June 14, 2016

Nate Cohn at the NYT says the post-Orlando gun issue is "probably" going to help Trump.

You can't predict the future with certainty, so I respect that "probably." He says:
According to an Upshot analysis of Pew Research data, nearly half of white working-class Democrats think it’s more important to protect gun rights than to control gun ownership. That’s a larger percentage of Democratic voters than agree with Mr. Trump on many of the other issues that he stresses on the campaign trail.

At the same time, Mr. Trump’s position has considerable support from Republican-leaning voters. About three-quarters of Republican-leaning voters side with gun rights over gun control, according to the Pew data.

That’s even better for Mr. Trump than a lot of his other populist wedge issues, like trade and immigration. It’s about as good as any issue for Republicans — even general conservative attitudes such as whether the government is wasteful.
I listened to Hillary's post-Orlando speech yesterday, and she said a lot of things about different issues, but when she got to the part about gun control, her audience went wild. Look at the long ovation after she says "We have to make it harder for people who should not have those weapons of war. That might not stop every shooting or terrorist attack. But it will stop some and it will save lives and it will protect our first responders":



She's in the presence of people who strongly encourage her to forefront gun control, but this should not be her chosen route. If she doesn't resist the temptation to follow the encouragement of crowds like this, she is helping Donald Trump get elected.

84 comments:

Fred said...

How can Hillary govern a country she's never been to and doesn't understand?

MayBee said...

The problem with "gun control" is that it falls apart at the details.

If people just want to get rid of guns- and I think a lot of them do- they should just say it out loud. Otherwise it's all just a bunch of noise, really. A bunch of "solutions" that don't solve any of the problems we've had with mass shootings or gang bangers.

MikeR said...

The stories aren't too clear, but apparently a uniformed off-duty police officer, working as a bouncer there, was instrumental in slowing the initial attack till more police could arrive. If no one there had had a gun, who knows how many more would have died.

JAORE said...

Drill baby, drill
- Palin

Ban baby, ban
- Hillary

With similar electoral outcome one can hope.

But you raise a good point. Hillary may be pole driven, hence the swing to noting the type of terrorist attack, but she also hears the cheers of adulation from gun banners. Let's hope the bubble holds.

tim in vermont said...

Trump has a strategy that assumes terror attacks, Hillary's is to hope they don't happen.

Matthew Sablan said...

What I don't get is that if the FBI had been doing their job, and all of our safeguards already in place were firing off properly, many of these shootings would not have happened. We have a known abuser with many red flags who got approved. This is like the VA Tech shooting where, after the fact, the government acknowledged that there were red flags that should have caused them to act differently, but they did not.

Let's get our government agencies working properly BEFORE we give them more responsibilities.

libertasandlatte said...

I love it when they trot out the "weapons of war" canard. They somehow say it with a straight face, seemingly without realizing that not only is our civilian law enforcement apparatus equipped with these "weapons", but so is the Unregulated Militia.

Abdul Abulbul Amir said...


Another mass shooting in a "gun free zone." Why do we make places safe for mass murderers?

M Jordan said...

The gun ban argument just doesn't make sense to me in this (Orlando) and similar cases. For one, if just one or two of the club patrons had been carrying, many lives could have been saved. For another thing, Paris suffered a worse attack and it is one if the most tightly restricted gun places on the globe.

It just seems to me the ban guns reflex is a very weak argument for dealing with deep societal issues.

robother said...

The power of magical thinking for Progressives when it comes to gun control is amazing. These are the same people who tell us there is nothing that can be done to prevent millions of people coming over our borders illegally (or to deport those who are already here), who tell us that if people want illegal drugs they will find some way to get them.

But simply pass a law banning all scary looking rifles, and it will instantly become impossible for a motivated mass killer to lay his hands on one.

Troubled Voter said...

A great pleasure of election night 2012 was waiting all night to see how Althouse would take Obama's clear victory until she made one short, pouting, sullen post. I believe the next day she recommitted herself to her "cruel neutrality" schtick. And here she is almost four years later, almost too lazy to do anything but paraphrase Scott Adams posts, shrieking in each post about how wonderful Donal Trump is, and clearly convinced that Hillary Clinton cannot defeat his genius.

I'm very excited for election night 2016.

Bruce Hayden said...

