Lion of the Blogosphere

Comment exchange about gun control

fortalez84 writes:

Yeah, at the ballot box gun control is a losing issue for liberals. It’s very seductive to them, but the people who are pro-gun tend to be very very pro-gun

Tarl responds:

I dunno, man, I would have said gay marriage and tranny rights were a loser for them, but they kept pushing that crazy shit and eventually got what they wanted.

I say that the liberals control the MSM, so if they make gun control their #1 priority like they made the gay stuff, they will get what they want in 10 to 20 years, no matter how extreme it may seem today. And gun control seems a lot less extreme to me today than gays marrying each other seemed in the 1980s.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 27, 2018 at 8:58 AM

Posted in Politics

133 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. There is no solution but a coup d’etat, dictatorship and a corporate state. Who has a different suggestion that is workable? Nobody.

    Yakov

    March 27, 2018 at 9:19 AM

    • +1

      destructure

      March 27, 2018 at 2:42 PM

    • A coup is not a good solution either short term or long term.

      Technology has been a double edged sword for society. I recall reading on this blog a while back that when there was less choice in media consumption, the outlook of the media was far more centrist than the mainstream media we current have. Technology enabled far more channels and voices to be heard on both sides of the socio-political spectrum. Everything from neo-Nazis to LGBTQ+.

      The anonymity allowed by the internet takes ideologies to their furthest extremes. Don’t like Jews? Join stormfront and post ridiculous anti-Semitic nonsense! Like other men? Dress like a woman and multilate your genitalia!

      Society has become far too atomized and isolated and that’s why we have increased political division and even outrageous acts of violence.

      My proposed solution would be to heavily tax all forms of media with limited exceptions (like scientific publishing).

      Ivanthegrozny

      March 27, 2018 at 11:22 PM

      • when there was less choice in media consumption, the outlook of the media was far more centrist than the mainstream media we current have.

        Dick Nixon isn’t holding any more press conferences and could not be reached for comment.

        snorlaxwp

        March 28, 2018 at 11:21 AM

      • Ivanthegrozny — You make some reasonable points but, ultimately, you’re clueless on the big picture.

        destructure

        March 29, 2018 at 10:18 AM

  2. Gun control and gay rights aren’t similar at all. Gun control can, in theory, negatively affect tens of millions of gun owners (trivia: 60% of new rifle sales are AR’s). In other words people can oppose it for strictly practical reasons. Opposition to gay rights is entirely moral rather than practical, no one suffers because gays get the right to marry.

    Peter

    ironrailsironweights

    March 27, 2018 at 9:29 AM

    • “no one suffers because [sodomites] get the right to marry.”

      Wrong. The fecal marriage movement emboldened sodomites. Now the gaystream media rub our noses in it daily whereas, before court-imposed fecal marriage, it was rarely depicted. Repugnant behaviors belong in the closet.

      But shortsighted mouth-breathers like Peter said “It doesn’t bother me what people do in the privacy of their own home, it’s none of my business.” Hey, dingus: that’s the way it was BEFORE. Government-imposed fecal marriage took something private and made it public.

      hard9bf

      March 27, 2018 at 10:59 AM

      • Could you please give actual examples from day-to-day life about how you’re being assaulted by depictions of “fecal marriage.”

        Because as far as I can tell the only thing I see are maybe a few gay characters here and there on TV. But besides being described as married, they hardly ever do anything gay. If you didn’t speak English, you would probably just think they’re close roomates. Media executives may be committed leftists, but they still know that guys making out with each other doesn’t play in Peoria.

        I can’t even remember the last time I saw two guys kissing. Either in media or in real-life. And I live in blue tribe central. Certainly in NY of SF, you were just as likely to see gay PDA before Obergefell v. Hodges as you were after. Maybe even more. If anything the gays seemed to have dialed back the outward projection of gayness, secure in having achieved total cultural victory.

        Doug

        March 28, 2018 at 4:16 AM

    • +1

      Prole voters may think gay stuff is gross, but they fundamentally don’t care about anything that doesn’t affect their immediate life. One of the defining features of the lower classes is a lack of concern for any larger or abstract issues. Hillbillies and rednecks love guns, and think they’re fun as hell. Try to take them away and you’re really kicking a political hornet’s nest.

      Opposition to gay marriage requires a busy body dedicated to social morals. Think Church Lady from 90’s SNL. It’s someone who’s deeply concerned about saving *other* people. That’s an inherently educated middle-upper class outlook. Think devout New England Puritans rather than rowdy West Virginian Scotch-Irish. As the middle class gets hollowed out, it’s quite natural that this attitude fades into obscurity.

      We think of tolerance for alternative lifestyles as a feature of left-coast cosmopolitanism. But in reality the weirdest and least social conformist group in America are the People of Walmart. True cultural diversity is and always has been found in the hinterland proles.

      Doug

      March 28, 2018 at 4:29 AM

      • You are not understanding the leftists’ push for gay marriage and how and why it affects you. Equality implies an equivalence. It is not simply about treating gay people the same way as straight people. It is also about treating straight people the same as gay people.

        When you allow gay marriage, any gay innovations to the marriage laws map directly to your marriage. Their practices, concerns and ideals become the basis of marriage laws that underpin your marriage.

        Let’s say Ace and Gary get married. Ace does not like that Gary cheats on him, so he initiates divorce proceedings against Gary. Gary counters that they always had a basic understanding that their marriage was “open” and he rallies witnesses that all insist Ace agreed to this arrangement. The liberal judge declares that this is a “no fault open marriage” and tells Ace that, though he can leave the marriage any time, he cannot collect any alimony or payments or damages from the outcome of the divorce.

        This outcome will then directly map to all heterosexual marriages. That means your wife can cheat on you, then, if caught, declare a no fault open marriage, and the judges’ decision will guarantee that you cannot punish her with a divorce that has any meaningful teeth.

