So, before, I thought this emoluments thing was a Leftist pipe dream. While they had legal experts on to discuss it on NPR, it didn't seem like it would ever amount to much to me. And that was for the simple reason that, no one in a position of power like these two Attorneys General were doing anything about it, and that's a pretty powerful non-endorsement to me. But with this change, we'll see what happens. Maybe it gets shot down immediately anyway by the federal courts.
I think we're seeing the blossoming of a cottage industry of Trump opposition. When the Muslim ban came down, the governor of Washington talked to the attorney general of Washington not in terms of "what can we do to protect Washington industry" but in terms of "what can we do to stop this?" The result was a 5-state coalition with the lion's share of the tech industry signing on to oppose it on business grounds, not civil rights grounds. How many cities and states have reaffirmed their support of the Paris accords? And here we are, with Maryland and DC taking a swing with the Emoluments Clause, a legal doctrine .0005% of the population had heard of eight months ago. There's no real downside for the assailants - they're striking from safe majorities against a "far enemy" without having to say much about local politics or anything that might have them face opposition amongst the people who can unseat them. It's like when Utah decided to spend fifty million dollars making gay marriage illegal in California - nobody in California can do much other than not go to Sundance (they didn't). But for an organization with no attention span, no central command&control, no bandwidth and no skill for political infighting, every spanner in the works slows down the machine. I wonder what the Republican Party looks like four years from now. The Democrats aren't in great shape but it's like Bridge - once the bids are down, everyone who didn't win the bid is basically playing things out mechanically. The Democrats have very few decisions they need to make (beyond whether to be "mad" "real mad" or "hopping mad"). The Republicans? They're having to perform whatever character and ideology they think will get them re-elected and the lions' share of their time is being spent distracting the country from the guy in office while also gutting the social programs that support their voter base. "People of Walmart?" The Germans are coming. "When you're here you're family?" When you're here you're dining alone. "Retail therapy?" "Retail carnage." And what the Republicans get to run on is tax breaks for the rich, annihilating Obamacare and charter schools.
You might very well be right. That said, I think a clever Democrat could totally make "guns" a Democratic issue. Follow the militia movement at all and what you see is a bunch of people who feel threatened, who feel disenfranchised, who are seeking a sense of belonging and purpose. Sure, there's the lunatic fringe but most all of them are veterans and patriots. I don't think the Republicans can wrap themselves in the flag nearly so easily as they could in 2012... and I think that if a handful of Democratic governors decided to say "purpose of a well-armed militia being freely established... shit, that's you guys. We're going to give you some ham radio frequencies, we're going to give you upper-level briefings on border security, disaster preparedness and search and rescue, we're going to sponsor trainings and outings and we're going to leave your governance up to you but set some minimum standards that allow us to integrate you as an independent entity within state civil planning" there'd be a lot of democratic-voting gun owners. There's this real "all guns are bad all the time" rhetoric that's built up on the Democratic side that I think is a whole lot harder and a whole lot less productive than co-opting the "advanced boy scout" aspect of gun culture. I think you could knock that shit over in a couple state-sponsored weekends. The guys in Civil Air Patrol? The guys in Search & Rescue? They're the same guys doing Every Day Carry.
I wouldn't mind to see that. There are surely a lot of really anti-democrats though. And it wouldn't be as easy as you say for the Dems to be a pro-2A party. Mainly because there is no shortage of easy to use websites that will tell you exactly how a rep or senator has voted on gun rights in the past. In less than 30 seconds I found this quote on my very own Ann Wagner (not that I would or have voted for her, I respect myself). "...has opposed Obama restrictions on gun control. Supports overturning some bans. She'll oppose new gun control legislation. NRA Grade: A. Brady Grade: NA." The Dems have dug in hard on gun control and especially the lunatic fringe aren't going to trust them after a couple turkey shoot weekends. Not this generation of them at least. If anything, they'll see that whole operation as a way to get their name on a government list of the lunatic fringe. I mean, hell. You literally had Democrats just a few months ago willing to completely waive their constitutional rights to due process regarding the gun control for people on the terrorist watchlist. People forget that Nelson Mandela was on the terrrorist watchlist, and Timothy McVeigh wasn't. The terrorist watchlist doesn't mean dick and a half, but if you're on it they gain sweeping access to you for no reason. The terrorist watchlist has even been used to drum up anti-dem support in the Obama years. Repeatedly. Now that article is nonsense, but people are stupid so... Then you have people like me, who more than anything see gun control as people control. Who see firearms as the final check against the government. How many gun control proponents have truly considered assassinating the big man at this point? But then they realize that they have no idea how to shoot or even buy a gun, then finally realizing that their state has made it relatively difficult to buy anything that you may need to do it. And I don't mean to say that we are in any sort of straits which would require that kind of action, nor have we been in the entire time since the Civil War. But at a certain point, a group of idealists is going to get really sick and tired of corportate ownership of the government. And they're going to pop someone's skull open over it. And we'll all likely benefit because people really don't like the feeling of laser sights on their foreheads, even if they're imagining them. It won't be me, of course, I'm a responsible citizen who loves his overlord.