I am reposting this from something I said in a thread from yesterday that talked about trying to ban AR-15 type firearms. These are the weapons of war that she wants to ban.

Imagine being restricted to owning a 1960 vintage automobile because fewer people were being killed by cars then. Of course, if that were true, the reason would be a much smaller population and not the actual death rate. Any time you hear people trying to ban AR type firearms, that is exactly what they are trying to do - restrict rifles and carbines to 1960 or earlier technology. And, obviously, phrased like that, it is never a reasonable limitation on the right to keep and bear arms. The current result of 60 years of technology is a highly modular and customizable firearm that is ergonomic, accurate, and has low recoil. It is comparatively much easier for novices to shoot accurately. Much of that is because technology continues to evolve, and ARs are the primary platform in rifles and carbines where the advances are implemented. The part that has the serial number is the lower receiver. Everything else can be, and often is, switched out. An AR may start one day at the std .223 caliber, be switched out to .17 the next, and .50 BMG (suboptimal because rounds that big require side feed) the next. Maybe a shorter carbine barrel one day, and a longer rifle barrel the next. Different shrouds. Iron sights one day, red dot the next, and telescopic the next. Foldable stock one day, solid the next. The only part that is constant is the lower receiver with the serial number that everything else is essentially attached to - unless you build your own lower receiver, which doesn't (yet) need a serial number. These firearms are very much like personal computers in the 1990s, where it was relatively easy to build them from scratch, customizing as you go. And that is the absurdity of trying to ban them, because attempts to do so either list specific makes and models, which is easily sidestepped, or through banned features, which can be easily swapped out for parts easily acquired over the Internet. That is part of the absurdity - you can't buy an AR over the Internet (unless you have it delivered to a local FFL, after a background check), but you can easily buy all the rest of the parts to put one together. Why didn't the San Bernadino Islamic terrorists have the CA required low function magazine releases on their AR-15s? Duh! AR-15s are highly modular. 30 round magazines? Standard size in neighboring AZ and NV, freely available and dirt cheap, cheaper than the reduced capacity magazines required in a half dozen states.

Brando said...

"She's in the presence of people who strongly encourage her to forefront gun control, but this should not be her chosen route. If she doesn't resist the temptation to follow the encouragement of crowds like this, she is helping Donald Trump get elected."

Hillary decided at the beginning of this race (years ago, really) that she was going to reassemble the Obama coalition and not bother with right-of-center voters, so why would she bother trying to moderate her stance on gun rights? Anyone pro-gun rights already doesn't trust Hillary.

This looks to be another election where each side just tries to turn out their base. So don't expect any aisle-reaching.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

This is a woman who would lie if you asked her for the current date. She will say whatever she thinks will benefit her most according to her current situation. She has no core beliefs other than the acquisition of power. Why anyone would take her seriously on any topic is beyond me. This applies to her supporters as well as her detractors.

Fabi said...

The gun control issue is a winner for the democrats. She should probably step it up and call for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment!

Brando said...

"The power of magical thinking for Progressives when it comes to gun control is amazing. These are the same people who tell us there is nothing that can be done to prevent millions of people coming over our borders illegally (or to deport those who are already here), who tell us that if people want illegal drugs they will find some way to get them."

Only the libertarians have been consistent on this. It seems Republicans have a lot of faith in government's ability to curb illegal immigration and the drug trade, and Democrats have a lot of faith in the government's ability to curb the gun trade, and neither seems to notice that government has been doing a poor job at all of these tasks.

MayBee said...

Did you know the Santa Barbara shooter stabbed his two roommates and their friend multiple times?
And I mean beyond multiple. One of them was stabbed 94 times.

Virgil Hilts said...

If we could just outlaw Democrats from owning or possessing guns (and could actually enforce it), you would eliminate 80-90% of gun-related homicides. Kind of why those of us who are not Democrats resent the effort to seize our guns.

MayBee said...

Are the Democrats really going to go on this idea that if you are on an administrative list, you can't buy a gun. Are the Democrats really going to take the no-due process route? Is this better or worse than the idea of limiting immigration?

Bob Boyd said...

"[Hillary] is helping Donald Trump get elected."

She is the single best argument for voting Trump. She is the reason NeverTrump is failing.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Are the Democrats really going to take the no-due process route?"

