Disarming Lawful Americans

 

The tragedy in Uvalde is real. The emotions are raw. The story — other than the results — still unclear.

Mrs Rodin and I listened to pResident Biden last night as his speech was broadcast in the latter portion of Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News. Before the speech, Tucker expressed a wish that the president would deliver a healing, not a divisive address. This “priming” was a bit off-putting, but understandable given what Progressives were already saying as the health professionals continued to try and save bleeding and broken bodies.

And then the president spoke. Initially his speech was a profound reflection on the feeling of parents losing children. Biden has lost two, so regardless of any current cognitive limits, those feelings of loss and anguish must remain real. But then he launched into his “gun control” spiel with vigor and animation. We have heard it before, over and over again. It was precisely what Tucker had feared Biden would do.

Tucker’s response:

Tucker Carlson: “The President of the United States, frail, confused, bitterly partisan, desecrating on the memory of recently murdered children with tired talking points from the Democratic Party. Dividing the country in a moment of deep pain rather than uniting. His voice rising, amplified only as he is repeating the talking points from over 35 years in the United States Senate. Personal politics being the only thing that amplifies him. Unfit for leadership of this country… I’m in shock.”

Mrs Rodin thought this ungenerous and in some ways set up by Tucker’s priming earlier in the broadcast. That Tucker’s response was as dishonorable as the president’s speech. And in some ways that is true. But the context is unspoken and must be kept clearly in mind:

Progressive politicians have never been more permissive about gun violence and crime in the places they control than they are now. Progressive politicians punish law enforcement except for enforcement that favors their political agenda. Progressive politicians want a government and criminals’ monopoly on violence, not just a government monopoly. This leaves lawful citizens at the mercy of government and criminals.

(Change my mind.)

Thus any talk about restricting lawful ownership of weapons has to be understood within this context and the people need to understand the implications of adopting Progressive-style gun control. It is to disarm lawful Americans and to make them subject to whatever whims government may have, including making us vulnerable to any “favored” predators.

In that context, Tucker was in no way intemperate or ungenerous. We cannot permit tragedies to empower tyranny.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 30 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    As always happens, good people will be harassed, and bad people will easily find ways to get whatever weapons they want. The situation won’t be improved by the government’s actions.

    • #1
  2. Dbroussa Coolidge
    Dbroussa
    @Dbroussa

    It’s possible to unify. It’s possible to recognize a horror and “smell” the pain and frustration that the country feels. It’s possible that can be done, and even to commit to “doing something” about it without being political. It’s not possible for Joe Biden to do that.

    • #2
  3. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Dbroussa (View Comment):

    It’s possible to unify. It’s possible to recognize a horror and “smell” the pain and frustration that the country feels. It’s possible that can be done, and even to commit to “doing something” about it without being political. It’s not possible for Joe Biden to do that.

    It isn’t possible for the left to do that. They are 100% political. The soulless, godless heathens they spawn kill gleefully. Godless creatures themselves, they are unable to admit the failure of secularism and convert. Their goal is to disarm and control us. They will not let a tragedy go to waste.

    • #3
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    The Left will sacrifice just about anything to meet their agenda. Even the lives of innocent children.

    • #4
  5. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Rodin, you penned a masterpiece

    • #5
  6. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    The last President I recall making remarks that were truly healing in a time of tragedy was Ronald Reagan.  And that’s not just because he had better speech writers.   The immediate (before anyone really knows what happened), prime-time (if there is such a thing in this internet age) remarks were the first giveaway that this would be purposeful and partisan.

    Young people are shot and wounded or killed every single day in Chicago.  Speak to that sometime, Mr. President.

    Will Cain was on Tucker after the President finished, and he spoke of the spiritual rot in our country.  He said that some people worship politics, that we as a nation have lost meaning and that Biden’s remarks were callous, partisan and, despite quoting the Bible, not spiritual.

     

     

    • #6
  7. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The Left will sacrifice just about anything to meet their agenda. Even the lives of innocent children.

    Given their stance on abortion, gender theory, and CRT  I would go so far to say especially the lives of innocent children.

    • #7
  8. DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax)
    @DonG

    Dbroussa (View Comment):

    It’s possible to unify. It’s possible to recognize a horror and “smell” the pain and frustration that the country feels. It’s possible that can be done, and even to commit to “doing something” about it without being political. It’s not possible for Joe Biden to do that.

