Justin Amash

Justin Amash Wants To Talk About Process and Love, but His Constituents Want To Talk About Gun Control

Facing his district for the first time since going independent, the libertarian congressman preaches legislative process and constitutional principle to an audience thirsty for gun fixes.


"So please," Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.) implored a brewpub audience of 50 constituents in the sleepy town of Hastings on Wednesday afternoon, "respect each other, love each other, and demand that we open up our system of government so that it's available for everyone."

It was the last of the day's five public meet-and-greets—Amash's first back home since declaring independence from the Republican Party on July 4. And as in the previous four, the representative famous for almost never missing votes, and always explaining them on Facebook, hammered away at one civics-nerd point above all. Process matters.

"When you go to Congress, you discover that all decisions are made by three people: the president, the speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader. That's it," Amash lamented. "All of you are essentially disenfranchised in this situation. You elect representatives to represent you, but representatives aren't actually allowed to amend things, aren't allowed to offer ideas. And what ends up happening is you have a system where outcomes are dictated to us rather than discovered through the process."

A broken process means no floor amendments for an entire congressional session—a first. It means disregarding the designs of the Constitution, which as Amash pointed out is a "process document." It means making political competition an ugly grab for punitive power, and it means replacing legislative deliberation with smashmouth scoreboard-politics, as when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) refused to allow a vote on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland during Barack Obama's final year in office. ("I wouldn't have supported that nominee, but he should have been allowed to have had a vote," Amash explained at a Grand Rapids coffee shop in the morning.)

"McConnell, I think, has done a horrible job—I want to use the right adjective, because I don't want to say it's incredible, it's been incredibly horrible," he said. "Shutting things down, controlling it. And yeah, a lot of Republicans, a lot of conservatives might like the outcomes he's getting, but that's not the way our system's supposed to work! We're supposed to debate ideas and talk about things."

Amash's outspokenness and uncertain political future is drawing a lot of national attention at the moment. George Will devoted his most recent syndicated column to the congressman, the Associated Press sent out a widely picked up article questioning the incumbent's re-election prospects, and the third-party presidential rumors continue to swirl. (At his fourth stop of the day, Amash ribbed political journalists for allegedly being so White House–focused that they have failed to adequately convey that, yes, he is running for Congress. He then appended his longstanding mantra that he doesn't rule anything out, etc.)

But of all his near-term uphill battles, getting voters, let alone journalists, to feel a sense of urgency about the degradations of the legislative process is right up there.

"I think you need to start voting on the basis of process," Amash maintained at a Grand Rapids brewpub (the city does like its beer). "It should be actually high on your list. Right now it's not even on the list. Nobody asks about that. You might ask about guns, you might ask about immigration, you might ask about a whole host of issues, but nobody is asking about the process of legislating, and that's what we should really put highest on our list—in my opinion, the highest thing, because if you have a bad process the whole system doesn't function."

While his audiences were frequently receptive to the pitch, asking on several occasions what they can tangibly do about this process business, one issue above all illustrated the gap between Amash's critique of results-oriented policymaking and the public's perennial appetite to do something about an issue: guns.

"So I know how you feel about the Second Amendment" came the second constituent question of the day, "but…" Thus was established a pattern.

At every stop, usually for several consecutive questions on end, Amash received anguished and sometimes angry cross-examinations from shaky-voiced teachers, fearful moms, amateur Federalist Papers historians, and even one survivor of a mass shooting event. If you have ever wondered what it would be like for a libertarian to be grilled about every single issue that comes up after a mass gun killing—universal background checks, "weapons of war," New Zealand's gun buybacks, interpretations of "well regulated Militia," the anti-tyranny component of the Second Amendment, the National Rifle Association's political influence, bans on public health research, the gun show loophole, red flag laws, gun licenses, bump stocks, you name it—that's what went down in West Michigan on Wednesday.

"I read an article in The New York Times that was dated August 9 that really shocked me," came the second question at Amash's second event, held at Grand Rapids' Common Ground coffee shop and feeling like anything but. "There are 15 million military-style weapons in the hands of Americans….What do you propose, what change can we make, to stop the sale of military-style weapons, and get most of those 15 million military-style weapons…in the hands of Americans back so that we won't have these mass murders anymore?"