--> Maybe, but remember, in their mind: Very smart people are making this list, checked by other very smart people. They honestly believe that it would be a bunch of very smart people, together, making intelligent, informed decisions. Instead of what we saw with the IRS, where they threw some words into a blender and started rejecting anything that seemed kinda-sorta related to those words.

These are the same people who think that university administrators are excellent stand ins for the actual courts and justice system, again because they have faith in really smart people doing really smart things.

buwaya puti said...

Part of the realism problem here is that the next terror attack could involve some innocuous thing like the Boston pressure cookers. Or Joe Bidens shotguns, my money is on that, these are much more readily available under the table in private sales or swaps, as household goods, and untraceable.

Matthew Sablan said...

Which, when I say it, sounds sarcastic, because I am being that. But, they honestly, truly believe that with enough smart people, they can do better than trusting the legal system.

It's hubris, not maliciousness that leads to these decisions, and it is important to remember that so you don't fall into the trap of thinking they're evil.

Laslo Spatula said...

Girl with the Pony Tail on the Treadmill:

I fired a gun once.

(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)

I was with a boyfriend at his family's ranch. They were SOOOO 'country', but they were nice.

(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)

So my boyfriend and his brother were out back, drinking beer and shooting bottles off a fence, when they asked me if I'd like to try.

(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)

At first I said 'no', but then I thought 'why not?'

(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)

I missed the bottles.

(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)

But I kinda liked it. Powerful.

(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)

BANG! BANG! BANG!

(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)

It was probably the closest I'll ever come to having a penis.

(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)

I mean, I totally get the gun/cock thing.

(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)

I bet I could shoot a rapist.

(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)

Or a child molester.

(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)

If I had an Audi and someone tried to car-jack me I'd pull my gun out and say "Not MY Audi, Motherfucker."

(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)

I can be a bad-ass if I want to.

(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)

(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)

I totally get the gun/cock thing.

(pony-tail swish, pony-tail swish)


I am Laslo.

Larry J said...

Matthew Sablan said...

Let's get our government agencies working properly BEFORE we give them more responsibilities/


What a quaint notion! Don't you know that our government employs only the best and brightest people in the country? If they don't know how to do something at first, give them some time (decades) and billions of dollars and they'll eventually figure out something. /sarc

It's like with health care. If you look at the government health care programs that already exist, such as at the VA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Medicare, and Medicaid, you'll see countless examples of waste and substandard treatment. So, what's the solution? Why, lets go single payer and let the government run all health care! There just has to be a pony somewhere in that warehouse full of manure.

The government is like a well-meaning (sometimes) but incompetent relative who fancies himself a handyman. You've tried throwing some work his way but all of this projects come in late, over budget, and of poor quality. You often end up having to pay someone else to fix the mess he made. He hears that you're wanting to build a new house and insists on being your general contractor. What do you do? Do you give him the job?

pm317 said...

We have to make it harder for people who should not have those weapons of war.

I think she is making a distinction about the type of weapon and it is not blanket gun control. But she should perhaps clarify more.

Bob Ellison said...

MayBee said, "Are the Democrats really going to take the no-due process route?"

They would be fine with that, because even though such a law would probably die in court, it might survive long enough to make people think it's a good idea.

The ultimate goal is absolute power over individuals. Any way they can get there will work. One step at a time.

David Begley said...

Ann Althouse wrote, "she is helping Donald Trump get elected."

Hillary is trying to win and she thinks "common sense gun laws" will get her votes.

Bruce Hayden said...

The big reason that black plastic and metal rifles and carbines are scary is that our military adopted the select fre versions of these firearms ver 50 years ago, and by now, they have been surplus send to almost every police and sherriff's department in the country. So, for a half a century, most of the rifles and carbines utilized in movies and TV are black plastic and metal. Never mind that fully automatic versions are shown blazing away, when that is quite rare in real life, thanks to the 1934 NFA and later legislation that closed the registry of legal machine guns that can be owned by civilians (after jumping over a number of hurdles). Hillary's "Weapons of War" are the select fire versions of these civilian firearms, which means that they are classed as machine guns under the NFA, and have been for over 80 years now.

coupe said...

Make America great again.

When I was growing up the mantra was that we are in the land of the free, and the home of the brave. This may have been a male thing.

We seem to no longer want to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. We blow our treasury buying protection with massive forts (around airplanes) and hiring a billion police who increase our security maybe 2%.

