First Republican joins Democrats for Assault Weapons Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
And he coined his own new phrase.


A0E20C53-2016-41C5-B33E-435AFB48AD66.jpeg

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...p-joins-Democrats-ban-weapons-mass-slaughter/
 
The GOP isn't progun at the party level, hasn't been for some time, and there's no indication that will change in the near future.

It's all in the Candidate that is run, voter support and then voter turn out. We DO have the power to change and it's done by elections.
People keep running the same candidates and then voting for them then how can they expect change?
 
King is not a liberal, but he is an authoritarian with a total disregard for basic civil liberties. Liberals (real ones and fake ones alike) have been decrying his bigotry and eagerness to do away with things like the 4th and 5th amendment as a way to combat terrorism.

Remember when some basic constitutional rights were beyond left-right partisan stuff? Man, that was sweet.
 
Peter King has a ACU score of about 67 percent lifetime but has moved left in 2016-17 to scores averaging around 50 percent. He is significantly to the left in voting in Congress than most of his Republican colleagues in Congress but would be a more conservative Democrat. His big issue is national security.

The reason that basic constitutional rights are now squarely in the left right paradigm is that to the left, the Constitution is hopelessly flawed and since their numbers are not sufficient to amend it, they seek to avoid it and ignore it in their actions and the policies they support. Tell a leftist that the Constitution does not permit a particular policy that they want--for example a "wealth tax" on the rich without an amendment. The conniving type will try to figure out a weasel way of given the patina of legality to a policy to circumvent the Constitutional barrier. The honest type will outright reject any limit on the actions of the government as "antidemocratic", "fascist", and so on. Their view of history as an inexonerable process means that they throw a temper tantrum when history (and behavior of other people) do not comply with their desires of promoting "good" and punishing "evil" through government actions. Resistance to bien pensant thinking then becomes an issue vital to suppress and the moral equivalent of war.

The right, on the other hand, valuing order has granted far too much leeway to government in national security and prosecutors and now is finding out that these tools that they championed against terrorists and criminals are now being reoriented to by government to focus on them.

True libertarians basically inhabit the closet under the stairs and only come out every now and then because they tend to point out the excesses of both arguments.

Order without liberty is worthless other than preserving one's life; Equality without liberty is pointless as the equality of slaves and serfs obviously does not make any, but those prone to envy, happy. Justice is empty unless it addresses individuals and their circumstances and a rule of law is corrupted when some are more equal than others. In general, I would argue that a simple test of desirable government powers are that you assume the powers that your are granting to government will soon enough be in the hands of your worst political enemy. Then, what powers would you grant them? If you continue to argue special cases for this or that extension of government power, pretty soon you will find out that others are making a special case for applying that power to you.

As Washington allegedly said about comparing fire and government, "Government, like fire, is a good servant, but a bad master."
 
Compared to AOC, in New York Peter King is a conservative....standards in that state are pretty low. Hard to believe Trump spent his entire life there and turned out as he did.

I'm originally from upstate so I know a lot of folks from NYC. Two things stand out (barring professional politicians):

1. They speak their mind, no matter the consequences
2. They look at / demand results / consequences over words

Remind you of anyone ?
 
I wish to Heaven that pro 2nd Amendment folks would do two things -

Stop saying such and such person is “anti Gun” but label them what they are - Anti 2nd Amendment.

And, even when quoting these anti 2nd Amendment morons, to stop parroting their “assault weapon this”and “assault weapon that”. THEY ARE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS THESE LIARS ARE TALKING ABOUT. We all know that so stop giving them credence. Quote them for what they truly mean - Anti Semi Auto weapons. Do not give them any credence by repeating their lies.

Please & thanks
 
I wish to Heaven that pro 2nd Amendment folks would do two things -

Stop saying such and such person is “anti Gun” but label them what they are - Anti 2nd Amendment.

And, even when quoting these anti 2nd Amendment morons, to stop parroting their “assault weapon this”and “assault weapon that”. THEY ARE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS THESE LIARS ARE TALKING ABOUT. We all know that so stop giving them credence. Quote them for what they truly mean - Anti Semi Auto weapons. Do not give them any credence by repeating their lies.

Please & thanks
Actually, since "assault weapon" has no fixed meaning, it can mean anything they want it to, from a matchlock arquebus to a railgun.
 
The GOP isn't progun at the party level, hasn't been for some time, and there's no indication that will change in the near future.
Well, hopefully at election time ppl will REMEMBER what the Rep spoke during campaign vs what they DID during the term

King is not a liberal, but he is an authoritarian with...
Well the friend of my enemy is my...um...I don't remember the phrase but, a skunks smells only one way. The only other thing I can contribute (b4 the lock:cool:), is, what I know as an absolute fact on the matter; bacon absolutely goes with pancakes. Or, the other way around is ito_O
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top