The next 25 minutes was a remarkable gun-policy back and forth, with Amash arguing, among other things, that "military-style" is an amorphous definition, that most mass shootings are carried out with handguns, that red flag laws pose due-process concerns, that public opinion on the issue comes with a "knowledge problem" about such things as the definition of the word "semiautomatic," that guns and gun rights are broadly and uniquely popular in America, that overall gun violence is down significantly over the past few decades, that people should not live their lives in fear of rare events, that ambulance-chasing legislation frequently abridges civil liberties, and that most policy proposals in the wake of mass shootings would not have impeded the shooter if retroactively applied.

"We have to be really careful about the law," he cautioned. "Sometimes we pass laws because they make us feel good, but they didn't do anything. And I'm afraid that a lot of the proposals we have now are the kind of things that would make us feel good but not actually resolve the problems. And some of the problems cannot be totally resolved. You can't completely eliminate hate and violence."

The audience was not satisfied with that answer.

"You keep saying, 'This isn't going to work, this isn't going to work, this isn't going to work,'" charged one man. But "if we didn't have any laws governing the way in which automobile are handled, you would have a lot higher automobile fatality and accident rates then we have now. We have those laws. Do they work perfectly? No, they don't work [perfectly], but at least we tried; we did something. And I'm not hearing anything that we need to do from you."

Amash's bottom line: "Our rights should not be predicated on very rare situations."

If this had been, say, 2016 Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson instead of potential 2020 nominee Justin Amash, this exchange might have last three minutes instead of 25 and featured a lot of awkward hemming and hawing. Amash is not defensive about his beliefs in the face of popular pressure, and indeed seems to relish the opportunity to explain his lonely positions, while also taking pains to bracket the conversation with messages of mutual tolerance, empathy, non-demonization, and straight-up "love." It can make for compelling human interaction. But in our polarized and occasionally poisonous political atmosphere, can it sell?

Amash's pitch, and bet, is that the approach of independent thinking and institutional vigor can prove to be an antidote to the ugly polarization that's taking over our politics. Through—what else?—process.

"Congress is increasingly operating differently for the way our system was intentionally created and I think that is very dangerous," he concluded at Common Ground. "We will start to look more and more like other countries. Already I see the way people talk about each other is starting to represent the sectarian sort of disputes in other parts of the world, even like parts of the Middle East, where you might have Shia and Sunni and others. Where everything becomes like the lesser of two evils. 'Well, our guy is bad, but their guy is worse, so we'll support our guy to stop their guy…'

"If we follow this attitude that process doesn't matter, all that matters is obtaining the outcome we want. We see an outcome, we go try to grab it. That is what happens in the worst parts of the world….In those countries when they see an outcome they want, they just grab it. The people with the greatest numbers, they're like, 'We have more numbers, we're grabbing it.' Then the other people fight them for power, and then when those people get the numbers, they're like, 'Now we're going to grab what we want.'

"We can't operate that way. We have to operate in a deliberate fashion. Open it up, I promise more of your ideas will get debated on the House floor. I'm not necessarily going to agree with you on every position, as you know from this event here….But I promise you, you will have a better outcome, generally. You will have a better process."

NEXT: Texas Is Executing a Man Tonight for a Murder and Rape Experts Say He Didn't Commit

Justin Amash Michigan Independents Gun Control

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

97 responses to “Justin Amash Wants To Talk About Process and Love, but His Constituents Want To Talk About Gun Control

  1. “What do you propose, what change can we make, to stop the sale of military-style weapons, and get most of those 15 million military-style weapons…in the hands of Americans back so that we won’t have these mass murders anymore?”