A nation has to be willing to take a body count. We shouldn't expect to die in bed, if all we do is trust others to nanny us and write us tickets when we don't submit.

As far as I'm concerned Mrs. Clinton is un-American. But it may be just because she is a woman. She may not be equipped to honor freedom and bravery.

buwaya puti said...

An IQ test for gun purchases may have a marginal but measurable effect on the casualty rate, but would be difficult to sell politically. That would be sensible policy, a true improvement.

It would be of little use in the bulk of criminal cases, such as the ongoing Chicago massacre, as the criminals may be dim but they dont get their guns legally anyway.
It wouldnt help with terrorists, most arent dim, whatever their other problems.

AprilApple said...

It's embarrassing that she has any supporters at all. She's a crook and a liar.

Larry J said...

Fabi said...
The gun control issue is a winner for the democrats. She should probably step it up and call for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment!


Last week, a court in California ruled that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to concealed carry. That's a decision that will likely make it to the supreme court. You don't have to look too hard to figure out what kind of people Hillary would nominate to the court. She wouldn't have to go through all of the hassle to amend the Constitution to rid us of the 2nd Amendment. Her court nominees would do that for her far quicker and easier than the amendment process. There are four people on the court that will almost always vote the way Democrats want. Care to let Hillary fill the current and future vacancies? After all, the Constitution only means what 5 or more supreme court justices says it means, actual text not withstanding.

AprilApple said...

Notice her words. She uses words to bend the meaning of her true intentions. Fuck her.

Matthew Sablan said...

"An IQ test for gun purchases may have a marginal but measurable effect on the casualty rate, but would be difficult to sell politically."

--> And should be deemed just as unconstitutional as intelligence tests to vote. You can't restrict rights like that. You could say people who are not mentally competent cannot purchase guns, but you'd have to define what that means, ways to appeal the decision, safeguards for it, etc.

But an IQ test shouldn't stand a Supreme Court challenge.

MayBee said...

Maybe, but remember, in their mind: Very smart people are making this list, checked by other very smart people. They honestly believe that it would be a bunch of very smart people, together, making intelligent, informed decisions. Instead of what we saw with the IRS, where they threw some words into a blender and started rejecting anything that seemed kinda-sorta related to those words.

Yes, but I think it's more like, they are fine with it because *they* are the ones making the list, and it doesn't bother them if too many people are put on it.

And I think Bob Ellison is right, too. If it passed it would be enough to declare victory, kind of like Obamacare, which is riddled with problems but so what it passed.

buwaya puti said...

I suggest that demographics has had quite an effect on the "land of the brave". The birthrate and consequent reduction in family size has made most people, those who manage to reproduce, put all their hopes in one or two kids. There are no "spares" as a casualty margin. That may be an unconscious influence across the culture.

richlb said...

The bigger boost for Trump will be the LGBT angle. While everyone will continue to prattle on about transgenders in girls' bathrooms, Trump will be pushing self defense. This weekend reminded gays that there can be a life or death component (from the Muslim point of view) and that protecting themselves is way more important than what bathroom they are legally allowed to occupy. (yes, I know gay and transgendered aren't the same thing)

Bruce Hayden said...

Here is the thing to remember - Hillary is protected by men with machine guns. You probably can't afford to own a machine gun, even if you could overcome all of the legal hurdles put in place to prevent you from doing so. She definitely got machine gun protection when she moved into the White House in 1993 (and, yes, the Secret Service has even heavier weapons at its disposal), and may have had it as 1st Lady of Arkansas.

Bob Ellison said...

coupe said, "As far as I'm concerned Mrs. Clinton is un-American. But it may be just because she is a woman. She may not be equipped to honor freedom and bravery."

Dude. That's outright genderism. Women can be patriots and heroines. I don't mean to sound sarcastic here. What you wrote is bad.

Sebastian said...

"You can't predict the future with certainty" Same with the past.

For example, ten years ago, no one could have predicted with certainty that the 14th Amendment required SSM.

MayBee said...

Carol Costello on CNN is so stupid. She's at a gun shop, asking why there isn't a question on the form for people to check whether or not they've ever been on the terror watch list.
Then she's talking to security experts about how that question can be not on the form? Isn't that terrible???

Carol-- you are not told if you are on the FBI terror watch list! That is one of the problems with using the list!!

coupe said...

