Gun Rights

Virginia Gov. Northam Smears Gun Control Opponents to Frighten His Base

If politicians are going to paint their opponents as illegitimate, they should be prepared to receive the same treatment in return.


Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam is misusing a regularly scheduled political rally to frighten his base and gin up support for his troubled administration. Flinging scare-mongering language, the Democratic governor has portrayed a grassroots lobbying effort against gun restrictions as a potential source of "violent extremism" and declared a state of emergency.

It's a cheap attempt to build support by delegitimizing opposition to his policies. On the way to declaring a state of emergency, Northam breathlessly warned:

Credible intelligence gathered by Virginia's law enforcement agencies indicates that tens of thousands of advocates plan to converge on Capitol Square for events culminating on January 20, 2020. Available information suggests that a substantial number of these demonstrators are expected to come from outside the Commonwealth, may be armed, and have as their purpose not peaceful assembly but violence, rioting, and insurrection.

The "events culminating on January 20, 2020" consist of the Virginia Civil Defense League's (VCDL) annual lobby day, in which it gathers at Capitol Square, like many other organizations (the Virginia Nurses Association has four lobby days planned for the end of January and beginning of February) do. In the case, the organization is advocating for self-defense rights and against restrictions on the same.

Images of the VCDL's peaceful 2017 rally are on display at the organization's website. This is a normal, regularly scheduled gathering intended to influence public policy.

But the governor warns that this year's event features "white nationalist rhetoric and plans by out-of-state militia groups to attend." He links the gathering to "events that occurred in Charlottesville," as if a gathering by opponents of his policies must inevitably descend into violence launched by fringe-dwellers.

Will fringe racists and right-wing radicals attend today's rally? Almost certainly. Back when anti-war protests were a thing (remember them?) an even more predictable feature than Susan Sarandon on the stage were clusters of far-left types wandering through the crowd trying to convince attendees that a desire for peace implies a workers' revolution and liquidating the bourgeoisie. Radicals frequently court recruits by piggybacking their causes on mainstream ones. In and of itself, that doesn't reflect on the mainstream cause.

In fact, one of the groups joining the rally is Antifascists of the Seven Hills, an anti-capitalist group which opposes gun restrictions because "gun control serves to weaken our defense positions." They don't want to leave any racist presence at the rally unopposed by other pro-gun voices.

"In considering how to deter their recruitment and nullify their ability to harm folks lobbying or otherwise going about their business, we recognized that the VCDL was drawing lines in the sand on optics, and trying to distance themselves from other issues and symbols like the Confederate battle flag," the group notes on its Facebook page.

Whatever your opinion of antifa (I've been a critic), it's clear that this isn't the unalloyed white nationalist gathering that Northam describes.

No, whether you agree or disagree with it, the rally's message is certainly mainstream. Even as VCDL warns that "proposed bills will turn many semi-automatic firearm owners into felons," 86 of Virginia's 95 counties had passed measures declaring themselves sanctuaries for self-defense rights, as of the end of December.

"They suggest that the counties might not enforce new state laws limiting gun rights," the Wall Street Journal reports of the sanctuary jurisdictions.

To a large extent, that's a reflection of the state's version of the national urban-rural divide, which has too many politicians favoring one side while vilifying and punishing the other. In Virginia, support for Northam and the Democratic legislative majority is concentrated in the state's urban crescent, while the sanctuary counties are in rural and exurban areas that even a Democratic county chairman accused his party of treating with "malevolent neglect."

With an immediate post-election victory push for gun restrictions, state Democrats play to the prejudices of their urban-to-suburban base with legislation that sticks it to the rural areas where such laws are largely unpopular.

Playing the same game a year after news reports that, years ago, he dressed in blackface, Northam seeks revived credibility among urban, progressive voters by pushing his party's gun control proposals. And then he doubles down by smearing his opponents as bent on "violence, rioting, and insurrection."

But what about that "credible intelligence" Northam claims was gathered by law enforcement agencies? Maybe it exists, but governments have a long history of feeding the public's fears to delegitimize opponents and justify extraordinary actions.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary," H. L. Mencken mused decades ago.

"It had become clear, to me at least, that the repeated evocations of terror by the political class were not a response to any specific threat or concern but a cynical attempt to turn terror into a permanent danger that required permanent vigilance enforced by unquestionable authority," Edward Snowden wrote in 2019's Permanent Record of his growing awareness of what lay behind the surveillance state.

Northam's alleged "credible intelligence" that this year's iteration of an annual political gathering is poised to erupt in an orgy of racism and violence gives him fodder for proclaiming a state of emergency over a normal expression of political dissent. In doing so, Northam makes it clear that he represents only his supporters, that he considers opponents' political views beyond the pale, and that he's prepared to use extraordinary means in order to get his way.

Northam isn't the only offender in this regard. Treating opponents as abnormal, subject to special sanction, and even as enemies of the people is an increasingly popular tactic for America's political class. It's also incredibly dangerous for the health of the political system.

People who are treated by government officials as enemies to be crushed would be foolish to submit to the authority of those officials. To do so is to bare their throats to a predator. If politicians are going to smear their opponents as illegitimate, they should be prepared to receive the same treatment in return.

NEXT: Should Banks Be in the Gun Control Business?

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. After your rag has spent 4 years writing multiple think pieces every week on how Trump supporters are neo-Nazis. LMAO. You aren't actually so self deluded to think you have any credibility left, are you?

    1. Authors at Reason have differing ideas on what tenets of libertarianism to emphasize. If you are complaining about the lack of groupthink, maybe that says more about you.

      Me, I want to know what they are going to do with that flag after the rally ...

      1. HAHAHA. unreason has none or very few writers who write about Libertarianism. Anarchists are NOT Libertarians. Dope smoking gay Lefties are NOT Libertarians.

        1. It's funny that (a) you don't know the meaning of anarchy and conflate it with chaos, (b) you think anarchists cannot be libertarians, (c) you like to spout SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED when the 2A was not part of the 1789 Constitution.

          1. Oh, and you think tariffs are not taxes. You sure are a mess of confusion.

            1. Even washington post admits you stopped economics after freshman year.

              "Headlines last year proclaimed Trump’s tariffs could cost the typical American family $1,000 more a year. The eye-popping number came from a JPMorgan analysis that assumed the full cost of the tariffs would be passed on to consumers, which is what is generally taught in introductory economics classes."


              Lol. If you weren't so ignorant youd understand the complexities of economics.

              But please keep doubling down on sophomoric understanding.

            2. By the way, the article says why JP Morgan was wrong. Dount you'll read it as you relish ignorance on the matter.

              1. Jesse, I'm not sure who you were replying to but the WaPo article was wrong in their criticism of the JP Morgan analysis. All costs are always passed on to consumers - eventually. The WaPo article cavalierly ignored the "eventually" part of the rule and highlighted only the short-term effects.

                For example, when the article said that "her company ate about 6 percent", what went unstated were the lost distribution of profits to employers and investors which meant they have less cash to buy their own goods and services. The article later describes a hiring slowdown but fails to connect that as another mechanism by which a tariff's costs are passed on to the rest of us.

                Companies are contractually-connected networks of people. While companies do sometimes accumulate piles of cash, they do so for specific business purposes, not just because they can. Any cost (including a tax) might initially be paid out of that pile but the business reason for the size of the original pile still exists so the business will eventually make it up - and the only way they can do that is to either charge their customers more or to pay their suppliers (including employees) less. Since we, the public, are on both sides of that equation, it will eventually come out of our pockets either way.

                1. Rossami, thanks for trying to set Jesse straight, and I agree with you!

                  However, you are trying to reason with an unreasonable bigot! EVERYTHING for Jesse is secondary to lusting after a Trumptatorship!

                  With reference to Trump, JesseAZ says…
                  “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

                  1. He didn't set me straight, he also ignored the actual data at hand. Just like you and ABC

                    1. Hey jailbird, have you been trying your "words can't be crimes" theory some more?

                      Readers, beware! Do not be deceived by JesseAZ! JesseAZ does NOT believe that LIES are bad in ANY way! Only ACTIONS matter, ethically or morally! See
                      “Words are words dumbfuck. Actions are where morals and ethics lie.”, says JesseAZ. When confronted with offers of hush money, illegal commands (from a commanding military officer), offers of murder for hire, libel, slander, lies in court, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, inciting riots, fighting words, forged signatures, threatening to kill elected officials, false representations concerning products or services for sale… these are all “merely” cases of “using words”. Just like the Evil One (AKA “Father of Lies”), Jesse says lies are all A-OK and utterly harmless! So do NOT believe ANYTHING that you hear from JesseAZ!

                    2. We ready know you've never made an intellectual argument. No need to keep reminding us

                    3. What data? The WaPo article presented none. And neither have you so far.

                    4. For fuck sake. It literally states the data. Why are you people so dishonest.

                      It is even mentioned in my posts. Do you know how to find inflationary data?

                  2. Squirrelly, fuck off. Adults are talking here.

                    Best you toddle off and do the libertarian thing, and kill yourself.

                    1. Shitsy for libertarians for suicide! At the next gathering, Shitsy will bring poisoned Kool-Aid for everyone! Still TBD at this time: Will Shitsy summon the Spirit of Jimmy Jones at this gathering, or perhaps the Spirit of the Evil One Itself?

                      It is clear to see already, that Shitsy has been drinking the metaphorical Kool-Aid. I sure hope and pray that Shitsy doesn’t literally drink the poisoned Kool-Aid as well! Because I treasure all conscious human life… Even EVIL human life, because even EVIL people can change their minds!

                      Change you mind, and turn away from evil, Shitsy… Because it WILL bite you in the behind, if you don’t!

                2. Actually economic theory doesn't say that all costs will be passed on to the consumer. Price elasticity of demand will make the producer choose between eating some of the costs or losing some of the sales. And 2, if there are other producers of the good not subject to tarrifs then Chinese producers could end up eating all the tarrifs depending on the capacity and pricing behavior of the competitor, whether they decide to maximize market share or profit.

                  1. Meanwhile in the real world...
                    Trump's Washing Machine Tariffs Cleaned Out Consumers
                    A new report finds the tariffs raised $82 million for the U.S. Treasury but ended up increasing costs for consumers by about $1.2 billion.

                    PROTECTIONISM DOESN'T WORK!!! DUH!!!

                    Protect American washing-machine makers from Chinese competition? The FIRST thing that American washing-machine makers do, is jack UP their prices... AND the prices of dryers to boot, too! To SOAK the hell out of all of us consumers!!!

                    1. So, how did the people working for American washing machine manufactures do?

                    2. From the above-linked Reason article about washing machines...

                      "All told, those tariffs raised about $82 million for the U.S. Treasury but ended up increasing costs for consumers by about $1.2 billion during 2018 ... (deleted). Although the trade policy did cause some manufacturers to shift production from overseas to the United States in an effort to avoid the new tariffs, the 1,800 jobs created by Trump's washing machine tariffs cost consumers an estimated $820,000 per job."

                      Summary: Nickels and dimes to the USA treasury; boatloads of pain for consumers. USA jobs created? Yes, at GREAT expense! Putting these 1.8 K workers on a super-generous welfare program would have been WAY better for all the rest of us! Plus, you know the WORKERS don't make super-huge bucks; the goodies flow to the EXECUTIVES at the top of the washing-machine companies! The same ones who play golf with The Donald, and join him for gang-banging Stormy Daniels! Essentially at our expense!

                  2. On the one hand, yes, price elasticity does imply that suppliers may choose to "eat" certain costs. On the other hand, that analysis is deliberately limited to the immediate transaction participants. It's a purely micro-economics analysis.

                    However, price elasticity tends not to work the same way when government skews the market. If, for example, government increases all prices by driving inflation, behavioral choices do not change as the basic price elasticity equations would predict. To understand the second, third and extended-order effects, you have to migrate toward macro-economic analysis. At that point, the humans who are on the demand side of the specific transaction get aggregated with those on the supply side through their downstream purchases. And at that level of analysis, "consumers" includes all of us.

                3. No. They weren't wrong. Your simplistic analysis is. It ignores market switches, supplier absorption, etc. As the article states.

                  It is amazing how some of you rely on explicit rules and ignore actual data such as inflationary signals.

                  Sometimes you have to move past simple analysis.

                  As Box stated... all models are wrong, some are useful.

                  1. And forcing businesses to switch is of course the entire point! Trump hopes much would come back to the USA, but even switching to India is seen as a "win" in encouraging China to come to the table to rectify issues, and just as taking them down a notch.

                    Figures I read the other day said Chinese exports to the USA were down 20% compared to where they would have been. That sucked a large portion out of their communist, totalitarian countries GDP, and mostly moved it to other less shitty nations GDP.

                    In truth, I don't have a HUGE problem with that. I avoid Chinese goods like the plague. I mostly try to buy American, European, Japanese made things, but when I can't I'll go for India or other less combative countries. China is a last resort, and thankfully I very rarely have to resort to it. I support the Chinese people, but not their system.

                    1. China is positioning themselves as our existential enemy. Weakening them economically will help maintain peace.

                    2. A lot of this is like arguing, "Pearl Harbor killed some Americans, but not nearly as our military killed by sending them off to war. We should have just sucked it up, and done nothing."

                      In dealing with China, the "war" part of "trade war" isn't entirely a metaphor. China is attempting to hollow out the industrial bases of its foes as a military strategy: They were trying to insulate themselves against retaliation for their military adventures by making themselves an irreplaceable part of our supply chains.

                      We were playing along with them on that for far too long, now we're starting to try to undo some of the damage.

                    3. Agree with both of you.

                      We never should have opened up to trade with them until the gave the rest of the world market access and got rid of all their other shenanigans like IP violations etc.

                      We could have demanded it of them 20-30 years ago and they would have caved easily. Now we're trying to negotiate with them when they're 10x better positions. Pure stupidity.

                      But doing it now is better than doing it in 10-20 more years when they'll be far stronger yet.

                4. As an aside you should only learn one rule of economics.

                  Economics is the study of why you were wrong yesterday. Tryst the data, not fixed rules. Humans are not rational, markets will respond irrationally.

                  1. " will respond irrationally."

                    So whatever Jesse has to say or predict, has an "out"! Jesse says XYZ means nothing, because humans are irrational!

                    So Marxism COULD work then, right, Jesse? So could a Trumptatorship! And a Trumptatorship is what Jesse REALLY wants!

                    1. Thank you for being a constant reminder of irrational thought.

                  2. Thank you for being an irrationally repetitive parrot, who repeats the same lies, over and over and over again! And you can NEVER admit error!

                    1. Squirrelly, I’ll bet you read Jesse’s comments while you bitterly jack it.

                    2. I think hes impotent myself.

                5. The point that everyone misses about tariffs is who these transfers go to. The "employers and investors" who lost 6% also gained something because they're invested in American companies who are being purchased from due to tariffs. Profits generally decrease due to tariffs, but wealth transfers out of the US decrease too. That means Americans are spending more for domestic products, but are also transferring wealth to other Americans who previously were not being transacted with prior to the tariffs. That's why the philosophy behind tariffs is called protectionism. How is domestic industry being protected? By forcing you to do business with it when you otherwise would not.

            3. "Oh, and you think tariffs are not taxes."

              So does the Constitution.

              1. The Constitution says that Mary-Tulpa-Satan is a non-stop thread shitter!

                1. Solid contribution.

                  1. Says the "Stable Genius Junior" who thinks that "the Constitution" is capable of "thinking" ANYTHING, let alone that tariffs aren't taxes! What is "the Constitution" thinking right now, Stable Genius Junior? Are you sure that those aren't just your head voices?

                    1. Solid contribution.

                    2. Says the “Stable Genius Junior” who thinks that “the Constitution” is capable of “thinking” ANYTHING

                      It's a literary device called "personification' Hihn. Try not being a horrible autist once.