    The vox populi, everyone. The people who think that way vastly outnumber the readers and commenters on this blog. 🙁

    1. Au contraire:
      The asshole bigot shows up to inform us regarding the inevitable ‘fabianism’ of the left; those are the claims of the unlettered.
      And it is not the ‘right wing’ press which makes the point; for pete’s sake, Judt in “Post War” makes clear that the Euro nations in general have promised what they cannot deliver, relying on the US defense budget (you and me) to make up the ever increasing difference. He *HATED* Maggy, but was entirely too honest (see Manchester now and then) in admitting that SHE turned England from a pathetic bunch of public housing slags into a financial market. Obnoxious he was; honest he was also.
      More recently, “Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944-1956” (Applebaum, a WaPo columnist) points out how the commies failed to gain popular support and took control of Eastern Europe by brute force, post WWII.
      Nowhere are commies popular enough to win anything like fair elections, and regardless of the asshole’s claims, that is what is on offer; “free shit”.
      Trump is and was an outlier, but if the Ds can come up with nothing better than the current offering, Trump is likely to do it again

      1. Your lips to God’s ears, sevo.

        Oops. 🙁

        1. Hey! Your emoji worked.
          Let’s give it a shot.


      2. I am making 10,000 Dollar at home own laptop .Just do work online 4 to 6 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do

        …….. Read More

      3. Trump won just about every swing state in 2016, but he won them by very small margins…Even if the economy holds up, I see this as very tough to repeat, especially because people have for years now seen his toxic personality & huge sensitive ego & people are getting tired of his constant battling Carnival barker ways that overshadow any good he has done!

        I see Warren getting the DEMON-CRAT nod & going against Trump and quite possibly beating him…..She seems to me to the best of their Insane Clown Caravan!

  2. The better move is to quit dragging and emasculating adolescent boys.

    1. the best move would be if you killed yourself, LastoftheShitferbrains. America’s collective IQ would rise measurably.

      1. Only if you stepped in front of the bullet first, NoBallsWhatsoever.

      2. I know you are but what am I?

      3. He’s like an 12-year-old edgelord who never grew up. Though if I’m being honest, most 12-year-olds are smarter.

        1. In my experience six year olds are the smartest humans on the planet. They know exactly what they want and how to get it. A six year old does not engage people in useless nonsense. They just find a way. Plus they are on the steepest part of the learning curve.

          You are right adolescents are by far the worst. Some never get past that stage.

    2. Yep. When young men are taught from basically elementary school that every impulse they have is wrong and they are in fact irredeemably evil and toxic by literally every cultural institution and authority figure they encounter, it can lead to bad outcomes.

      Some of which happen to be otherwise inexplicable mass shootings.

      But doing something about this would require abandoning a core tenant of the left’s social justice crusade, and that is simply never going to happen, no matter how many people die.

      1. Yes, the El Paso shooter was definitely a product of leftist idiocy, as opposed to rightist idiocy.

        Jesus H. Christ, you people are the definition of partisan hacks. Every single fucking thing is black and white, 100% democrats’ fault to you. It’s monumentally retarded.

        1. The El Paso shooter was a disaffected young man who was told by nearly every major cultural institution that his political and social positions were not only wrong, but irredeemably evil because he was a white male. He was told that his country didn’t belong to him anymore and that he would have to shut up and hand it over to people who were of a more preferred caste.

          He felt cornered and hopeless and did something terrible. Not everyone who feels this way will shoot up a Wal Mart — but some certainly will. Others may do something even worse. While some may simply take their own lives.

          But ignoring the fact that simply discarding a major cohort of Americans — who have been the cornerstone of American productivity and security since the day of its founding — is a recipe for disaster. But that’s all anyone wants to do.

  3. Those 15 million “military assault style weapons” are responsible for less than 200 deaths per year

    We should outlaw bicycles instead

    1. Quit bringing statistics into this. People are afraid.

    2. Bicycles likely have a massive positive impact on lifespans, given how people use them to stay in shape.

      -Not a Utilitarian

  4. “When you go to Congress, you discover that all decisions are made by three people: the president, the speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader. That’s it,” Amash lamented. “All of you are essentially disenfranchised in this situation. You elect representatives to represent you, but representatives aren’t actually allowed to amend things, aren’t allowed to offer ideas. And what ends up happening is you have a system where outcomes are dictated to us rather than discovered through the process.”

