The Difference Between ‘Bad’ and ‘Worse’

 

I think it was Heinlein who said that the difference between “bad” and “worse” is always sharper than the difference between “good” and “bad.” It’s another way of saying that the perfect is the enemy of the good, I guess.

I live in New York, and I love it; I refuse to be chased out of my home by bullies. The bullies own the NY State government. Every time a Republican has a chance of being elected governor, the political operatives make sure there is enough contention between Republican candidates to guarantee that the Democrat gets elected. That’s why we have a Conservative party on the ticket that never does anything but reduce the Republican vote.

On the national level, I’m just as infuriated (probably more than most) about the Republican sellout on gun control. But not voting for whoever is the Republican candidate is the same as voting for the Democrat. I held my nose, bit my tongue, and voted for Trump, because the alternative was Felonia von Pantsuit. I will vote for whoever is the Republican next time no matter what it does to my nose and tongue.

Both parties are bad. The Democrat party is worse. I still believe that most Republican politicians are at least open to influence from ordinary citizens. They will ignore us, but not as often as the increasingly insane ideologues on the left.

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 10 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Douglas Pratt: I still believe that most Republican politicians are at least open to influence from ordinary citizens.

    I don’t believe that. I will need evidence. You’d have thought being roundly booed would have given Cornyn some pause. Instead he declared these Republican citizens to be a mob, and he continued with his plan to assist Democrats with gun control. I don’t think he’s much different than other Republicans. When the base was incensed that as many as 10 Republicans were joining in with the Democrats to pass gun control legislation, what did those 10 Republicans do? They found 5 more Republicans to join them. 

     

    • #1
  2. tigerlily Member
    tigerlily
    @tigerlily

    Douglas Pratt:

    .

    On the national level, I’m just as infuriated (probably more than most) about the Republican sellout on gun control. But not voting for whoever is the Republican candidate is the same as voting for the Democrat. I held my nose, bit my tongue, and voted for Trump, because the alternative was Felonia von Pantsuit. I will vote for whoever is the Republican next time no matter what it does to my nose and tongue.

    Agree. The time to punish wayward Republican politicians is in the primaries.

    • #2
  3. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Douglas Pratt: I still believe that most Republican politicians are at least open to influence from ordinary citizens.

    I don’t believe that. I will need evidence. You’d have thought being roundly booed would have given Cornyn some pause. Instead he declared these Republican citizens to be a mob, and he continued with his plan to assist Democrats with gun control. I don’t think he’s much different than other Republicans. When the base was incensed that as many as 10 Republicans were joining in with the Democrats to pass gun control legislation, what did those 10 Republicans do? They found 5 more Republicans to join them.

     

    Then again, how many of those booing Cornyn actually knew what was in the bill?  Few I suspect.  Heck, the bill’s text was just released Tuesday afternoon.  Before that is was just some framework items that have been agreed upon, the only one that gives me pause is the funding to States with red flag laws that appears to only require that there be a due process limitation added to any such law.

    • I don’t have a major problem with using juvenile records in background checks for 18-21 year old firearms purchasers
    • I don’t have an issue with convicted domestic abusers from being barred from firearms for 5 years, especially when they abused a girlfriend as opposed to a wife because those have a higher incident of more violence
    • I am for increased school safety and mental health improvements (not sure what the details are, but unless they are just stupid, always a possibility, that seems fine)

    The Text is here.  Of course its nigh unreadable because it is amending other bills which means you have to read them to see the effects.

    I am not sure if it imposes a waiting period on 18-21 year old purchasers, it mention 3 and 10 business days for a response to a request to sell, but is that always, or only if the NICS throws a flag?

    The detail on the increased background checks is that they changed the language on when a person is selling and thus considered a “business”.  It used to be ‘‘with the principal objective of livelihood and profit’’ and now is ‘‘to predominantly earn a profit’’.  They further define that as follows:

    ‘‘(22) The term ‘to predominantly earn a profit’ means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection: Provided, That proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who
    engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism

    Current the BATF defines that as more than 5 sales per year, so I am not sure if that means they will lower that number or not.