                    3. Hush, he thinks he has me on the ropes after his llama debacle. Going to war over flowery language is his endgame lololo

      2. His characterization of a pattern of commentary displayed by multiple authors over an extended period of time is a complaint about a lack of groupthink?


        I'm tempted to ask what color the sky is on your planet, but I doubt the answer would be relevant.

        1. I’m tempted to ask what color the sky is on your planet, but I doubt the answer would be relevant.

          And it would require coming up from his mom's basement once in a while.

      3. “If you are complaining about the lack of groupthink, maybe that says more about you.”


        1. Booming yourself?


          1. Hes got nobody else that agrees with him.

    2. I'm so, so sorry your feeling got hurt. What doe your comment have to do with the article?

      1. Nah, you're just a retarded savagely left wing mentally diseased cunt cytotoxic/chemjeff.

        1. Nice one, dude. Go ahead and find a single comment where I endorse a leftist position. You Trumpies do not understand that disdain for Trump is natural, no matter your politics on the left/right spectrum.

          1. Facts don't care about their feelings, as the saying goes.

          2. Pedo Jeffy, kill yourself.

      2. Jeff is still using his butthurt sock.

        1. And you’re here to defend groupthink. Got it.

          1. No, calling out groupthink. Or, at least, calling out a well defined narrative.

            (Which may, or may not be caused by groupthink.)

            Your "I'm rubber, you're glue" rhetorical device just isn't cutting it.

            1. Apparently, accusations of "groupthink" are the latest leftist talking point, distributed via periodic centralized mailings of course

              1. When the shoe fits Nardz.

                1. Piss off, hypocrite.

              2. GOP shill and frequent parrot of every GOP talking point and NPC script complains again about leftist talking points and NPC's, as usual. Project more man.

                Some day you kids will realize you are just the other side of the same shitty coin rather than the hero fighting against the enemy (which you arent).

                1. And maybe you'll realize your opinion is idiotic and nobody gives a shit what you think, jumbo.
                  Choke on a progressive dick

                2. Someone with a screenname like "ShotgunJimbo" probably shouldn't be lecturing anyone about acting like a stereotype.

          2. Lol. God you're as pathetic as Jeff. Working contrary to the mainstream media and even this site is group think. Fucking hilarious.

            1. “Working”?!? Is that what you call trolling commentariat? Holy shit cupcake. You need some fucking perspective

              1. How do you continuously remain unmurdered?

        2. You're just mad that you keep losing arguments to me.

          Here's a tip: Start with the facts, then make your opinions, not the other way around.

          1. Nobody ever lost an argument to you, Jeffy, outside your imagination.

          2. You cant lose an argument when you refuse to make an argument baby jeffrey.

            1. That's just not true, and you know it. You're really getting worse at this.

              1. Of you could make an actual argument you wouldnt resort to thought experiments and sophistry.

                1. I don't think I've asked anyone to participate in a thought experiment, and I'm pretty sure you learned the word "sophistry" from me criticizing Ken's posts.

                  1. Pedo Jeffy is incredibly disingenuous. So it’s best just to be mean to him. He isn’t capable of debating in good faith.

                  2. Lol. Your pathetic jeff. I've been calling you a sophist for months now. Dumb piece of shit.

    3. YOU are self-deluded if you think this "rag" is a single entity, and if the only articles you see bash Trump, then you must be skipping the 90% which don't.

      1. Nah, you're just a retarded savagely left wing mentally diseased cunt Sqrsly/Hihn.

      2. Reason magazine is a single entity. He described a pattern of behavior appearing within. That that behavior may have involved multiple individual authors does not excuse the pattern.

        He was calling out Tuccile for being associated with it.

        Free association tending to carry associations. Including editorial ones.

      3. Other than Stossel, this magazine is now basically entirely represented by left-libertarians... Despite left-libertarians GREATLY being in the minority of libertarians I have met in real life, and also as per the comments section, probably everywhere.

        Yet somehow ONLY that leftist tinged version of libertarianism is represented here nowadays. That didn't used to be the case. They used to be far more friendly to right-libertarian viewpoints.

        They've gone PC/SJW because it's en vogue, and also the cocktail parties. They're all just big city douche bag urbanites who can't stand actually supporting a lot of things because they're "icky" or whatever.

        The same has happened to the rest of the media. If Reason ever wants to be taken seriously again, they need to bring in more Stossel, Ron Paul, Mises Institute type people here to bring back some credibility. Libertarianism isn't JUST left-libertarianism.

        1. Too much risk of sounding less than critical of Orange Man.

          Can't have that.

        2. The left has ceded so much ground on the liberty front that there is a huge market for what you call left-libertarianism. This is especially true when right-libertarianism can be found across conservative media. To truly stake out a separate path from the Republican Party, I think that the editors are pressed with seeking differences between libertarianism and conservatism. There’s no need to do this with Progressivism, of which the differences are currently legion.

          1. But it just ain't so.

            There isn't a big market in left-libertarianism, because people who have leftist (feelz based thinking) tendencies are rarely drawn to libertarianism. Hence the vast majority of right-libertarians I have met IRL.

            As somebody who is more libertarian than conservative in a traditional sense, I would like to have a media outlet that at least somewhat catered to me. Because it ain't Breitbart!

            So them going after what they perceive to be a niche is just dumb... It's like somebody not selling meat based burgers at their burger place because they want the vegan burger market all to themselves! There isn't enough of a vegan burger market for it to work.

            Also, Reason can cater to both sides of libertarianism without betraying any ideals. There are valid arguments on many issues to be had. There's no reason to black ball 80-90% of libertarians. It makes no sense from either an ideological or business standpoint.

          2. "There's a market opportunity for more useful idiots!"

        3. No, they've gone PC/SJW because the march through the institutions is a conscious strategy. You hire a few leftists, they gravitate to HR, and then they see to it that only fellow leftists get hired, and put a heavy thumb on the scale against retaining right-wingers. Eventually the institution is controlled by the left, and diverted to advancing the left's goals, instead of the institution's original purposes.

          1. Pretty much.

            I guarantee Reason has interviewed people and gone "Well that guy has a great resume... But ewwww he's against abortion after the 1st trimester on a personal level, even though he thinks it should be up to individuals. I just can't see him fitting in here."

            They hired somebody else. It's not even that conscious of a thing with people most of the time. You just tend to prefer people that are similar to you, and hire accordingly. Over time an organization develops a "culture." The culture here is VERY left-libertarian now.

    4. You are of course correct, but gun control is one of the few remaining issues where Reason has not completely shit the bed.

      1. For all the stupid this place has going on, I will give them that for the most part.

        They have from time to time written stuff about how certain gun control laws would be "okay" or whatever, but they've never outright shilled FOR them either. That's a bit not cool from a libertarian perspective, but not nearly as bad as the shilling they do for other issues where right/left libertarians split.

      2. "You are of course correct, but gun control is one of the few remaining issues where Reason has not completely shit the bed."

        Credit 2chili for this ...

    5. It could be worse. At least we didn’t get the traditional annual If I Had A Hammer column for MLK day. Be grateful for small blessings.

  2. Speaking of, here's former Reason editor Noah Berlatsky unironically arguing that voting for Trump is unconstitutional because it is motivated by racism.

    1. That might be Berlatsky's best work since his case for banning hate speech.

      Reason really needs to bring this guy back!

    2. Berlatsky, Weigel, Fields, Balko--funny how these folks all end up joining the left-wing hive mind after they leave the publication.

      1. Funny how Balko has more credibility than you ever will. You just outed yourself as a violent thug.

        1. Spotted his wife's sockpuppet.

          1. He's right, though. Balko is respected from all sides. Well, except the conspiratarians, and sometimes the Trumpians
            (but I repeat myself), depending on what daddy Trump has said lately.

            1. All of cytotoxic's sockpuppets agree that Balko is beyond reproach guys!

            2. I'm still laughing at your ass-hurt over Soleimani getting smoked and World War III not resulting from it like you were expecting.

              1. If there's one thing cytotoxic loves it's some middle east wars. Makes for a great excuse for mass population displacement. Not in Toronto where he lives with his mother, of course...

                1. I own my current house and an investment property, I'm not cyto, and I'm not Canadian.

                  Your opinions don't hold up in debate, so you resort to falsehoods and ad hominem. Which is typical of people who are more opinionated than rational.

                  1. Like yourself, for instance.

                    1. Very quick riposte, but where is the supporting evidence? I support my arguments with links to valid sources much more often than anyone else on here.

                    2. The links you post never support the argument you've made. Half the time they arent even related to your argument.

                    3. You should improve your reading comprehension. Again, you have the order of operations mixed up between "researches and establishes the facts of the matter" and "forms opinion".

                    4. No jeff. What you do is form an opinion and then google a headline that you think agrees with you without reading the article. Like when you posted the wrong IG laws for weeks without posting the correct ICIG regulation. Or posting links to NASA without understanding what it actually says.

                      You're not intelligent.

                    5. Yet you cannot explain how exactly NASA's papers that explicitly say that man made co2 is causing increased global temperatures don't actually say that. Or how the ICIG 'law' (it was actually a memo we were discussing) was wrong, even though that was the most recent one which reversed the previous memo that you bitterly wanted to be the 'right' one.

                    6. I doubt it said anything of the sort you little liar. We’ve all learned through experience not to give you the benefit of the doubt.

                  2. "I’m not Canadian"

                    Thank goodness, I didn't want to have to emigrate elsewhere.

                    1. You gotta watch out for them Canadians! They seem almost like real people, so they make the perfect Manchurian Candidate!

                    2. He is Canadian. He’s just lying, as usual. Just like when he claimed to be a special forces veteran who knew Eddie Gallagher.

                      He really is vile and loathsome.

                  3. You are just the worst. You are an embarrassment to all past, present and future military. You are stolen valor idiot and I am going to forward you to the Guardians of the Green Beret so they can put you for being a liar.

                    1. I earned my valor. You just don't like that I use my eyes and ears and don't blindly follow your cult leader. You need to examine yourself.

              2. Go ahead and link any comment where I was mad that Soleimani was killed or that I expected ww3.

                I said explicitly that I was glad that he was dead. I also said that Trump took a risky choice, but if that was the end of the escalation, then he played it well.

                1. Heres you defending iran.

                  January.8.2020 at 7:14 am

                    1. That's not me, you utter idiot.

                  1. Not me.

                2. Unrelated. JFree saying he makes his friends watch him post on reason.


                3. You saying it was wrong to kill Soleimani despite multiple people pointing to the legal justification.


                  You know I've gone through two threads and not one post of yours saying he should have been killed yet.

                  So your turn.

                  "I said explicitly that I was glad that he was dead."

                4. You with one of the most retarded metaphors of all time to go against killing Soleimani.


                  I'm still in the first 2 threads.

                  1. Stand by for the boilerplate "I didn't really say what I said" sophistry.

                    1. Well, it's not me, so I didn't.

                  2. Literally not one of those is me. You're such an idiot.

        2. Balko is excellent on criminal justice and policing in America, but he's gone off the deep end on other political matters. For example, he lost his mind on the Covington debacle, and couldn't seem to find a path all the way back to objectivity.

          1. He did some good work in that area. But, he doesn't seem to do it much anymore. And his smearing of the Covington kids and his believing and pushing the Russia hoax have ended any credibility he had. Balko is all about questioning law enforcement until they go after someone he doesn't like. Then he is happy to repeat whatever lie the feed him as the gospel truth.

            1. It is truly amazing how people can turn off their rationality once they get their emotions tied up in something.

              Like Trump. On 95% of issues he's objectively a better president than any we've had in A LONG TIME. And he's status quo, AKA not Hitler, on everything else. Yet because he's kind of a blowhard, and lots of people don't like him personally, it just warps their fragile little minds and they turn off their capacity to reason.

              I guess I'm odd in being rational 99% of the time, even on issues where my heart wants to go the opposite direction of facts... But expecting everybody to be like me is too much to ask I suppose.

              1. I’m just grateful he is t some communist shit sack that would load the SCTOUS with other communists.

                1. Right??? That may well be his biggest legacy.

                  As much as I love Thomas, I do wish he had resigned to be replaced by somebody younger.

              2. I think the left was trending towards categorically rejecting the legitimacy of anybody elected as a Republican. Then having so many people reject Trump's legitimacy dragged along some people who might otherwise have been reasonable, but were susceptible to group-think, and it passed some tipping point.

                Trump's personal manner grates, but I doubt any Republican President will ever see a significant fraction of Democrats supporting him again. There's no going back again.

                1. I dunno. Because of my knowledge and ideology I've always been pretty much in the same spot... Republicans mostly suck, but are way better than the Democrats.

                  But a LOT of squishy centrists really just change it up. I can't imagine how ANYBODY could vote for Bush Sr, then Clinton, then maybe Bob Dole, then Al Gore, Kerry, Obama, Mitt Romney, and finally Trump... But I guarantee you there are TONS of people with that exact voting record, or one just as crazy.

                  People who don't pay much attention seem to just sway in the wind, so we'll see. Amazingly there are still a lot of TRUE moderate Democrat voters. They've being switching sides for years, but there are still millions of them left. Perhaps Sanders or Warren winning will push them over to the Rs going forward.

          2. He also hilariously claimed that criticism of the NYT 1619 Project was confirmation of the belief that racism doesn't exist.

            1. Like every other journalist it seems, when the mask slipped he turned out to have all the intellectual maturity and acumen of an overly earnest 8th grader.

              1. He went completely off the deep end during the Covington incident. He claimed the kids were caught at basketball games wearing blackface and making white power signs, and after he was shown to be completely wrong on his claim, issued a passive-voiced statement generalizing that the school and its community were "failing these kids." That was code for, "I'm a disingenuous piece of shit who completely got this wrong because I was listening to my commie wife and her commie friends instead of looking at the facts."

                1. It is too bad he is not one of the ones they are suing. Maybe they will get around to him.

                  1. I hope he gets sued too. Balko ought to pay that kid he attacked.

                    1. It's not like he didn't telegraph his inclinations when he joined HuffPo after working here.

          3. See, I cannot give someone an excellent critique in one area if they are insane in all other areas. That lunacy brings into question their other material. I would also suspect liars to taint their other works with lies.

        3. Funny how you're a mentally ill welfare leeching piece of subhuman shit dying of senile dementia in a taxpayer funded inpatient facility abandoned by a family and society that hates your guts, Hihn.

          1. I’m almost tempted to meet the idiot the next time I’m in the Boise area. It’s kind of a morbid fascination, like slowing down in. The interstate to gawk at a grisly car wreck.

          2. "Funny how you’re a mentally ill welfare leeching piece of subhuman shit dying of senile dementia in a taxpayer funded inpatient facility abandoned by a family and society that hates your guts, Hihn."

            You missed "incontinent and Puritis Ani sufferer".

        4. "You just outed yourself as a violent thug."

          You just outed yourself as Hihn.

        5. Violent thugs? Like those Palestinian terrorists Balko aggrandizes?

      2. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

        red rocks white privilege

    3. They also want to create 100 new states, not just one, out of DC to give government employees an overwhelming advantage in the House and Senate.

      1. You saw that Note in the Harvard Law Review too, huh? Anonymous, lest the clowns who wrote it have to suffer in the job market when trying to explain that pile of garbage.

        I get crazy ideas being used as grist for someone's thesis or dissertation. What I don't understand is a world where the Harvard Law Review gives that idea the formerly-respected pulpit of being published in its pages.

        I don't know that we're going to be able to vote our way out of this mess. I don't see how people can compromise and agree to disagree when both sides are this far apart, and frankly, view each other as batshit insane.