    And so, he decides to opt out of any possibility of affecting anything at all in the desire for personal “purity”!
    Go Justin! Be “pure”! Purely ineffective in any effort whatsoever.
    But he’ll be “PURE”! dammit!

    1. Sevo….Just to add on to your comments. Rep. Amash seems to be ‘infected’ with the same strain of flu that the Congress is infected with generally: The desire for a grandiose solution to a problem.

      I thought he was on point with his ‘process’ comments. The way out of this morass is by relying on the processes given to us by our Founders. Very deliberately, the Founders emphasized incrementalism in legislation. That idea has been lost. It needs to come back into vogue.

      Personally, I would ban any bill named after someone (those make for spectacularly bad laws), have Congress sit for 60 days in a year, cut their salary to the national median, and eliminate all those perks (gold plated pension, preferential TSP offerings, etc). I want fewer laws from Congress.

      To me, that is where I think Rep. Amash should be headed. Alas, I do not have him on speed dial. 🙂

      1. incrementalism (as practiced by the left) is what has delivered us to this place. balanced, directed, non-ideological incrementalism is one thing–that does not presently exist.

        added to the list should be shedding party affiliation upon entering the chamber–those who act ideologically and not as true representatives of the people should be censured both verbally and practically.

        process has been perverted to a point where it may not be salvageable–a total purge of professional pols may help, coupled with strict term limits at every level of gov’t. this would necessitate people reclaiming their granted power over gov’t. unfortunately, it’s not clear whether the people are willing to exert the necessary effort to get things back on track and make them work as they were conceived/designed.

    2. You elect representatives to represent you

      No I don’t.

  5. How many of these town hall gun control questioners are genuine and how many are Bloomberg plants?

    1. Exactly. Whenever you see a trend of specific talking points, you can bet that’s not random people.

    2. They’re all plants. Gun control advocacy is not a popular issue.It probably ranks well behind AGW. Amash is a target in Everytown Moms Demand March For Our Lives crosshairs because he is perceived as a politically-useful squish.

    3. Yes. Asking for one of our rights to be taken away is diametrically opposite to Amash’s positions. These useful idiots might have been recruited from Amash’s district, but they never voted for him.

  6. The article is not really about guns.

    Amash has a message. He has his thought process down and knows what he wants to communicate. It is about a broken system of government. It is not really even about how libertarianish he is.

    So people are afraid after mass shootings and other acts like that. They have a right to be. They are horrible and terrifying.

    It is not about the weapons. What he is trying to say is that we do not need to be at war with ourselves as a nation. Nothing gets done because the system is fractured.

    That message may not win elections or change much in how it really works. It is still worthy of thought and should give us pause to reflect. Here is a guy who could have played along and chose not to. I like that.

    1. No, they don’t have any rational basis for being scared. The odds are so low that being afraid of mass shootings is idiotic.

      1. Fear is not about rationality nor statistical chance of harm.

        It is emotional and biophysical. I have one dog who is afraid of thunderstorms, another who loves to go out with me and watch them. Humans are little different.

        People have a right to be afraid. They have the right to express those concerns. It does not mean that can impose on the civil rights of others.

        It is not about the guns. Thought I made that clear as did Amash.

      2. You mean the odds of being killed in a mass shooting compared to the odds of being shot to death in a non-TV-friendly way.

        Both still pretty bad statistics for a civilized country!

        1. They’re the same as dying in a drunk driving wreck, so I’m not sure what you’re complaining about.

          1. I’m against cars too.

            1. *barf*

            2. Are you a liar or do you have a poor sense of humor?

        2. The odds for either are very, very low. Particularly if you look at people who aren’t themselves involved in criminal activity.

          1. Mass shootings especially horrify law-abiding white people, because they’re most of the victims. And most of the murderers are previously law-abiding white people. You’re not going to stop them with background checks unless background checks become a way to take away guns from everyone without strong political connections.

