Type to search

Our Poisonous Partisan Politics

Campaign 2016 Elections Featured Post National News Politics Top News

Our Poisonous Partisan Politics

Protesters confront a woman, center, leaving a rally for Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump in Fresno, California, U.S. May 27, 2016. REUTERS/Noah Berger

A recent study from the Pew Research Center shows that contempt across the partisan divide is bitter and widespread. Respondents displayed a nasty animosity for the opposing side and showed little sign of tolerance for conflicting views.

Party polarization has been underway for years, and the Congress has never been so divided. But the toxic, finger-pointing rabble has escaped like a demon from Capitol Hill and spread plague-like throughout the United States. The toxicity doesn’t stifle, it chokes. Discourse has become nearly impossible. Wherever one stands, the other side is no longer judged as merely wrong or misguided, but is now considered dangerously stupid and lazy; scary, dishonest, immoral, and more than anything, a threat.

In 2014, a Pew study of political polarization noted the “growing contempt that many Republicans and Democrats have for the opposing party,” and since then, “many” is now “most.”

This year, 58 percent of Republicans have a “very unfavorable impression” of Democrats, 12 percent more than two years ago and 26 percent more than in 2008. Democrats’ disdain for Republicans has followed a similar trajectory.

The 2014 survey asked Democrats and Republicans who offered “very unfavorable opinions” of the opposing party if they felt the other side was “so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being.” Thirty-seven percent of Republicans and 31 percent of Democrats felt this way, and in two years those numbers have increased by eight and 10 points, respectively.

Among Democrats, 55 percent say the Republican Party makes them feel “afraid.” Forty-nine percent of Republicans say that about Democrats. These numbers increase among the highly politically engaged, with 70 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of Republicans fearing their opposition.

Disdain for the other side is as strong, and sometimes outweighs, positive feelings about the party one belongs to. Majorities of Democrats and Republicans cite their party’s platform as their deciding factor for joining, but almost as many say they were driven by “the harm caused by the opposing party’s policies.” Even independent voters, who have come to outnumber members of both major parties and tend to lean Democratic or Republican, are overwhelmingly inclined to cite negative factors for their loose partisan ties.

On a “thermometer” scale of 0-100, where zero is the coldest rating and 100 is the warmest, Democrats give Republicans the mean rating of 31, and Republicans give Democrats a 29. Things get even colder for politicians: Democrats’ average rating of Trump is 11, and Republicans, on average, give Clinton a 12.

Among Democrats, the most resonating critique of Republicans is that members of the GOP are more closed-minded than other Americans; 70 percent of Democrats feel this way. Forty-two percent of Democrats say Republicans are more dishonest, 35 percent say they are more immoral, and 33 percent say they are more unintelligent. By contrast, more than half of Republicans, 52 percent, see Democrats as more closed-minded than other Americans and nearly as many say Democrats are more immoral, dishonest, and lazy.

Not surprisingly, respondents expressed approval for members of their own party. Sixty-seven percent of Democrats consider themselves more open-minded than other Americans, and 59 percent and 51 percent of Republicans, respectively, say GOP members are more hardworking and moral. Republicans and Democrats also show a tendency to view the opposing party as highly ideological, while considering their own less ideological.

There is some hope for social cohesion among diverging parties, but little hope for helpful political discussion. The majority of Democrats and Republicans think they could get along with a new neighbor from the other party, but 42 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Republicans say it would be easier to welcome members of their own party into the neighborhood. Democrats and Republicans are about equally inclined to say political conversation with people whom they disagree with is “stressful and frustrating” as “interesting and informative” — and either way, an equal amount of Democrats and Republicans, 44 percent, say they “almost never” agree with the other party’s positions.

The cause for this divide is unclear, but researchers suggest a merging of politics, lifestyle, and choice of residence has limited many Americans’ exposure to people with different opinions.

Pew President Michael Dimock told NPR, “If we in fact are surrounding ourselves increasingly with like-minded people, that becomes another factor that can potentially create distance between ‘our side’ and ‘their side.’”

In a 2015 article for the Washington Post, titled The top 10 reasons American politics are so broken, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and political science professor Sam Abrams write, “Liberals and conservatives dress differently, decorate their rooms differently, read different books, take different vacations and drink different alcoholic beverages. As the differences between supporters of the two parties became ever more pervasive and ever more visible to the naked eye, it became easier to spot members of the other team and then dislike them for the way they live.”

There is also the strange relationship between policy positions and political parties that seems to decide voters’ stances on how to handle seemingly disconnected issues.

“The more conservative you are on foreign policy, the more likely you are to be conservative on social issues, on economic issues, on the role of government,” Dimock said. “These dimensions, many of which had very little correlation with each other in the past, are getting increasingly aligned.”

Haidt and Abrams say this is the result of a combination of geography, immigration, and what they call ideological purification, meaning a lack of intellectual diversity within both major parties. The Republicans are conservatives and the Democrats are liberals, which was not the case before 1980.

“The Democratic Party was historically an agrarian party with its power base in the South,” Haidt and Abrams write. “But with the political purification of the parties, the Democrats have become the urban party, focused on issues of concern to city dwellers and expressing more cosmopolitan and secular values. Rural areas, meanwhile, shifted toward the Republican Party. The GOP became much more hospitable to rural interests and values, which tend to be more religious, patriotic and family-oriented.”

So why is there so much hostility on the political landscape? As Haidt and Abrams note, “a basic principle in social psychology is that people will divide themselves up quite readily based on the most trivial distinctions” – and these are not trivial matters.

Photo: Protesters confront a woman, center, leaving a rally for Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump in Fresno, California, U.S. May 27, 2016.  REUTERS/Noah Berger



  1. Aaron_of_Portsmouth July 3, 2016

    The poison of “partisan-politics” continues to unravel the foundation of American politics, and the political structures in other nations across the globe.
    That this corrosive concept has taken on a new dimension of destructiveness is due to an insistence on forcing an outmoded political concept in a society that has changed radically from what the Founding Fathers could never have conceived. The Constitution, the various Amendments are just fundamentally incapable of addressing the exigencies of modern-day America.

    To insist on utilizing this model is illogical, irrational, in conflict with norms of behavior as exemplified in all the Religion, and therefore stifles the spiritual/material progress of the country.