        1. Well, the leftists ARE batshit insane. Therein lies the problem. It's not like we're arguing over whether the color red or color blue is prettier. They've literally just decided to deny reality and objective truth on 1,000 subjects based on irrational emotions.

          Personally, I think we're either going to have a civil war, OR preferably peacefully split the country up into 2, or even better more than 2, separate nations. That is the best solution, as a civil war would be messy.

          The only way we could potentially hold the country together is if everybody just agrees to disagree, and we devolve LOTS of power to the states. We would also need to split many states into perhaps DC like entities that are states that are based around major population centers and their immediate suburbs, and give the rest of the state the ability to run their shit.

          Without splitting cities from states national representation in congress can never be balanced. And then we would need live and let live on top of that.

          Barring those things it's splitting the country, but people are too dumb to see the virtues in peaceful separation at this point... Soooo if neither of those happens, I'm 98% certain we will have a civil war. Fingers crossed one of the better options happens.

        2. The Democrats have long expected that, at some point, they'd take control, and never have to give it up.

          I think that's a difference between the left and right some people don't get: The right thinks of this as a give and take, sometimes you're on top, sometimes you're not. The left aspires to final victory. They're always talking about inevitable demographic trends, for instance.

          They really did think that, with Obama, they'd arrived at their final victory, that they were never again going to have to give up power. Then they lost Congress. Then they lost the White house. And they resolved that it would not stand, it would never happen again, and screw the rules, they'd just do whatever it took.

          They regard Trump as a monster because the end justifies the means, and if your foe is a literal monster, what can't you justify doing to defeat them?

          So now they're openly discussing packing the Supreme court, creating new states, mandating pro-Democratic gerrymandering.

          1. All true.

            And the sad thing is, they're right. With demographic trends they probably WILL take over forever in the next decade or so at the federal level. When the right realizes there will never be a sane president again, that is probably when the push to split up the nation will begin in earnest.

    4. This place really is that bad.

  3. As a principled anti-racist, I wanted Northam to resign when his yearbook scandal became public. However maybe it's actually a good thing he's still in office. It's important to have politicians courageous enough to stand up to the gun fetishists.


    1. Because fuck hundreds of thousands of people who don't want to be made felons for doing literally nothing, amirite?

      1. Adjust your sarc meter.

    2. He can resign now that a Democrat would replace him.

  4. "Available information suggests that a substantial number of these demonstrators are expected to come from outside the Commonwealth, may be armed, and have as their purpose not peaceful assembly but violence, rioting, and insurrection."

    But enough about antifa and the other socialists - - - - - - - -

    1. Simple minds, and the loudest voice! Omg, Antifa might break a window! How will my violent, racist friends survive, lol.

      1. Yes, the left uses violence and political terror to achieve its ends. Everyone knows that dumb ass. You don't have to remind us. We know who you are and what you are about.

      2. Hey Mikey Hihn, you should exercise your 2nd Amendment right to shoot yourself in the mouth with a 10 gauge shotgun.

        1. As Hihn informs us, true libertarians believe that US subjects should only be allowed to posses weapons in common use at the time the Constitution was adopted. Since modern shotguns (i.e., double barrel, boxlock action, etc.) were developed later, suicide by shotgun is not allowed for the libertarian faithful.

          1. Blunderbuss it is then!

          2. I want a ship of the line

      3. AntiFa’s Useful Idiots are still downplaying their psychotic violence, I see,

      4. Andy NGO would like to have a word with you Hihn. About your precious Antifa friends.

    2. It seems ANTIFA was too scared to show up since they were so outnumbered, hence everything went off without a hitch.

      It's funny how everything is textbook perfect when ANTIFA doesn't show up... But those evil right wing terrorists are just sooooooooooooo violent.


  5. Virginia Gov. Northam Smears Gun Control Opponents to Frighten His Base

    They should be scared. If you go after guns and other constitutional rights without changing the Constitution via Article V, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....

    1. Yup.

      I wish every person there had showed up with a long gun and were a lot less polite. It will come to that at some point methinks.

      1. Wait until July, when these bills come into effect. You might see a lot more rudeness then.

        1. We can only hope. I'm a big fan of most of Virginia joining West Virginia. The old laws are on the books, so there is already a mechanism. I haven't read too great of details, but I don't think that Governor Blackface can legally stop them even if he wanted to!

    2. Indeed. If people think they can come into my house and take my sh it, harm me, or wreck up the place, I will not tolerate it. They will die horribly in the attempt.

      Every good libertarian should view our country and the Bill of Rights that way.

  6. 2 Honolulu officers killed, 7 Diamond Head homes destroyed as man’s eviction leads to mayhem

    Hanel’s attorney Jonathan Burge told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser that the 69-year-old from the Czech Republic suffered from mental problems and repeated conflicts with neighbors.

    “But this is shocking,” Burge said. “I didn’t think he was capable of such extreme violence.”

    Burge said his client had a history of mental issues, was paranoid and believed the FBI and the Secret Service were tracking him. He barricaded himself in the downstairs space where he lived in the Hibiscus Drive house in 2015 when police came to arrest him on charges he assaulted a neighbor.

    This is what one person can do with a gun and some arson. The government traitors dont stand a chance.

    1. Are you cheering this? Who are the "government traitors"?

      1. He's saying that if one guy with a gun and some matches can do that, governor blackface's brownshirts probably won't have much luck disarming half a million of them, cytotoxic.

        1. Nice. Very mature and well thought out thesis. Totally not just another violent fantasy by an angry, ineffective Trumpy.

          (Very ironic anyone from your clique calling anyone else a brown-shirt, btw. Go to another 'rally' and tell that joke with all of your friends who wear the same article of clothing and cheer at a bad, nasty outsider being assaulted.)

          1. Why are you shilling for a gungrabber on a purportedly libertarian site?

            1. I'm not. I don't have to pick a side between gun grabbers and militia.

              For the record I don't support the Virginian gun control law or the governor's handling of the rally. But I'm sure as shit not going to throw my hat in with seditious conspiratarians who resort to violence over their toys.

              1. Point to the violence

                1. Uh, the very first comment in this chain? Hello?

                  1. Uh, the very first comment in this chain? Hello?

                    Where the fuck did the article say that this guy was a member of a militia? It was about some random guy with severe mental problems who got in a shootout with police officers.

                    1. Pedo Libortoxic is a lying piece of shit, as usual.

                    2. Who else is ilc1789 fantasizing about resisting gun grabbers? And the question I was answering was "where is the violence?". Which I answered. You need to have someone explain these comments to you.

              2. But I’m sure as shit not going to throw my hat in with seditious conspiratarians who resort to violence over their toys.

                Where exactly was the violence, shitlib?

              3. It's not sedition on the part of the militias... It's sedition on the part of the politicians. Fighting against seditious tyrants in the government is everyones right and duty.

    2. 'But there's no such thing as insanity!'

      The asylums need to be brought back. It will be hideously expensive, liberties will be violated, and it still needs to be done.

  7. Richmond Gun Rally: Thousands Of Gun Owners Converge On Virginia Capitol On MLK Day

    Notice Antifa are not fucking with these heavily armed Americans protesting gun control. Hahaha.

    1. Funny how there's no violence when ANTIFA isn't around...

  8. "With an immediate post-election victory push for gun restrictions, state Democrats play to the prejudices of their urban-to-suburban base with legislation that sticks it to the rural areas where such laws are largely unpopular."

    Isn't that how elections are supposed to work?

    1. Legislation is supposed to be restricted by the Bill of Rights.

      1. Shouldn’t it be called The Bill of Government Restrictions?

    2. Just don't be surprised when the rural areas figure that you don't represent them and subsequently tell you to go fuck yourself.

      1. "...and subsequently tell you to go fuck yourself."

        In a manner you might not like. Quoting Larry Correia,

        A friend of mine who is a political activist said something interesting the other day, and that was for most people on the left political violence is a knob, and they can turn the heat up and down, with things like protests, and riots, all the way up to destruction of property, and sometimes murder… But for the vast majority of folks on the right, it’s an off and on switch. And the settings are Vote or Shoot Fucking Everybody.


        I've heard it describes as "polite protest" or "mass industrialized murder," but the point's the same.

        1. The 2nd Amendment sanctuary issue is basically the rural areas telling urban areas and suburban wine moms to go fuck themselves.

          A law that won't be enforced is a dead law, and when you have to intimate that you're going to call out the National Guard to enforce this petty gun-grabbing, you've lost the argument.

          1. Lefties have wondered how far they can push.

            Trump is the line that for Lefties going too far.

            Now that many Americans are pissed, they are not willing to compromise and hopefully we can roll back as much as possible before what's left of the Democrat Party lash out in the future.

        2. I would say that's about right. Part of it I think is that the right tends to be older and more middle class, meaning they don't have the time to run around playing college protester, and they stand to lose a lot if they riot, with very little gain. Thus, they don't tend to do anything until they've decided that shit's already hit the fan, at which point the guns come out and there are free helicopter rides for everyone.

          1. Yup.

            It is very much that right wing people just tend to not be fuckups with endless free time to waste protesting or vandalizing shit. Plus they're just constitutionally not the type of people that do that sort of thing.

            As the meme goes, the left riots, and the right marches in formation.

            If right leaning people get pushed too far it is very much an on/off switch, and if that switch gets flipped there are gonna be a lot of commies who realize they fucked up BIG TIME with their dumb shit. They've taken the reasonableness of right wingers as a weakness... But people will only be pushed so far.

      2. Why do you think urban centers are against purging voter rolls of dead people or people who have moved?

    3. Yes, absolutely. Now shut the fuck up about Trump's immigration policy, trade policy, foreign policy, tranny policy, etc etc etc.

    4. Those who would style themselves our masters instead of our servants are still required to over the Constitutions of VA and the United States. They are still required to respect and protect the rights of those who disagree with them.

      Governor Blackface and his cronies appear to have lost sight of those facts.

    5. re: "Isn’t that how elections are supposed to work?"

      Well, no, not unless you want to perpetuate an escalating cycle of reprisals as soon as you piss off enough of your opponents to get voted out. It seems to me that the smarter move would be to play to the middle. Support your own party's preferences but avoid issues that will strongly mobilize your opponents' base against you. And maybe, somewhere in there, occasionally do something that's actually good for the country (or state) regardless of whether it's in your party's short-term interest.

      1. And the Dems used to be smart enough to do that.

        That's what destroyed our country. The always pushed stuff that was juuust a bit to the left of center. But over the last century they've shifted the goal posts so far out that it's insane.

        Personally, I think the Dems looked at the demographic trends (because unlike delusional Rs and libertarians they realize that ethnic voting trends are pretty rock solid), and thought they would never lose another election again. So they ramped things up.

        Then Trump came along and shit all over them. This freaked them out and caused them to lose their minds. So the doubled and tripled down on everything.

        I think the reason they have been acting so stupid is honestly that they have too many "diversity hires" in the ranks now. Note that the "old white guys" are the ones pushing the correct path to victory, namely a centristy set of policies that are a bit to the left of what is currently acceptable.

        That's what won the last 100 years for the left, and they would keep winning with it. But all the new brown/female/whatever people are the ones pushing the party to the hard left for the most part. It's bad strategy... But thank god they're screwing the pooch!

    6. You should be able to enact your legislative policy as long as your policy is not a violation of the civil rights of your constituency. If Virginia voted to murder the 100 riches Virginians and steal their shit, it would still be illegal even if it got the majority of the votes.

      Civil Rights exist for exactly this purpose-defending against the tyranny of the majority.

  9. New York Times endorses two candidates for president for first time

    Might as well endorse a Lefty. Americans are fully aware that the NYT and all the MSM are Propagandists for Socialists and the Democrat Party.

    1. "wahhhh they don't think like meeeeeeeeeeee"

      1. Very good cytotoxic! you're learning by repetition! Nobody likes you! Now keep telling yourself that until you grow the balls to put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.

        1. I knew others would come to the conclusion that he needs to kill him self just like I did.

      2. It is amazing how often Jeff reveals himself as a leftie.

        1. Only if you are stupid. I don't even know who they endorsed. I assume it is not Trump. Probably not Bernie.

          1. Jeff's all in for Warren.

          2. Sure you dont jeffrey. The same party they've endorsed since forever.

            1. I'm a no shit a registered republican. I was a precinct committee officer in my state's GOP for 8 years. I was a very active republican. I've never voted for a D for federal office in my life.

              You just can't comprehend that Trump is not a republican or a conservative. He's a conman who blows the dog whistles harder than they've ever been blown before in this country. He's the pied piper of the paranoid and racist. I'm not down with that. Nor am I into conspiracy theories being accepted as gospel because they paint the picture you wish was real.

              1. Only Ds hear these whistles you're prattling on about...

                1. Sure thing. I've been going to republican party meetings a few times a year for years. There's no denying the crazies, the religious nuts, the racists, and the conspiracy nutsos who are in the mix. They certainly hear them. Trump just blows that whistle so fucking hard that no one misses it.
                  Remember when he called Mexicans rapists and criminals, then took a 5 second pause, and said, "some...I assume, are good people." Awww fuck! Look at that. He "assumes" some are good. He has to assume because he apparently doesn't know any "good" Mexicans. See, he's not using obvious racist demagoguery to motivate obvious racists to vote for him, he's just a real patriot who just happened to never demonstrate that patriotism before.

                  1. He says "Mexico isn't sending their best"
                    And you hear "Mexicans=rapists, with a few exceptions"

                    You've got some cognitive disfunction going on

                    1. When of course Mexico ISN'T sending their best.

                      Average education level of illegal immigrant from Mexico is 8th grade. Mexico has a large, educated, and affluent middle and upper class... They ain't sneaking across the Rio Grande!

                      If we'd only taken worthy immigrants from Mexico peoples perception of Mexican immigrants would be completely different. India is an even bigger shithole than Mexico, with far lower average education, etc. But we perceive Indians as super smart, hard working, law abiding people... Because we only ever see the cream of the crop.

                      Anybody with 2 brain cells to rub together knows we get the shit people from Latin America. We're getting basically the equivalent of nothing but trailer park trash and ghetto trash, and then wonder why their crime rate is through the roof, their incomes aren't even high enough to support the government services they use, etc. I would gladly accept Mexican doctors and engineers... No more dish washers need apply though.

                    2. "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. ...And some, I assume, are good people."

                    3. And?

                      By any stat you want to choose, the average illegal immigrant IS more criminal, lower income, more dysfunctional than the US average. If you remove black people from the US average they're DRAMATICALLY worse than the national average.

                      I'm part Mexican myself, but I don't let that make me delusional about the reality of bringing in nothing but trailer trash from Latin America. Imagine if the only immigrants saaay the UK got from the USA were black ghetto gang bangers and meth head white trash... What would their impression of America and Americans be? Well that's mostly what we get from Latin America. And also their equivalent of dyfunctional, but employed, white trash as well.

                      None of those demographics are ones you want. We spend trillions trying to eliminate those social classes in the USA because they're fucked... And then turn around and import the exact same strata from other countries. It makes no sense.

                  2. There you go again Pedo Jeffy. You just can’t help yourself, can you? The lies just flow out of you. The fact is that we’ve all heard the tape of that speech and know you’re full of shit. He was clearly discussing illegals. Not immigrants. But you are too much of a Pedo Jeffy to make that distinction, or show a shred of honesty.

              2. If you can hear dog whistles, that makes you a dog.

              3. Nor am I into conspiracy theories being accepted as gospel because they paint the picture you wish was real.

                This is pretty rich coming from you.

                1. Mhhmm. I follow the evidence. Sorry that the evidence out there paints Trump as a criminal who is badly compromised with conflicts of interest.

                  1. Sure, that's why you're whinging about disproven Russian collusion conspiracies.

                    1. Disproven? That has never been disproved. If you would actually read the fucking report, you could not continue to support Trump without having to acknowledge that that support would be against the constitution.