    • #3
  4. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    Looking at the text of the red flag section, it only gives money to states that follow these guidelines:

    ‘‘(iv) extreme risk protection order programs, which must include, at a minimum—
    ‘‘(I) pre-deprivation and post deprivation due process rights that prevent any violation or infringement of the Constitution of the United States, including but not limited to the Bill of Rights, and the substantive or procedural due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as applied to the States, and as interpreted by State courts and United States courts (including the Supreme Court of the United States). Such programs must include, at the appropriate phase to prevent any violation of constitutional rights, at minimum, notice, the right to an in-person hearing, an unbiased adjudicator, the right to know opposing evidence, the right to present evidence, and the right to confront adverse witnesses;
    ‘‘(II) the right to be represented by counsel at no expense to the government;
    ‘‘(III) pre-deprivation and post deprivation heightened evidentiary standards and proof which mean not less than the protections afforded to a similarly situated litigant in Federal court or promulgated by the State’s evidentiary body, and sufficient to ensure the full protections of the Constitution of the United States, including but not limited to the Bill of Rights, and the substantive and procedural due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of2 the United States, as applied to the States, and as interpreted by State courts and United States courts (including the Supreme Court of the United States). The heightened evidentiary standards and proof under such programs must, at all appropriate phases to prevent any violation of any constitutional right, at minimum, prevent reliance upon evidence that is unsworn or unaffirmed, irrelevant, based on inadmissible hearsay, unreliable, vague, speculative, and lacking a foundation; and
    ‘‘(IV) penalties for abuse of the program”

    Those sound decent, but I am not a lawyer and have no idea how much wiggle room is available in such language.  It means that the lawyers will get more money because someone will get popped by one of these and challenge it in Federal Court and eventually the courts will decide what this all means, but that will take time and money.  Yay for the lawyers, sucks for the average Joe.  It does require each of these programs to report to the Feds on the efficacy of their programs…is that good or bad?

    • #4
  5. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    . . .

    • I don’t have an issue with convicted domestic abusers from being barred from firearms for 5 years, especially when they abused a girlfriend as opposed to a wife because those have a higher incident of more violence

    . . .

    I want to comment on just this part.

    Think about this.  You want girlfriends to get more protection than wives in our law.

    This seems to be a very common occurrence.  Dysfunctional and immoral behavior leads to problems, and the solution is to provide better treatment to the dysfunctional and immoral.

    • #5
  6. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    . . .

    • I don’t have an issue with convicted domestic abusers from being barred from firearms for 5 years, especially when they abused a girlfriend as opposed to a wife because those have a higher incident of more violence

    . . .

    I want to comment on just this part.

    Think about this. You want girlfriends to get more protection than wives in our law.

    This seems to be a very common occurrence. Dysfunctional and immoral behavior leads to problems, and the solution is to provide better treatment to the dysfunctional and immoral.

    I may be wrong, but I thought that a Domestic Violence conviction against a spouse already barred a person from owning firearms.  This is why the Sutherland Springs incident was so tragic, the Air Force did not send the conviction of the shooter to the NICS so when the guy went to purchase his firearms he was allowed to, even though he was technically ineligible.  My understanding was that this is extending that to include all romantic partners and not just spouses, which in a society where marriage is less and less common…seems to be the only way to deal with it.  Yes, I would prefer that it not be that way, but until we change the hook up culture and reinforce marriage as important, this will need to stay.

    • #6
  7. No Caesar Thatcher
    No Caesar
    @NoCaesar

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Douglas Pratt: I still believe that most Republican politicians are at least open to influence from ordinary citizens.

    You’d have thought being roundly booed would have given Cornyn some pause. Instead he declared these Republican citizens to be a mob, and he continued with his plan to assist Democrats with gun control. 

    Coryn’s bad faith and lack of fitness is evident by his reaction, he insulted his constituents.   Had he instead said something to the effect of: “I understand they may have concerns, however I believe that once they are able to read the bill they will feel differently.”  

    The fact that his gut reaction was A not B, says everything.  He is a swamp creature that must be primaried at the next opportunity.  Also, since a majority of the GOP Senate is against this bill he must be blocked from succeeding McConnell.  I’m not sure who the replacement should be, but Coryn lost his shot.  

    • #7
  8. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    “Republican’s aren’t the solution to your problems, but Democrats are the cause of your problems.” -Dan Bongino

    • #8
  9. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    No Caesar (View Comment):

    Coryn’s bad faith and lack of fitness is evident by his reaction, he insulted his constituents.   Had he instead said something to the effect of: “I understand they may have concerns, however I believe that once they are able to read the bill they will feel differently.”  

     

    Maybe Cornyn somehow got the idea that current-day Republicans like politicians who talk tough rather than diplomatically.

    • #9
  10. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    No Caesar (View Comment):

    Coryn’s bad faith and lack of fitness is evident by his reaction, he insulted his constituents. Had he instead said something to the effect of: “I understand they may have concerns, however I believe that once they are able to read the bill they will feel differently.”

     

    Maybe Cornyn somehow got the idea that current-day Republicans like politicians who talk tough rather than diplomatically.

    We want politicians who talk tough AGAINST the democrats, not WITH them.

    • #10
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.