    Even Religions have “norms” that are in need of change, e.g., what was acceptable and lawful for eating changed from one Dispensation to another; what was acceptable/required to wear previously was modified depending on the society and the times; certain other customs/institutions that were once permissible have been abrogated such as the institution of slavery, an economic system which was allowed to be practiced by previous Religions until this New Era dawned, and which has formally been abolished in Baha’u’llah’s “The Kitab-i-Aqdas”(see paragraph 72 in that document, which starts off as “It is forbidden you to trade in slaves be they men or women…” .

    So, if Religions undergoes natural and requisite changes in what is lawful and unlawful, and calls for alteration in manner of worship and when to worship, and makes modifications in expressions of faith and its implementation,and if Science can undergo changes/improvements in theories and reject what are deemed as based on false premises, so why should a man-made concept like partisan-politics remain immune to changes, improvements and modifications?

    One thing is certain: Partisan-Politics has become a curse and is an anathema. It can be rightly inferred that it can destroy the country, and do irreparable harm to the rest of the world if it is allowed to continue in its present form. This level of severity applies to a vast majority of other forms of secular/religious forms of governance in the world at present.

    1. Charles Winter July 4, 2016

      Very well thought out food for thought. Thanks.

    2. DEFENDER88 July 4, 2016

      Seems the 2 party system is failing us.
      I have thought for a while it should maybe be 3 parties.
      One primary Party – Independent (Where I like to be but have no one to vote for, like this election.)
      2 Secondary – Dem and Repub

      The 2 Secondary parties can argue their case for influence but the independents will have the majority vote.
      What system do you recommend to end this now destructive, divisive madness.

      1. Aaron_of_Portsmouth July 4, 2016

        An interesting line of thought you’ve presented. I can’t say for certain, but it will have to follow a template already practiced at the local, national, and at the international level in what’s call the Baha’i World Community.

        As you may already know, the Baha’i Communities at the local level where there are at least 9 adult members must elect from a pool of voters in the community of 21 years of age or older using a process called the Baha’i Electoral Process. From this pool of eligible voters, 9 people must be democratically elected with NO discussion.
        This process does not allow for campaigning in anyway, shape, or form as to who to vote for, or who not to vote for; the ballot is strictly secret and each person makes her/his choices based on a set of criteria like recognized ability, a sound mind and mature experience, and having a selfless nature; the deliberations of who to vote for is done in complete silence; there is no signage or previous discussion among voters as to how they are thinking, and I or anyone else can’t even give a hint as to whether I should or should not be voted for.
        The way I and others get to know who best fits the qualities, I am required to engage socially with all the Baha’is in order to get to know them and further develop a sense of “community”; that way, by the end of the year I have stored away a knowledge of the strengths, weaknesses, and abilities of those eligible to vote.

        This method and mind-set operates at the local and national levels in the same spirit and rarefied atmosphere every year. At the international level, the same process is carried out every 5 years in Haifa, Israel among members of the National Spiritual Assemblies throughout the Baha’i World—some National bodies in Muslim countries are forbidden to have a National Assembly due to the Baha’i Faith being proscribed in such nations, e.g., Egypt, Libya, Iran, Algeria—other national assemblies exist in other Muslim countries but they are not allowed to travel to Israel and so they cast their votes in absentia.

        This entire process as set forth by Baha’u’llah is elaborated on by Abdu’l Baha, and Shoghi Effendi. For further insights and details go to http://www.bahai.org.

        The process as I’ve described is a sharp contrast with the cacophony that we yearly have to deal with in America with all the billions of dollars spent on adversarial posturing and slanderous ads, personal attacks and the generous spreading of lies and misinformation that are standard features in the current electoral man-made systems devised and used outside the Baha’i sphere.

        Sorry for being long-winded.

      2. Sand_Cat July 7, 2016

        I think at bottom, it’s the voters failing “us,” whoever “we” are.
        The ignorance and just plain stupidity of the American electorate is appalling, and the people they keep electing make sure that ignorance won’t be corrected by making certain that however much money is spent on it – and it wouldn’t be enough, even if it were spent rightly – very little true “education” takes place. Unfortunately, local control of education assures that result in many places even if the money were there. Ignorant voters all too often elect ignorant legislators and school boards, and “ignorant and proud of it” seems to be a huge thing in America these days. To some degree, it sounds like it always has been, but lots of ignorant people used to respect education, or so it seemed to me.
        Part – but by no means all – of the problem is the increasing tendency to regard “education” as job-training and resent anything else required of students, an attitude increasingly difficult to condemn given the staggering cost of education and the absolute ruthlessness and mercilessness of our economy and society in general towards those who try to get a real one.
        A well-educated and thoughtful electorate could, in my opinion, significantly reduce the effectiveness of the obscene amounts of money spent on deceptive and outright dishonest political ads which is another big problem for our representative system, or what’s left of it, but I’m not holding my breath.

        1. DEFENDER88 July 8, 2016

          I have no one to vote for.
          I put myself as an independent:

          My “stands”:
          – For Gay Rights – But I am not Gay
          – For Pro Choice – But I am not a woman
          – For minimum wage increase – But I am an Engineer
          – For legalize most all drugs – The “War on drugs is and will continue to be a total Failure”
          – Against Gun “Control” – Improvements, checks, training yes. Control, bans etc – no.
          – Against Trump
          – Against Hillary

          Actually maybe more “Left” then “Right” except on guns.
          But the right to “Self Defense” is really important to me and close to a one issue for me.
          If I/we am not allowed to defend myself with equal firepower to the gangs, terrorists, criminals etc then eventually none of the rest will matter.

          On Self Defense – The main reason the US now is not the Wild West with homes being invaded on a massive scale is the fact that so many homes in the US have a gun owner there. This is also supported by interviews with thieves in prison – they don’t fear the Law(they know they cant get there in time). What they “do fear” “seriously” is the armed home owner. The “Gun Free Zone” people should learn from this concept – it works.

          On politics
          I am becoming somewhat disillusioned if not depressed with our 2 party system and the system in general.
          Given the state of this particular election it seems to be failing us.
          And how money driven it all is.
          ie “I” have no one to vote for.
          I don’t think this is what the Founders had in mind.
          I think maybe we need a 3rd Independent Party that takes the best ideas of the Left and the Right.
          Maybe change the Electoral College so The Dem and Repub can contribute ideas/planks but the Independent party will be in control. Or some form of that.

          I see one big problem, as it is now, with our Congress and leaders is it is all Money Driven.
          Most of their time is now spent trying to raise money for their next election.
          When a session ends they are now literally running down the steps to get to their next fund raiser.
          The rest of the time is spent listening to Lobbyists who again are offering money for influence.
          While, as a nation, the Capitalist Model works but the Socialist Model does not, it seems out of control here.