                      Oh, and there is now another whistle blower who apparently also has documentation that shows Trump has been getting his loans from Russian state bank VTB for all these years. Total coincidence, I'm sure.

                    2. Disproven? That has never been disproved. If you would actually read the fucking report,

                      The "fucking report" doesn't conclude that Russian collusion took place, you moron.

                    3. The "fucking report" also asserts that the primary means of Russian "interference" was social media and hacking, but provides no evidence in support of such conclusions

                    4. The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.
                      Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.
                      A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice.

      3. No one likes you. No one in 2/1 SFG knows you. You are stolen valor.

        1. No one in 2/1 knows my reason posting habits? I hope not. What a shameful waste of time in here.

          I'm in, (or maybe was, I don't know how long they keep those up) the hall of valor for 2/1.

          You assert stolen valor because you can't argue politics. Weak as fuck.

    2. NYT: “Any bitch will do.”

  10. How Trump Has Kept Near-Unanimous GOP Support Through Impeachment

    Democrats are a joke and everyone knows it. The stench of desperation permeates the Party of slavery and segregation.

    1. The stench of corruption permeates the GOP. I like the constitution, you all want a king.

      1. Stop lying.

        1. I'm not. Lev Parnas is revealing quite a bit. Just as Michael Cohen did before him. NRA laundered millions in foreign donations to the GOP in 2016.

          Your chosen demi god has:
          1. sent his son to take a meeting with Russian spies
          2. not divested from his many overseas holdings, nor his domestic holdings. A clear and inarguable conflict of interest.
          3. Has actually said "who cares about the deficit" and "who gives a shit about Afghanistan". Where are the conservative values?
          4. Has had all or nearly all his ventures capital loans backed by Russian state bank, VTB.

          Not my fault you all have taken the route of covering your eyes and ears so the real world can't get in.

          1. You've just cited two people under indictment/convicted of perjury. parnas also for fabricating evidence. Both who sought to shorten their jail terms. Solid group to get testimony from.

            1. So convenient that the president surrounds himself with criminals, and then the second they get indicted for crimes (that they committed at the direction of Trump), they become unreliable witnesses.

              By your standard, the mob would have never been taken down. Which, funnily enough, is basically how Trump and his cronies are operating.

              1. 1. Who were being paid by the Clinton campaign and DNC, via Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, in accordance with a hair brained scheme cooked up by avowed communist and Obama CIA director John Brennan

                1. Go ahead and post that sweet evidence, please.

                  1. Right after you post that evidence that they were colluding with Russia.

                    1. Does that change the fact that the president's son took that meeting at his father's direction? Does it change the fact that they went through 3 iterations of lies about the meeting before finally copping to it?

          2. Oh, we're back to this disproven Russian collusion conspiracy theorizing again?

            Mueller Claus already left that coal in your stocking, shitlib.

      2. Keep crying little bitch, I'mma need it for lube.

        1. Crying? More like showing you stunted troglodytes what it means to have and defend a stance born of rational analysis.

          1. "rational analysis"

          2. You’ve never done that, ever. You’re a moronic twat.

      3. Poor baby jeffrey.

      4. Ok faggot, which one of those awesome democrats will be the defender of the Republic?

  11. I read a report over the weekend that warned of racists and anti-government extremists at this rally, and one of the groups they highlighted for this was the Oath Keepers.

    The Oath Keepers, far as I know, are first responders and people who served their country in the military. Rather than being anti-government, their purpose seems to be about reassuring the public that everyone in the government is not out to get them. These are people in government telling us that we can trust them to uphold their vow to abide by and defend the Constitution and our constitutional rights. To my mind, that is simply not anti-government. It's the opposite of anti-government.

    So, where is the media getting this stuff?

    My first guess it the Southern Poverty Law Center. Here's from the heading on their page on the Oath Keepers:

    "The Oath Keepers, which claims tens of thousands of present and former law enforcement officials and military veterans as members, is one of the largest radical antigovernment groups in the U.S. today. While it claims only to be defending the Constitution, the entire organization is based on a set of baseless conspiracy theories about the federal government working to destroy the liberties of Americans."


    There isn't anything "radical" about first responders and military promising to refuse to violate our constitutional rights when they're working for the government--and the idea that governments sometimes use first responders and military to violate people's rights is hardly a conspiracy theory.

    If anybody is promoting a conspiracy theory here, it's probably the SPLC: There's a group of police and military that are refusing to violate our constitutional rights--even under orders. How do we stop them?!

    1. P.S. If I said that Nancy Pelosi, the DNC, rich donors to the Democratic Party, and a slew of Democrat candidates for president were all conspiring to use the government to confiscate the guns of 100 million law abiding American citizens, would that be a conspiracy theory?

      1. You can keep your musket.

      2. Absolutely it would be a federal crime for all these Democrats to conspire to actively violate the federal rights of Americans.

        18 U.S. Code § 241. Conspiracy against rights
        If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

        If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

        They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

        1. The point I was trying to get across was that they're openly advocating the violation of our rights. They're campaigning on promises to violate our constitutional rights. If you point that out, however, you get labeled a conspiracy theorist.

          It's not a theory.

          1. That's the kind of things propagandists say... The left wing media is just doing their job lying to people, just like Goebbels.

            Anybody who takes anything the ADL or SPLC says as truth is a fool. They are just left wing propaganda outfits.

    2. The media "gets it" from leftists activist groups. And the media will believe any lie such groups tell them and will dutifully report it as fact.

    3. I imagine that to the SPLC "anitgovernment" means pro-constitution, and anti leftist total state.

    4. Ah yes, the oath keepers. Founded in 2009 in response to there being a black president. Fond of conspiracy theories that Hillary was going to subjugate the US to the UN and use foreign troops to confiscate the guns. Also called Obama an imposter and illegal alien. Also decided to support police forces during Ferguson, in spite of all their anti government rhetoric. Hmmmmm, what was different about Ferguson that would make them side against the common people and with the forces of government....hmmm. I just can't seem to figure it out.

      Yup, nothing radical there whatsoever.

      1. Proving that you can talk yourself into making anything seem scary doesn't prove that the Oath Keepers are anything to worry about. It might just mean that you should get yourself screened for an anxiety disorder.

        P.S. The Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disneyland seems scary to some people, too!

      2. Hmmmmm, what was different about Ferguson that would make them side against the common people and with the forces of government

        The cop was falsely accused of murder and the "common people" were looting, rioting, violently assaulting their own neighbors, burning down stores, destroying public property, and otherwise chimping out like a bunch of sub-80 IQ animals.

        1. I was in LA during the riots in '92.

          3,600 fires were set, and 1,100 building burned.

          On the first day, TV showed people looting stores in front of the police, with the LAPD doing nothing--apparently under orders. The initial riots largely consisted of black people attacking Koreans. but once people saw that the police weren't doing anything about the looting, it turned into a shopping spree.

          I'll never forget seeing those Korean merchants organize, arm, and defend themselves and their businesses against was basically a pogrom against them, and I'll never forget how glad I was to see the national guard come in, so that people wouldn't have to do that anymore.

          It's not enough to be willing to defend yourself and your property in those circumstances. You must also have the means to do so. I've seen one or two people hold off a crowd with a shotgun. It happened. I saw it. I can't unsee it, and no amount of progressive bullshit will ever make me forget that.

          Yeah, as soon as it became clear to the rioters that the people who owned those businesses were not only willing to defend themselves and their businesses but also had the means to do so, the rioters went to another location. And as soon as it became clear to the opportunists in the days that followed that the national guard wasn't willing to tolerate their rioting, the rioting stopped completely. It's not enough to be willing to defend ourselves. We must have the means to do so.

          1. Let's be fair. The LAPD wasn't doing shit about Compton and Pico Rivera getting burned. They sure as hell weren't letting rioters think about touching Westwood or the Valley.

            Happened again in New Orleans during Katrina. Loot the 9th all you want; don't think about bringing that shit into the Quarter or Slidell.

            Scary times.

            1. Oh and this:

              It’s not enough to be willing to defend ourselves. We must have the means to do so.

              Needed repeating and bolding.

            2. They fired shots into the hospital where I was working at the time. They burned the mall across the street.

              There was a very short distance between the beach cities and shitty part of town back in the day. It was amazing to me at the time how little diversity there was in places like Hermosa Beach, and back then, I could still get a two-bedroom place in Hermosa, half a block off the beach, for about $750 a month. Plenty of SC and UCLA kids rented there because it was so cheap. It wasn't like it is now, where living west of PCH is so expensive, and in the aftermath of the riots, it seemed strange because when you went to the grocery store, it wasn't all lily white anymore. When the grocery stores wouldn't open or had been burned out, it was like the African-American community ten blocks down Manhattan Beach Blvd. suddenly realized there was a nice community down the street.

              It was like that in a lot of places from the South Bay to Long Beach, where the ghetto and one of the nicest places in the world to live are right up next to each other, and both sides seemed to hardly be aware that the other side of the tracks even existed. The communities were highly segregated and really close to each other--and there wasn't that much of a difference in rent between, say, Hermosa Beach and Hawthorne.

              I suspect it really did have a lot to do with policing. Under Gates, I suspect a lot of black people had a really hard time just driving down Torrance Blvd. towards the beach.

            3. "don’t think about bringing that shit into the Quarter or Slidell."

              Not sure about the FQ, but keeping the rioters out of Slidell was mostly about not having to clean up a bunch of dead rioters in Slidell

        2. Not taking the Fergusson Protestors' side. Just find it very telling where oath keepers choose to deploy their few resources.

          1. Not taking the side of Reason. Just find it very telling where you choose to deploy your few resources.

            1. Doesn't take many resources to call a spade a spade.

              1. That's pretty racist, yo.

                1. my bad, g

          2. Do you understand they're not actually ANTI-GOVERNMENT???

            They're against unlawful, anti-constitutional government. What the cops were doing there was perfectly legitimate. Honestly, they should have come down 100x harder on the rioters, because that's what they really were.

            If people had spines and put shit like that down like it deserves to be, it would stop happening. Riots should not be tolerated. Peaceful protests are fine, rioting is not. That fact that it was all over false BS just makes it even more clear cut in that case.

      3. Just because you, and all leftists, are obsessed with race, doesnt mean others are. Dont you have a eugenicist sanger statue to pray to?

        1. Jesse, you are so predictable it hurts. A die hard Trumpy who calls anyone not a Trumpy a "leftist", is also anti abortion, and a men's rights activist? Hilarious caricature. You should make a more believable character next time, this one is just a stereotypical neckbeard. Try a character who is at least a little fuckable for better audience engagement.

          1. Any jeffrey, you're a leftist. Weve been through this. You're not a libertarian. You stated that paternalism isnt a form of control. you support virtually every paternalistic program. You're just a shitnhead leftist that thinks it is trendy to pretend you arent.

            1. Hahaha. You are literally making that all up. Go ahead and post a single comment I've made in support of paternalism or any leftist position.

              1. He’s telling the truth, you’re not. You never do.

        2. "eugenicist sanger statue to pray to"

          The incredible racist bigotry of early 20th century left-wing movements needs to be exposed.

      4. You’ve never been a republican a day in your life you little liar.

    5. Just for the record, here's an Associated Press piece scaremongering about the Oath Keepers.

      "A Look at Expected Participants in the Virginia Gun Rally Monday"

      1. note how they list all the groups together with white supremacist to make them all appear racist.

      2. Nothing scary about the latest militia movement which jumps straight to threats of civil war on every issue they choose to take a stance on.

        You guys act like there is no history of the militia movement in the US. It is all based on dumb shit conspiracy theories and yes, racism.

        1. Are you alleging that the Oath Keepers are part of the militia movement?

          Do you have a link for that, or are you just making it up?

          1. They are a militia 100%. Men with guns running around saying they are going to rise up in insurrection against the government. They threaten insurrection on nearly every issue they take a stance on. They threatened violence over fucking Kim Davis possibly being arrested for refusing marriage licenses. It's ridiculous.
            I looked into them way back in 2010 or so when I was still in the military. They sounded reasonable at first, but not for very long. At the end of the day, they are just another flavor of right wing conspiratarians.

            1. Again, so the fuck what? When these guys actually "commit insurrection," you let us know.

              1. they are a militia. Which was the point I was responding to.

                1. Which has nothing to do with whether they've committed real, actual violence or not, which is the point that you've failed to even comprehend.

                  1. Threats of violence aren't violations of the nap? I guess you have no issue with government coercion then.

            2. "They are a militia 100%. Men with guns running around saying they are going to rise up in insurrection against the government.

              Do you have a link to the Oath Keepers claiming their going to rise up against the government?

              Post a link, or you're a liar.

              This probably isn't the first time you've made shit up and claimed it was a fact either. Did you make it up?

              1. It's one of those things where plenty of them have basically said "If you rape my 12 year old daughter, I'll fucking kill you!" But replace raping your daughter with confiscating all our guns, taxing us 90%, throwing us in gulags, etc.

                They're not crazies... He's the crazy.


                Read the whole thread. They are 100% threatening insurrection if Trump is impeached.

                1. And? If a validly elected president is removed via deep state coup because commies don't like him... That sounds like a reasonable reason to have a revolution to me. Shit exactly like that has kicked them off in plenty of countries around the world that are less stable than us.

                  We're overdue for some chaos in this country anyway.

            3. You are a blue falcon and the worst kind of person. You should come clean about your fake military service. At least then you can begin To gain back some semblance of honor.

              1. You should bitch more that you can't defend your opinions, so you have to engage in ad hominem.

        2. You guys act like there is no history of the militia movement in the US.

          So the fuck what? Weatherman's committed more real, actual violence than the "militia movement," so what exactly are you scared of?

          1. Does the SPLC even claim they're part of the militia movement or that they've threatened to rise up against the government?

            If they'd done either of those things, I suspect the SPLC would have pointed it out on their website.

            He's just making shit up about the Oath Keepers.

            The reason he can't post a link to validate any of his claims about the Oath Keepers is probably because he's a liar. And assuming he's a liar is giving him the benefit of the doubt. If he's so dumb, he really believes things that aren't true and have no basis in reality, then that's probably even worse. Liars can choose to stop repeating falsehoods. Stupid people aren't smart enough to realize they're regurgitating lies.

    6. "There’s a group of police and military that are refusing to violate our constitutional rights–even under orders. How do we stop them?!"

      It's not difficult. Fill their ranks with informers and agents provocateur. They will instigate violence and internal dissent while the government keeps a step or two ahead.

      1. You clearly learned nothing from Eastern Europe shrugging off the yoke of Communism.

        1. I must have been shrugging off a yoke of my own that day.

      2. The fact that the feds do exactly that to basically every pro constitution/limited government group that is SERIOUS about those things says it all... If you TRULY believe in a limited government, or a strong interpretation of the 2nd, you're totally a terrorist.

        Meanwhile ANTIFA is free to run wild! Other left wing orgs can organize actual mass scale riots, and it's totally cool.

        But strongly believe half the stuff the Founding Fathers did and you're a "threat" all of a sudden.

        The reason the deep state feds view those types as a threat is because THEY ARE. Many organizations would in fact stand up for the constitution if violations became too egregious... And the control freak feds don't like that one bit.

    7. As far as I can tell the Oath Keepers are a respectable group whose only "extreme" positions are thinking that the Constitution means what it says and thinking that the oaths they took to uphold the Constitution actually mean something.
      I find it somewhat reassuring to know that at least some of the military and police would refuse to obey at least some illegal or unconstitutional orders.

  12. Credible intelligence gathered by Virginia's law enforcement agencies

    If it was credible he would not need to describe it as such. This is a leftist word association game in the same vein as Judge Kavanaugh being "credibly accused". The same goes for use of "commonsense".