The problem isn't "weapons of war", the problem is insane Americans.

Politicians are just not inclined to fund mental health care, but instead spend trillions on police protection from these insane Americans.

A mental health doctor or nurse are seen as dead-beats. The policemen are seen as political power.

It was all designed by the Prussians.

MayBee said...

The follow-up to the guy in LA near the gay pride event who was arrested with guns and explosives:
An Indiana man arrested in California over the weekend with three assault rifles had been ordered by a judge in April to give up all his guns, but authorities in his home state said Monday they had not made any surprise checks to confirm he was following the probation requirement.

James Wesley Howell was arrested early Sunday in Santa Monica, California, with the weapons and explosives in a car he apparently drove from Indiana. He told police he was headed to a gay pride event in West Hollywood that attracts hundreds of thousands of people...

An Indiana probation officer met with Howell, 20, of Charlestown, Indiana, three weeks ago, rated him a low-level offender, and had yet to schedule the in-home visit, said James Hayden, chief probation officer in Clark County.

Howell didn't have permission to leave Indiana after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor intimidation charge. Authorities there are seeking to have him returned as a probation violator.

The FBI is continuing to investigate.

"We have processed the vehicle and are consulting with prosecutors to determine if charges apply," said Laura Eimiller, an FBI spokeswoman in Los Angeles.

Court records in Indiana and friends depict Howell as a gun enthusiast with a quick temper.

Twice within four days last October he was accused of pulling a gun and making threats. The first incident involved Howell's then-boyfriend and the second a neighbor, identified in police records as Jeremy Hebert.

Gusty Winds said...

Hillary not only has that small audience cheering her, she has the hosts of the Today Show and CBS morning show asking Trump, "why not support Hillary's suggested ban".

Morning Joe has gone full righteous indignation. She's got the NY Daily News linking the NRA to the shooter and ISIS. The Dems walk out on a moment of silence in the House to protest guns.

CNN panels are 6 on 1 for Hillary (or nevertrump)

Trump is confronted by interviewers and protestors that challenge him all the time.

Hillary doesn't face the same.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Trump is confronted by interviewers and protestors that challenge him all the time."

-- This has been true of Democrat vs Republican since I've been politically aware. You take it as a given that the media is hostile to the Republican. Remember: Obama made a joke about McCain's inability to use a keyboard -- an inability related to a disability from an injury he received while being tortured -- and McCain spent money to buy an ad congratulating Obama on his primary victory. The media told us that Obama was mild mannered, nice and polite, and that McCain had temper problems and rude.

Romney suspended business when he was in charge of Bain Capital to have his employees go looking for a missing girl -- and found her! But he was a soulless executive who only saw the bottom line.

The media is not a friend of Republicans. They never will be. Accept it, and adjust accordingly.

Bob Boyd said...

If you lose your right to buy a gun because you are on the FBI watch list, you will never get that right back, even if you are cleared. Mateen was cleared, then bought weapons and killed 49 people. If he is the justifying example for the policy, how can you justify restoring the right to buy a gun?
The policy will only be expanded. It will apply to other lists, the no-fly list, the DHS watch list, ATF and DEA will want their own no-gun watch lists. Soon local agencies will have watch lists that deny gun purchases. You probably won't even be allowed to know which agency has denied you your right. There will just be a flag on your back ground check, but you won't be able to find out who or why without considerable time and expense.

JAORE said...

MayBee said, "Are the Democrats really going to take the no-due process route?"

Have you not been following the campus "rape crisis" reporting?

And let's not even mention no free speech.

robother said...

Repeal of the Second Amendment? What a quaint notion. You just appoint one more Democrat SCOTUS justice, and the Constitution means whatever the fuck Progressives want it to mean.

coupe said...

Bob Ellison said...What you wrote is bad.

I made a logical conclusion. It is up to women to defend their honor, and deny that Mrs. Clinton represents their thinking and their gender.

You can't call someone "bad" or a "misogynist" who makes a logical inference from a political speech, or a political movement.

You can't be called brave, if you tell people to run, and to not arm themselves as per the Constitution demands we do.

Armed brave people created this country, and like the native savages, anyone who doesn't want to participate should be put on Reservations or massacred.

Hagar said...