          Then they are looking for a sweet job after their term with the Lobbyists they now know so well. Or a good job with some contractor who called on them and they helped out. So now they “owe” each other.
          AND they conveniently exempted themselves from having to get insurance the way we do.
          They are guaranteed insurance of their own making.
          And Wall Street, business and the other big money people have way too much influence on the process.

          I don’t think this is what the Founders had in mind.

          1. Paul Anthony July 8, 2016

            There already is a third Party, and it is on the ballot in all 50 states. Take a closer look at the Libertarian Party.
            You’ll find they agree with all of your points except the Minimum wage issue. That’s a lot closer to your point of view than the other two Parties, isn’t it?
            Most Americans are social liberals or at least moderates and more fiscally conservative than the Democrats. If people realized they don’t have to choose from two bad choices they might find they agree more with the Libertarians.

          2. dtgraham July 8, 2016

            “On Self Defense – The main reason the US now is not the Wild West with homes being invaded on a massive scale is the fact that so many homes in the US have a gun owner there.”

            How do you account for the fact that other advanced industrial countries also aren’t the wild west and also don’t have homes invaded on a massive scale, and yet have far fewer homes with gun owners in them?

          3. DEFENDER88 July 9, 2016

            Most of those other countries are what, the size of New Jersey.
            With a population the size of what Detroit.
            And most of them were overrun by the Nazies because they could not defend themselves.
            How do you account for the fact that Everyone in Switzerland has a gun at home and there is virtually no gun crime there?
            How do you account for the fact that guns are essentially banned in Detroit but the murder rate is 10 times(an est) that of most other cities?
            In fact if you took out the 100 biggest US cities from gun crime data the US would be a little below average, world wide, in gun crime rates. It is an urban problem, mostly gang related. I know for a fact in the mid-sized city I live near that Gangs account for some 80-90% of gun crime.

          4. dtgraham July 9, 2016

            I’m sorry I started this. You gun nuts just make it up as you go along, and you all seem to have a set of agreed upon BS talking points.

            ~ No, guns aren’t “essentially banned in Detroit”. The second amendment applies there too. You can easily buy handguns there and you can open carry. I took a look at their laws. Guns also flood into Detroit from elsewhere, as they do everywhere else in a country awash in guns. Detroit is among the leaders in gun homicides every year but it’s nowhere close to 10 times that of other cities. It’s 45 murders per 100,000 people. New Orleans is 41, Newark 40, St. Louis 38, Baltimore 37.

            ~ No, everyone does not have a gun in Switzerland and there certainly is gun crime there. Their rate of gun ownership is 45 guns per 100. Half that of the U.S. but the gun homicides per 100,000 people in Switzerland is significantly higher than most other advanced wealthy nations, as you might expect due to the high rate of gun ownership compared to most other countries. It’s .77 in Switzerland compared to .19 in Germany, .07 in England, .06 in France, .2 in Spain, etc… Those countries also have far fewer guns per 100 people than does Switzerland.

            ~ The larger European countries are considerably bigger than New Jersey geographically and with a population far larger than Detroit, but so what? In fact, the more people you pack into a smaller area, the more chance for violence. Your point here makes no sense. These stats go on a per capita basis to give them meaning. They’re not just raw numbers.

            ~ Anyone overrun by the Nazis didn’t have the military size and sophistication to withstand them. This has nothing whatsoever to do with individual gun ownership. They certainly would have overrun Switzerland, but didn’t invade for reasons that had nothing to do with Swiss individual gun ownership. That’s a child-like argument for gawd sakes.

            ~ The U.S. is now approaching one gun per every person, statistically. That’s way, way, more than anyone else in the world. It’s gun homicide rate per 100,000 people is also crazy high compared to other advanced wealthy nations (3.2). No one else is even close to that in the first world. You don’t see the connection? Yes, parts of the developing and third world do exceed the U.S. in per capita gun murders for socio-economic reasons, but does it comfort you to compare the United States to Guatemala or Ethiopia?

          5. DEFENDER88 July 9, 2016

            It has been a while since I have seen this data but I remember the end result was that if you
            take out the gun crime numbers of our 100 largest cities the gun crime rate in the US falls to below the world wide averages.
            In the US the very high gun crime rates in our large metro areas skews(badly) the national average to a point which does not represent the crime rate of the rest of the country.
            This is more of an Urban and Gang issue (at root cause) than a gun issue.
            I know for a fact, having done the data for the middle size city I live near that some roughly 80% of gun crime is inner city and gang/drug related. And usually Black on Black – think drug trade and gang wars.
            A ban on guns will only affect Law Abiding gun owners since the gangs/criminals don’t usually get their guns in legal ways.
            It will work the same way Gun Free Zones are working – “For” the Criminals the against us(law abiding, legal owners).
            It is working about as well as the “War on Drugs” is working.
            A gun ban will work about as well as “Prohibition” worked “back when”. More murder in more ways then you can possibly imagine.
            A terrorist murders 59 people in a Gun Free Zone with a Rifle. So lets Ban Rifles so honest gun owners can no longer defend themselves against these type attacks. The same, Failed “Common Sense” logic as Gun Free Zones.
            I tell you now – Want to get more and more people killed with no defense available, go ahead with it.

          6. dtgraham July 10, 2016

            Those 100 largest cities aren’t truly American and don’t deserve to even be in America? If your argument was a couple of cities maybe we could talk, but 100? In any event, they’re not going anywhere.

            There are European cities with Muslim and African Ghettos that have a higher crime rate. There are some western Canadian cities with large pockets of indigenous first nations citizens which also have a higher crime rate. Poverty being a big factor in both. The difference is that they have a much harder time getting any kind of gun, and certain kinds of guns are impossible to get.

            If you think that the present American gun culture is the answer, just look around. Take a new picture. How do things look to you? Do you see these gun shootings happening elsewhere in the developed world to anywhere near the same degree? Does this look like it’s working to you? Be honest with yourself.

          7. DEFENDER88 July 10, 2016

            I see it as more of a propensity for violence problem than a gun problem.

            I read a large, well reviewed, Harvard Law study showing that the murder rates in a society are more related to the level of violence present in a society than the number of guns available.

            In some African countries that don’t have a lot of guns they just used macheties to kill.
            And thousands if not millions have been killed that way.
            Usually religious related tribal conflicts.
            Hutu vs Tutsies comes to mind. The Rwandan Genocide – 1,000,000 Rwandans were killed in 1994

            Here (in the US) our murder problems typically fall into 3 major categories:
            1) Street Drugs & Gangs
            2) Mental Health and those drugs(Anti-depressants)
            3) Religion (Jihadies/ISIS)
            And now maybe on the brink of
            4) Race ?