    1. Uh...yeah. Unless he's saying that state law enforcement routinely gives him intelligence that is NOT credible.

    2. "Credible" in this context is utterly meaningless. What does "credible" mean other than LE wants to believe it is true? Adding the modifier to the term intelligence adds nothing to its meaning. Doing so is just the media fluffing for Law Enforcement and trying to give credence to rumors and accusations.

      If LE thinks that some group is plotting violence at this event, they need to go arrest them for conspiracy. If they don't have enough evidence to arrest anyone, then they really don't have any intelligence worth paying attention to.

      1. they have arrested three people but they may be the only three threatening violence as well making all the other "threats" a talking point for control

    3. What it means is a lot of Virginia's law enforcement leadership have heard their rank and file is ready to join the demonstrators.

      That sounds credible to me.

    4. You must be similarly outraged by Trump's use of an "imminent threat" to justify the Soleimani killing.

      1. Trump never once used an "imminent threat" to justify the Soleimani killing. No need since it was a military action in a declared war zone during a military occupation authorized by congress 18 years ago.

        You should lie some more though cytotoxic, everybody loves it when you blatantly lie like a stupid little sniveling bitch.


          This is a perfect example of why you should do more research. There's Trump, on video, claiming an imminent threat to 4 embassies. A threat which not a single other person or source has been able to corroborate. In fact, several republican senators said they got the intel briefings, and were not told of any threat to embassies, imminent or otherwise.

          1. He didnt use the imminent word once, the headline did. Did you bother even reading let alone watching? He said 4 embassies were targeted, he never said the next day or week.

            1. Oh he didn't use that exact word, and you have no capability of inference, therefor Trump never claimed an imminent threat. Again, it's always very convenient how you interpret things for Trump.

              Trump didn't use the exact word "imminent", but he said there was a credible threat against 4 embassies, which is a lie. And then several members of his admin did use the word "imminent" and defended the word "imminent" for quite a while before pivoting off of that point. (As they do when caught in yet another lie.) Is Trump responsible for the messaging from the executive, or not? Again, Trump never seems to be in charge, at least it is convenient for him not to be.

              From fox news again, quoting Pompeo:

              "'We had specific information on an imminent threat and that threat stream included attacks on U.S. embassies. Period. Full stop,' he said. When later asked what he meant by imminent, he responded: 'It was going to happen.'"

              1. 2+2=4
                "You don't have specific evidence of 4, liar! REEEEEE!"

        2. Oh, and

          Who's the bitch now, bitch?

          1. You, de espresso

            1. de espresso liber is a coffee company started by another former 1st group SF dude.

              It's good.

      2. No, I'm laughing that you're so ass-hurt about it. Perils of having your name literally written on the walls of the place your troops are attacking, it seems.

        1. I'm not ass-hurt. I'm glad he's dead and have said as much. You should probably let me speak for myself, although you do look like you're having a good time with that straw man.

          1. You prayed for ww3 for 48 hours calling out those of us who were laughing at the response. You're a fucking liar.

            1. No, I didn't. Link it.

              1. The links are above, shitlib.

          2. "I'm glad he's dead, but I'm still going to bitch and complain about it."

            1. More like, "I'm glad he's dead, but I'm not going to swallow obvious lies for the justification or pretend that it wasn't a very risky move by a president who does 0 analysis."

              If Trump had said the truth, which is that he had decided back in June to Kill Soleimani if given the chance and if Soleimani had killed any more americans, then I would have very little to criticize. But I don't like the lies.

              I respect bold actions, but I do not trust Trump's or his empty cabinet's analysis or decision making capabilities. The lies after the fact served no purpose and the truth would have been better, anyway. Just another unforced error.

              1. More like, “I’m glad he’s dead, but I’m not going to swallow obvious lies for the justification or pretend that it wasn’t a very risky move by a president who does 0 analysis.”

                Followed by...

                If Trump had said the truth, which is that he had decided back in June to Kill Soleimani if given the chance

                So did he plan for this or not?

                1. He made the decision back in June. I do not think he put much thought into it, but that's just my inference since he historically and currently does not put much time, effort, or thought into anything. The guy golfs like you wouldn't believe, though (although he also cheats at that).

                  Do you need me to pull up quotes from the almost 500 admin members who have left during Trump's time (a record)? They all say he doesn't read and doesn't even pay attention in meetings. In fact, quite a few current and former admin members have described him as "dumb".


                  1. So you're admitting that he actually planned for this.

                    I do not think he put much thought into it

                    You seem to have a hard time believing that anyone in the DoD is capable of crafting actual attack plans after Trump tells them to start planning for it if the opportunity arises.

                    1. Trump is both a low IQ moron who doesn't know what he's doing from moment to moment, and a criminal mastermind who's avoided capture for decades.
                      Further, Trump's obvious corruption is proved by his attempt to investigate corruption

      3. Pedo Jeffy, the authorization to kill Soleimani was issued last summer.

  13. A Surge of Migrants Rushes a Mexican Border Crossing

    How racist of Mexicans to prevent non-Mexicans from entering Mexico!

    1. The migrant train was carrying the Honduran flag and singing the country's national anthem. In centuries past, that would be considered a foreign invasion.

      1. In years past, the Mexican Army would have machine-gunned the invaders. IIRC, Mexico took no shit from Guatemalans trying to cross their southern border. Later, they found utility in being a conduit for same, presumably if the Guats, and other Indios didn't plan on staying in Mexico.

        Hispanics (Central and South Americans, regardless of whatever colonial ethnicity category they may have fallen in) may, on the whole, vote en masse for Big Daddy Socialism with a healthy dollop of family-ties corruption, but they absolutely do not get along as a cohesive whole.

    2. Yeah, that's all about Trump's diplomacy, by the way.

      Trump's efforts on building the wall get all the press, but he's been extremely effective in shutting the asylum crisis down using diplomacy, and Mexico stepping up to the plate is a big part of that.

      I do not support Trump's goals in cutting immigration, but honest people who want legal immigration, like I do, should give him credit for cutting off illegal immigration with diplomacy.

      We can't have a legitimate debate about how many people we should legally let in and under what criteria, when the laws are being routinely ignored. We're closer to regaining effective control of our border that we have been since before the drug war started--and that's because of Trump's diplomacy.

  14. ...86 of Virginia's 95 counties had passed measures declaring themselves sanctuaries for self-defense rights, as of the end of December.

    Even before Tuccille confirmed it a few paragraphs later, you easily guessed where those sanctuary counties weren't.

  15. He's not trying to avoid another Charlottesville, he's trying to replicate Charlottesville, only on a larger scale.

    The violence in Charlottesville occurred because the local government deliberately arranged for violence to occur in order to have a pretext for canceling a parade permit they'd been forced by a court to issue.

    Northam seems to be doing the same thing, and including a fence so the two sides can't get away from each other, and disarming the 2nd amendment advocates so that it will be safe for Antifa to attack.

    It's an interesting twist that there might be a pro-2nd amendment Antifa faction present, but they're still dedicated to violence against anyone who doesn't agree with their radical left-wing politics, so that commonality isn't going to prevent a fight.

    1. What Antifa did and got away with at Charlottesville is the template for what the left will do going forward. The doofuses in the Proud Boys and the rest had been marching around Charlottesville all week. They were not violent. They didn't do anything except march around. It only got violent when Antifa showed up. Antifa showed up and thanks to the complete negligence of the city police and the state were able to start a riot. If there was anyone other than the dumb ass who murdered that woman who was responsible for the murder, it was Antifa. They are the ones who started the riot. And they are to some degree culpable for the foreseeable consequences of doing that, which include someone getting killed. Since the major media acts as a propaganda outlet for Antifa, Antifa avoided all blame for the incident.

      1. It wasn't negligence. It was a pre-planned deliberate action to create a riot, so that they'd have an excuse to order the parade ended.

        1. THIS.

          Also, funny how since ANTIFA didn't show up at this thing, it was 100% peaceful despite having fuck tons more people. Funny how that works... No left wing extremists, no violence.

    2. I think it's great that armed protesters are finally being seen as the peaceful protesters that they are. Peaceful assembly is protected by the 1st Amendment. Armed peaceful assembly is protected by the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

  16. Maybe Northam has something to worry about, there is no provision in the Constitution, or as far as I know federal law that forbids a state insurrection, although I'd be surprised if no federal crimes would be committed accomplishing it, even though I don't see how it could be considered interstate commerce. To be sure President Trump could act to prevent an takeover and establishment of a new government in Virginia, if he wanted to. But a good case could me made that he would be obligated to support the rebellion under Article 4 Section 4:
    "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government".

    And of course the Supreme Court would have to defer to the new Virginia Supreme Courts interpretation of the new Virginia Constitution in determining it's legality.

    1. Article I, Section 4.
      The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

      Domestic violence can include insurrection.

      Also Article I, Section 8, includes this:
      To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

      The US Constitution is a Supreme Law that has contradictions. On one hand it gives government the power to suppress insurrections and suppress domestic violence.

      On the other hand, it is a Natural right to rise up against a tyrannical government and replace it, as per the Declaration of Independence.

      1. Those are nothing says he has to call out the militia, and an internal rebellion is not an invasion.

        1. But it is domestic violence. I think you are correct that the Constitution doesn't prohibit a state insurrection, but it certainly doesn't stop the Federal government from taking action against one.
          The Constitution was an agreement among the state governments. So it shouldn't be surprising if part of its purpose is to protect the state governments from internal and external threats.

      2. I think the general idea was that if the insurrection was popular enough, then everybody would just roll with that...

        In a lot of ways trying to legislate for EXTREME situations is pointless. People just do what needs to be done, and restore normalcy afterwards.

        Lincoln did tons of stuff that was illegal, unconstitutional, and just downright morally wrong... But he just ignored court orders against him, including from the supreme court, and did what he felt he needed to. I fucking hate Lincoln for a lot of reasons, but in a crazy situation that is what must be done... I just don't agree with what he was fighting for and breaking laws for, which was to subjugate people against their will.

  17. the governor warns that this year's event features "white nationalist rhetoric"

    Meaning that photo of Northam in blackface?

  18. There will not be any violence in the Virginia rally today because the left does not outnumber them like in Charlottesville.

    1. Yes. And the "right" such as it was in Charlottesville was a bunch of loser college kids. There are few things more comic than the actual white nationalist alt right. They are just a bunch of geeky weirdos. Today the "right" is actual 2nd Amendment supporters. They are not bunch of geeky weirdos. They are veterans and ordinary people many of whom you would not want to meet if they were angry and you were on the other side. They would kick Antifa's ass and Antifa knows it.

      1. "There are few things more comic than the actual white nationalist alt right."

        When they march, rally or demonstrate, sure they are comic. When they get serious and run folks down in the streets, they are less comic.

        1. Had Antifa not started a riot, nothing would have ever happened. Antifa is never comic. They are always violent assholes. Just because you like them and they go after people you hate doesn't make it okay.

          1. "Antifa is never comic."

            Because they are serious. They don't rally, march or demonstrate. Their bag is to attack their enemies on the right.

            1. Violent sociopaths always are. Why you think that is news and why you would want to imply that it is a good thing is your problem not mine. They are terrorists. Granted, they are ridiculous and ineffective terrorists who are going to end up dead or in prison if they continue doing what they are doing, but they are what they are.

              1. "They are terrorists."

                Terrorists kill civilians. Antifa attacks their rightist enemies.

                "they are ridiculous and ineffective terrorists who are going to end up dead or in prison "

                Our most effective political agitators end up dead or in prison. Malcolm X, John Brown, and many others. If you want to stay alive and out of prison, just follow the lead of the comic rightists and stick to rallies, marches and demonstrations.

                1. You are a fucking retard. Antifa attacks only civilians. And no, effective political agitators end up holding power. They don't end up dead. Thank God most of the left is as stupid as you are. If they were not, there might be some actual danger of the left ever getting real unchecked power in this country.

                  1. I was using 'civilians' in a figurative sense, meaning those who are not a part of the conflict.

                    "And no, effective political agitators end up holding power."

                    Not always. John Brown never held power, yet his outrages spurred the south to secede. Gandhi also never held power, yes his outrages spurred the British to quit India. History is full of such examples.

                    1. "I was using ‘civilians’ in a figurative sense"

                      You misspelled "incorrectly"

                2. "Antifa attacks their rightist enemies."

                  Who are civilians. So, by your definition they are terrorists.

                  Wow, I can't believe you actually admitted that

                  1. "Who are civilians. "

                    I was using 'civilians' in the figurative sense. Much as police refer to non combatants (and non-police) as civilians whether they are military or not. You can still call antifa 'terrorist' if you prefer. I personally think it best to reserve the word for people who commit acts of terror, killing civilians for political purposes.

                    1. "I was using ‘civilians’ in the figurative sense."

                      Yes we already covered how you used it incorrectly.

                      "You can still call antifa ‘terrorist’ if you prefer"

                      It's your definiton that I'm using champ. YOU called them terrorists because you don't know what the fuck "civilians" means.

                    2. "Yes we already covered how you used it incorrectly. "

                      So who are these civilians antifa has killed?

                    3. What does that have to do with you being wrong about "civilians" and what it means?

                    4. There have certainly been a number of beatings, including Andy Ngo, that nearly died. Then one of their number attempted to assault an ICE facility in western WA State.

                  2. "What does that have to do with you being wrong about “civilians” and what it means?"

                    Because terrorists, unlike antifa, kill civilians. It's as simple as that. If you don't kill civilians, you aren't a terrorist.

                    1. It's weird how you have stupid defintions for words.

                    2. re: "If you don’t kill civilians, you aren’t a terrorist."

                      No, not at all.

                      You know, mtrueman, they have this new fangled invention that can help you discover the definitions of words. It's called a dictionary. Though in fairness, when need the definition of a legal term (such as for a crime), you might want to cross-check the dictionary against the applicable statutory code.

                      None of those sources use the definition you allege. Not even with your ideosyncratic redefinition of "civilian".

                    3. If it makes you happy to call antifa terrorists, even though they haven't killed anyone, civilian or otherwise, nobody will stop you from doing so. I might comment but you can ignore it.

                    4. Ahh. How about "incompetent terrorists"? Or does Achmed not count as a terrorist if his suicide vest explodes prematurely, and only Achmed dies?

                3. "Antifa attacks their rightist enemies"

                  Antifa regards everyone to the right of Stalin, as "rightists".
                  They're such creepy little fucks.

                  1. Stalin did bank heists, ran protection rackets, published newspapers and wrote poetry. I don't know of any antifa member so deeply committed to the cause.

            2. their enemies on the right

              I'll contend that they can be comic. For instance, it is comical when Profa attacks some of their "enemies on the right" when often it is "enemies" that are actually just another flavor of collectivist, authoritarian leftist.

              1. "I’ll contend that they can be comic."

                Laugh while you can, monkey scum.

                1. Cry more, guy who doesn't know what words mean.

                2. Why? What’s going to happen? You going to bow up and do something?

    2. "There will not be any violence in the Virginia rally today"

      Let me know when these gun control opponents get serious.

    3. It’s too bad that gun control opponents have only been as successful as abortion control opponents.

  19. Quickbooks database server manager is also known as intuit personal database manager tool. This tool makes easy to create network data files for each and every company file on the host system or on the host workstation. This is directly related to the Quickbooks desktop software, if you want to use the multiple desktop version of Quickbooks then you have to install this tool, without using this tool you can’t able to use Quickbooks desktop. To install, setup, and update Quickbooks Server Setup follow the below procedure. Before starting the procedures you have to know that, what are the uses of Quickbooks database server manager? You may visit our official website for more information

  20. FBI Fact: The vast majority of gun-related crimes are committed by young men with black and brown skin. Leftist idiots will NOT admit this reality, so, the Marxists are trying to ban ALL firearms which will include members of their sacred voting bloc.