        Imposing gay sensibilities and innovations into traditional heterosexual marriage law is exactly why gay marriage is pushed. Do you still think this has no effect on you?

        map

        March 28, 2018 at 12:47 PM

      • Uh, no-fault divorce is already the law of the land in every state and has been in most since the 70’s.

        snorlaxwp

        March 28, 2018 at 7:40 PM

      • Good comments by Doug and ironrails (and original comment by Fortaleza). Some others missed the point.

        Sure, gay marriage is a bad thing, though it’s debatable to what degree it’s a symptom vs. a cause of the decline of marriage. It’s a subtle and complex argument to discuss how it really affects you personally, unless your belief is that it incurs God’s wrath towards America or something like that. And most people don’t have time for subtle and complex arguments.

        But guns are an extremely popular hobby. It’s like banning football. It’s enough to wake up a lot of people who aren’t otherwise all that engaged in politics. Remember that the white working class is the most Republican segment of the population, but they often don’t show up to vote. When they do, Democrats lose, and this will remain true for a while yet.

        They can try gradually trimming around the edges on control, but when their emphasis is “Repeal the 2nd!”, you know that they are skipping that and going straight to overreach.

        I do think the 2A will eventually be weakened severely in multicultural America (maybe the Constitution will even be scrapped as a legacy white document), but only after the white working class no longer has any political power.

        Wency

        March 29, 2018 at 8:13 AM

  3. gay marriage and tranny rights were the result of the courts and executive action, not through candidates running on the issue and winning.

    Mike Street Station

    March 27, 2018 at 9:34 AM

    • Nevertheless, liberals got what they wanted.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 27, 2018 at 10:07 AM

    • Right – in NY State our version of “executive action” was the billionaire venture capitalist Paul Singer, who bought off the notoriously corrupt NY State Senate. Since Cuomo was already in his pocket it became a done deal and all opposition, which had been quite strong for many years, crumbled.

      Same deal with the rainbow curriculum. This was nothing new in NY State. They tried it 30 years ago and it got crushed. Then suddenly it was instituted with zero fanfare.

      gothamette

      March 27, 2018 at 6:59 PM

  4. The 2nd Amendment is what’s making the difference.

    IHTG

    March 27, 2018 at 9:48 AM

    • Which can be interpreted out of existence.

      Richard

      March 27, 2018 at 10:15 AM

      • If the Supremes can find a right to gay marriage in the Constitution, they can find that the Second Amendment is no longer relevant because it only applies to state militias.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 27, 2018 at 11:48 AM

    • MEH 0910

      March 27, 2018 at 10:39 AM

      • IF we were to get an amendment through it should be one that limits (or eliminates) the supreme court’s power to overturn acts of the legislature on constitutional grounds. That would solve the 2nd amendment problem and a whole bunch of other stuff.

        Magnavox

        March 27, 2018 at 2:20 PM

      • Advocating against a constitutional right for the purpose of gaining power over people should be treated with fines and imprisonment. It is a conspiracy against people’s rights and a gross abuse of the constitution.

        JPS should be promptly arrested and out in prison.

        Enough with these games.

        map

        March 27, 2018 at 8:46 PM

      • Advocating against a constitutional right for the purpose

        Do you have any idea how dumb you sound?

        Magnavox

        March 27, 2018 at 11:51 PM

      • Magnavox,

        Why is that dumb? Those are the rules. The left agrees that there are exceptions to free speech. Advocating against constitutional rights should be one of those exceptions.

        map

        March 28, 2018 at 1:04 PM

      • Capital! Again, you see clearly that a coup d’etat with control of the hostile media and multinational corporations is the only solution. There is no way to stop them. You either go to war now, or you perish. It’s is that simple. Blogging, and talking is a waste of time. Only an immidiate revolution can save this poor country.

        Think! The court recognizes a constitutional right for gays to marry but wants to take away a constitutional right to bear arms. How come nobody ever suggested modifying the constitution to stop gay marriage? Very simple, gay marriage is not in the constitution and everyone knows it. These are judges? No! These are traitors. They should be muzzled and kept under house arrest for the rest of their lives. What they have done is a coup and it can only be fought with a revolution. There is no legal recourse left to save this poor country.

        Yakov

        March 27, 2018 at 12:16 PM

      • “Only an immidiate revolution can save this poor country”

        The country is too divided, and bread n circuses have fatten the masses that they don’t want to move, unless they want to satisfy an appetite.

        JS

        March 27, 2018 at 2:33 PM

      • People did suggest modifying the Constitution to stop gay marriage:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

        It didn’t get enough political traction. With America’s growing devolution into discord and tribalism, amending the Constitution is too difficult given the supermajorities of both houses of Congress and the states needed. The last time an amendment was ratified was 1992, and that one was about a relatively minor issue. The country is way too divided to ratify an amendment on a culture war issue. It’s likely that we’ve seen the last Constitutional Amendment ever.

        Hermes

        March 27, 2018 at 2:44 PM

      • John Paul Stevens: Off To Jail.

        map

        March 27, 2018 at 8:47 PM

  5. Starting along with LGBT, the Libertarians completely reversed US law on guns so now in every state you have friendlier laws by info and lawsuit campaigns. Florida was where it started, so the far-left has been targeting that state by creating accidents waiting to happen as in Parkland.

    The Libertarians are preparing a world campaign for arms legalization that has the far-left petrified. The real far-left issue is attacking youth autonomy, though–the same month in Florida they banned teens from carrying guns they also banned teen marriage–to create a generation accustomed to dependency. The far-left also sees this as a way to get rid of the new LGBT freedoms which it never really supported.

    The libertarians are advising on lawsuits in Florida against the new measures and if necessary will change the law on teen autonomy with direct democracy. Most Floridians are aware Libertarian gun legalization there ended a wave of rapes and tourist murders and brought lower crime (along with community watches, something the far-left also hates).

    IMHO the libertarians are done slapping the right around towards more tolerance for now (except in Islamic countries) and are preparing to wheel-and-attack the far-left worldwide. It’s understood the Social Democrats have been flooding the US Libertarian Party and are trying to swamp their Convention to pass divisive platform amendments. They’re openly posing as far-right conservatives trying to take over the LP Texas.