    Too many politicians and demagogues and not enough systems engineers.

    • #8
  9. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    I’m still waiting for any advocate of any gun control measure to explain how such gun control measure would have prevented any of the mass shootings of the last twenty years. 

    Gun purchase or possession laws would not, as almost all of the perpetrators stole the guns they used. Some may have used “straw purchasers,” which is already illegal, but many prosecutors do not prosecute straw purchases as a matter of policy.

    Magazine capacity limits would not reduce the carnage, as most of the perpetrators prepared by bringing multiple guns. But magazine capacity limits do limit the ability of defenders to defend the targets, as they are not in a position to prepare with multiple guns.

     Bullet identification (if it were practical) might be useful to solve some street crime, but not so much in mass shootings, as the shooter generally makes his presence clear, and the authorities have little doubt as to where the bullets are coming from.

    I suppose maybe “smart guns” that use some type of biometric link between the gun and the authorized user (often proposed as fingerprint ID) might limit the ability of the shooter to use a stolen gun, but would also prevent associates of the authorized user from using the gun to defend the authorized user. And those of us with fingerprint identification on our smart phones know how often such  technology fails to identify the authorized user, which would be a problem if the authorized user needed to use the gun for defensive purposes.

    I am skeptical of proposals to restrict the freedoms of people who appear that they might become violent. In order to ensure we got all the people who would actually become violent, we’d end up restricting the freedoms of a lot of people who in fact would not become violent. Because predicting human behavior is inexact, we’d have to be over-inclusive in who we restrict. And the potential for abuse is large. 

    • #9
  10. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    I’ve now read the text of Biden’s remarks. Since I didn’t do so in the context of Carlson’s remarks, I can comment only on Biden’s remarks as a standalone speech. 

    Beyond the first few sentences, it is a horrible, divisive, ill-informed speech that can only be the product of ignorance. His words revealed a lack of familiarity with the issues, a failure to appreciate the incorrectness of the presumptions on which he relies, and a failure to understand the American people. 

    Out of about 820 words, only about 230 were even remotely about comfort and healing. The remaining 590 words were political grandstanding. Over two-thirds of his remarks were political grandstanding. That is disgusting, and will not help move the country toward any useful answers. No wonder I have no interest in listening to what he says. 

     

    • #10
  11. Dbroussa Coolidge
    Dbroussa
    @Dbroussa

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    I’m still waiting for any advocate of any gun control measure to explain how such gun control measure would have prevented any of the mass shootings of the last twenty years.

    Absent confiscation of all firearms, there really aren’t many.  One has only to look at the Sutherland Springs shooter who passed a background check after he had a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction that the USAF didn’t bother to report into the NCIS database

    Gun purchase or possession laws would not, as almost all of the perpetrators stole the guns they used. Some may have used “straw purchasers,” which is already illegal, but many prosecutors do not prosecute straw purchases as a matter of policy.

    Many (most) bought them legally, and passed a background check, so the cry for more background checks really isn’t applicable.  One might ask the question if certain warning signs should be added to the background checks, and if they would be permanent or temporary.  As a person who suffers from depression, should I be on a list that prevents me from purchasing firearms?  Should a kid who threatened violence against others?  We can talk about it, but no matter what happens, someone is going to lose rights.

    I suppose maybe “smart guns” that use some type of biometric link between the gun and the authorized user (often proposed as fingerprint ID) might limit the ability of the shooter to use a stolen gun, but would also prevent associates of the authorized user from using the gun to defend the authorized user. And those of us with fingerprint identification on our smart phones know how often such technology fails to identify the authorized user, which would be a problem if the authorized user needed to use the gun for defensive purposes.

    I dislike such technology, because it can be hacked or disabled when you most need it.

    I am skeptical of proposals to restrict the freedoms of people who appear that they might become violent. In order to ensure we got all the people who would actually become violent, we’d end up restricting the freedoms of a lot of people who in fact would not become violent. Because predicting human behavior is inexact, we’d have to be over-inclusive in who we restrict. And the potential for abuse is large.