    1. Young men with skin are the worst.

      1. We better peel yours off right away!

    2. But "young men with black and brown skin" mostly kill each other. Liberals and leftists don't care about that. They don't even much care when "young men with black and brown skin" kill whites. They only care if whites kill whites. (And of course, they would REALLY care if whites killed blacks, but since that virtually never happens, they don't get many opportunities to complain.)

      1. People with black and brown skin are loved by the left in the same way as pedophiles love children.
        They're just something to exploit.

      2. All true.

        If they left really cared about gun violence they would come up with programs that work at reducing inner city violence in the black and Hispanic communities... But they give no fucks.

        The fact that if you look at white or Asian Americans only the USA has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, while drowning in guns, doesn't matter to these people.

        The fact that they ignore every fact/idea that could actually reduce gun violence is how you know it's purely a control freak thing.

    3. committed by young men with black and brown skin

      And it mostly against other young men with black/brown skin. And it is mostly gang violence stemming from the drug war. But we aren't supposed to talk about that.

    4. So? Whats the practical application of that little fact? Ban guns for certain shades of skin?

      1. End the war on drugs. You don't see Budweiser doing driveby's of the Coors plant.
        More freedom, not less.

        1. Ok, that's cool.

      2. Characteristically, de espresso jumps straight to "ban guns" as "practical application" rather than allowing people the freedom to defend themselves

        1. Note in this thread that he's claiming that the protestors were violent and that we have to be afraid of militia groups because they're supposedly threatening civil war all the time. Two weeks from now, he'll claim that he never said what he actually said.

        2. I never endorsed banning guns. I was asking what the first commenter intended the government, or whoever to do with that piece of info about certain race committing more gun crime than others.

          I own guns. Guns are fine. I don't like the current gun culture, though. They're not toys and they're not a solution to anything other than, "how do I make that guy or animal way over there have a hole in him?".

          1. I was asking what the first commenter intended the government, or whoever to do with that piece of info about certain race committing more gun crime than others.

            No, you were projecting your paranoia about something that's literally never happened.

            Democrats have committed more violence against elected officials in the last three years than the "militia movement" have in the last 30.

          2. The only reason that right wing people are talking so much about civil war lately is because of how crazy the left has gotten.

            If some guy like JFK were still running on the Dem ticket, we wouldn't have shit all of a militia movement. The colonists in the 1700s weren't tough talking and organizing until British tyranny got ramped up either.

            The extreme rhetoric of the left is creating pushback on the right. The right didn't start it. In truth, the right is mostly reactionary, as many people think it always has been. I don't entirely disagree.

            If the hard left wing of the Democratic party were to collapse after a collossal loss in 2020 or 2024, and they elected a guy with views like Bill Clinton in 1996 or something, you would watch all the right wing rhetoric melt away.

      3. That what you de o rats did during Jim Crow, Pedo Jeffy. He modern gin control. O emend started as a means to infringe in the rights of blacks. So of course you and your progtard friends embrace it.

  21. I wonder why all the hostility against rank-and-file gun control supporters.

    Let us understand their perspective.

    They live very sheltered lives.

    They hear stories of people mugged in the streets by street thugs.

    They hear stories of children gunned down in the street by gangs.

    As Marco Rubio pointed out, gun control has been advertised as a method of keeping handguns out of the possession of the gangbanger or the street thug doing these muggings and shootings. They are afraid that the street thugs and gangbangers might rob or kill their kids, so they want to get the assault rifles off the street. They want to reduce the proliferation of guns in society.

    They want warrantless searches of public housing projects where much of the crime and gun violence comes from.

    They want the police to just stop and frisk street thugs and gangbangers on a hunch.

    But like almost all people, they do not understand the perspective of others who do not share their lived experiences.

    They do not understand the perspective of the young black man who has to work nights in high-crime, inner city neighborhoods to support his family.

    They do not understand why he needs to carry an unregistered handgun for protection because the police refuse to protect him.

    They do not understand that the reason he can not get a permit nor register his handgun is because, despite meeting all statutory criteria for a handgun permit, the police do not believe having to work late nights in crime-ridden, inner-city neighborhoods to be “good cause” to issue a permit.

    They do not understand his fear, on top of being accosted by a street thug or getting caught in a shootout by gangbangers, of being caught with an unregistered handgun by the police, of being treated just like the street thugs and gangbangers he wants to protect himself and his family from, of being incarcerated for possession, of being separated from his family, and suffering from the disabilities felons experience after release from custody.

    I try to understand both of their perspectives.

    Perhaps we should all do this.

    1. Stop and frisk is a great example of one of the consequences of gun control. New York made it impossible for law abiding citizens to carry a weapon. This made mugging people a viable living for criminals. In states with conceal and carry, street muggings are a contact sport. You have to have a death wish to do them in states that have high rates of conceal and carry. In New York City, there was little or no worry of your victim being able to fight back. So street muggings became common even in good neighborhoods.

      People understandably wanted the city to do something about that. But, they were too stupid to see the logical solution of letting the population be armed to defend itself. So, what is the city supposed to do? You can't have a cop everywhere. You can't magically guess who is a mugger and who isn't. What you can do, however, is stop and frisk people who fit the profile of being a mugger (young black men) and arrest any of them who have weapons. You can't mug someone without a weapon. And stop and frisk made carrying a weapon of any kind very risky especially if you were a young black male. So stop and frisk did a lot to stop muggings.

      When stop and frisk ended, the crime rate went right back up. The bottom line is that if you don't want to let people defend themselves, you have to give the police a lot more power than they otherwise need if you want to protect the pubic.

      1. Freedom or security. Choose one or the other, can't have both.

        1. If you are allowed to defend yourself, you can have both in most situations. Cops can't be everywhere. But the threat of the victim carrying a gun and killing the person trying to mug them can. In that case you are both free and more secure.

          1. If you want security provided for you then you must give up the freedom to provide for your own security.

          2. My boss has never shot a gun. He visits the frozen north now and again and I keep trying to get him to spend an hour at the range with me. Won't do it. He wears it like a badge of honor. He likes having police around because it makes him feel safe.

            Can't take away his freedom to arm himself. He never wanted it.

      2. New York City was a shithole from what I have seen mid 1970s, early 80s. The city was bankrupt. Parts look like pictures of Beirut stemming from rioting and dilapidated housing projects. A large population decrease in the 1970s, I want to say about 10%. Their tax and plunder strategy didn't work for some reason. Also the Mob's extortion of businesses. Lot of factors, mostly stemming from mismanagement of the city. Not saying gun control is off the hook just that a multitude of government failures from high taxes, welfare, and government meddling in the economy led to the conditions where people resorted to mugging (I'm not excusing mugging; its completely wrong).

        1. I'd guess gun control contributed to the willingness of people like the Central Park 5 to go "wilding" and beat people to death or near death

          1. Not disagreeing was pointing out that many many other big government failures were at the root of NYC failure over the years. NYC didn't get to the state it was in just over gun control. Government can only do so much and when it tries to do more it tends to fail spectacularly*.

            *not the best word but I got a cold.

          2. You do know that someone else confessed to raping the jogger, that his DNA matched samples from the crime scene, that the court vacated the conviction of the Central Park 5, and that those 5 then sued and New York settled for many millions of dollars?

              1. Yep.
                They beat the woman to within an inch of death, but some libertarians love to portray them as heroes...

              2. That story is firewalled. My usual super secret hack of opening in an incognito tab did not work. I take it from what I could read that those 5 were still proven to have committed assault?

                1. No. From the court docs re vacating the sentence - the People's case at both trials rested almost entirely on the statements made by the defendants. This was true even during the initial trial because the physical evidence from the jogger crime scene didn't match them. That was the crime the prosecution focused on but in fact defendants couldn't have done both crimes (jogger and the mugging of someone else) because they occurred at roughly the same time eight blocks apart.

                  The prosecution chose to 'prove' they did the crime they didn't actually do. They did not even present evidence (a couple of eyewitnesses but not the victim) in court of the crime they did do. Hence they didn't 'prove' anything about that other case.

                  They used mere guilt by association (all the crimes in Central Park that occurred that night were part of the 'wilding spree'), forced false confessions that mixed up both crimes, and the juries/NYC sentiments that 'someone's gotta pay for this' to convict them on the other charges.

                  They were fully exonerated of every charge related to the jogger. And because there was no other evidence presented in court apart from the false confessions, those other charges were vacated.

      3. So the city I live in got MASSIVELY depoliced over the last decade or so. Crime went through the roof. I never felt the need to carry a gun back in the day, but now it doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

        So I got my concealed carry permit awhile back. Thankfully we're still shall issue and without many hoops to jump.

        A couple weeks ago a kinda sketchy looking black guy started walking toward my car when I was parked downtown with the window partially open. He started with something along the lines of "Hey man don't go shooting me or anything, but..." and then went into his sales pitch for me giving him some change. He was nice enough actually.

        But I imagine that that guy knows that there are a lot of concealed carry people in this state, if not this city, probably helped make him cautious. I guess I might have also looked like the type just a touch, but I wasn't camoed out or anything. So if a guy bumming change is thinking about it, what do you think goes through the mind of a mugger?

        For all the property crime we have here, we still have pretty low violent crime rates. I'd bet a lot of that is that criminals know anybody with a clean record can get a concealed carry permit. IIRC 20% of the male population in this state has one.

        1. "The word on the street is always, 'No.'"

          'Can I have a...?" NO.
          'Do you have the time?" NO
          'Let me tell you...' NO.

          Because you have nothing they want, when it gets right down to it. Don't leave your window open at a stop, or in traffic, BTW.

          Next, you need to read this, vek:

          The title of the short article is, Street Robberies and You. If you're engaging sketchy looking people in conversation on the street, you need to read this. I don't agree with everything the author wrote---like most cops, he draws his weapon much more readily than someone who can get popped for brandishing---but most of the advice is very, very good.

          1. Oh, I didn't kick him down anything. I'm a big fan of the "Sorry man, only have a card!" response nowadays.

            When I say down, I mean a couple inches. Honestly, I'm just not that much of a scaredy cat. I don't go wandering through dark alleys at 4 AM or anything, and take reasonable precautions, stay alert, etc. But I feel like some people who try to do 100% of everything to avoid any possible issue are just excessive, especially when some of those things are annoying. I like having my window cracked.

            I'll check out the article though.

    2. "They do not understand why he needs to carry an unregistered handgun for protection because the police refuse to protect him."

      There are alternatives for our inner city friend. Brass knuckles, various blades, pepper spray, piano wire etc can be conveniently carried without the need to obtain police permission. Handguns are awkward and inconvenient to carry about anyway.

      1. So, you're cool with weapons, just not effective ones.

        That kind of totally torpedoes your entire argument.

        "Handguns are awkward and inconvenient to carry about anyway."

        Ahahahaha what a moron! But garroting someone is convenient AND simple lololll

        1. Yeah, that was a special kind of stupid. Handguns are inferior to rifles but are preferred for carrying specifically because they are effective and convenient.

          1. You don't need to carry a rifle. Rifles are great if you want to kill someone at 100 yards. But when someone is two feet away from you, a handgun will kill them just as dead. And there is nothing particularly awkward about carrying a handgun. Wow is this idiot stupid.

            1. Well, he's intentionally trolling. You can tell because he misused "civilians" , admitted it, and then repeated the error.

              But really, the piano wire gave it away, because Tony can't help himself sometimes.

            2. A rifle is an offensive weapon. A pistol is for self defense. Cops don't carry pistols to protect the public. They carry them to protect themselves from the public.

              1. A rifle can be a defensive weapon too.

                Its real hard for someone to shoot you with all the pistols they can carry, when they cannot get within 200 years because you have a rifle. Or you just blow their fucking head off before they could even hear the shot.

              2. re: "A rifle is an offensive weapon" and "A pistol is for self defense."

                No and no. A rifle can be used offensively or defensively. So can a pistol.

            3. "And there is nothing particularly awkward about carrying a handgun. "

              A gun about the size of your typical smart phone would be convenient and suitable for the urban set we are discussing today.

              1. My concealed carry piece is smaller than my smart phone in one dimension, and barely bigger in another, and of course a bit thicker. It's smaller than the big honkin' phone other than thickness. It's so small I don't even notice it's there anymore. But 8 rounds of .380 ACP will get most jobs done. There are of course pieces that are far smaller than this one too if you want to accept lower caliber bullets.

        2. “Handguns are awkward and inconvenient to carry about anyway.”

          They require a permit, as Michael Ejercito points out. And even if you do go to the trouble of obtaining one, there's a good chance the thug will get the drop on you anyway.

          1. If the thug is armed and you're not, the chances of him getting the drop on you are 100%.

          2. “Governments require a permit...”

            Fixed that for you.

            1. “Governments require a permit…”

              You don't need a permit to carry brass knuckles, piano wire, knives, pepper spray, saps and the like.

              1. That’s not true.

              2. Depends on where you live. Laws very greatly between states.

              3. That's straight up ignorant. In New York City, it's very illegal to carry a knife above a certain size, or any brass knuckles at all, although you could probably get away with a roll of quarters.

            2. True, the gun itself requires no paperwork.

          3. On the other hand, no one gets the drop on you when you’re carrying pepper spray.

            1. Nobody is forced to carry pepper spray. If you think carrying pepper spray puts you at a disadvantage, leave it at your home or office.

              1. All depends on where you're at. Massachusetts law enforcement frowns on pepper spray. A couple states north where I live you don't even need a permit to carry.

          4. "They require a permit"

            Except they don't. You and your handlers require the permit, the gun works just fine without it.

            1. " the gun works just fine without it."

              If you want to risk carrying a gun without a permit, the choice is yours.

              1. Thank you for admitting you were completely wrong.

              2. I don't need a permit. "Constitutional Carry" look it up. Isn't in every state, but it is in mine. If you travel to Mass you better leave your pepper spray at home because you need a permit for that shit, and using it in self defense without permission can land you in jail.

              3. Permits require good cause.

                and yet, the cops do not consider having to work late at night in a crime-infested inner city neighborhood to be good cause for a permit.

                I wonder why.

                1. That depends on the state. In some cases you don't even need a permit. In some you must prove your need. And in others they must prove you to be unworthy.

          5. The couple times I've had scenarios that were sketchy were all before I got my concealed carry permit... But in every case had I had a gun on me, I could have easily drawn it and had the jump on them. People don't just run up and shank you most of the time, they threaten from a slight distance, and expect you to cough up cash or whatever.

            In most cases one could easily reach for a gun feigning going for a wallet and then they're the ones in the tight spot.

            1. Practice your presentation until it's unconscious.

              There's video of the church shooting in White Settlement, Texas where one of the security guards was too casual and too slow on his draw and presentation. You could see he recognized the threat, and needed a firearm to stop him, but just couldn't draw fast enough from his IWB, behind the hip holster. He very graphically caught a load of buckshot in the chest for his trouble, and died right there.

              He did delay the shitbag enough for another parishioner to headshot the shitbag, so his sacrifice wasn't in vain. I think he would have preferred to draw faster and not die though.

              So practice. It's not as easy as it sounds, especially in the middle of an adrenaline dump.

              1. Definitely.

                I shot a fair bit when I was a kid. But never really self defense style stuff. Now that I'm getting more into guns again I plan to do more self defense type training.

                On the plus side, after many years of not firing a gun, I took right to it again! I was landing solid shots after all of 2 or 3 rounds. So I think once I get some more muscle memory built up for some of that stuff I'll be pretty solid! Fractions of seconds can and do count.