    The growing number of libertarians among progressives has led to fist-fights against the totalitarians in those groups. At the same time, the number of libertarian-influenced judges is growing.

    Robert

    March 27, 2018 at 9:50 AM

    • The growing number of libertarians among progressives has led to fist-fights against the totalitarians in those groups.

      Who are winning. Liberal support for free speech — especially for “racists” — is shrinking, which wouldn’t happen if libertarian thought was growing on that side.

      Richard

      March 27, 2018 at 10:21 AM

  6. My dad, card-carrying NRA member of over 30 years, terrified of Obama taking his guns, bought an AR-15 after Sandy Hook, suddenly started reciting MSM gun control talking points in the days after Parkland. He’s moved back towards his original position after all the revelations about Cruz’s earlier behavior that was known to authorities, but still.

    snorlaxwp

    March 27, 2018 at 9:50 AM

    • How is it that Zachary Cruz is black?

      atlantablackstar.com/2018/03/22/lawyer-argues-zachary-cruz-treated-harshly-not-kill-17-people/

      gothamette

      March 27, 2018 at 7:01 PM

      • Different fathers – Same mother.

        Nedd Ludd

        March 28, 2018 at 11:06 AM

      • Do we know who this mysterious woman is?

        gothamette

        March 28, 2018 at 1:58 PM

      • Cruz was an adopted kid. This kid is another adopted kid. Cruz’s real parents were Jewish.

        Rotten

        March 29, 2018 at 11:11 AM

      • No, this was Cruz’s brother from the same mother. That business about Cruz being ethnically Jewish is a rumor you picked up from your Nazi friends.

        gothamette

        March 29, 2018 at 12:18 PM

  7. If the left pushes for gun control, then there will be a second civil war on American soil within twenty years. People won’t kill or die over gay marriage. Gunowners will fight for their right to bear arms.

    Oswald Spengler

    March 27, 2018 at 9:54 AM

    • If the left pushes for gun control, then there will be a second civil war on American soil within twenty years.

      Cynics and nihilists scoff at this but it’s true. Even if a national gun registry were passed into law and upheld by a leftist SCOTUS, non-compliance would be near total. To actually enforce it would require something like door-to-door raids. So yes, civil war would absolutely follow.

      Andrew E.

      March 27, 2018 at 10:19 AM

      • You could limit enforcement to new purchases and to searches for other things that happen to turn up guns. A national gun registry is actually the best hope pro gun people have because it will allow local governments to have different styles of regulation while preventing someone from an antigun area just buying their guns someplace else.

        Magnavox

        March 27, 2018 at 2:35 PM

    • I doubt it will come to that. Liberals will get a friendly Supreme Court to eviscerate the Second Amendment, but they’ll leave well enough alone with current gun owners and focus their energies on preventing the sale and distribution of new guns, as well as making ammo harder to buy. People will get angry on the internet but ultimately not do anything, because they’ll be suffering from inconvenience, not oppression. Over the years gun culture will wither away as young people are indoctrinated away from it and the legacy gun owners die off. A hundred years from now people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

      Richard

      March 27, 2018 at 10:36 AM

      • Assuming President Trump remains in power for the next 7 years there will perhaps be at least 2 Liberal judges retiring on the SC. This should stack the Court towards a more Conservative view for the next 30+ years.

        It may be quite a while before Liberals have a “friendly Supreme Court”.

        gda

        March 27, 2018 at 3:12 PM

      • This would be the smart way to do it, but would the liberals really be able to restrain themselves? Once they see that gun owners are politically powerless, wouldn’t they convince themselves that they need to really stick it to them by going and taking their guns. Just like it wasn’t good enough to just legalize gay marriage, they had to go after people who refused to bake them cakes…

        James Baird

        March 27, 2018 at 4:22 PM

      • 100 years from now people won’t have any rights left at all if Leftists get their way.

        Panther of the Blogocube

        March 27, 2018 at 6:10 PM

      • “Liberals will get a friendly Supreme Court to eviscerate the Second Amendment,”

        How? If Trump gets another nomination, the Court tips conservative.

        gothamette

        March 27, 2018 at 7:02 PM

    • I love all the old obese gun owners who fantasize about all the brave superhero stuff they’ll do with their guns, fighting of criminals and oppressive governments.

      Magnavox

      March 27, 2018 at 11:42 AM

      • This is a really silly comment. The whole point of being well trained in using a firearm is that whether your stomach is a six-pack or an overhanging tub of lard that obscures your toes, you’re going to be able to repel the grounds invading your house. In my county two years ago, an 89-year old guy wit diabetes shot two robbers dead. So if obese people bother you fine, but it’s got nothing to do with the gun debate.

        Explainer 21

        March 27, 2018 at 12:26 PM

      • You don’t mention either fighting off the government or the kinds of elaborate fantasies people have about criminals that drive so much of the gun debate. Even anti gun european countries make it fairly easy to buy the kinds of guns that you can use to defend your house from intruders. Americans aren’t satisfied with that because of their fantasies.

        Magnavox

        March 27, 2018 at 2:04 PM

      • Navy Seals are very well-trained and in excellent shape. Yet, Afghani goat herders with RPG’s and AK47 have been plugging holes in them for 15 years.

        Guns mean you don’t have to be in shape to use them.

        map

        March 27, 2018 at 8:50 PM

      • Actually you don’t see obese, old guerillas.

        Magnavox

        March 27, 2018 at 11:33 PM

      • Shooting powerful firearms is much more of a physically demanding activity than you’d expect. 12-gauge slugs or 338 Win Mag rifles, to name a couple examples, aren’t for weaklings. In fact, people have become much wimpier about shooting, hence the meteoric rise of the nearly recoil-less 6.5 Creedmoor round and the practice of putting muzzle brakes on just about everything.