            On Guns
            Gun Free Zones have proved to be a disaster and to work in favor of the killers.
            The Police cannot get there in time and no one is allowed to carry a weapon to be able to defend themselves. It is NOT working except for the killers.

            The higher murder rates are in our North East and more Northern (ie liberal) cities.
            Where gun laws are not as restrictive – the murder rates are lower.

            My solutions:
            1) Street Drugs and Gangs
            No easy solutions in sight here – until we legalize most drugs like we did liquor.
            And improve education and job opportunities here.
            I theorize that young especially Black men in cities have few opportunities to make good money so they turn to the drug trade and that leads to guns and killing.
            Which (by the way) skews our Homicide rates badly.
            All major US cities.

            2) Mental Health
            In these Mass Shootings – it is usually a young white male on anti-depressants
            Columbine, VT, Aurora Theater, Sandy Hook, more
            I look to the mental health community for solutions here.
            Stop prescribing these drugs to be taken “at home”.

            3) Religion(Jihadies/ISIS)
            I don’t see any way to find all of them.
            The best solution (for now) is to allow, even support “Certified” Conceal Carry by the public in most all public places. Unless Armed Security is Provided (but no one wants to pay for this). At least this(A certified armed public) gives us a chance to stop the killing short of what it is now. The Police cannot get there in time.
            Fort Hood #1, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, Orlando, next?

            4) Race – F if I know.
            The only advice I offer is to “all” parents:
            Teach your children, when interacting with Police –
            To Obey ALL police commands
            Don’t make “any” move with your hands especially without 1st advising your intentions and asking permission. Cops are on edge about being shot and have been for a while now. And for good reason.
            If you move slow and they can “Always” see your “Hands” you are not likely to be shot.

          8. dtgraham July 12, 2016

            CHICAGO (AP) — States with the most gun control laws have the fewest gun-related deaths, according to a study that suggests sheer quantity of measures might make a difference.


          9. DEFENDER88 July 12, 2016

            I don’t trust any data from the Brady Center, “very” biased and(strictly anti-gun no matter what the situation). And there is that 30,000 gun deaths figure again 27,000 of which are suicides. Those are the figures most all anti-gun people use. Very deceptive figures. That is NOT Gun Crime. That is a personal choice we should all have available should life become unbearable(like trying to have a meaningful, respectful discussion on guns in here:). I should think a liberal would agree with that concept.

          10. dtgraham July 12, 2016

            HA! I hear you. Don’t shoot yourself though if these gun arguments get to be too much. Take the NRA’s advice. Just get yourself another gun to protect yourself from that gun.

          11. DEFENDER88 July 12, 2016

            Cant get another gun.
            If I get another gun, my wife is going to shoot me with one of hers:)
            The “word is out” on “us”.
            All the neighbors know we are shooters and we have guns.
            We have had some events and break-ins next door and near by.
            Neighbors are friendly but no one(thieves/thugs) “ever” bothers “us”.
            Funny how that works.
            Just how we like it.
            We do not “want” to have to shoot “anyone”.

          12. dtgraham July 13, 2016

            Oh I don’t know Defender. If you just get yourselves a good burglar alarm that has both internal and door sensors, that should be enough. Then plaster all of their “achtung” stickers (that they’ll be glad to give you) all over your doors and windows, that should do it. Most of those companies also have a mobile guard service for precious little more per month. If anybody sets off the alarm they’re right there, even it’s you accidently and you didn’t call.

            That’s what we do, although I don’t think we really need it. Probably not. In all these years it’s never been tested in real time unless it’s me testing it just to see if it still works. The neighbours have never had a break-in. Still, better safe than sorry I guess. That’s a substitute for a gun. I can’t even imagine ever having a gun in our house.

          13. DEFENDER88 July 13, 2016

            I am not going to try to tell you how to live.
            If you don’t feel the need for a gun that is up to you.
            But my/our experience has, seemingly, been much different.
            Maybe I have a touch of PTSD from the 4-5 times I have been shot-at by Red Necks.
            Mostly in the mountains when I was kayaking most of the Rivers in the East US including the Grand Canyon.

            Once I had to face-down 5 Red Necks with rifles and me with only a 5shot revolver one of the women I was with(20 women and children) on a trip gave me. One of them handed me the revolver and said please do something, handle this. I did not have guns back then. We were camped in the woods and they just started shooting over our heads. Then came after us. We heard them say “Lets go “get some”. I stood btwn them and my group, pointed the pistol and a light(it was at night) at the leaders face and said “Stop or I WILL SHOOT YOU”. They stopped cold and left. I/we got lucky. Thank God.
            Shot at once while in my kayak, just floating along – Really scary.
            While camping – A guy next to me was knocked down by a shotgun blast, from out of nowhere, but not hurt very badly.
            I ran “them” off with my pistol, they drove away.
            F*king ignorant Redneck Bas*ards.
            We live in a rural setting and the cops take at least 15-20min to get here.
            A lot can happen in that time.
            Deer often run thru my back yard.

            Look up the Petit murders in Conn – 2 teen daughters tied to their bed, raped then set on fire.
            The wife, raped and killed too.
            Seems there are more and more really bad actors out there.
            Especially those high on drugs.
            And if the Grid goes down for any length of time – well maybe you can imagine the chaos.
            Which I think it eventually will.

            AND we are now in our 70’s and cant run and fight like we used to.
            So we have guns as equalizers. But we are highly trained in pistol combat tactics, don’t carry them openly, and don’t display them etc. You would never know just looking at us. And don’t “want” to have to shoot “anyone” “ever”. In fact now I am a State and Fed(DHS) Certified Pistol Instructor. But teach only as a volunteer to some Police Depts.

            The only “Sign” I have in the yard is – “Property under Video Surveillance”.

            What are we scared of ?, well, “Now” – not much.
            – Forest Fire maybe.
            – Hillary 🙂

  2. Aaron_of_Portsmouth July 3, 2016

    One other aspect of Partisan-Politics, especially the American variant.