      2. Brass knuckles, various blades, pepper spray, piano wire etc can be conveniently carried without the need to obtain police permission. Handguns are awkward and inconvenient to carry about anyway.


        1. Nah, he's obviously trolling for comments.

          I read some good books this weekend, I'd be happy to offer some recommendations.

          1. I'm all caught up on my Dr. Seuss. Thanks for offering though.

            1. It kind of hurts, doesn't it? Knowing in your soul that shit will never be true, and you're being petty just by engaging in it.

              Thank you for being so small. It warms my heart that you're still upset about finding out you're not as smart or well read as I am.

              1. Did you know that "Hop On Pop" has been banned from some libraries because it encourages children to use violence on their parents? Seriously.

                1. You weren't kidding about being caught up on your Seuss.

                  Have a great day sarc, maybe try to get right with your new reality. I have plenty of recommendations once you do.

                  1. New reality? You waging personal attacks on every comment like a neglected child is something new? No. Not really. Same shit, different day.

                    1. You said what you said, and you mean what you meant. Tulpa is smarter 100 percent.

                      It's not gonna get better just because you tantrum about it. Pretending it isn't true now just makes you look defeated.

                    2. Also

                      You waging personal attacks on every comment

                      This was my first comment to you.

                      Nah, he’s obviously trolling for comments.

                      I read some good books this weekend, I’d be happy to offer some recommendations.

                      Stop pretending I came at you.

                    3. Thank you for proving my point.

                    4. You weren’t kidding about being caught up on your Seuss.

                      Have a great day sarc, maybe try to get right with your new reality. I have plenty of recommendations once you do

                      No insult there either.

                    5. sarcasmic
                      January.20.2020 at 2:51 pm
                      Thank you for proving my point

                      What sarc says when he knows no one insulted him until he popped off, but can't admit it.

                    6. Who are your comments for? They aren't for me.

                    7. What are you trying to prove and who are you trying to prove it to? Nobody cares. Not a single person in the world gives a shit.

                    8. Here's what really happened. Sarc got testy because he can't get right with his new reality, and still reflexively goes to "you're dumb" which, if true, means he is also dumb by his own admission.

                      So, he pretends he got insulted. And when people can see he didn't get insulted he acted like child, he struggles to come to grips with that fact.

                    9. "Not a single person in the world gives a shit"

                      The irony of you saying this in a rapid fire double post.

                2. I will attest to this danger. My 18 month old loves jumping on me now. Before that cursed book she was all sweetness and smiles, now she is consumed with bloodlust.

          2. He's also ignorant, because brass knuckles are a named weapon requiring a permit to carry in many, possibly most states. the ones that don't list them as a weapon are the exception.

            1. Also a terrible self defense option. Piano wire lol.

              1. Right?

                Quality pepper spray is far and away the best option outside of a gun. I carry both nowadays since my city has went to shit the last 10 years. Got the spray for a moderately fucked up situation, and the gat if anything proper life threatening comes up.

        2. "Brass knuckles, various blades, pepper spray, piano wire etc can be conveniently carried without the need to obtain police permission."

          According to the "going armed" statute in my home state, carrying anything outside your home or place of business with the intent of using it as a weapon of offence or defense is a crime. Except you can get a permit to carry a handgun legally armed for defense. Get caught carrying brass knuckles, various blades, pepper spray, piano wire, brick, tire tool, axe handle, hammer, hatchet, chainsaw, etc as weapons, you are in violation.

      3. "Piano wire?" What the fuck.

        Waste of time even talking to you.

        As to stop and frisk being effective, it was, but a lot of the same guys committing violent crimes were also committing drug crimes, even if they weren't in the drug trade. Strict liability drug crimes are a lot easier to prosecute than crimes like robbery or assault. And so the Drug War's dragnet also scooped up and incapacitated a lot of people who would be committing violent crimes if they weren't locked up for a drug case.

        The Drug War is awful. Full stop. It should be gotten rid of in its entirety. But there are some bad unintended consequences with loosening the grip of drug laws upon the lower classes, and letting out a bunch of 'nonviolent' offenders is one of them.

        I think a city with stop n frisk is worse than a city with muggers running rampant. It's completely in American. I understand why it was popular in NYC though.

        1. UnAmerican, you stupid fucking change-the-word-a-line-after-I-write-it autocorrect. Not 'in American.' Jesus.

          At least the VA rally went off smoothly. A la the stories of Tea Party protests, the protesters left the area cleaner than how they found it.

        2. Stop-and-frisk wasn't particularly successful. Drops in crime rates do not coincide with its implementation nor did they change when it was trimmed back.

          And, basically, after the initial part, once all the law abiding people stopped carrying because the cops were going to fuck with them, the only people left carrying were the people the cops weren't going to fuck with right from the get-go - ie, the real criminals, not some dude holding a dime.

      4. fairly certain that all those things you listed ARE illegal or restricted in some states & cities. Funnily enough, they're the same states & cities that are hard on guns.

        If you're gonna be hanged, ya might as well not be hanged for doing something halfassed

      5. stand back and let me put this piano wire around your neck mugger. the most least affective of all self defense weapons, piano wire

      6. Actually, no. All of those are or have been illegal in NYC.

        And that's before considering the relative (in)effectiveness of your proposed "alternatives".

      7. In the places where he can't carry a gun, he can't carry any of those other implements either.

        Handguns are neither awkward nor inconvenient to carry about. JFC man, have you ever even seen a firearm?

        1. Also, 'piano wire'? You don't carry piano wire unless you're either a piano repairman or you strangle unsuspecting people. There's no 'defensive use' of piano wire.

      8. Brass knuckles, various blades, pepper spray, piano wire etc can be conveniently carried without the need to obtain police permission.

        Yeah. Maybe in the same places where you can carry a gun without police permission. But I'm pretty sure all of those things would get you in trouble in most places where getting a permit to carry a gun is practically impossible.

    3. I try to understand both of their perspectives.

      Perhaps we should all do this.

      The only relevant perspective is the gov'ts founding charter which expressly prohibits the government from denying the citizens the right to possess and carry weapons. I care not for the delicate sensibilities of the "sheltered" authoritarians and authoritarian enablers.

    4. "They do not understand that the reason he can not get a permit nor register his handgun is because, despite meeting all statutory criteria for a handgun permit, the police do not believe having to work late nights in crime-ridden, inner-city neighborhoods to be “good cause” to issue a permit."

      Because that's what the gun-grabbing Democrats that he and 90% of his community vote for tell them to do. I can certainly sympathize with our hypothetical brown or black skinned young man, but he seems to be getting what he voted for good and hard.

      1. Maybe he didn't vote. There are a lot of people out there uninterested in politics. And some black Republicans.

  22. you are sharing useful information in this post

  23. This a Very Useful Site For me . Such A Here Everything Read and Anything ask about my Happy Valentine Day wishes Quites In Hindi thanks.

  24. EvErYoNe WhO oWnS a GuN iS a WhItE SuPrEmAcIsT!!

    This article needed to be written and I hope it stands out amongst the litany of hogwash out there doing whatever gymnastics necessary to link this to Charlottesville. But I do have a quibble:

    It probably bears at least a single mention of the several white supremacists that were indeed arrested for planning to disrupt the event.

    1. Other people doing shit doesn't negate my rights.

      So, no, it doesn't merit mention at all.

    2. It probably bears at least a single mention

      Why? That is already all over the msm. They are not associated with VCDL or GOA, and were only barely tangently related because they discussed among themselves whether or not they wanted to attend.

      1. It's a material fact that is relevant to the topic being discussed. There is very little chance that the author didn't know about it, so it's a purposeful omission. That is unethical journalism. The fact that it was widely reported by other institutions doesn't change that.

        To SP's B, that isn't a cogent argument. Try again.

    3. It probably bears at least a single mention of the several white supremacists that were indeed arrested for planning to disrupt the event.

      Name one.

      Three people were arrested on gun and immigration charges and three others on conspiracy to murder charges. I believe only the first group reportedly talked about attending the Richmond rally but they weren't charged with planning a disruption.

      1. I think they were busted for troll comments or so, too, amirite?

        I haven't forgotten that commenters here were accused by the U.S. Attorney's office of making threats against a judge for some pretty innocuous comments.

        For all I know, those guys were charged for legitimate threats, but for all I know, this is another case of the feds going off the edge over hyperbole. They've done it before, and we've all seen them do it here at Reason.

        1. The feds will take obvious jest and pretend they think it's serious if they get a hard on for you.

  25. Looks like antifa pussed out on this one.

    But one of the best things was watching all the black republicans getting into it with black democrats.

    And seeing the black democrats outnumbered.

    1. I wonder if 2020 is going to be a very rude awakening for the Socialist Party? 20 percent approval ratings for Trump is light years ahead of other recent Republican Presidents.

    2. "An African-American man waving a Trump flag jokingly tells the crowd: I am Gov. Ralph Northam and I am in blackface today.#VirginaRally"

    3. Antifa is only interested in fights that have been rigged in their favor. Richmond isn't Portland, and even those Antifa nitwits aren't dumb enough to bring a bike lock to a gun fight.

  26. Did Reason even think about sending a reporter just down the road a piece to the pro-liberty rally in Richmond? I guess no one wants to work on Federal Holiday.

    1. Are you kidding SIV? That sounds like work, besides, they can just get the facts from their buddies in the AP.

  27. Northern Virginia has essentially become a big preschool-literally and figuratively. We have lots of bored moms here whose husbands are too pussified to get boners, so they are now demanding action from the politicians they just elected to chase away those big scary gun owners from the hills because one of them might burst through the door of their next play date or yoga class and threaten their non-binary offspring. I suspect rural Virginians will eventually say fuck it and move to WV or SC, so it’s a lost cause here

    1. Devolve NoVa back to DC. Form the State of Jefferson from far northern CA and eastern OR and WA. Profit.

      Sounds very Kansas-Nebraska Act though, doesn't it?

    2. "bored moms here whose husbands are too pussified to get boners"
      Sounds like those rural Virginians have a calling to move to NoVa!

    3. Maybe they'll take up West Virginia's offer to break off from the NoVa/Richmond counties and join up with WVa.

      1. Dude, they REALLY should.

        I don't see how such a measure wouldn't pass in those areas.

        Maybe that would finally send the message that people won't put up with this shit when Virginia loses half its population.

    1. Gotta love the guy carrying the .50 BMG. That had to have gotten old by the end of the day.

      1. That was my thought.
        Would've been a huge pain in the ass

        1. Nothing deters tyrannical cops with a Bearcat like a .50 cal BMG.

        2. Total pain in the ass... Totally awesome though.

  28. anyone else see that someone brought an actual guillotine to the rally?

    1. Really?

    2. Not a woodchipper? Luddite.

    3. SWEET!

      I really think we need to bring torches and pitchforks back as a thing.

      At rallies like this, but also at commie politicians houses and the like. We need to put the fear of god into these people so they REALLY understand the repercussions of the actions they might take. Mind you I'm not talking about damaging property or hurting anyone, just the optics of 24/7 having people outside their house with torches and pitchforks... It would be epic.

      1. If people gather outside your house with torches and pitchforks, you are justified in opening fire on them. It is not reasonable to expect people under such a threat to wait until the fires are set and the pitchforks are being wielded.

        1. Let them have at.

          I think it would be pretty obvious that a demonstration out front of a public figures house, where it is stated there will be no violence, they'd be pretty dumb to open fire at said peaceful demonstrators.

          The commies do this shit all the time... Which is why sane centrists and right wing people are so terrified of the left wing mob. It's time the right and libertarians reciprocate IMO. Fear and self interest are powerful motivators.

          If nobody had gone to this gun rally, you can bet your ass those commies in Virginia would be passing every crazy gun control law under the sun... But now they're going to think long and hard before they do.

          If you're not keen on the house thing, doing it at the capitol building etc works well for me too. Also, if you need to take it up a notch, hanging/burning effigies is pretty legit too. As I said these people need to understand what they're really playing at. They're driving us towards a civil war nobody really wants...

          But if the alternative is to become slaves, one must do what one must do. I'm sure George Washington would have preferred to have just sat there enjoying himself being filthy stinking rich, but as a man he had to do what he felt was right and resist tyranny.

          1. People approaching a private home with pitchforks and torches are not "peaceful".

            "The commies do this shit all the time"

            Yes, they do, and they should be fired upon.

            1. "“The commies do this shit all the time”

              Yes, they do, and they should be fired upon."

              I can't say my heart isn't with you on that one! Buuut... Simply being intimidating, especially in a highly symbolic manner like using the stereotype of torches and pitchforks, is not genuinely violent.

              It's intimidating, and maybe threatening a little, but not violent. But that is the whole point. It's going riiiiiiiiiight up to the line, but not crossing it. We can't just be burning down buildings and looting places like the commies after all. But making sure commie politicians understand just how pissed we are is totally fine.

              I think pushback to that level, or maybe even beyond, may be the only thing that can pull us back from the brink of afore mentioned civil war.

              The left are the ones pushing us towards it with their BS. Right wingers and libertarians would gladly just accept the horrible status quo we have right now from here to eternity, even though we shouldn't. But we would. But the left just has to keep pushing everything to the point of insanity. Making them realize how bad the repercussions of going too far will be may be the only way to stop them.

  29. His base is already scared, how do you think you got elected?

  30. Meh... White people and their guns get Sooo bitchy.

    1. ::ignores the African-Americans who attended::

      1. They just get uppity.

        1. To be fair, AmSoc doesn't actually know anyone with skin darker than Casper, so you can understand his confusion.

          1. Nor does he know anyone with a mental age later than 15 or so; his allowance didn't cover his mortgage, so he just decided not to pay it.

    2. Reason trolls and their socks get Sooo racist

  31. It seems to be working. Apparently many lefties thought another civil war was going to happen. I was reading about this on a baseball message board, of all places. They were almost panicking.

    1. Not today, but if they pass laws like this in some places it might not be too far off. I think sane people in this country are RIGHT at their breaking point. One or two more straws might just break the camels back.

  32. What would happen to Northern Virginia if Trump said "no more money for you liberal @#$#" and cut most government contracts in the state? We can all dream.

    The best case for cutting defense and firing useless CIA personnel is that Virginia will be among the states most adversely affected by it. What's left of Virginia without government contracts? Coals and tobacco? I can watch civil war reenactments and colonial era tours on Youtube.

    1. I couldn't agree more...the CIA should just be disbanded. They have a history of total failure in terms of intelligence..and their overthrowing of regimes is so against our constitution. It is another agency that should have been deep sixed when the cold war was won. Military intelligence (Naval, AF, Army) can provide intelligence we need for our non intervention foreign policy. The only way to stop the federal agency war on the Bill of Rights is to downsize the Federal Govt. Every agency created after 1960 should be shut down...per Ike's thinking

    2. Honestly, breaking off NoVa and making a state out of it and DC would be the most logical direction. NoVa's basically a DC colony at this point, anyway.

      1. Hell No! No frickin state for D.C. They already are represented by 100 senators and 335 reps. They can either disburse these federal behemoths around the country or vote to require all D.C. government workers to live in D.C. If they want to vote they can quit and go home.

  33. Once again... all these right-wingers threatening civil war and all their bullshit don’t do anything. What a bunch of pussies.

    1. Yeah, it's pretty disappointing that more Heather Heyers weren't created. Oh well, I'm sure your time will come soon.

    2. Yes you can come out from under the bed now.

  34. "People who are treated by government officials as enemies to be crushed would be foolish to submit to the authority of those officials."

    Or to give up their 2nd Amendment Rights. Great article 2Chili.

  35. 5:30pm.....and nothing happened. Yeah, the Governor went way overboard here.

    Unreason failed to surmount their own low bar.