I've always found this argument hilarious. Like some dipshit with 900 rounds for his Barrett .50cal sniper rifle is actually going to be able to take out the sheer number of people and resources the gummint can throw at any problem like him. Shit. This "guns are the last protection against the government" stance was dumb in the fucking 1980's, with the Michigan Militia, and all the US had was tanks and old crappy fighter jets. Nah. One random unhinged loony with too much time on the Drudge Report, is the only thing guns "enable". Even if you had a force of 1000 redneck dipshits with AR-15s, they are still no match for a single Predator (which is, BTW, seventeen years old). Or the National Guard. Or any branch of the trained military. "My gunz protect me from my gummint" is as non-sensical as the white power movement, or redneck furries. Then you have people like me, who more than anything see gun control as people control. Who see firearms as the final check against the government.
No offense, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. First, one redneck with a gun is not the situation I'm describing. I'm talking about 265 million guns, half of which are owned by 3 percent of the 242 million adults in the US. I'm talking about the guy who can literally arm a squad of guys from his basement. That's the guys I'm talking about. Not the guy with a .50 cal, who by the way probably isn't a redneck in the trailer park because that's a $10,000 gun that shoots $5 rounds. A much better example would be the field of deer rifles that can pierce bullet proof vests with Wal-Mart ammo costing 50 cents a round out of a $400 gun with a $400 mil dot scope. I'm not even an amazing shot, and I know for a fact that I've hit a deer's heart when I was amped up with adrenaline, on the spot for time, unexpecting anything, and the deer was so far away I had to check for antlers in the scope to make sure it wasn't a dog. And there are plenty of 'rednecks' who know this very common ammo can also penetrate body armor. Second, over and over running through history are examples of lesser armed military's and guerilla groups defeating larger and more powerful millitaries. Guerilla tactics, including selected assassinations, IEDs, stick-and-moves, etc. have long been effective. You think the US military doesn't outgun the Taliban? I've spent hours in nasty planes with nasty guns overhead watching and waiting for the Taliban to do something while they just waited for us to leave. Partisans in the Spanish Civil war took out bridges, ISIS gained tanks and anti-aircraft weaponry, took over Iraqi bases and armories. It happened not some far off and long time ago, it happened last year. These guys are already well-armed, they are more knowledgeable than you give them credit for, and they would quickly arm themselves with better equipment. As well, you discount the very real possibility that many of them either are currently, or have in the past, in easy access of military equipment. Perhaps they are in the National Guard in Kentucky where there are huge amounts of surplus tanks, or near Herlong, California where there are thousands of mothballed and ready to go M1A1s. You can't just assume that some General would have the final say over what happens with his base. He is heavily outnumbered and one Colonel in the ranks that takes forces for some rebels can completely change the balance of power. The point is, you can start with a gun. A single bullet in the right/wrong person's hands can change the world.
I love that you think the guns are the limiting factor here. Just like you say with the Taliban, the weapons don't matter, in the end. The tactics do. And who is going to have better tactics, supply lines, equipment, money, support, water supplies, control of the air, control of the electronics in the area, etc? A dude that gave fifteen of his friends his extra AR's and MP10's? Or people who have extensive training, experience in actual wars, and a sworn duty to protect their homeland from insurgent forces bent on destroying the Constitution? The "guns protect me from my gummint" argument is cute, but there is no scenario in which it has the underdog winning. And what, exactly, are they "winning"? They gonna go to DC and dismantle the government? Even when you put a total tit in the Big Chair, they can't accomplish a single thing. This is the core problem with ALL of these movements: They define themselves as AGAINST something, not FOR anything. So once there is nothing to push against... they fall apart. They're all shiny and triumphant when they take over a bird sanctuary in Oregon. But within two days they became the laughingstock of the world. The Bundys, the Michigan Militia, and the others are useful clowns, to allow the police state to show their toys off, and remind the Joe The Plumber why he doesn't rise up against the state in any meaningful way. But ... a force to be reckoned with? Not by any measure.
I may be putting words in yellowoftops mouth here, but I don't think the goal of any anti-government militia is a military 'win' condition. I think the goal would be to force a high level political change when soldiers refuse to raise arms against countrymen with legitimate grievances.there is no scenario in which it has the underdog winning.