    Our political system has taken on a particularly troubling dimension—that of the State Religion, a quasi-religion. The Constitution, a noble concept, has been exalted to such a level that it is quoted with a fervor that exceeds the fervor once reserved for the Bible.
    (A similar mythic fervor has been bestowed on the Hadith in Islam which jihadists and other fundamentalists have used as a substitute to the ideals of the Qur’an in order to guide their actions for the polytheistic worship of achieving martyrdom primarily as a means of hooking up with houris in the Next World—houris were intended by Muhammad to be a metaphor as Baha’u’llah clearly points out in His Kitab-i-Iqan. It should be noted that there are 3 varieties of Hadiths: Those that are generally agreed upon as authentic; those that are seen as true but have less solid footing; and those that have very little foundation, if any. And there are even hadiths that the Sunnis acknowledge which are unknown and/or not accepted by Shi`ah, and vice versa.

    Anyhow, this religious dimension bestowed on partisan politics, the Constitution, is a prime reason for the rabid devotion to such things as Gun Ownership, the Quasi-Religious status of Free Speech which twisted souls have exalted to a level that allows churlish speech of any kind to supplant rational and polite discourse—again, to a degree that contradicts the form of behavior as alluded to in the New Testament.

    Communists, Nazis, and North Koreans have breathed life in parallel contortions of the mind of “The Communist Manifesto”, “Mein Kampf”, and the Cult of the Individual, respectively. (Lesser forms of trash like “The Turner Diaries” have also arisen to rival, if not replace, the Bible).

    Western Philosophy has produced both good and bad. It’s just that that product of Western thought, The Rational Mind and Reason, was early on hijacked and modified and reformulated to suit the needs of the more powerful and influential in western civilization, to be able to effect for the worse the lives of millions. The Racialist theories of such as Thomas Malthus, a Protestant cleric who is widely-regarded as the father of ‘scientific racism’, as well as his bizarre notions of political economics have found their way into the foundations of American thought and politics.

    Just another complexity to ponder and reflect on.

  3. charleo1 July 3, 2016

    For my part, I know two things. Democrats didn’t start this insanity, but we can darn
    sure finish it, by holding to one single determined word: Enough! First, enough of the conspiracy theories! Starting with the one that says our President isn’t an American. Or my pet peeve, about how defaulting on the debt will energize the economy. Or, just for starters, they could stop with the rhetoric that Democrats are evildoers that want to trap us all on plantations. Republicans could also dispense with the notion that the Democratic Party is un-American, or is not a legitimate Party, if they actually wanted to close the partisan divide. Then too, if Republicans were only half as concerned about protecting entire groups of minorities’ and the poor’s Right to vote, as they were that no one, not criminals, wife beaters, sex offenders, not even terrorist, be unfairly burdened by a background check before obtaining a gun, If only, they had a leg to stand on. Instead of constantly digging in, and doubling down. Always pretending they are so gosh darn right on everything, we could talk more. If only, after being proved dead wrong, as in Iraq, on supply side economics, on tax cuts for the wealthy, wrong that deregulation creates jobs. If only we could get some concession to the obvious just every once in a while, we Democrats might not need to be as we are.
    I could go on, and on. They could stop implying that most Blacks are on welfare, or that Mexican immigrants by being undocumented, that that somehow makes them rapists, and criminals we should round up in mass. Or that we should start, for Christ’s sake, oppressing some of our citizens over their religion, while still continuing to yammer on about we’re not sticking to the Constitution. One thing that would help is, if Republicans would simply stop getting more radical, and more unhinged. If the Republican Party itself didn’t insist on being so dog gone nasty about everything all the time! Alway seeking conflict instead of compromise.

    1. DEFENDER88 July 3, 2016

      You’re one to talk.
      Excellent validation/example of Mike Tokars brief here.
      Its all the other sides fault.
      And “they” are “absolutely wrong” on every issue.
      No introspection or compromise on your part whatsoever.
      Or consideration that you might not be Omnipotent and “All Knowing”.
      I know for a fact(from past experience) that YOU will not consider “any” position that differs from yours.
      Oh I forgot – You and the Left are quite perfect in every respect on every issue.
      ENOUGH – Of your Arrogant, Uncompromising Demo Dogma.
      So lets talk about guns and so called Assault Rifles.
      Lets see if you are seeking conflict or compromise.

      1. charleo1 July 3, 2016

        You started it, you compromise first, by jettisoning the king of the birthers as your Presidential nominee. Then we’ll talk. Until then, we’ll fight. As it’s incredibly stupid to bargain for half measures with idiots, and ideologues.

        1. DEFENDER88 July 3, 2016

          He is not “my” nominee.
          I really don’t like him and never have. And have argued against him.
          But neither I cannot vote for your lying, misguided, belt-way raised, 1% er.
          (Even though I contributed to her campaign against Barack. Though now I am glad he won.)
          Hillary – “When we left the White House, we were broke”.
          Since they only had millions and not multi-millions like now.
          NOW – She has been there so long – Around and within the “Beltway” she has lost her way and has been consumed by it.
          She has no idea now what it is like down here in Dog Patch and I truly believe she does not now “really” care.
          Oh she “acts” like she does because she has become the ultimate “politician”. Well she has had plenty of training. She was not like this in ’07, ’08.
          Nor do I think she, nor you, fully understand what is coming our way in the future and that some of her stated policies will likely make things much worse. I know she is just “playing” to her “base” but that does not make it reasonable or logical.
          She does care about the Wall Street people and the other 1% ers. She needs their money and is now “one of them”.
          On Guns – why does she not dis-arm her body guards like she wants to dis-arm me?
          We have had 8 yrs of now proven Failed – Gun Free Kill Zones.
          Created and Favored by the “Left” and the deranged killers where no defense can be made and she and you want more of that??
          No – Worse – You want to dis-arm the people who Can fight back against the killers to stop it.
          Left Wing – “Common Sense”?? Emotional Response that has proved to not work.
          I can even compromise on the gun issue but I imagine you will want your/her way as the only “common sense” way.
          ps FYI I am a Federal and State Certified Firearms and Self Defense Instructor(Retired)
          Now volunteer teach shooting with large local Sheriff Dept.
          With Real Machine Guns.
          And Competition Shooter – Combat Pistol and 3Gun.
          So I know some things about guns and shooting and real self defense.
          I even DO actually know the difference between an “Assault Rifle” and other Rifles.
          And I am not a deranged wacko militia member who just “thinks he knows” what he is doing and hates the govt. Nor an “Open Carry” misguided nut trying to show he has a bigger gun – even though most don’t have a clue if in a real gun fight. B.S. Bravado.
          Though I usually “carry” a gun, you will not likely see it unless you are trying to kill me.
          So you think a Ban on “Assault Rifles” will have a good effect on gun crime?
          You think “Gun Free Zones” should be continued as they are, expanded?
          You think “Self Defense” is not a valid concept anymore?

