft carriers, and now drones.

      I know some people think that our much greater numbers would offset the difference in equipment, but I wonder. I suspect that one big bomb dropped on one major city, with a warning to other cities to toe the line or suffer the same fate, would make many Americans cave.

  18. I could watch a video of Trump beating a baby to death with a claw hammer and I’d still prefer him to Hillary Clinton. I’m a single issue voter and everyone knows Hillary’s attitude about the Second Amendment. Anyone who votes for a fringe candidate is inadvertently helping Hillary Clinton to be elected. That’s the one undeniable fact. Everything else is argument for the mere sake of arguing.

    1. Well, of course! That would be only one baby beaten to death, while Hillary is complicit in so many deaths that we can’t begin to guess what the number is!

      Add to that the maimings and mutilations in which she is complicit because she covers for the Muslims who perpetrate them, and the kidnapping and enslaving of an unknown number of women and girls for which she also protects and covers for the Muslims, and Trump’s shortcomings simply can’t compare!

        1. Whatever Coley is, what I said is true.

          We have only seen the tip of the iceberg regarding what Hillary has done. She’s seen what Obama has gotten away with, and if she gets into office there will be no limit to what she can and will do to destroy people other than her favorites.

    2. Sure, but that won’t help you or Trump when other gun owners stay home. Just because you are ready to vote for Trump no matter what, doesn’t mean they will. This isn’t about what you think of him or what you will do. This is about him unnecessarily alienating an important part of his potential voters. However you feel about it, some people who otherwise would have voted for him simply will not if he continues to advocate these two blatantly unconstitutional policy positions. Just watch. You’re condemning them, or blaming them, will not help your candidate win. Getting him to get his positions right will.

      I feel like I’m taking crazy pills! Doesn’t anyone else see it! (shameless Zoolander reference).

      The issue is not what you die-hard, no matter what Trump voters think or will do. The issue is what will millions of other patriotic Americans do. Yelling at them about how they need to vote for Trump no matter what, is not going to make them do what you want. Getting one man, that being Trump, to stop saying stupid crap about using watch lists to strip people of gun rights will.

      All you have to do is affect the behavior of one guy, rather than millions.

      Focus of effort.

      If you refuse to tell your candidate a hard truth, and instead yell at everyone who is not happy with his statements on a very serious issue, then he will lose. And sure you can then blame all of them, but that won’t do you much good after he loses. Why not just get him to sharpen up and come into line with the Bill of Rights?

      Amazing.

      1. If I had a direct line to Trump I would chat with him about it. I do know someone who does have a line to Trump, so I’ll chat with my friend instead and see if he can get the message to Trump.

        But I’m sure others are aware that Hillary will take the guns AND ON TOP OF THAT she will import an unknown number of Muslims and God knows what else, along with their diseases and primitive behaviors and extremely high birth rates, and eventually it will take everything we make – and more – to support her Favorite People. Her Supreme Court will help her tremendously in that anti-American agenda.

        I believe that she is thoroughly EVIL, and I don’t believe that Trump is.

        1. Thanks. Let him know that “they will have no choice to vote for me, as the lesser of two evils on gun rights” is just not a winning strategy. And McCain and Romney both prove that.

          Being hardcore in defense of gun rights will lose very few votes, but not being hardcore on that will lose millions. Just a fact.

      2. Hello Mr. Rhodes, I think but am not sure that was addressed to me. If so, of course I know that, and I have indeed repeatedly tried getting arguments like this to Trump. It’s not like he has a hotline for my calls and emails, though he should. He’d get a lot better counsel from you or me than the stupid sphincters advising him now.

        1. Carlos,

          Actually, as David said, it was in response to a breathless, ALL CAPS!!!! yelling email we got telling us that we shouldn’t have posted David’s article, and we should just sit down and shut up.

          Your statements have been much more mature, thoughtful, and reasonable.

          “It’s not like he has a hotline for my calls and emails, though he should. He’d get a lot better counsel from you or me than the stupid sphincters advising him now.”

          Agreed. But like I said above, what he should do is go with Gun Owners of America as his advisors on gun issues. I have yet to see GOA get it wrong.

          Best to you,

          Stewart

  19. https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-surprising-agreement-between-trump-and-clinton-on-gun-control-020212914.html

    “But helping people get off the Terrorist Screening Database, which has 1 million names on it, and the no-fly list, which has 80,000 names on it, is easier said than done. The system for being removed, called the Department of Homeland Security Travelers Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP), “is basically a black box,” the ACLU’s Hugh Handeyside told Yahoo News.

    If an individual is repeatedly being given extra screening while traveling, or is routinely detained, they would “submit a petition” to DHS.

    “The government considers it. They don’t tell you if you’re on or ever were on a watch list. They say any necessary changes have been made. So you know nothing,” he said.

    As the DHS website itself states, “Security procedures and legal concerns mandate that we can neither confirm nor deny any information about you that may be within federal watch lists.”

    Further, there is no process by which to find out if one is on the list, and for what reasons, and no venue in which to contest those reasons to a neutral arbiter.”

    There you go. A black box, and a black hole. Anyone can be on it, and good luck getting off of it.

Comments are closed.