Mateen was a security guard working for a highly regarded agency and assigned to courthouse duty.
There is no law ever contemplated that would have stopped him from acquiring weapons.

Pettifogger said...

I like the observation that, if we can keep guns out of the hands of bad people with a gun ban, perhaps we should try that with other things, say a drug ban.

buwaya puti said...

True, Mateen worked for G4S, which has a great number of sensitive security contracts, among others, critical infrastructure operators. A "mole" in an outfit like G4S could do far more damage than killing 50 people.

JPS said...

Hagar:

"There is no law ever contemplated that would have stopped him from acquiring weapons."

Except a total ban and confiscation. Which the "common sense gun control" people insist they don't want.

Of course, Mateen's imam was in prison in part for illegal weapons charges, so if they got all the laws they ever contemplated, it would have presented at best a minor inconvenience to him.

I think the principle is that when something happens that upsets us all, we owe it to them to concede some major policy fight to them.

rhhardin said...

It's always a discussion of which way the moron vote will go. Meaning mostly women.

Mary Beth said...

The shooter had government issued permits for CCW and as a security officer. I'm not sure how this is supposed to convince me that the government can do a good job of deciding who may have a gun.

MayBee said...

The FBI needs to re-evaluate its assumptions.

They stopped investigating Mateen because he had a wife and child so they considered him "stable". He talked about supporting groups that politically are enemies. As if that matters to a guy in the US who just wants to use the ideology.
Their assumptions are outdated and they need to adapt. They also need to follow up, like you would with a sales lead.
It would be nice if they found a way to do things other than making things harder for everyone.

MayBee said...

Can we all agree that most of the people of the left who talk about common sense gun control really just want to do away with guns?

cubanbob said...

If only the cops have "weapons of war" then the prog activists would be right; we would be living under a military occupation. So are the progs down with having country under military occupation? If so, then the Army should just boot Obama out the door, dismiss Congress and run the country. Just think how safer neighborhoods would be if drug dealers and other criminals were routinely summarily executed. Make America Safe Again.

As for Trump being challenged regarding gun control his retort should be we need nut and criminal control instead. No parole for violent criminals and and people under FBI investigation should be banned from seeking public office and nuts should be put back in nut houses.

Writ Small said...

Hillary is probably making a mistake on gun control, but I watched and listened to both speeches. Hillary was far better than Trump. Trump's teleprompter reading was terrible and he needs to fire his speechwriters. Hillary was calm, steely, and magnanimous when she talked about Bush post 9/11. Trump made it too much about himself and his attacks on Hillary came across halting and petty.

Probably not many watched and Trump will surely adjust, but the comparison was awful for Donald. If I were him, I'd avoid teleprompter speeches from now on. Hillary is a crook, but if I didn't know the issues and just starting paying attention to the race after the shooting, I'd be supporting her.

Michael McClain said...

As we face increasing violence from ISIS-inspired jihadi scum, the DemCong seek to remove any means of self-defense we may have.

Certainly the country is in the best of hands.

damikesc said...

Dems cannot help themselves. This has been a loser issue for them for a long time and they won't stop going to it.

AllenS said...

Writ Small, please consider the fact that Trump isn't a politician. Beware of smooth talkers. Con men (and women) are smooth talkers.

coupe said...

With radical Islam swimming ashore in Europe and America, this isn't the time to disarm.

jr565 said...

I think the perfect response to the gun control argument is to point out the guy in the club who was texting his mom telling her that hes trapped and to call the cops.
He is demanding that someeone WITH A GUN come in and stop this guy before he kills him (the guy who posted that text was ultimately killed)
They say that when only seconds count, cops are minutes away. And int is case HOURS away. So you are on your own. in such cases you should have the means to defend yourself.

Yancey Ward said...

Writ Small,

I agree that Trump shouldn't be reading his speech, but you are making a mistake about who the audience is- you aren't the audience Trump is trying to reach, nor am I for that matter.

Here is a quote from up the thread (or an earlier one, can't remember):

"This looks to be another election where each side just tries to turn out their base. So don't expect any aisle-reaching."

That quote is half right. If you can understand which half is wrong and which is right, then you will understand, better, the two speeches. Trump has understood how to win almost from the start, while his opponents in the primaries didn't.