    I am cautiously in favor of red flag orders, but they need to some specific protections.  For example, if it is abused by say, an Ex, to punish their former spouse, then there should be penalties, but then again, Sutherland Springs.  I would hope that we could use judges to adjudicate these, but won’t that mean more case backlog?  These types of issues need to be thought through and how Texas solves it might be different from CA, and that’s OK.

    • #11
  12. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    @Dbroussa is correct. I will add:

    Remember when the VA thought having someone else manage your finances was enough to trigger a red flag?

    My older iPhone and iPad don’t recognize my fingerprint when I am a little dehydrated.

    Guns that only work for one person will increase gun sales – his and hers – child’s – no more renting at the range.

     

    • #12
  13. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    I’m still waiting for any advocate of any gun control measure to explain how such gun control measure would have prevented any of the mass shootings of the last twenty years. 

    That one is easy.  Take all guns from everybody but the police or those on the Left with money.  

    • #13
  14. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    I’m still waiting for any advocate of any gun control measure to explain how such gun control measure would have prevented any of the mass shootings of the last twenty years.

    That one is easy. Take all guns from everybody but the police or those on the Left with money.

    Well, I understand that (generally minus the last phrase) is the preliminary response, even uttered by then-Senatorial, now Governor candidate Robert O’Rourke. But then I follow with, “And how many people are you willing to have killed to accomplish that? Because you are going to have to kill people for whom ‘only when you pry it out of my cold dead hands’ is more than a rhetorical phrase.” Of course I get silence, since they haven’t thought through how anything gets accomplished. 

    • #14
  15. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    I’m still waiting for any advocate of any gun control measure to explain how such gun control measure would have prevented any of the mass shootings of the last twenty years.

    That one is easy. Take all guns from everybody but the police or those on the Left with money.

    Well, I understand that (generally minus the last phrase) is the preliminary response, even uttered by then-Senatorial, now Governor candidate Robert O’Rourke. But then I follow with, “And how many people are you willing to have killed to accomplish that? Because you are going to have to kill people for whom ‘only when you pry it out of my cold dead hands’ is more than a rhetorical phrase.” Of course I get silence, since they haven’t thought through how anything gets accomplished.

    I’ll add if they try this now we will have a second civil war.  Trust in the government is at an all time low.  If the come from the guns that will be the spark that will ignite the powder keg.

    • #15
  16. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    The left lives for demonization, moral preening, and control. But it is getting tiresome despite the magnified volume they can produce in all forms of media. I doubt that all the people who recently became first-time gun buyers after watching cities burn are now going to press their representatives to come and take those new guns away.

    I tell the lefties that the problem is that they have so diluted the “word” evil by applying it to Trump, normal parents, lower taxes, even Romney, or anyone or anything to the right of Nancy Pelosi that they have made it harder to see and confront real evil.  Satan was never a regulatory issue.

    Was the problem with Hitler a lack of treaties/laws for Panzer-control or was it pure ideological evil that needed to be opposed by any means possible?

    What are we doing wrong that so many young men become so disconnected and deeply warped?  Maybe it’s time to dial back the rah rah for “girl power” and taking only daughters to work and instead take a  very hard look at the pernicious cultural assault on positive masculinity and reconnect some lost boys.

    • #16
  17. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    The first impulse of Democrats after a mass shooting is to disarm law-abiding citizens. It isn’t just unconstitutional and immoral — it’s stupid. 

    I have the opposite reaction. Train and arm the teachers and administrators to prevent mass deaths at schools. Heck, mass shooters would likely pick a different target if they knew every adult in the building was prepared to stop them. An armed society is a polite society, as the saying goes. 

    My second reaction is, “why does anyone have their kids in public schools at this point?” It’s so toxic, they’d be better off being uneducated than indoctrinated into leftist ideology. [I know, I know, it’s complicated. But, not really. It means making sacrifices. Protect the babies.]

    • #17
  18. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    I’m still waiting for any advocate of any gun control measure to explain how such gun control measure would have prevented any of the mass shootings of the last twenty years.

    That one is easy. Take all guns from everybody but the police or those on the Left with money.

    Well, I understand that (generally minus the last phrase) is the preliminary response, even uttered by then-Senatorial, now Governor candidate Robert O’Rourke. But then I follow with, “And how many people are you willing to have killed to accomplish that? Because you are going to have to kill people for whom ‘only when you pry it out of my cold dead hands’ is more than a rhetorical phrase.” Of course I get silence, since they haven’t thought through how anything gets accomplished.