          1. Charles Winter July 4, 2016

            You state that you can compromise on the gun issue. Let’s talk about that.

            I don’t own a gun and won’t. I suffered from depression in the past and know the statistics on having a gun in the house most often being used on oneself or a family member.

            But I had a dear uncle who was an avid hunter, though he never brought home much to eat. Many hunters are our most committed environmentalists, and I respect them.

          2. dtgraham July 4, 2016

            I don’t.

          3. DEFENDER88 July 4, 2016

            You are correct – If you have depression tendencies it would probably be best if “You” don’t own or even have access to a gun.
            Especially if you are being treated with antidepressants. Since that is one of the leading problems in the US for mass shootings and suicides.
            If you still feel the need for self defense, I have other suggestions if you want.
            Its quite a list.
            I screen people for depression and anti-depressants and don’t teach them to shoot. (I only teach as a volunteer. As requested)
            But I do have other Self Defense recommendations for them that do not involve a gun.
            You are correct about most hunters. I hunted to live when young but don’t now. Few know that hunters provide most of the monetary support for species maintenance.

          4. Sand_Cat July 5, 2016

            Only through gun licenses, which are required.
            Don’t get me wrong, hunters are not the problem. Though the GOP seems determined to defend every lunatic’s right to a personal nuclear arsenal, the far greater threat is from “industry,” which is poisoning us all, bit by bit (the poor faster). Both parties are largely slaves to it, and neither is willing to really stand up and fight it on any issue, but at the moment it appears to me that the Dems are at least slightly more reluctant on the whole, and in this era of no good choices, that’s [has to be] good enough for me. Our “industry” and overpopulation are destroying everything wild and free about the country, including its people; it’s nice to vote feel-good for the Green Party – which I did in 2012 because I thought and think Obama is too “conservative,” despite the fact that I agree with you (I think) that he’s by far the most intelligent, and also the most dignified and “presidential” since Eisenhower. Watching him being hounded by a nasty mob of ignorant moral and ethical pygmies for almost eight years has been one of the saddest experience of my political life, and – despite this article bemoaning it – is in my opinion far more than sufficient to justify my (and Democrats’) hatred and contempt for the GOP.
            But I’m in damage control mode: Hillary looks even more conservative than Obama, and she was at best incredibly stupid to set herself up for so much trouble when she had to know how many people there are with massive pathological HATRED for her, but she looks like a heaven-sent savior and the picture of brilliance compared to ANY of the GOP contenders, or practically any GOP politician I can think of. The GOP has made a litmus test out of denying science on political grounds, opposing educational standards and objectivity in examination of historical issues, and generally embodying American de-valuation of education and anti-intellectualism. I have a very difficult time with the suggestions that the left is to blame for this; that seems to me akin to the almost universal GOP lie that it was Obama who divided the country; this from the party that declared their number-one priority was to wreck his presidency before the man even took office, and in the midst of a huge national and international crisis that threatened to destroy western civilization for most of its members.
            It appears you disagree, but it seems to me the Right is far more nasty,and did far more to bring on the current mutual hatred and contempt. I have found you to be a reasonable man, but most others with whom I have attempted a respectful dialog have ended up citing right-wing talking points to tell me I do nothing but parrot left-wing ones. I’ve lived a pretty long life, and every year GOP and alleged “conservative” mendacity seems to have grown by leaps and bounds, and I’m just a cranky old man who’s sick of it. I would never attempt to silence, censor, or punish those who oppose my opinions, but they are seldom nice about it, and I return the favor in spades. I don’t have any solution for the problem.

          5. DEFENDER88 July 6, 2016

            Hello Cat
            Good to see you back on here. Even though we disagree on several things.
            I agree with some of what you say, some not.
            I agree the Repubs and 1% ers raped and ran the monetary system and us into the ground and Obama basically saved us from/pulled us out of that disaster.
            One reason I voted for Obama because I read his “Platform”, early on, and he was neutral on Gun Control and he has pretty much stayed that way. Plus his intellect, knowledge, and character.
            And, surprisingly to me, his grasp of International Issues for a mere Jr. Senator(at the time in ’07).
            I really cant Vote for Trump because, well, to simplify, I think he is just for Trump.
            But I cannot Vote for HRC either. Due to her ill advised stated desire to Ban rifles.
            Among other things. She has changed a lot since ’07, ’08 when I contributed to her campaign.
            She has been corrupted by the Belt-Way Syndrome – the Elites vs the rest of us.
            I just don’t trust her now. (And not because of all the Trump B.S.)
            I think she(because of her now long term in DC)(and now a 1%er) has lost touch with common working people.
            The rifle she wants to ban is the most popular rifle in the US. For hunting, sport, self defense, etc.
            Bans don’t work except against honest gun owners.
            Also so called Assault Rifles as a sub group of Rifles account for less than 0.4% of gun crime in the U.S.
            Besides we tried in the past for 10yrs no less and it had absolutely no effect on gun crime.
            That is the very gun I am going to need if and when the S*it really hits the fan, and the gangs start coming here. Which I think is more likely every day. In addition to the Anti-depressant addled dope heads mass killing people we now have the Jihadies and that is just getting started. Ft. Hood, Chattanooga, San Bernadino and Orlando are just the beginning. The police and SWAT, good as they are, just cant get there in time. It is up to “us” to stop the murder. We will not be able to do that without our guns.
            ps As for me – Gun Compromise looks like:
            – Enhanced Backgd Cks including a mental health check – Yes
            – More training for conceal carriers – Yes
            – Bans on guns – NO It only hurts/affects honest gun owners.
            – Gun Free Zones – Modify -They currently work against basic safety. Modify to allow Certified Conceal Carriers.
            Or provide adequate, Armed, security – or be held liable for any mass shooting.

          6. Sand_Cat July 7, 2016

            Whether Hillary wants to ban any guns or not, she likely won’t. I’m angry that she was so incredibly stupid as to do the email thing, knowing how many pathological – and I do mean pathological – haters she has “gunning” for her, if you’ll forgive the expression, though it may well be literally true. Guess I said that before.
            Nice to hear from you. I don’t see you here that often, and thought maybe you’d given us up.