        Peter

        ironrailsironweights

        March 28, 2018 at 1:00 PM

      • It doesn’t take a magnum to bring down big game. All it takes is putting the right bullet in the right spot. Unless you’re hunting something dangerous there’s no reason to subject yourself to unnecessary recoil.

        destructure

        March 29, 2018 at 1:14 AM

    • We’re all right so long as we don’t launch a campaign of confiscation. If we do, we could end up with Ruby Ridge plus Waco multiplied a thousand fold. That will be your civil war.

      Mister Triple 800

      March 27, 2018 at 12:35 PM

      • Yeah. Although I don’t know about a civil war, we could see civil disobedience to any confiscatory gun laws on a scale that we have not seen in this country. It’s that serious an issue.

        Mike Street Station

        March 27, 2018 at 5:06 PM

      • And the gun owners would lose, because the state has superior weapons.

        The last civil war was a sectional rebellion. That was the rebels’ strength – and they still lost.

        gothamette

        March 27, 2018 at 7:05 PM

      • The state’s “superior weapons” didn’t keep people from killing two of the Kennedy’s.

        destructure

        March 29, 2018 at 2:14 AM

      • It’s no longer so easy to get a shot at a POTUS.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 29, 2018 at 9:31 AM

      • “And the gun owners would lose, because the state has superior weapons.”

        The US had far superior weapons in Vietnam and Iraq too. You don’t even need to go as far as a war analogy. The government didn’t stop it’s Ruby Ridges and Waco’s because it was outgunned, but because it became politically toxic. How much more toxic would midnight home raids of middle class folks to get guns become, particularly when cell phones look like “gun, gun, gun!’ in the dark?

        Mike Street Station

        March 29, 2018 at 6:11 AM

      • Americans don’t have it in them to actually revolt against the government. This isn’t the 1860s.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 29, 2018 at 9:32 AM

      • “Americans don’t have it in them to actually revolt against the government. This isn’t the 1860s.”

        I’m not talking about “revolt” in terms of some sort of military conflict between middle class homeowners and the Army, I mean there would be such a level of outrage that we could see riots and civil disobedience.

        Mike Street Station

        March 29, 2018 at 9:54 AM

      • My point was that it’s not necessary to fight the police or military. For example, organized crime, cartels, etc don’t fight police or military, They just whack politicians, judges or police chiefs who cross them. But I wasn’t suggesting that anyone target the POTUS. I actually think that would be counterproductive since it would provoke a backlash.

        Mainstream Americans may not have it in them to revolt but plenty of individuals do. Just last year a guy shot half the Republican senate softball team. People who support 2A generally aren’t the sort to do something like that, But start messing with their guns and that could change. Try taking the rifle some 80 yr old man has been hunting with since he was 12 and see what happens.

        destructure

        March 29, 2018 at 11:30 AM

      • “The last civil war was a sectional rebellion.”

        The last civil war was a sectional coup.

        Curle

        March 30, 2018 at 12:03 AM

  8. The courts delivered gay marriage, not the voters. Same sex marriage was a consistent loser at the ballot box, even in deranged California.

    Brendan

    March 27, 2018 at 9:54 AM

    • Yes, gay marriage won in the sense that gays can file joint tax returns, but liberal politicians are not winning elections because they supported gay marriage. Some politicians are being helped at the ballot box by being pro-gun.

      Roger

      March 27, 2018 at 4:19 PM

  9. I would have to disagree for a couple reasons. First, people who oppose gay marriage are not one-issue voters. People who oppose gun control frequently are. Or if they aren’t it’s a very big issue to them.

    Second, gay marriage was not enacted by Congress, it was pushed through the courts. If Congress had passed gay marriage, then a lot of Congressman would have lost their jobs in the next election.

    I think we are a long way off from having the Supreme Court rule that the Constitution REQUIRES gun control.

    Anyway, it’s not like this is the first time there has been a big media push for gun control. What happened was that the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives back in the 90s due to an unpopular piece of gun control legislation. After that there was a long lull since the Left realized it was a losing issue for them.

    fortaleza84

    March 27, 2018 at 10:16 AM

  10. I don’t know. My opinion, after living the last 50 years in this country and culture, is that people really don’t believe in anything. As some of you mentioned, it wasn’t that long ago that gay marriage and transsexual rights were preposterous to the vast majority of the population. But after a few decades of TV propaganda, it simply isn’t any more. Folks who are saying that the courts imposed it on the people are both right and wrong: they are right, in that when voted, gay marriage always lost. They are wrong in that, why did judges change (they changed first, but they still changed)? Judges would have thought gay marriage an absurdity until maybe 1995. And regardless: the people generally accept and agree with it now. The people changed, too. What happened in a court case in 2000 isn’t particularly important when (according to polls) people today accept and believe in it anyway.

    In other words, this last generation of culture has really shown to me that people really are whatever elites want them to be. They really believe whatever elites decide, and push, onto them. If elites somehow decided to push anti-gay marriage starting tomorrow, in 20 years people would change their minds back.

    I’ve spent a lot of time thinking that people are going to be pushed too far-whether affirmative action, or gay rights, or drug liberalization, or gun rights, or whatever. But there is no reason to believe that. Everything in my experience suggests that moral and political battles are battles between elites: the people just do and think what they are expected to do and think.

    anon

    anon

    March 27, 2018 at 10:26 AM

    • I’ve observed the same. I’ve never seen ‘the people’ do anything, they obey one elite side or the other.

      Artifact

      March 27, 2018 at 12:36 PM

    • Yeah, I don’t have time to look up the polls right now but I’m pretty sure that support for gay rights had been steadily building for years and was pretty much almost there among the majority by the time of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, and that majorities now support gay marriage. So the court may have made it happen a few years earlier than it would have by legislation but it would have happened none the less.

      Once the left figures out what the gun-control equivalents of Will and Grace and Modern Family would be, we’ll be well on our way to gun banning.