I got that. But that assumption is that soldiers would refuse to raise arms against insurgents who were specifically trying to undermine the Constitution, which soldiers are sworn to "...defend it from all enemies, both domestic and foreign..." Which is why we know about the My Lai Massacre, etc: Soldiers obeying their OATH, not their orders. I know a lot of soldiers, and worked with the peacekeeping forces from 44 different nations. They take their oath very seriously.
Or, more to the point, the Austro-Hungarian parliament, who was looking for a reason to attack Serbia, and had been for more than two years. They re-branded Princip as "Serbian military" - which he wasn't, in any way shape or form - which then they used as pretext to attack Serbia, and start the war. The bullet helped. But only because the rest of the machine had been waiting for a starter's pistol for years...
And this is where the difference of opinion comes into play, mostly. Some believe that there is enough dissatisfaction for there to be change, some don't. In the current political climate I cannot in good faith rule out ANYTHING that doesn't go against the laws of physics.But only because the rest of the machine had been waiting for a starter's pistol for years...
I suggest you give this a gander. A thousand redneck dipshits with AR-15s definitely changed the way the BLM chose to approach the Bundys. Usefulness in warfare only matters if both sides want to go to war; the BATF could have annihilated the Branch Davidians but opted for perpetual standoff instead. And they've tempered since 'cuz boy howdy you get blowback out of that shit. Yeah - a Reaper is going to make short shrift of the Montana Freemen. It's also a violation of posse comitatus that will radicalize all gun owners in a way that makes Trayvon Martin look like Rodney Dangerfield.
Oh I agree totally. The tactics have changed, but the threat from dipshits with guns has not. A Reaper is going to be used to set up a No Go Zone around a target. So instead of Waco, you have a 13th century siege. Anyone walks more than 200 yards from the building they get 300 rounds of .30 cal from the air. And we all know who wins a stand-off. (Which is the best result any militia can hope for.)
You're looking at a fringe argument. The argument isn't about whether or not people actually expect to be able to stand up to the government with conventional firearms. The real core of the argument is about the government respecting people's rights to own and use said firearms. Like they should respect people's rights to marry whoever, keep their lives private, practice the religions they choose for themselves, conduct free business, and on and on. When people hear about gun control, they're not thinking "OH NO! Now we can't have a revolution" what they're thinking is "I'm not being respected as an adult by my own government." With that in mind, would you vote for someone who you think doesn't respect your values?I've always found this argument hilarious. Like some dipshit with 900 rounds for his Barrett .50cal sniper rifle is actually going to be able to take out the sheer number of people and resources the gummint can throw at any problem like him.
- Clair Wolfe, 20-odd years ago I think what you're missing is the fact that all the Democrats have to do is wait for the next mass shooting to say "we're not pursuing any new gun control legislation in this environment when we view the vast majority of gun owners to be law abiding citizens and when we wish to expend our limited political capital on legislation that helps the hundreds of millions of people suffering under the economic policies of the Republican Party." You went from zero to "they're coming for my guns" in about a second and a half and so long as the Democrats don't do that, there's no argument to be made. Just for the record, I hypothesized, essentially, "state outreach to militias" (their chosen unit of organization, incidentally) and you immediately went off on a self-sustaining tangent of government oppression with roots back to Ruby Ridge. I don't point this out for mockery, but to illustrate how much the position of the gun rights crowd is steeped in tradition as opposed to current events. yeah - the Dems made a run at it after Sandy Hook. They pretty much had an obligation to. But now? Now, if Democrats want the Toby Keith contingent all they need to do is not do that. The Republicans have swung so far to the right that they're vulnerable on flanks that have never been vulnerable before. Their economic policy has lurched into parody and their social policies are unpopular with the majority of voters. If Democrats are willing to set aside some of their more meaningless totems for a while, real gains can be made, and I don't know of a more meaningless totem right now than gun control. I mean, shit. ISIS seems to favor Ryder trucks these days and I don't see a ban on those.“America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”
Then you have people like me, who more than anything see gun control as people control. Who see firearms as the final check against the government. How many gun control proponents have truly considered assassinating the big man at this point? But then they realize that they have no idea how to shoot or even buy a gun, then finally realizing that their state has made it relatively difficult to buy anything that you may need to do it.
Can they do that without losing their voting base though? Each 'meaningless totem' has a flock of foam-mouthed crazies that demand that their issue not only be addressed, but addressed on an ever larger scale to an ever more 'done with you whackjobs' audience. If Democrats are willing to set aside some of their more meaningless totems for a while, real gains can be made,