          7. pisces63 July 6, 2016

            I’m here in Cleveland waiting for the Republicans. we have a village idiot, a delegate tweeting, fb, telling how he will conceal and carry and wants all his fellow republicans to do the same. Problem is, it’s a no carry zone in the Q per republicans and Secret Service. So what was his point. Nothing. Even our police representative, reprehensible imbecile that he is said idiot. This, from a cop. My broth-in-law and a retired police offer school mate of mine HATE it so many can conceal and carry. they speak of protecting themselves and the police wonder who will protect them?

          8. emmadslaughter July 4, 2016


  4. itsfun July 3, 2016

    Whoever the next President is, it will a tough road to go. The left hates Trump and the right hates Clinton. Neither will get a any help from the other side.

    1. charleo1 July 3, 2016

      Bipartisanship with idiots and bungholes is hugely overrated in it’s value anyway.

      1. dtgraham July 3, 2016

        Agree completely. You’re going to compromise with that? Where would you start? It’s a scam charleo. The new conservatism is simply what the economic elites want. Their promotional agents use wedge issues, that the elites don’t care about, to help push their agenda to very ill-informed and unsophisticated people.

        I’ve noticed that their arguments so often don’t make sense and seem to defy human reason. Facts also don’t matter. If Bill Clinton’s large tax increase lowered the national debt in one year, and slowed the growth of the debt to a rounding error in three other years, just say it didn’t. After deregulation resulted in a banking meltdown a decade later similar to the unregulated period of 1929, just blame it on an obscure community reinvestment act from over 30 years earlier. If America is off the charts for both gun ownership per capita and gun shootings per capita in the developed world, don’t see the connection and just say there must not be enough guns. Etc, etc, etc…

        Well, before I start sounding too much like Thomas Frank, I’d better sign off. (mic drops) dt out.

    2. johninPCFL July 3, 2016

      The same was true of this president and the GOP alternatives. The economic crash would have occurred no matter who was in the WH, TARP would still have occurred (it was signed by GWB and effected starting in 2009) and so the new president would have had the teabaggers no matter what. Their effect on Congressional policy and performance would likely have been about the same, with the sole change being no healthcare reform (and maybe a new SC justice confirmed.)

    3. bobnstuff July 3, 2016

      You are right, the republicans will not be in a hurry to work with Clinton but they won’t rush to work with Trump, no one in congress is likely to work well with Trump. Clinton has the best chance of breaking the gridlock in Washington, but it still a very small chance. Here’s the funny part, Clinton is more of a republican then Trump.

    4. Sand_Cat July 5, 2016

      Nothing new there.

  5. Gloria5361 July 3, 2016

    I basically get paid about $6,000-$8,000 /month for freelance jobs i do at home. If you are willing to do easy at home jobs for few h a day at your home and get decent income while doing it… Try this work http://ow.ly/d9mw300yJLy


    1. dtgraham July 3, 2016

      Do you get paid $6,000-$8,000 a month or just basically get paid that much? $6,000-$8,000 a month would basically be, what, $60-$80 a month?

  6. dtgraham July 3, 2016

    I originally posted this on another story moments ago before reading this story. I’ve copied this post here because I think it applies more here than the other story where it came from:

    If you’ve noticed Oddworld, they’ve worked very hard at redefining patriotism and the constitution as being synonymous with conservatism. One and the same thing more or less. Fox News displays the flag (and talks about the military) as often as possible. I see conservative posters talk about the constitution all the time here and they frequently refer to each other as patriots, here and elsewhere. As though FDR was a foreign subversive. They’re redefining his legacy too in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

    Their agenda is patriotic and constitutional; yours isn’t. They wear the constitution like a coat and wave it around like a weapon when making arguments against anything remotely progressive. You want to regulate the banks again or have health care for all or have some reasonable restrictions on guns? That’s anti-freedom, anti-founding fathers, and unconstitutional. However, if you want to make voting nearly impossible for some or take away a woman’s present constitutional right to reproductive choice or remove basic human rights from whole classes of citizens based on something as simple as their orientation and identity, it’s none of those things. That’s how it works.

    Patriotism and constitutionality has been reformulated or reinvented by conservatives to be as close to no government as possible, and every man for himself. Except when they want the government to enforce their agenda of course.

    There’s also now a fetish-like love of militarism among U.S. conservatives that’s strongly linked to patriotism and the constitution. You know, don’t cut a dime from the Pentagon you communist. Modern American conservatism has almost developed into some weird strain of fascism.

    1. charleo1 July 4, 2016

      Here’s the dishonesty of the RW liars that literally run the State of TX. like a mob enterprise. A few months ago the military was holding training exercises in the Hill Country just South of Austin, When some anti government nut bags called Gov. Abbot to complain it might all be a precursor to Obama’s plan to invade TX. and put real Americans, make that white, christian, republicans, in FEMA retraining camps. Now instead of doing what normal heads of government do, and dispel the nonsense, he fed the monster. Gov. Abbot told them shared their concern,, and he’d, “have the Texas National Guard keep an eye on the Federal troops.” So there’s the kind of nutty crap that goes on just about anywhere Republicans and their conspiracy filled absurdities, and anti-Federal Gov. pretense rule the day.
      Fast forward to this spring when huge amounts of rain fell just North of the Houston Metroplex, severely flooding Houston, and it’s tributaries all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. Unfortunately, thousands of homes were destroyed. And the Gov. could not get the Federal funds, and the dreaded FEMA into the area fast enough. Nary a mention of the big bloated Federal Government, he was only a few months earlier calling out the State Militia to guard the good citizens of TX. against Washington’s tyranny!

      1. dtgraham July 4, 2016

        I remember that story about the federal troops coming to put Texans in Obama’s FEMA camps. We had a lot of fun with it here.

        That’s part of what we were talking about when it comes to compromising. Bruce Bartlett and several other Republicans (former?) have written and said shocking things about what their party has become, in their opinion.

        They need to blow up as a party and start over, becoming what they once were decades ago before serious talk of compromise. It’s hard to compromise with insanity. They would be unrecognizable as a legitimate conservative party elsewhere in the world. How do you compromise with sickness?

  7. Paul Anthony July 3, 2016

    Interesting, if not predictable comments so far. Most miss the point of the article.
    If both sides think the other side is guilty of the same things, it should be obvious that both sides are being lied to by their respective Parties.
    Stop believing the propaganda and start THINKING. There is a good reason more people register as Independent than as either of the entrenched Parties.

  8. 1standlastword July 3, 2016

    We are stuck on the horns of a dilemma with our tow party system and the great Virginia Satir said when this happens to give the client a third choice.

    Our two party system won’t tolerate giving the voters a third choice!!!!

    Therein lies the ROOT of the problem.

    American voters in a two party system will always be casualties of political warfare as long as the two parties collude to prevent a third party candidate from coming to the game with the institutional resources to win in a free, fair and equal electoral process.

    1. DEFENDER88 July 4, 2016

      Seems the 2 party system is failing us.
      I have thought for a while it should maybe be 3 parties.
      One primary Party – Independent (Where I like to be but have no one to vote for, like this election.)
      2 Secondary – Dem and Repub

      The 2 Secondary parties can argue their case for influence but the independents will have the majority vote.
      What system do you recommend to end this now destructive, divisive madness

      1. 1standlastword July 4, 2016

        Well Bernie has evolved a model that could have been successful. But the career politicians squelched it!

        He raised big money and built a huge constituency but if the media and the institution of government is biased towards the corporate two party system We The People end up where we are now left to choose the lesser of two evils. And we are cajoled to believe voting for the lessor of two evils is the moral thing to do. For some of us it’s like choosing death by hanging or gunshot

        And lastly there should be restrictions (enforced!!!) on what people can do after they leave government and limits (enforced!!!) as to how much goddam money people can make while they are so called being-servants-of-the-public. As a matter of fact they should be limited to just taking a reasonable salary and investment in private enterprise should be forbidden! (remember the Stock Act)

        There should to be an independent oversight agency dedicated to monitoring every politicians sources of income while in office and violators of the strictest prohibitions should be recalled post haste!

        It’s the god awful amounts of money that got us the lousy government we have.

        Every year it cost more money to run for public office because American politics is chiefly a contest between the buyers and seller of influence

        The People’s servants should not go into politics to get rich and retire with a life time government pension, security details and gold plated health insurance plans. When they retire politics they should live like the rest of us. The way the institution of government is set up now corrupts ambition and inspires greed

        1. DEFENDER88 July 4, 2016


          Not only a likely govt pension and insurance but a sweet paying job with a contractor or rep for some large company so they can continue to pad their wallets as the new breed of Lobbyists just calling on their old friends and knowing the system, thus perpetuating the sweet money grubbing system/con they have going.
          And they exempt themselves from the same insurance system we have to deal with.
          These are the things (The System) they are hell-bent to be sure do not change in any way.

          I am pretty sure this is Not what the Founders had in mind as citizen legislators.

          I am so sick of this con on us, I could just puke.
          The phrase “Term Limits” comes to mind.
          And I would add no more Golden Parachutes with Contractors, Big Companies, etc.
          Bernie – he has some good points but Socialism(much as I like the concept) has been shown/proven to not work.
          At least he does not want to dis-arm me like Hillary does.

          1. 1standlastword July 5, 2016

            HCR wants to infringe our 2A rights for convenience for the purpose of holding her constituencies together.

            The truth is neither you nor I know of a politician of any persuasion that feels safe without a phalanx of armed body guards 24/7 who by the way carried a full size-service pistol that loads more than 10 rounds governor “Moon Beam”

            My concern has always been with the law that we’re disarmed in the kill-zone-gun-free -zone.

            I would like to see a bill that holds gun free zone establishments accountable for the murder of innocents that happen in their establishments when they don’t protect us from phucking James Holmes and his ilk.

            If these establishments can be litigated when I slip on a patch of ice or get food poisoning they should be liable for the schools, hospitals, malls, theaters, concert halls, etc. where people are slaughtered like cattle without any sufficient form of self defense.

            I don’t understand why people should feel safe and cozy in a gun-free-zone-kill-zone without any sufficient means of self defense against the criminally insane craven killer that can pop up anywhere at anytime.

          2. DEFENDER88 July 5, 2016

            Well said.
            Provide “Sufficient” “Armed” Security or pay for the damage.
            And/or actually encourage Certified Public Conceal Carry.
            And Certified Conceal Carry should not only be allowed but encouraged. In fact we should get in free for providing added security at no cost.

            These Left Wing – Gun Free Zones are getting a lot of people killed.
            When if ever will they realize this?
            I have been arguing these type things in here for a while now.
            And been called everything from an Idiot to a Baby Killer.

            Someone showed the “Gun Free Zone Sign” at the Chattanooga Shooting location.
            It had several bullet holes in it. So much for that Idea.

            What is the Saying? Stupidity is repeating the same failure over and over and expecting a different result.

            Gun Free Kill Zones – Columbine, VT, Fort Hood 1 & 2, Sandy Hook, Aurora Theater, San Bernardino, France, Orlando, more.
            Call me stupid but I think I see a trend?

            Kind of scary how these people in here are like a herd of sheep, so afraid of their own shadow that they cannot even listen to reason about the truth about the gun issue.

            The truth/facts – The BEST way(currently) to stop the mass killings (Absent sufficient Armed Security present)(Which no one wants to pay for) is to allow Certified Concealed Carry by the public. SWAT(good as they are) Cannot get there in time.

            They all look for passive methods like declaring gun free zones, trying to ID and track potential threats, and depending on the authorities. None of which has nor will work like we need.

            What we need to defend against these attacks is an immediate, present, violent response with weapons to stop these Killers. And the best way is with Certified Conceal Carriers already present.Why do these people in here not understand that(including HRC) and even say it will make things worse – pure ignorant madness. How much worse would it have been at the Aurora Theater where 100 were present and 80-90 were shot!?! And Orlando 59 killed ?!

            SWAT is good/best but they CANNOT get there in time. Whereas now some 3% of the US pop have conceal carry licenses. So out of the 3-400 in the Orlando Club there would likely have been 3-4 who would have had at least a chance to stop the killing.
            And if it had been me and a few of my buddies we “would” have stopped him since we are competition (Combat Pistol) shooters and help train police to shoot. We likely would have stopped the SOB.

            But we are not allowed to carry guns in most places – absolute ignorant madness. We constantly train for these very types of scenarios. But are demonized for our sport(Combat Pistol Tactics). Ignorant Madness.

            Even worse, HRC (and her followers) now want to disarm us. Ignorant Madness.

            They “think” they are intellectually superior to gun carriers but their ideas of how to mitigate the gun problems have been abject failures. Will they ever realize this and how Fear has clouded their judgment?That maybe they don’t really understand the dynamics here?

            In fact some in here have said that if “I” shoot at a terrorist mass shooter and hit an innocent person that they will sue me for everything I have. So my new policy is I will not shoot unless they are shooting at ME. I will not shoot to defend others.

            I have been saying these things in here for at least 2yr now.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.