      Hermes

      March 27, 2018 at 1:03 PM

    • This is correct. We swim in a vast sea of propaganda, centrally coordinated and unrelenting. Even money that within 20 years we have legalized pedophilia, total ban on all guns in civilian hands, and reeducation camps for anyone making un-“Woke” comments in private conversations.

      James Baird

      March 27, 2018 at 4:16 PM

      • I’ll take that bet on pedophilia. (There will be / already is anarcho-tyranny for Muslims on that subject, but I assume you mean written law).

        snorlaxwp

        March 28, 2018 at 11:24 AM

      • There’s no organized push for pedophilia; no high-profile groups or individuals supporting it. NAMBLA is a shadow of its former self. A few of the most radical leftists might have a pie-in-the-sky dream of a total ban on all guns in civilian hands, but since even the European countries like the UK or Sweden which liberals hold up as their examples don’t have that, there isn’t likely to be any push for a total gun ban. As for criminalizing private conversations, there’s that pesky little First Amendment, which is currently doing for free speech what the 2nd is for gun control. Though I suppose it could be radically reinterpreted, and since everyone now agrees that “racism” is the most evil thing in the universe, maybe reeducation camps for un-“woke” speech is the most likely of your three scenarios to come to pass.

        Hermes

        March 28, 2018 at 3:12 PM

      • Free Speech is under attack like it has never been before thanks to Leftists in corporate America. We’ve already seen what’s going to happen, speech that Leftists don’t want will be designated Hate Speech and banned from any service. Already the entire infrastructure of the internet is compromised by the presence of extremist SJWs at Google, YouTube, Facebook, etc. But it is not simply them. Lion is at risk, everyone who has a web presence is at risk for blackmail or deplatforming — Don’t think that SJWs won’t go after your cloud hosting service, chat service, even your operating system.

        Panther of the Blogocube

        March 28, 2018 at 6:01 PM

    • Yep, ordinary people are fucking stupid and believe whatever they’re told to believe. Most people have no minds of their own. As others have pointed out, even our own president agrees with whatever was said to him by the last person he spoke with. If you talk to the average person, he/she has no idea what’s going on in the world.

      And they all have the right to vote.

      Stealth

      March 27, 2018 at 9:27 PM

  11. I think this huge push is more about maintaining Democrat voter intensity/motivation and trying to meme the blue wave into reality and scare the GOP cucks. And, to create cover for corporations to crack down on guns (citi, google, etc).

    “Gun control” is a loser at the ballot box and they know it, but nevertheless they will (if they aren’t stopped) take the guns away eventually, with no “gun control” ever being passed.

    Anon

    March 27, 2018 at 10:40 AM

  12. Apart from Second Amendment protections, gun control will fail because of the intensity with which gun owners defend their rights. In the cases of same sex marriage and tranny rights you compare, the public was either indifferent or moving in the acceptance direction, so that by the time the SCOTUS ruled, the public was already on board, as demonstrated by the number of states that had already legalized it legislatively.

    sestamibi

    March 27, 2018 at 11:16 AM

  13. Former Supreme Court Justice Stevens favors repeal of the Second Amendment.

    Oswald Spengler

    March 27, 2018 at 11:21 AM

    • The gun control lobby won’t be satisfied until legal private gun possession is a thing of the past.

      Oswald Spengler

      March 27, 2018 at 11:23 AM

  14. The Left’s victory over gay marriage is one of the most overrated things ever.

    Everybody personally knows at least one gay and most people don’t see any harm in allowing gays to have the same right to marry that straights do. Even Christians wanted to move on from the issue whereas Christians still haven’t surrendered on the pro life stuff after losing on the issue for decades.

    Guns is an even bigger deal than pro life. Pro gun people will never surrender on this issue and it is the only issue that could by itself cause a civil war.

    Otis the Sweaty

    March 27, 2018 at 11:24 AM

    • Mate, don’t make me laugh now. Marriage is a patriarchal concept that gays and feminists had always opposed. This concept simply doesn’t include gays. Gay marriage was pushed to undermine the morals of society at large. Any discussion of homosexuality in the media should be suppressed by a nationalist dictatorship and gay marriage banned with all existing ‘marriages’ declared null and void.

      Yakov

      March 27, 2018 at 12:25 PM

    • Seeing gays marry is fine in the same way that giving women the right to vote was fine — A shortsighted view that blithely ignores the very real ways this undermines the social contract successful civilizations are built on.

      But when you can only think in terms of superficial slogans, then considering long term consequences of your actions is an infinite horizon away.

      Panther of the Blogocube

      March 27, 2018 at 6:59 PM

  15. This is sort of true, but misses the point. Gun control will happen with demographic replacement, the same way that gay marriage and tranny rights have come with demographic turnover. Reagan won a smaller % of the white vote than Romney, right?

    Jefferson

    March 27, 2018 at 11:36 AM

    • Now this I agree with. The only way Americans abide real, meaningful gun control is by replacing actual Heritage-Americans/white people with Fake-Americans/Paper-Americans/non-white people.

      Andrew E.

      March 27, 2018 at 12:00 PM

      • All part of the goverment electing a new people. It’s the path to perpetual power for the left.

        Oswald Spengler

        March 27, 2018 at 12:12 PM

      • That does happen, but demographic replacement isn’t just a cynical power play by the left. They believe in it for its own sake. “The cancer of human history,” remember? They’re not just trying to increase their own power. They want to see whites decrease and nonwhites increase simply because they feel that whites are bad and nonwhites good.

        Hermes

        March 28, 2018 at 3:20 PM

      • “That does happen, but demographic replacement isn’t just a cynical power play by the left. They believe in it for its own sake. “The cancer of human history,” remember? They’re not just trying to increase their own power. They want to see whites decrease and nonwhites increase simply because they feel that whites are bad and nonwhites good.”

        It’s always worthwhile to restate that the vast majority believe their own crap.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 28, 2018 at 3:49 PM

    • The LGBT stuff moved from fringe to settled law way too quickly to be explained by demographic change. It’s probably the most astounding social revolution in American history.