  36. Demonizing and smearing to gain more street credit in your woke base...the Gov is pathetic but again I blame the big govt republicans who expand the federal govt in this case per the moronic patriot act...honestly both Bushes did more to lose Virginia for liberty than Clinton or Obama. Govt employees and the public sector elites will always vote for more govt and given their "cosmo" backgrounds have an irrational hate towards Rural and real conservatives/libertarians. I grew up in Central NY and the hate..verseral by the NYC types was evident when they "invaded" upstate for colleges and then the LI Yenta types would move to the burbs in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and start aggitating for more govt and anti gun registration...these folks are a threat to the Republic...Virginia should just allow DC to incorporate all the burbs near DC. It's the only solution to the expanding Federal employee fist of power...

    1. I think Balko kinda misses the joke there.

  37. Seriously? You're going to blame the Republicans alone for that abomination?
    Every single Democrat in the Senate voted for it, and Obama signed the extension of the law 4 yrs later.

    1. Well that's just weird. The comment I was replying to is vanished.

      1. Oh never mind there it is. *drinks another shot to help eyesight*

  38. Fortunately your betters will take away guns from clingers and other radicals. You will have a chance to turn them in, then you will be reeducated. No one will be spared in the new order.

    1. I keep getting suckered by the parody account. Well done.

  39. Listen: Things are perfectly clear, ok? You have a secretive cabal of [probably Jewish and probably Soros led] Deep Staters who want to keep their preschool pedophile ring going so that Democrats like Joe Biden can fuck Johnny 8 YearOld in a secret torture dungeon built by Barack Obama. And in response you get a bunch of hippie douchebags waving *signs* [pfft] about a Second Civil War?!? Can you spell C...U...C...K or what? You think if Antifa could figure out how to collect enough ammo and guns so as to rival today’s pathetic demo that they wouldn’t have fucked shit up. I mean, on one side you have actual people willing to take on the police and Deep State and on the other you have a bunch of whiny hippies with stupid signs. I know who i’d Want on my side in a street fight and it’s not the side with the obese White guy in a leather vest. No sir.

    1. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
      January.20.2020 at 9:13 pm
      "Listen: Things are perfectly clear, ok?..."

      Yes, you're a scumbag who can't be bothered to grow up. Go sit on your mommy's lap again; she'll make sure no one harms you.

  40. the Washington Post headlines say it all
    "Virginia pro-gun rally: Despite anger, threats of insurrection, massive rally is carried out peacefully"
    "Weapons, flags but no violence: Massive pro-gun rally in Richmond"

    Tools of self-defense (guns) AND evil symbol of right-wing Nazis (US flag) but no violence????!!!?? *sound of journalist heads exploding*

    1. The smarter ones are probably not that surprised, just massively disappointed

    2. I was profoundly disappointed. The government is run by Soros and the fascist Deep State and all these kooks and cucks talking about civil war part 2 could come up with is this weak sauce? What a let down. These guys are either the biggest pussies ever or, maybe, just attention-seeking bullshitters. Either way... pretty bad.

      1. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
        January.20.2020 at 9:36 pm
        "I was profoundly disappointed...."

        So are we. We'd hoped you'd fucked off and died.

        1. At the very least I would have hoped that The Vanguard of the QAnon would have shot up the Justice Department Building since it’s clearly in league with Hillary Clinton and her pedophile enablers. Golly. What a letdown. Again, who are these people? Completely full of shit or big ol’ cuck pussies?

          Justice Dept. winds down Clinton-related inquiry once championed by Trump. It found nothing of consequence.

          1. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
            January.20.2020 at 11:37 pm
            "At the very least I would have hoped..."

            At the very least, most of us here would have hoped you'd fucked off and died, scumbag.
            Please do so; make the world a better and more intelligent place!

      2. As a socialist, I can’t stand it when stupid people come up with unrealistic models for how the world works, just to bitch about how unfair it all is.

  41. This is CA, and it's likely the ads are targeted, but Steyer was just on the tube promising to "SAVE THE EARTH!" Really.
    I assume he's got a date for the rapture and it's dead certain he has "plans" for the sinners, but to couch his candidacy in such evangelical terms is surprising even for such a ego-driven piece of lefty shit like him.

    1. The Steyer ad I saw was outright calling Trump a racist for his immigration policies.

      I don't think Steyer has a snowball's chance in hell of being anyone's running mate, certainly not with Bloomberg prepared to match him dollar for dollar on ad spending. He's not even the leading billionaire in the race anymore . . . He's gotta change things up, so he's going over the top against Trump.

      The Democrats may have a contested convention. I don't see either of the billionaires dropping out, and I don't see Sanders or Warren giving up until after the convention either.

      1. I don't want to interrupt, just want to say hi Ken

      2. A friend of mine has taken to the theory that they'll have a contested convention and Bloomberg will be chosen by those in power. I don't think it's a bad play. He's a douche, but hasn't publicly stated stuff as far to the left as others, so maybe more electable. He's also a vastly more competent guy than Biden. So I wouldn't be surprised if that happens, even after he gets far fewer votes than others.

    2. Come on man... the real threat to humanity is anyone anywhere who puts up a solar panel to address climate change. I mean, if the government spends the kind of money on renewable energy it currently spends on killing, oh, Vietnamese communists or Iraqi Nationalists won’t lots of Americans in the military lose their cushy government jobs?

      1. I’m sorry, but the real threat to society is late stage capitalism, where the 1% transfer the wealth of the 99% to themselves, making themselves rich over and over again.

        1. Is this parody?

          Otherwise, it's painfully obvious that you're unfamiliar with how standards of living rise, not to mention what makes economies grow. Or do you imagine that the economy has been shrinking as the one percent's wealth is growing larger?

          You'd think you'd at least be aware that pay has been rising faster for unskilled workers than it has for others.

          "Average hourly earnings rose 3.4 percent in February from the same period a year ago, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report last week. That’s the biggest gain since April 2009 and seventh month in a row that compensation has been 3 percent or better.

          What has set this rise apart is that it’s the first time during an economic recovery that began in mid-2009 that the bottom half of earners are benefiting more than the top half — in fact, about twice as much, according to calculations by Goldman Sachs.

          . . . .

          Retail industry employees saw an increase of 5 percent and leisure and hospitality earnings rose 4.6 percent from February 2018. At the same time, professional and business services workers gained 2.8 percent while Wall Street-related positions in finance increased just 2 percent.

          1. 'Workers' in the 1% don't make wages. They have investments, dividends and other ways, so naturally lower end workers will benefit more.

            1. Was there a point involved in that comment, or just more bullshit from one of the chief bullshitters?

              1. Rich people don't draw wages. Wages are for the rest of us schmucks. The rich live off investments and the like.

                1. See below; fail

            2. You know, instead of making an ass of yourself on a regular basis, you might do a cursory search; cites can keep you from looking like the fucking idiot you are:

              "...Who are the top one percent by income?
              $475,116 is the cutoff for a top 1% household income in the United States in 2019.
              Who are the top one percent by net worth?
              The top one percent of household net worth starts at $10,374,030.10..."

              It doesn't take owning a bunch of property in say SF or NY to have a net worth of $10M, and you can well bet that folks in that position are working and earning an income, regardless of other sources of revenue.
              I'm guessing you had no idea what "the 1%" meant in either income or wealth.

          2. "Is this parody?"

            I think so, unless the handle was 'taken' like turd's was.

          3. Is this parody?

            Not a very good one, if it is literally what a Sanders supporter would say.

      2. There's this thing called a straw man . . .

        I don't remember Stevo saying that he supported squandering money on the Iraqi War or Vietnam.

        And there's this thing called a tu quoque . . .

        Because we squandered money on Iraq or Vietnam doesn't justify squandering more money on anything.

        1. I watched the 9ers win yesterday, treated to some Bloomberg ads where his major sell had him not ever taking contributions. To dimbulb lefties, I guess that is a positive. To the rest of us, it simply means he can buy what he pleases (like ads in the second-highest cost telecast) and doesn't have to concern himself with the opinions of others.
          If there was a Steyer ad there, I missed it, or perhaps confused it with the Bloomberg ads; is there a difference? Either one is running on a platform of 'I can spend enough of my money to beat Trump!'. And then?
          I doubt either can; shitstains like AmSoc (lately LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian) are doing their level best to make sure that any of the D candidates are pretty much sacrificial; it's a measure of their desperation that they drag strawmen like that military/solar panel bullshit. S/he and they are certainly stupid enough to buy into it, at least symbolically, but not so much others, regardless of their ego-driven fantasies.

          1. The ad I saw wasn't during the football game. It was something else I was watching. I forget what. I was looking for the ad on YouTube. I'll post it when I find it.

            I used to think some of these lefty types were trying to be deceptive with their straw men and their tu quoques, but I suspect it's just the way they think.

            They really do believe what they believe because of the straw men in their heads. They really do believe that because we squandered money on Vietnam and Iraq, that justifies squandering money on climate change. The reason they believe some of the amazing shit they believe is because they wouldn't recognize a straw man if it hit them in the head. Rational people can disagree, but we're not susceptible to the shit they're buying--and that's why we don't buy it.

            We talk to these trolls (Tony and Shrike are other examples) for years, and they still don't believe that there are people who genuinely believe in libertarian capitalism.

            I was talking to a guy over the weekend and I pointed out a fallacy in his thinking, and after thinking about it for a while, he accused me of "using psychology" on him. Couldn't get him to accept the possibility that "sunk costs" is a real thing. I was trying to figure out what we should do--not trying to be the smartest guy in the room. Being the smartest guy in the room is all that guy really cares about, and "using psychology" on him was about making myself seem smarter.

            One of the main reasons I tell people what I think is because I'm hoping they'll tell me when and if I'm wrong.

            Tony and Shrike still don't get it. They still think we're "using psychology". There are a lot of people like that. That part of us that wants to understand reality and make the best decisions, that's a worldview they've never experienced and don't understand. I wish I knew how to get them to see the light. Jesus told us not to throw pearls before them. Say that to Tony or Shrike, and they think you're calling them swine. Socrates went door to door looking for a wise man--and couldn't find one. The Tonys and Shrikes were the ones who voted to exile Socrates for corrupting the youth with his "logos", not that they understood what he was teaching them.

            They're not interested in facts, logic, persuading, or being persuaded. They're not exactly ants at the picnic because ants come to the picnic because they want the food. These people we're talking about don't like the food and don't want it. They like to be around for other reasons. I'm sure Shrike, for instance, doesn't realize he's a troll. He thinks he's doing the same thing everyone else is doing. He genuinely doesn't understand the difference between his empty, reasonless, shit and what the rest of us are doing.

            "A multitude of behaviours was recorded upon introducing the mirrors to the chimpanzees. Initially, the chimpanzees made threatening gestures at their own images, ostensibly seeing their own reflections as threatening. Eventually, the chimps used their own reflections for self-directed responding behaviours, such as grooming parts of their body previously not observed without a mirror, picking their noses, making faces, and blowing bubbles at their own reflections."


            Dogs can't pass the mirror test. They see another dog in the mirror for a while, and then they learn to ignore their reflection. They never graduate to recognizing themselves in the mirror. The trolls we're talking about think we're their reflection, and they can't seem to graduate from that.

            1. "...One of the main reasons I tell people what I think is because I’m hoping they’ll tell me when and if I’m wrong..."

              I live in SF. Some years back, I got tired of smiling and nodding when some SF run-of-the-mill proggy offered a bullshit claim. Not so strangely, my oh-so-tolerant 'friends' decided I must apologize for my statements or they would no longer be 'friends'; they would not tolerate a 'friend' with a political opinion with which they did not agree.
              It took several years to slough off those who were so intolerant; screw them.

              1. When it gets to the point that they can't stand being around you for wanting to understand the way things work, why, and what our policies should be--because it makes them feel uncomfortable? Yeah, that's pretty bad.

                They talk about the same topics for other reasons, I guess. The reason Shrike comes here isn't to be persuasive or persuaded, that's for sure. Wolves howl in the wild for a number of reasons. Sometimes they're warning other packs that they're not alone.
                Sometimes they do it because the blending of their voices makes the pack feel a sense of togetherness. That's probably what Shrike and your friend are doing when they tell us how they feel.

                Like a wolfpack, they sure as hell aren't trying to persuade each other.

      3. "...I mean, if the government spends the kind of money on renewable energy it currently spends on killing, oh, Vietnamese communists or Iraqi Nationalists won’t lots of Americans in the military lose their cushy government jobs?"

        No, you pathetic piece of lefty shit, the money the government spends on solar panels will be far higher than any military budget a scumbag like you ever dreamt of in your idiocy.
        Pay your mortgage, and then fuck off and die. Don't bother growing up; the world will be measurably more intelligent when you die.

  42. When we're talking about how extreme it is to think that we might need to rise up against an oppressive government someday . . .

    "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

    ----Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 29

    Hamilton helped train an army of farmers and shopkeepers that rose up against an oppressive government that was violating their rights. Was that extreme then, or is it just extreme now for some reason?

    There are 100 million gun owners in this country, the overwhelming majority of which have never pointed their guns at anyone, much less shot people with them. How can something done by a third of all Americans be considered radical or extreme?

    If tens of millions of Americans own guns for reasons that have nothing to do with the fear of oppressive government, as it's justified in the text of the Second Amendment, does that make their gun ownership more extreme or less extreme? The idea that people should be free to own guns for any reason they want, isn't that more extreme than the idea that they should be able to do so specifically because ownership deters oppressive government?

    There isn't anything extreme about the idea that we might need to do what our ancestors did. Doing what our ancestors did is more like a tradition, "tradition" being something like an opposite of "extreme".

    If anything is actually extreme, surely it's the idea that we should violate the rights of 100 million gun owning American citizens and declare them criminals--even though they've never pointed a gun at anyone, much less used a gun to violate someone's rights.

    If anything is extreme, isn't it the idea that the rights of 100 million Americans should be violated without the benefit of a trial or a jury or even the commission of a crime--that their constitutional rights should be forfeit simply because politicians say so?

    1. Hamilton was a piece of shit overall... But a good military man. He should have stuck to that.

      Personally, being that I live in a leftist area, I always throw out the "But what if a REAL right wing fascist comes to power 10 years from now? Don't you think that left wing people should have guns to resist them?" argument. It actually sinks in with some of them... Others are too far gone.

  43. Piano wire, a perfectly good defensive weapon. That's what we all learned from this article. See ya next article.

    1. Croquet mallots ftw.

      But purely self defense v

    2. If you carry a baseball bat in your car, do your lawyer a favor and also carry a ball and glove.

  44. It's a cheap attempt to build support by delegitimizing opposition to his policies.

    Yeah, kind of how Reason demonizes opponents of open borders as white supremacists/racists/isolationists, or opponents of no tariff imports from totalitarian regimes as protectionists.

  45. Where oh where were the ANTIFA cowards? Bueller?

    1. You don't bring a brick to a gun fight.

  46. Well, I was kind of hoping for the boogaloo... LOL But this ended up well enough.

    I think the optics are good. With no ANTIFA thugs starting shit, 10s of thousands of people peacefully protested for their rights. I think this will do a lot to sway centrists against the MSM claim that anybody who owns a gun is LITERALLY HITLER, which is probably a good thing as far as elections are concerned.

    Every time the MSM gets completely discredited it opens some more peoples eyes to how big of liars they are. Once opened those eyes never shut again. So that's a win.

    Also, I think the sheer show of force is going to make the Dems there curtail their crazy plans. I hope it also prevents Dems in other purple states from doing stupid shit.

  47. Without guns, we are all leftists and there is nothing worse than being a Marxist.

  48. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this – four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily……. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
    >>=====>>>> ReAd MoRe DEtai

  49. good post you can find here upsssc calendar 2020 where you can find information about uksssc exam calender od 2019 and 2020

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.