            But 90% of mass shootings take pace in gun-free zones. That suggests a solution to me…

    2. Of course you like a guy who didn’t accomplish anything while living off taxpayers then betrayed his constituents and stated principles when he saw that his free ride was coming to an end.
      Now he whines about everyone but himself, and you laud him for it.
      Tis pathetic

      1. He does not need taxpayers for a living. Personally I think politics is the crappiest job in the world. Not at all my choice.

        What do you want from an admitted outsider libertarianish politician in this world? Yeah I have a soft spot for outsider types who buck the system. I am a radical libertarian in politics. I lose every playoff. Sticking to my guns and standing my ground.

        Look you wanna support and vote for your “winner” go ahead. I could care less.

      2. No different from any other congress critter.
        And that’s not really fair. Accomplishing something isn’t a good standard. Congress in general needs to “accomplish” less. Republicans in congress really aren’t terribly interested in doing much that libertarians would like.

  7. Soon-to-be former Rep. Amash, libertarian gun nut.

    1. *barf*

  8. Maybe I was too pessimistic above – even too pessimistic for sevo, so that’s maybe a sign I was off the deep end (there are probably other signs too).

    These shootings are truly horrifying and if people say that they have the formula to stop these shootings then a certain number of people will believe it. But with free and open debate, these “solutions” may be exposed to skepticism and many other people will reject them.

  9. Don’t worry, if he won’t “do something” to remove more of our rights, they’ll vote for someone who will, even if that something won’t work for the supposed purpose.

  10. Amash appeared (or thought he did) before his constituents as a principled politician who wasn’t beholden to either party or popular sentiment, but the emotionally driven crowd was interested in more “laws” to stop military style weapons that doesn’t meaningfully exist.

    This is a problem with the American governance. Amash only correctly identifies half of it. Sure, congress is a broken mess, but if by some act of God men of integrity overtook the cronies, how much would change? The American voters do not broadly favor fiscal discipline, personal liberty and responsibility. There could be hundreds of Justin Amashes in congress preaching fidelity to constitution, reason and love, and it would all go over the heads of emotionally driven voters with their disparate agendas.

    Life isn’t a movie. If it were, there would be rapturous crowd rushing to the side of Amash to swelling music followed by scenes of him winning 15 states against all odds. As it is, the nation is divided, more prone to tribalism, and will become more “majority rule” as uninformed voters grow in size.

    1. Minority rule gave us W. and Trump. Fuck that shit.

    2. Shorter: We get the government we deserve.

      1. Upvoting.

    3. “This is a problem with the American governance. ”

      “This is a problem with Statism.”


  11. Is Justin Amash getting hotter as he ages? What’s up with that?

    1. He may very well lose the election irrespective of hotness.

      Anyway my night link nobody else cares about.

      Earl Scruggs passed away in 2012 he changed bluegrass music and banjo. Yes that is Steve Martin, also Leon Russel, Paul Shaffer, Albert Lee.

      Bunch of old guys jamming and having a good day.


      1. Great video. I hadn’t seen that one before. Thanks! Music is a wonderful refuge from the politics of a broken world.

  12. Answering those questions should be easy for a libertarian. “I believe in the Non Aggression Principle. I believe that as a human being you have the right to own anything you want as long as you don’t use it to initiate Force against another.” Done. Amash call me.

    1. “I believe in the Non Aggression Principle.”

      “I subjectively prefer the Non Aggression Principle.”


      1. The NAP is the only objectively moral philosophy.

  13. Amash’s outspokenness whining


    1. That NoBallsWhatsoever has the same posting quality as a spambot was the best part of this whole comment thread.

  14. All of you are essentially disenfranchised in this situation. You elect representatives to represent you, but representatives aren’t actually allowed to amend things, aren’t allowed to offer ideas. And what ends up happening is you have a system where outcomes are dictated to us rather than discovered through the process

    Seems to me like this is an opportunity to disintermediate Congress rather than to be elected to it. Too bad blockchain seems to be mostly envisioned right now as a get-rich-quick scheme for those controlling the disintermediation rather than an actual disintermediating mechanism with a use-case.