      Richard

      March 27, 2018 at 12:06 PM

      • The decline of cigarette smoking would have to be up there too.

        Jokah Macpherson

        March 27, 2018 at 6:36 PM

      • Not really… Desire for “radical sexual autonomy” is near-universal and so, practically-speaking, endemic to mankind.

        thordaddy

        March 27, 2018 at 10:57 PM

      • Abolitionism? The imposition, then repeal of Prohibition? FDR’s first term? The 60’s?

        snorlaxwp

        March 28, 2018 at 10:49 AM

      • Abolition was a 85 year process (first state banned slavery in 1780). Prohibition was almost 70 years from passage of the Maine Law, and if you look at Wikipedia’s article on it, later repeal hardly seems shocking since states were always seesawing back and forth. Rhode Island alone banned alcohol three times between 1852 and 1886, in each case reversing itself after a few years. It wasn’t a revolution of opinion so much as a spasm, repeated generation after generation.

        But gay marriage? 11 years from when the first state legalized it in 2004, and it’s probably permanent. With trannies along for the ride, which is amazing considering how fringe all of this was just a short time ago.

        Richard

        March 28, 2018 at 12:50 PM

      • I vote for the transition from everyone understanding that blacks were, as a group, less intelligent to the dogmatic belief in the egalitarian hypothesis as the most stunning cultural shift. Most people still have an icky feeling about gays, at least those of their own sex. Case in point, if you were showering at the gym and knew you had gay’s showering next to you, would you be uncomfortable? People may have similar feelings about ghetto blacks but they rarely encounter them.

        Curle

        March 30, 2018 at 12:14 AM

    • Voters and state politicians changed from pro-Prohibition to anti- in less than two decades.

      Anthony

      March 27, 2018 at 2:57 PM

    • Higher percentage but same margin as Reagan’s first election in 1980, Romney won whites 59-39 and Reagan 56-36 (with 7% for independent John Anderson, who ran to Carter’s left). Not quite as high as Reagan’s reelection in 1984, where he won whites 64-35, which will stop being a winning margin around 2028 or so. The all-time record is Nixon in ’72, 67-31, which would be enough to win until ~2036.

      snorlaxwp

      March 28, 2018 at 10:55 AM

  16. Democracy is pretty much rule by the best organized minority. For the most part, social conservatives are not particularly well organized. The LGBT lobby is extremely well organized. The NRA is supremely well organized. The gun control movement may have tons of Bloomberg money behind it, but they don’t strike me as being able to turn their big protests into concrete bills.

    Hubbard

    March 27, 2018 at 1:23 PM

  17. A country that is at best 45% white will have to find a way to disarm minorities or it will turn into Brazil. The 2nd Amendment needs to be re-interpreted to allow gun laws more like Switzerland or Austria. Otherwise game over. 2nd amendment purists are in denial about who most „Americans“ actually are these days.

    Peter Akuleyev

    March 27, 2018 at 2:52 PM

  18. I dunno. People are still very racist because desegregation was not a natural social evolution but instead was judicially mandated.

    There are a lot of people who are still very anti-gay marriage, which isn’t likely to change. Because, again, the change was not a natural social evolution.

    The problem with a hypothetical second amendment elimination is that the people who are most against it would need to either voluntarily give up their weapons or have them taken from them. This is very different from even desegregation, wherein the black family may move next door but you don’t need to speak with them and can lock your door.

    Dan

    March 27, 2018 at 4:02 PM

  19. Gun control would mean no longer having to spend money on guns, ammo, and training. It would mean no longer having to deal with the hassle of carrying one. (And it is a hassle). And as the U.S. would no longer be worth defending, it would mean no longer having to care about what happens to either it, or its inhabitants.

    Imagine the freedom that comes from no longer being free.

    raoulduke2767

    March 27, 2018 at 5:00 PM

  20. I’m not so sure. The gay stuff went through because supporting it became a status signaler. If you support gay rights/ marriage you are sophisticated and trendy. Don’t support it? You’re an outcast gremlin.

    Guns are still worshipped by hollywood. Just a random example, walking dead. Insanely gung ho on guns being cool. There are countless other productions with copious gun violence and gun worship… hollywood is weird in that respect. For the curious, here’s a firearm database for guns used in film and tv (http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Main_Page).

    Deep down most americans realize what rust said in true detective- the world needs bad men (i.e. men willing to resort to violence) to keep the other bad men from the door.

    You really want to live in a world where only gangbangers and cops are armed? Personally I hate guns and refuse to have them in the house because they frighten me. But pragmatically I recognize the civil preponderance of the 2nd amendment. It should never be touched.

    toomanymice

    March 27, 2018 at 5:49 PM

  21. I think the left is not that dominant anymore in the media because young people consume their info in other channels. It is also not as cool or reactionary to be left anymore, if anything the opposite. I can see what kind of media my kids consume and it is mainly all kind of youtube personas, many of them are very anti left establishment in a very casual way.

    Hashed

    March 27, 2018 at 5:54 PM

  22. I suspect a lot of people here are overrating television’s influence. Seeing what an abortion looks like, or children being made into techno-eunuchs, or the lowlight reels of gay pride parades, doesn’t really affect the average viewer the way it affects the remnant of sane humans. Most humans just aren’t sane anymore. Color television dramatically reduced the popularity of the Vietnam war, when people saw the fire and blood and gore for the first time. But the most extreme, high definition content just doesn’t shock most people now for some reason.

    They’re supposedly “desensitized”, but there’s something else truly wrong with them for this to be a sufficient explanation. You can fill in the blank in all kinds of ways. Modern humans are like philosophical zombies with animal souls.

    Sexual perversion is always associated with extreme violence far beyond the ordinary violence associated with conventional sexuality. Violence has simply been sublimated by sex, using abortion, but Western demographic transformation demonstrates that plain old thuggery is returning with a vengeance last seen since pagan viking times.