    Seems that COVID proved you can do what ever you want with the populace.  Stuff like laws. legal, right, justice do not matter much any more.  Once you start killing a few people and their kids people will sort out.  

    • #18
  19. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    I notice that people who call for “universal background checks ” seem to think cops go out and investigate each buyer. They don’t realize that it is a database scan kinda like credit card approval. Unless there is triggering information provided by law enforcement, nothing more is done.

     

    • #19
  20. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    I’m still waiting for any advocate of any gun control measure to explain how such gun control measure would have prevented any of the mass shootings of the last twenty years.

    That one is easy. Take all guns from everybody but the police or those on the Left with money.

    Well, I understand that (generally minus the last phrase) is the preliminary response, even uttered by then-Senatorial, now Governor candidate Robert O’Rourke. But then I follow with, “And how many people are you willing to have killed to accomplish that? Because you are going to have to kill people for whom ‘only when you pry it out of my cold dead hands’ is more than a rhetorical phrase.” Of course I get silence, since they haven’t thought through how anything gets accomplished.

    Seems that COVID proved you can do what ever you want with the populace. Stuff like laws. legal, right, justice do not matter much any more. Once you start killing a few people and their kids people will sort out.

    Depends on where you live.  It would not be well received where I live.  I suspect if the current federal government were to try that it would be the end of the US as we know it.  

    • #20
  21. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    I’m still waiting for any advocate of any gun control measure to explain how such gun control measure would have prevented any of the mass shootings of the last twenty years.

    That one is easy. Take all guns from everybody but the police or those on the Left with money.

    Well, I understand that (generally minus the last phrase) is the preliminary response, even uttered by then-Senatorial, now Governor candidate Robert O’Rourke. But then I follow with, “And how many people are you willing to have killed to accomplish that? Because you are going to have to kill people for whom ‘only when you pry it out of my cold dead hands’ is more than a rhetorical phrase.” Of course I get silence, since they haven’t thought through how anything gets accomplished.

    Seems that COVID proved you can do what ever you want with the populace. Stuff like laws. legal, right, justice do not matter much any more. Once you start killing a few people and their kids people will sort out.

    Depends on where you live. It would not be well received where I live. I suspect if the current federal government were to try that it would be the end of the US as we know it.

    Everyday is the end of the US as we know it.  They are teaching homosexuality and transvestism in the schools as normal sexual practises.  We seem to be getting 70s energy prices with everybody cool with it and seem to accept election stealing as the norm.  So what is a bit of gun confiscation going to do?  Frankly if the Dems would kill off all that did not vote for them I think their base would be cool with it.  

    • #21
  22. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    I’m still waiting for any advocate of any gun control measure to explain how such gun control measure would have prevented any of the mass shootings of the last twenty years.

    That one is easy. Take all guns from everybody but the police or those on the Left with money.

    Well, I understand that (generally minus the last phrase) is the preliminary response, even uttered by then-Senatorial, now Governor candidate Robert O’Rourke. But then I follow with, “And how many people are you willing to have killed to accomplish that? Because you are going to have to kill people for whom ‘only when you pry it out of my cold dead hands’ is more than a rhetorical phrase.” Of course I get silence, since they haven’t thought through how anything gets accomplished.

    Seems that COVID proved you can do what ever you want with the populace. Stuff like laws. legal, right, justice do not matter much any more. Once you start killing a few people and their kids people will sort out.

    Depends on where you live. It would not be well received where I live. I suspect if the current federal government were to try that it would be the end of the US as we know it.

    Everyday is the end of the US as we know it. They are teaching homosexuality and transvestism in the schools as normal sexual practises. We seem to be getting 70s energy prices with everybody cool with it and seem to accept election stealing as the norm. So what is a bit of gun confiscation going to do? Frankly if the Dems would kill off all that did not vote for them I think their base would be cool with it.

    I agree with you which is why I live in a red state and in a more or less red area at least for the moment.  My point is that the democrats are about 6 months away from losing a ton of power at the national level.  This is not the time when they are going to be able to get away with fundamentally changing the social compact.  CoVid worked because it was new and it probably succeeded in working once.   I doubt they can make that work again.  I know they can’t make it work where I live.  Elections are more problematic but states with Republican governments made changes to hopefully prevent the shenanigans of 2020 and there may be more of those in 2023 because we have gone back to 70s energy prices, 70’s crime policies, and the crazy things going on in schools.  They are going to try to do a lot of things before November.  I doubt they get any of them done.  They definitely aren’t going to be able to impose a nationwide gun confiscation.      