    1. I don’t think that’s what “oportunity” means.

      a set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something.

      Kind of missing the “possible” part, since doing that actually requires having solved the problem first.

      1. I guess that depends what you mean by ‘possible’. There is nothing that prohibits a semi-competitor to Congress – and the 1st Amendment would prevent Congress from shutting one down.

        Something that offers better representation, wider spectrum of ideas, better deliberation, better outcomes – and in doing so undermines congressional credibility. It’s fashionable to be cynical about ‘consent of the governed’ but having that is quite important to those government institutions themselves.

        The things that are legally/constitutionally monopolized – elections as method of choice, how formal legislation becomes executable law, etc. Those are all just process – and a process that the DeRps are completely committed to monopolizing. Since he is already thinking process, he knows that there are always multiple ways to get to the desired end-state and its outside the kingdom of DeRp.

        Not saying any of this is easy — but it is possible – and possible without congress/etc already fixing themselves first.

        1. JFree…I thought about your earlier disintermediation comment, and this last one as well. When you wrote, Something that offers better representation, wider spectrum of ideas, better deliberation, better outcomes – and in doing so undermines congressional credibility. It’s fashionable to be cynical about ‘consent of the governed’ but having that is quite important to those government institutions themselves., I wondered if one way to get what you are asking for is to expand the size of the House.

          If each House member represents 750K people, then why not triple the size of the House to 1,305 members. In this manner, you would have a lot more viewpoints and a lot more representativeness across the country. Might also reduce the influence of money by making the House so much more diffuse.

          1. I complete agree with that. And the 2020 election is the critical election for SOME party to make that a major issue since the House only passes reapportionment legislation around the census. Otherwise, hibernation until 2030.

            That said – I think this is one of those things that requires congress to fix itself first – and the DeRp’s have proven they are opposed to this – so it may be impossible – directly at least.

            I’m moving more to an alternative that doesn’t require Congress to act but that, in operation, will prove efficacy in a way that forces Congress’ hand or they risk consent of the governed.

            1. DeRps — I love it.

  15. Hy Guys , i am share quotes , status , wishes etc…
    if you are feel alone so chek out Alone Quotes In Hindi

    1. I don’t always like alone quotes, but when I do, I like them in Hindi.

  16. You can’t have a discussion, much less a debate when you can’t agree on the meanings of basic terms.

    I was taught that a semiautomatic gun differs from a revolver because it has a clip or magazine instead of a thing that turns. Semiautomatic does not mean “easily transformed into a machine gun” as people seem to think.

    “Military style” means nothing apart from looks. My belt is military style because it’s made from webbed fabric with a metal buckle that clips together. I have a shirt that’s military style because it has epaulets. Neither garment is inherently more dangerous than a dressy-looking belt and a Hawaiian shirt. I think the public says “military style” when they mean “military issue.”

    1. It’s nebulous, deliberately imprecise. So many terms are conflated and abused, often wilfully:

      “Assault rifle/weapon”
      Machine gun
      Mass shooting
      Active shooter
      Etc etc etc

    2. I think they say military style for the same reason that the military itself switched from the M14 to the M16 during Vietnam. It’s not about the looks. It’s about the psychological/functional effects of those changes to the standard-issue rifle.

      Combine that with an all-volunteer post-Vietnam army where the vast majority no longer have the same personal connection re guns and death and safety and training and respect. Hell even the NRA moved from a focus on gun safety/marksmanship to gun politics once the volunteer army happened.

      Which leaves a huge mental vacuum – filled by the post-Vietnam movie and video game genre which introduced a new type of character – the PTSD-riven psychotic wielding that post-M16 assault rifle. And for that age group that has a difficult time anyway distinguishing between fantasy and reality – well I don’t always go on a shooting spree. But when I do, I prefer military style. Stay angry my friends.

      1. Whoa. What a coincidence.

    3. Hawaiian shirts are in fact quite dangerous… to eyes, if nothing else.

  17. Notice how these exceptional individuals have suddenly begun comparing guns to cars fairly consistently. Even Arthur L. Hicklib was doing it yesterday.

    Progressivism truly is a hive mind.

    1. Once they get the Narrative, it’s on to the races for Lefties.

  18. “amateur Federalist Papers historians”

    Uh, you mean people like you, Matt? What’s wrong with being an “amateur Federalist Papers historian”? Do you want all questions to be decided by “professional Federalist Papers historians”? Please adjust your sneers.

  19. All this not telling people what they want to hear will get you nowhere, Justin.

    1. And, as we know, that is how all the rest of them got where they are be it Congress, the White House, …

      This sort of “politician” necessitates a mature, informed, and engaged electorate. I don’t suppose that will ever happen, any where, any time. So back to hacks and authoritarians we go.

  20. Justin Amash(I-Mich) doesn’t HAVE any constituents.

    The people elected Justin Amash (R-Mich)

    They didn’t elect an independent.

    Justin Amash betrayed the people who elected him.

    1. I’m not sure you understand how elections in the US work. Perhaps you’re thinking of the Politburo, comrade?

      1. Right? This is collectivist reasoning to the max.

        Party is a substitute for thought.

  21. We’re supposed to debate ideas and talk about things.

    What a fag.

  22. The audience was not satisfied with that answer.

    The Do Something crowd isn’t going to listen to reason.

  23. Yeah, let’s talk about the “process” for introducing Marxism into our country and starting a race war. But it’s totally okay because at least we talked about it!

  24. Amash sux.

  25. TV ADS=========_
    Start now making easy coins on line at home. start making greater $500 each day by way of working on-line at home. i’ve obtained $18528 ultimate month from this clean home based totally task. This process is realy wonderful and offers me extraordinary component time profits each day. anybody can now makes extra earnings online easily by way of simply follow instructions in this below given site……



  26. I kind of like this guy from what little I’ve heard, but there’s no way that kind of thoughtful, systemic meta thinking is going to succeed in the popularity contest that is one person, one vote.

  27. Had that been ME fielding the questions relating to the “fifteen million military garde weapons in the hands of Americans” I’d have:

    first, asked him to DEFINE “military grade”. Go ahead, describe the capabilities and characteristics and function that make it “millitary grade”.

    he can’t Or will be so far out in the weeds he’ll make a fool of himself.

    second After he responds, ask him to define the term “select fire”

    he probably can’t.

    ask him to define “semi automatic” and “full automatic” fire.

    he probably cannot do that either.

    because he is an emotion-driven ignoramus who sucks at the teat of the lying mainstream media.

    third, ask him to name or identify ONE “mass shooting” having taken place in the lase decade where a “military grade weapon” was used.

    A guy in Amash’s position SHOULD know the details of every mass public gun murder in at least the past decade.. where it was, details about the perp, weapon, venue, etc.

    Once he proves nis ignorance, and perhaps after his munged responses, ask if anyone else in the crowd can answer each question as it comes up, and Hot Shot fails. Maybe there ARE a few folks in the crowd who KNOW what’s what. Better if one of his informed peers can also inform Hot Shot.

    THEN describe the two modes of fire, semi and full automatic. Semi is pullbangrelease, pullbangrelease pullbangrelease pullbangrelease….. Full auto is pullbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbang until you release.

    Explain that “military grade weapons” are all capable of full automatic firing, and that new non-military grade weapons are NEVER capable of full auto fire.

    Finally, ask the crowd to answer this question:

    HOW many mass public gun murders have been perpetrated in the past decade using “military grade weapons”? Ask them to name killer or location or event for each one. As each one is (erroneously) named/described, respond with the exact make/model of rifle used, per FBI or BATF in THAT incident, and declare that is NOT a military grade weapon, it is civilian only because it was never made to fire full auto.

    Instead of the ping pong game he plays now, USE those events to truly EDUCATE people to the lying habits of the media they are reading.
    Perhaps encourage them to check out and follow certain blogs/news feeds that accurately report on thse incidents.

    He will thus brand himself as one who is accurate, informed, concerned, amd encourages his constituents to be the same.

Comments are closed.