    I suspect dysgenics is at play, and abortion is the most obvious cause of it. Female sexual preference skews in favor of the lukewarm underclass “bad boys”, who they court because they have abortion in case they run into a truly atavistic lumpenprole pariah. Abortion means women can safely screw around instead of settling down with a nice engineer or accountant in the first place. This degrades the genetic quality of a population far more than the occasional rape from the pariah class ever did.

    Attacking Hollywood is stupid. Attacking Jews by proxy of “Hollywood” is even stupider, given that attacking the weak rather than the strong (the fact that Jews aren’t in fact the weak is irrelevant) is intended to indulge hybristophilia rather than demonstrate actual heroism. Gun culture in first world contexts is in fact part of this whole dubious environment, but it’s something the right feels compelled to defend BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY DEFEATIST IN DEFENDING THE FIRST WORLD.

    Where we’re going, it’s best to play defect within the prisoner’s dilemma and arm oneself. The preppers are always eventually right.

    Anonymous Fake

    March 27, 2018 at 9:50 PM

  23. Guns AND ammo are a serious INVESTMENT very unlike a natural repulsion for sexual degeneracy.

    For a minute, alt-writers seemed to have forgotten that the “traditional” left is all about re-distribution of wealth which is exactly the aim of “gun control” when one gets down to the brass tacks.

    And because the “right” to sexual degeneracy is so costly then paying with patriot arms is pervertedly analogous to the illegals and cartels paying for The Wall.

    thordaddy

    March 27, 2018 at 11:04 PM

  24. Do you believe it to be a constitutional act to impose strict licensing and control of fully-automatic, silenced, and sawed-off firearms?

    If so, you can make the same logical argument for tighter controls for firearms with the suite of lethal characteristics that the AR-15 varients have.

    If not, there are likely no limits to what weaponry you believe a person could theoretically possess, including a grenade launcher, land mines, and heavy anti-materiel machine guns.

    That said, the proposed age restrictions are in no way constitutional. If a 20 year old has less of a right to bear arms in self defense that a 21 year old, the whole bill of rights is meaningless. Any such law will fail in court and cause all sorts of unintended precedents pertaining to other rights and other restrictions.

    Regulating them as current class 3 firearms is the only constitutional and politically viable path.

    Jack

    March 27, 2018 at 11:10 PM

    • I think the intent of the 2nd Amendment was that gun control should be left up to the states, Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833), but since no one on the Supreme Court thinks that, my opinion is irrelevant.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 27, 2018 at 11:28 PM

      • The intention was to prevent the federal government from enacting gun control measures that would interfere with state militias. The founders feared a large standing, federal army and were worried that the federal government would destroy state militias in a power grab. It’s a completely discredited idea and the same idiots screaming about the second amendment are also the ones who love the military.

        Magnavox

        March 27, 2018 at 11:44 PM

      • That’s true, but incorporation was the intent of the 14th amendment, so the 2nd (and the rest of the BoR) would also apply to the states now as well.

        snorlaxwp

        March 28, 2018 at 10:41 AM

      • It’s an intent that somehow wasn’t discovered until a hundred years after the 14th was ratified. Ha! And the right to a grand jury trial hasn’t been incorporated.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 28, 2018 at 11:25 AM

      • More like 4 years later, by the dissenters (including Chief Justice Chase) in the 5-4 Slaughter-House Cases. And there’s good reason to believe the majority were being hypocritical; the plaintiffs and their attorneys were ex-Confederates suing the Republican Reconstruction government in Louisiana.

        snorlaxwp

        March 28, 2018 at 11:40 AM

      • Interesting about the Slaughterhouse Cases. I hadn’t known much about them so I looked them up.

        As I learned from Lion, the Supreme Court has “incorporated” various rights individually, not the Bill of Rights as a whole. But popular lay opinion is that “the 14th Amendment means that government at any level, not just the federal government, can’t violate people’s rights.”

        And liberals don’t care about what the “intent” of any amendment or any article of the Constitution was. They’ve said so themselves, that it shouldn’t matter whether the men who passed it would have agreed with this or that decision. They subscribe to the general principle that any non-liberal law or policy violates “due process” and “equal protection.”

        Hermes

        March 28, 2018 at 3:30 PM

      • “The founders feared a large standing, federal army and were worried that the federal government would destroy state militias in a power grab. It’s a completely discredited idea“

        Discredited? It happened. Only the standing army destroyed the very meaning of ‘states.’

        Curle

        March 30, 2018 at 12:22 AM

    • You’re falling for the trap of thinking that assault rifles represent some kind of special danger. The main problem is actually handguns.

      Magnavox

      March 27, 2018 at 11:36 PM

      • This is true, and sharp restrictions on handguns would disproportionately impact urban gun owners, which seems to me would be a good idea, and would be at worst a mild inconvenience to hunters or people who are convinced they are collecting an arsenal to defend themselves from tyranny. A shotgun is also a perfectly fine weapon to defend your home in almost every case.

        Peter Akuleyev

        March 29, 2018 at 1:42 PM

      • I’ve known a few gun-nut types who insist on carrying a handgun on them everywhere they go. Enacting sharp restrictions on handguns would definitely raise the ire of at least a certain percentage of those types and cause them to want to make their stand against the gubmint.

        Hermes

        March 29, 2018 at 3:42 PM

      • “I’ve known a few gun-nut types who insist on carrying a handgun on them everywhere they go.”

        I had a friend in Arizona like that.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 30, 2018 at 6:54 AM

    • Jack,

      Of course you can have elaborate and powerful weapons if you can afford them.

      Remember in the old days when the British Empire used to hand out Letters of Marque to private citizens to engage in privateering? in essence, it was a license to attack and plunder French, Spanish and Portuguese merchant ships.

      Well, to be an effective privateer means you needed to have military-grade weapons, which was assumed to be available for purchase by any civilian who could afford it.

      map

      March 28, 2018 at 1:19 PM

      • I believe most of those privateers were very connected to the British crown and ruling class.