Take Clinton's speech- had she the nerve and wits to leave out the gun-control part, she would have been reaching out past the Democratic Party- but she just couldn't manage to do it. Her only concession, wrung out of her by Trump himself, was to acknowledge this was a jihadist, and she only grudgingly acknowledged that. The problem with focusing on the gun-control issue is the very fact of the attacks in France, or the ongoing carnage in the inner cities- add to that the internally inconsistent stances on other kinds of bans she must maintain, and it really undercuts everything she said yesterday. Trump is happily taking the ground she is forced to concede to the more extreme elements of her base.

Fritz said...

Matthew Sablan said...
"Are the Democrats really going to take the no-due process route?"

--> Maybe, but remember, in their mind: Very smart people are making this list, checked by other very smart people. They honestly believe that it would be a bunch of very smart people, together, making intelligent, informed decisions. Instead of what we saw with the IRS, where they threw some words into a blender and started rejecting anything that seemed kinda-sorta related to those words.

These are the same people who think that university administrators are excellent stand ins for the actual courts and justice system, again because they have faith in really smart people doing really smart things.


And they believe it. In today's WaPo: Report says 99% of feds ‘fully successful’ or better at work. Is that credible?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/14/report-says-99-of-feds-fully-successful-or-better-at-work-is-that-credible/

Kind of Lake Woebegone on the Potomac.

Big Mike said...

If she doesn't resist the temptation to follow the encouragement of crowds like this, she is helping Donald Trump get elected.

She won't resist because she can't resist. Since the principles that guide her are (1) increasing her political power so as to (2) make lots and lots of money, and because (3) she has learned that pandering to whomever is in front of her is a way to achieve goals (1) and (2), then get used to saying "President Trump."

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
coupe said...

I met with my hot rod buddies for an early lunch, and my friend Antonio said something that made me laugh.

People think they need an M-16 to save their ass or the country, but in fact we all know that an Italian 6.5mm bolt-action rifle can change history.

We even honor snipers with books and movies, well, maybe not Oswald and Whitman...

cubanbob said...

Blogger coupe said...
I met with my hot rod buddies for an early lunch, and my friend Antonio said something that made me laugh.

People think they need an M-16 to save their ass or the country, but in fact we all know that an Italian 6.5mm bolt-action rifle can change history.

We even honor snipers with books and movies, well, maybe not Oswald and Whitman...

6/14/16, 11:55 AM"

I'm no expert on guns but I read that the Germans in 1914 were suitably impressed and terrified with the volume and rapidity of the fire of the British troops firing their bolt action rifles. I suspect that the Orlando Jihadi could have killed just as many with a bolt action rifle as he did with the semi automatic with sufficient range time practice.

cubanbob said...

Whether or not this horror show helps Trump I don't know but as more facts come out I don't see how it helps Hillary or Democrats. On the contrary, it just highlights government incompetence and the left's mendacity.

The Godfather said...

In response to Pulse we could:

a) Ban all guns; or

b) Ban all Muslims.

We won't do either, and neither one would work if we did.

So we'll do less; we'll either:

c) Ban some guns; or

d) Ban some Muslims.

We might do one of both of these, and that won't work either.

Welcome to the real world.

tola'at sfarim said...

should people under an fbi investigation be allowed to own guns? have armed bodyguards? run for elected office?

MayBee said...

Obama just said Trump's talk drives Muslims into the arms of terrorist groups.

Imagine- just imagine- if Bush had said things like that about Obama's calls to end the Iraq war immediately. Or anything like that about Obama.

I am not for Trump. But that doesn't make me agree with Hillary. I feel trapped.

Michael said...

Obama does not believe Muslims have agency. If you speak ill of them it is a recruiting tool. Nothing much you can do or say about them that is negative is anything other than a recruiting tool. It is Obama stupid speak of which we have only a few more months of.

As Hilare Belloc famously said: Whatever happens we have got, the Maxim Gun, and they have not.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

cubanbob said...

I'm no expert on guns but I read that the Germans in 1914 were suitably impressed and terrified with the volume and rapidity of the fire of the British troops firing their bolt action rifles.


Well, I am something of an expert on guns, and this rings a little hollow. The reference might be to the British SMLE's ability to hold ten rounds in its magazine. Some also think the SMLE's "cock on closing" action is marginally faster than other modes. However, the Germans were equipped with their own bolt-action rifle, the Mauser Gewehr 98, which held five rounds. In many respects this is a superior rifle to the SMLE. In fact, the US 1903 Springfield was based on the Mauser action. The US Government was still paying royalties to Mauser when we entered hostilities in 1917. Point is, it was bolt-action vs. bolt-action without any huge advantage to either side.

Pettifogger said...

What the Dems and media call assault rifles are merely semiautomatic carbines with an appearance manyassociate with military weapons. Most modern weapons are semiautomatic.

The last time the Dems banned what they called assault weapons, they focused on appearance. They were roundly derided for failing to understand the weapons' functionality. If there's a next time, which I'm betting there is, they're likely to focus on functionality. If you ban semiautomatic carbines, why wouldn't you ban semiautomatic handguns?

The only advantage of the carbine is better accuracy. In the close environment of a nightclub, that better accuracy was wasted. A handgun would have done the same damage. But if you ban semiautomatic handguns, you ban most handguns on the market. Of course, to the media and the Dems, that's a feature, not a bug.

JAORE said...

" Point is, it was bolt-action vs. bolt-action without any huge advantage to either side."

I agree, but I'd give the 8mm Mauser the functional edge due, if nothing else, to ballistics (although commercial rounds are often loaded to low pressures) and a bottle neck versus rimmed cartridge.

But the 7mm Mauser, now that remains a sweet little honey.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

But the 7mm Mauser, now that remains a sweet little honey.

I just bought my first 7x57, a 1901/1902 Remington rolling block. With practice, I may be able to fire that puppy ten times a minute.

grackle said...

If she doesn't resist the temptation to follow the encouragement of crowds like this, she is helping Donald Trump get elected.

They can’t help it. It’s what they do.

The gun-grabbers have to promote the false narrative that the AR-15 is a military weapon so they can claim civilians have no right to own them. This and other false narratives comprise most of their anti-gun arguments.

So they’ll continue peddling the lie that the weapons used in these shootings are “assault” weapons when the truth is that no assault weapon has ever been used in any of these mass shootings. But the uninformed, which includes possibly every MSM reporter, pundit and talking head in the country and many propagandized and misinformed citizens, will perpetuate the lie.

Gun control has been a losing issue for the Democrats nationally. I think it will stay that way despite the fog of anti-gun propaganda put out by the MSM in the wake of this latest atrocity.

I classify this as the usual obligatory temporary progressive virtue-signaling after a mass shooting, this time due to Orlando – it happens after all these shootings, a ritual bonding of the ignorant led by the fabulists. She’ll drop it after awhile – I assume she has internal polling …

Trump's teleprompter reading was terrible and he needs to fire his speechwriters.

Problem is … THAT might involve firing himself. But no doubt about it, Trump needs to practice his teleprompter technique.

Paul said...

Since Hillary said your rights should be suspended if you are under FBI investigation, shouldn't she quit the race?

Yes, not withstanding all the GOP old men crying over Trump's remarks, Trump will win, by a landslide cause PEOPLE ARE FED UP.

JAORE said...

"I just bought my first 7x57, a 1901/1902 Remington rolling block."

Cue the jealousy monster! I passed on one at a gun show in Idaho many years ago. Have regretted it ever since. Congratulations.

grackle said...

I made a logical conclusion … [etc.]

You can't call someone "bad" or a "misogynist” … [etc., etc.] …

You can't be called brave, … [etc.]

Armed brave people created this country, and like the native savages, anyone who doesn't want to participate should be put on Reservations or massacred.

Fairly pedestrian stuff, vaguely rightwing but off-kilter somehow and then … that last declaration. Whew!

Some other material from the commentor:

A nation has to be willing to take a body count.

Vaguely reminiscent of dialogue from Tropic Thunder or Dr. Strangelove.

A mental health doctor or nurse are seen as dead-beats. The policemen are seen as political power. It was all designed by the Prussians.

Incoherent. Weird.

People think they need an M-16 to save their ass or the country, but in fact we all know that an Italian 6.5mm bolt-action rifle can change history. We even honor snipers with books and movies, well, maybe not Oswald and Whitman...

The too obvious purpose here is to link guns with infamous acts.

As far as I'm concerned Mrs. Clinton is un-American. But it may be just because she is a woman. She may not be equipped to honor freedom and bravery.


I think it’s a moby. Either that or pass the fruitcake - but my money’s on moby.