     

    • #22
  23. Dbroussa Coolidge
    Dbroussa
    @Dbroussa

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    My point is that the democrats are about 6 months away from losing a ton of power at the national level.  This is not the time when they are going to be able to get away with fundamentally changing the social compact.

    We say this, but I am not convinced…and defined loosing a ton of power?  Will they have a two-thirds majority and thus can override President Biden’s veto of legislation?  No.  Will they lose the majority in the House?  Likely, and…Speaker Boehner showed that the GOP having the House absent the Senate means nothing gets passed.  Will they lose the Senate?  Maybe, but Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell showed that the GOP holding both houses of Congress doesn’t mean that the agenda gets passed…well, the agenda that the GOP base wants to get accomplished.

    And, perhaps, most importantly, even with the GOP in control of both, and assuming they pass a set of legislation that we all want, President Biden isn’t going to sign any of it, and lacking that 67% of both chambers it will just die.

    Heck, that assumes that the GOP gets 60 seats in the Senate and can enact legislation over a filibuster, I seriously doubt that anyone thinks that the GOP will win 60 seats this fall.  Right now RCP has 42 safe or not up Dem seats, and another 4 leans and likely D seats.  The GOP needs 4 seats to take control, which means holding the 3 toss up seats and then pick up at least one of GA, AZ, NH, or NV.  Can they do that?  Maybe, but if the GOP wins the Senate it is going to be a small minority (max 4 seats), unless you really think that the Dems are going to lose IL, CO, WA, or CT.  I am not holding my breath.

    • #23
  24. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Dbroussa (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    My point is that the democrats are about 6 months away from losing a ton of power at the national level. This is not the time when they are going to be able to get away with fundamentally changing the social compact.

    We say this, but I am not convinced…and defined loosing a ton of power? Will they have a two-thirds majority and thus can override President Biden’s veto of legislation? No. Will they lose the majority in the House? Likely, and…Speaker Boehner showed that the GOP having the House absent the Senate means nothing gets passed. Will they lose the Senate? Maybe, but Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell showed that the GOP holding both houses of Congress doesn’t mean that the agenda gets passed…well, the agenda that the GOP base wants to get accomplished.

    And, perhaps, most importantly, even with the GOP in control of both, and assuming they pass a set of legislation that we all want, President Biden isn’t going to sign any of it, and lacking that 67% of both chambers it will just die.

    Heck, that assumes that the GOP gets 60 seats in the Senate and can enact legislation over a filibuster, I seriously doubt that anyone thinks that the GOP will win 60 seats this fall. Right now RCP has 42 safe or not up Dem seats, and another 4 leans and likely D seats. The GOP needs 4 seats to take control, which means holding the 3 toss up seats and then pick up at least one of GA, AZ, NH, or NV. Can they do that? Maybe, but if the GOP wins the Senate it is going to be a small minority (max 4 seats), unless you really think that the Dems are going to lose IL, CO, WA, or CT. I am not holding my breath.

    Point is that they won’t be able to do anything except by executive order.  They will not be able to use an EO to initiate gun confiscation.  They can’t get anything major passed right now even with nominal majorities in Congress.    I don’t expect the Republicans to win 60 seats, unless Biden tries to start World War 3 or  Civil War 2. I do expect the Dems will lose one of those 4 an the Republicans will lose at least on of the 7 opportunities they have to give them a narrow majority in the senate.   Waves have a tendency to cause chaotic results and the Republicans have a history of having at least one Senate candidate meltdown.

    No legislation, except stuff that is bipartisan, is going to get passed.  Realistically several budgets and debt ceiling raises and not much else.  The Republicans will be somewhat feckless but less feckless than they were with Obama.   There will be endless hearings and show votes but not much substance. 

    There will be a lot less damage done to the system.  The economy is going to continue to tank.  Inflation is going to continue to rise and politics will remain in stasis until 2024. 

    • #24
  25. Phil Turmel Coolidge
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    There will be a lot less damage done to the system.  The economy is going to continue to tank.  Inflation is going to continue to rise and politics will remain in stasis until 2024. 

    Yes, as a best-case scenario. /:

    • #25
  26. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    There will be a lot less damage done to the system. The economy is going to continue to tank. Inflation is going to continue to rise and politics will remain in stasis until 2024.

    Yes, as a best-case scenario. /:

    It is hard for me to see how the democrats can hold onto control without massive detectable fraud.  I don’t think they can pull that off twice in a row.  I definitely don’t think they can do it on the scale it would take to retain the house.  The senate may be a bit more of a possibility but States like AZ and GA tightened up their election laws.  PA may be a lost cause but if the Republicans can pull off the governors race then their election laws will likely get much tighter.

    • #26
  27. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    There will be a lot less damage done to the system. The economy is going to continue to tank. Inflation is going to continue to rise and politics will remain in stasis until 2024.

    Yes, as a best-case scenario. /:

    It is hard for me to see how the democrats can hold onto control without massive detectable fraud. I don’t think they can pull that off twice in a row. I definitely don’t think they can do it on the scale it would take to retain the house. The senate may be a bit more of a possibility but States like AZ and GA tightened up their election laws. PA may be a lost cause but if the Republicans can pull off the governors race then their election laws will likely get much tighter.

    Why not pull it off twice? Have any bogus names been taken off the rolls? Will the deceased and moved-out-of-state be voting again? Will PA be importing more fake ballots from Long Island? Any perpetrators caught and convicted?  

    • #27
  28. DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax)
    @DonG

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    I’m still waiting for any advocate of any gun control measure to explain how such gun control measure would have prevented any of the mass shootings of the last twenty years. 

    Gun purchase or possession laws would not, as almost all of the perpetrators stole the guns they used. Some may have used “straw purchasers,” which is already illegal, but many prosecutors do not prosecute straw purchases as a matter of policy.

    In this month of May we had two (2) 18 year-olds buy long guns legally and go on killing sprees.  Setting the age to 21 for long guns (as it is with handguns) would have likely prevented both.    Illegal purchases are hard for loners without friends. 

    • #28
  29. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    There will be a lot less damage done to the system. The economy is going to continue to tank. Inflation is going to continue to rise and politics will remain in stasis until 2024.

    Yes, as a best-case scenario. /:

    It is hard for me to see how the democrats can hold onto control without massive detectable fraud. I don’t think they can pull that off twice in a row. I definitely don’t think they can do it on the scale it would take to retain the house. The senate may be a bit more of a possibility but States like AZ and GA tightened up their election laws. PA may be a lost cause but if the Republicans can pull off the governors race then their election laws will likely get much tighter.

    Why not pull it off twice? Have any bogus names been taken off the rolls? Will the deceased and moved-out-of-state be voting again? Will PA be importing more fake ballots from Long Island? Any perpetrators caught and convicted?

    GA and AZ change their laws to make it harder.  Plus a house election is very distributed so that fraud in an urban stronghold may jack up the votes in the already democratic safe seats but is not going to have an impact statewide.   I think the PA senate and governors races are a lost cause  for exactly the reasons you cite, but while one state may make a difference in a Presidential election it won’t make much of a difference in congressional races.  Plus they really didn’t manage to pull it off in the down ballot races, except in the GA run off.   GA made major changes to its voting rules in response.  I think they’ll be successful in stopping the problems there.  A lot of things were done in a hurry in 2020 because of CoVid, some of that has been corrected.  Additionally Republicans will be watching more closely this time.  Remember Republican poll watchers were legally barred in many states in 2020.  They are not in 2022.

    • #29
  30. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    I’m still waiting for any advocate of any gun control measure to explain how such gun control measure would have prevented any of the mass shootings of the last twenty years.

    Gun purchase or possession laws would not, as almost all of the perpetrators stole the guns they used. Some may have used “straw purchasers,” which is already illegal, but many prosecutors do not prosecute straw purchases as a matter of policy.

    In this month of May we had two (2) 18 year-olds buy long guns legally and go on killing sprees. Setting the age to 21 for long guns (as it is with handguns) would have likely prevented both. Illegal purchases are hard for loners without friends.

    Prevented them, or just delayed them by 3 years?

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.