        Curle

        March 30, 2018 at 12:35 AM

  25. It will all regress to the mean.

    My Two Cents

    March 27, 2018 at 11:46 PM

  26. Edward Bernays is a rosetta stone of understanding who rules and how.

    Yes, most people (including educated/competent people) are mindless fools who can be easily programmed and conditioned to believe anything.

    fakeemail

    March 28, 2018 at 1:25 AM

  27. The court was not ahead of public opinion on same sex marriage. In 2011, more people supported same sex marriage than opposed. Biden let it slip that he favored it, and then Obama said he had “evolved” toward even greater tolerance and respect. The Supreme Court recognized it several years later.

    For a couple hundred years the court has maintained the Second Amendment has to do with state militias (because the context of the Bill of Rights is preventing an oppressive central government). Now the so-called “originalists” use their whacky interpretation of the Second Amendment to have the federal government prevent states and local governments from passing regulations (e.g., DC’s handgun ban).

    Stevens knows all of this, so it’s always been foolish of him to advocate repealing the Second Amendment.

    Vince

    March 28, 2018 at 5:03 AM

    • No, the constitution does not say that only within state militias can people own guns.

      map

      March 28, 2018 at 1:21 PM

      • The original Constitution said nothing at all, the 2nd Amendment (passed as a group of 10 ammendments) says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

        Read in conjunction with Barron v. Baltimore which says the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to the states, the intent is that the federal government can prevent people from owning arms, but states can do so if they want to.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 28, 2018 at 3:43 PM

      • And in US v Miller it was interpreted to only limit federal gun controls that interfere with a well regulated state militias. There is every reason to think that is the original intent. No other amendments have non binding parenthetical clauses like people want the 2nd amendment to.

        Magnavox

        March 29, 2018 at 2:06 PM

  28. Jury nullification is a real issue here, especially in red states.

    If I was the head of the NRA and gun rights were restricted in a major way, I would just announce simply that gun rights are our rights as Americans and that every patriotic American should use their jury power to nullify gun convictions. This would start an unraveling of our justice system.

    It only takes one nullifying jury member to wreck a trial.

    If jury nullification gets going, pretty soon people of all political stripes are nullifying all sorts of things. Then the wheels fall off the wagon of our legal system. Already police can do whatever they want because a certain fraction of people will never convict a police officer as a matter of principle. Police officers know to always go to trial where they are virtually never convicted. What if the jury nullification that police officers now enjoy became the norm across society?

    Further, if people opted to start going to trial I don’t think the system could even handle the load. Right now much more than 90% of cases are settled outside of court.

    Dan

    March 28, 2018 at 7:13 AM

  29. Actually I do believe jury nullification will become a huge problem, but I think liberals are going to lead the way.

    Here is vox.com advocating the collapse of our criminal justice system.

    https://www.vox.com/2016/5/2/11538752/jury-nullification-paul-butler

    Dan

    March 28, 2018 at 7:56 AM

    • Well there’s already an abysmal prosecution success rate in the Bronx.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 28, 2018 at 11:24 AM

    • I don’t think that jurors are instructed that they can nullify. How will all these stupid people know that there is such a thing? What specific laws they would find unfair and nullify?

      Yakov

      March 28, 2018 at 2:51 PM

    • What a dumb article. This guy Paul Butler pretends that black jurors vote “not guilty” on black defendants out of some noble and high-minded crusade against “racism,” when he knows full well that it’s simply because blacks are behaving tribally and don’t want to convict “one of us.”

      Hermes

      March 28, 2018 at 3:35 PM

  30. I’d be more interested in seeing support figures on a semi-auto ban. I’d wager it’s higher. The “I’m a progressive but I don’t support a gun ban or repeal of the second amendment,” crowd lives all around me in rural New England. They support small rounds and single action. Anything more than that and they will gladly give in to peer pressure. Given that wobbly position, it isn’t hard to fathom 50% of the country supporting what would be draconian gun control today. Progs are born defectors. They hate white ruralites with guns FAR more than they love the right to protect their own family with a gun.

    Mark Ben

    March 28, 2018 at 12:27 PM

  31. For whites, having guns these days is about Negro home invasions. If you take away whites’ guns, they will be completely at the mercy of blacks who can then torment whites at will. Especially elderly whites and women.

    I might go so far as to say that this is the actual purpose of the Left’s push for gun control.

    It’s an even more monstrous hypocrisy for the Left to invite the entire third world into white neighborhoods – and then declare that whites must disarm so they can’t defend themselves from the third-world savages.

    Pete

    March 28, 2018 at 3:01 PM

  32. Russia has been loosening their gun laws. It is a great irony that Russian and American roles are reversing in some ways. We are much more leftist now than they are. While their people have become more free over the years since the fall of the Soviet Union, American conservatives live in constant fear of our most basic freedoms (speech, right to bear arms, religious freedoms) being eroded.

    So many in our government seem so eager for conflict with Russia with anti-Russia propaganda being near-constant. The anti-Russian propaganda is worse than during the Cold War when the USSR had the gulag and was trying to spread Communism everywhere. Is Russian media soaked with anti-American propaganda? I doubt it.

    If our deep state overlords, who we already know hate us, want everyone to perish in nuclear war with Russia, would they please get on with it already?

    Dan

    March 28, 2018 at 5:19 PM

  33. Demographics is destiny, that’s all. The foriegn garbage that has flooded the country over the last 40 years will put the far left in semi-permanent power and, yes, they will gut the first and second amendments. Gun control is about disarming whitey. The left and the Democrats know who they are guilty of committing genocide against. So do the invaders. Naturally they don’t want their victims to be armed as they plunge them deeper into worsening slavery. Whites are already slaves and serfs constantly forced to work and die on behalf of hostile, racist, parasitic others. No longer having the false choices offered by Republicans and conservatives as a viable alternative to confronting the left’s racism is going to make that reality undeniable to even the most brain-dead Freeper.

    jb

    March 30, 2018 at 11:10 PM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: