All errors should be reported to

Saturday, August 10, 2019

Trump just beat Democrats on guns

On Thursday, as Matt Drudge and the Washington Post tried to create a split between President Donald John Trump and the NRA, I told readers "Don't go Ann Coulter over a Washington Post story."

The Post, a toy owned by the richest man in the world, wrote, "Trump warned by NRA over background checks."

In response, I calmly wrote, "The important thing to remember is President Trump is taking the NRA's calls. They are in on the negotiations. I would rather not add a law and maybe President Trump is making the liberals an offer they cannot accept. He did that with the DREAMers."

Ah yes, in September 2017, the Ann Coulters of the world declared President Trump sold them out on amnesty. I wrote, "No, Trump did not cave."

Two years later, amnesty is not only dead but no one talks about it. I'll explain later why I got it and smarter people than me did not.

But first, let us look at this latest battle.

USA Today reported, "President Donald Trump said on Friday that congressional leaders are talking about new 'meaningful background checks' for gun buyers – but with input from the National Rifle Association and other gun groups that oppose current legislative proposals."

Who knew?

My readers, that's who, because I keep them informed.

President Trump is playing Democrats again. They want to make gun control an issue. He said, OK, and took control of the gun control debate. The debate will be on his terms and in his language. That is power positioning.

The mopes at the Post and Matt Drudge thought they could divide President Trump from his supporters with the report on the NRA warning the president on guns.

I knew in an instant what was happening. I knew Democrats would lose because President Trump never engages the enemy without first winning the battle. I also knew the president, a busy man, had outsourced the terms of the Democrat surrender to the NRA.

Whatever deal is made will have the NRA's approval.

I knew because of the First Squeal Rule. Whenever decisions are made privately, the loser is the one who goes public first in an effort to save face.

The best example is that White House meeting two years ago with Nancy and Chuck. After the meeting, Nancy and Chuck immediately talked to the press.

Ann Coulter believed them. She said there would be amnesty and no wall. She tweeted, "At this point, who DOESN'T want Trump impeached?"

Two years later, the answer to her inane question remains the same: Normal People.

Under the First Squeal Rule, the internal discussion at the White House was over the NRA's role in the gun debate. Those who lost the discussion went to the Post with their version of the story. That got their side out first but it did not change the outcome. It never should.

I am not saying the media gets everything about Donald Trump wrong. I am just having trouble remembering the last time they got it right.


  1. I love the dOprah meme. Yup, everyone should get free guns for self-defense.

    1. Free guns to defend freedom.

    2. Can I have my unfenced, no ring, gold buffer sweetheart back?

    3. Free guns from our government would drive the Socialist/Communist/Democrats crazier than they already are, and we can tell them "but it is a free thing"so enjoy it.

    4. We also should be provided with free firearms. We have a constitutional right to bear arms. Using the Dem logic on free abortions for all, the fact that we have a constitutional right to something-anything means that the government has to provide it to me free of charge. As Sting excellently sang on "Money For Nothing": I want my. I want my. I want my M-16.

    5. I like the "free gun" idea! However, like all socialist ideas, the buyer's remorse is probably guaranteed to be big. Would you even try to use an Obama-gun for anything?

    6. That guy in Missouri who walked into Wal Mart with a rifle slung across his back and a holstered pistol was a test case. He's going to walk - he did nothing illegal in an open carry state.

    7. As Sting excellently sang on "Money For Nothing": I want my. I want my. I want my M-16.

      That was Mark Knopfler (Dire Straits)

    8. Sting is acknowledged to have contributed one line to the writing and singing of "Money for Nothing". Dire Straits recorded this in Montserrat. Sting was on vacation there and came by to help out.

      Sting sings at the beginning, "I want my MTV."

      I don't believe that Sting sang the line, "I want my. I want my. I want my MTv. That said, toward the end someone sings the line and the voice is higher so it could have been Sting.

    9. "That guy in Missouri who walked into Wal Mart with a rifle slung across his back and a holstered pistol was a test case. He's going to walk - he did nothing illegal in an open carry state."

      RuckusTom, all the reports I've seen indicate that he was carrying the rifle at "low ready", meaning not slung, just carried with the muzzle angled towards the ground, with finger near the trigger. Carrying that way without a threat in view is equivalent to brandishing, because a "reasonable man" would conclude that he was prepared to fire. Where have you seen video showing differently?

    10. Sdn.

      Presents as a reasonable man.

      And proceeds to profer equilvalency.

      Seems much more reasonable to observe sdn as prosecutorial in nature.

      And arm chair prosecutorial at that.

      So, sdn, if you were there, at that moment, what would you reasonably do?

  2. Remarkable the number of scary stories being run about how Trump's gun remarks and dealing on the issue will likely cost him reelction because of angry base. The narrative-wishcasting going on is quite remarkable.

    1. This is a good thread about the five MAGA supporter groups.

  3. Everybody should get a free gun. The real military hardware, not a bowdlerized version.

    The Swiss can make it work, and work just fine.

    1. It's a far cry from 21st Century Australia perhaps, but Australian poet Henry Lawson wrote this in the very early 20th Century:

      Every Man Should Have A Rifle

      Henry Lawson, 1907

      So I sit and write and ponder, while the house is deaf and dumb,
      Seeing visions "over yonder" of the war I know must come.
      In the corner — not a vision — but a sign for coming days
      Stand a box of ammunition and a rifle in green baize.
      And in this, the living present, let the word go through the land,
      Every tradesman, clerk and peasant should have these two things at hand.

      No — no ranting song is needed, and no meeting, flag or fuss —
      In the future, still unheeded, shall the spirit come to us!
      Without feathers, drum or riot on the day that is to be,
      We shall march down, very quiet, to our stations by the sea.
      While the bitter parties stifle every voice that warns of war,
      Every man should own a rifle and have cartridges in store!

    2. Swiss demography (and resulting crime rate) are different from ours, unfortunately.

    3. US already has 300 million guns and only 1 in 30,000 are used for homicide.
      That US is not a wild west is a tribute to the responsibility of its citizens.

      Yes, there are gun deaths, 33,636 a year, but 2/3 (21,175) are suicides.
      SO gun rights are firstly a right to self-euthanasia - quickly and with dignity, and secondly as defense of life and liberty.

      So hey, progressives, are you opposed to people's right to their bodies, to euthanasia?

  4. Righto, Don. Your insight into President Trump is the reason you're up at the top of my morning reading list, even more now that you're highlights of the news is your first post of the day. BZ, as we used to say in the Navy.

    My thought on this has been that there are so many House Democrats who will refuses ANY deal with PDT that no deal can be reached. Some will be insisting on a gun registry, others like the Squad want confiscation or nothing, and still others want all of it, i.e. a registry and a red flag confiscation law. We would rise up against either scenario. The locales in our country with the most restrictive gun laws still have massive numbers of gun murders, so we know that they don't work. Period.

  5. It is a legitimate question how to keep firearms out of the hands of the criminally insane. Infringing on MY rights IS NOT THE ANSWER!
    Molon Labe if you think you can!

    1. You can't keep guns out of the hands of the criminally insane. However an armed society is a polite society. If most, if not all were armed. The criminally inane would be met with overwhelming fire power if they tried anything, minimizing casualties on the good guy side. Of course, then they would move on to bombs and arson. They are insane but cunning in a lot of ways.

    2. Exactly. Insane does not equal stupid. Also, "criminally inane" is the best typo I've seen today. Thanks!

  6. All here know all rights are NOT absolute, even the 2nd. The problem is always where your right ends and society's begins. So was the young man, who said he was testing the Missouri open carry law, within his 2nd Amendment rights when he walked through a Wal Mart yesterday with a rifle, handgun and wearing a bullet proof vest; his rights include scaring the hell out of maybe hundreds of people especially after the past weekend killings? He was lucky the fireman that drew down on him didn't shoot at him and if he missed his target he might have killed customers. So who would have been at fault. So should Missouri now get rid of open carry because of this incident.

    I will not open carry because out of respect for other people's fears about firearms; nor do I carry on my farm when my liberal daughter-in-law is there with my grandchildren; that would end visits. That, IMO, is only logical and prudent. In the good old days when I lived in CA, I openly carried in and around my mountain land, but I was in an area where that was almost normal to locals. But I would not openly carry in Sacramento where it was not normal at all.

    When all too many people do not use logic and common sense, we get many stupid laws because of it.



      So, you submit to the fears others feel out of respect for their right to feel fear, to panic, to be certain that their fears and their panic are respected as their right, and as their right to demand that you respect their fear and panic by submitting to their fear based actions?

      And, you find it prudent, logical and common sense to consider your fears to be resolved by submitting to the fears and fear based actions of others?

      In other words, you value submitting to the intimidation of others in a fear induced panic more than your "shall not be infringed" Constitutional Rights.

      And you call that you being respectful. Prudent. Logical. Common sense qualified.

      And you consider that the actual exercising of a Constitutional Right which "shall not be infringed", by a citizen of the Sovereign State of Missouri, (whose State laws concerning this subject you can inform yourself of, by utilizing the above link), was a choice you would not have chosen to make? Because exercising it in the manner described in the New York Post article, link above, violated the rights of others to not feel fear?

      And that you approve of the right to fear and panic as greater than the right which "shall not be infringed".

      Does your perspective on this event mean that you support the right to feel fear and panic shall not be infringed?

    2. amr, see my comment and question to RuckusTom above.

    3. When you choose to surrender, (by submission to, that is the sum of amr respecting other people's fears), you Constitutional Rights, you have chosen to discard them.

      "Respecting" the fears others feel always results in those others demanding you to submit to their will over your's.

      And it never ends.

      Everything soon becomes a "fear of" which they use to get you to "respect" and submit to.

      S, no, amr, you are not being respectful of anything other than your own convinience.

      And by doing so, adding to the certainties of these others who knee jerk into a panic state at every opportunity, to indulge in this self serving manipulation of you method.

      You presented the issue of grandchil being kept from visiting. Perfect example of you defaulting to submission for your own convinience.

      The event in Missouri is a law event. A Constitution event. A Constitutionally Declared Not To Be Infringed Right event.

      Even the Sovereign State of Missouri law defines this.

      The nitpickings of some who claim to be staunch conservative, Constitutionalists is pathetic.

      When this event's court case is adjudicated, if anythin but summary dismissal occurs, you will know that Missouri is not a Sovereign State serious about Constitutional Rights.

      As for the mind reader sdn, you aint no ways a reasonable man.

    4. The manner in which the 2A is written is a absolute as it gets. There is no reasonable infringement when the amendment reads "shall not be infringed" and offers no limits on that statement.

  7. Why would you believe people who hate Trump when they tell you something bad about Trump?

    If Trump ever made a compromise deal with Chuck Schemer and Nasty Nancy, the Left would be screaming bloody murder at Chuck and Nancy.

    The Democrat-RINO coalition successfully blocked funding for the wall several times. Then they sued to stop Trump from reallocating money from other areas.

    Has Trump given up? No.

  8. ok so I have this rule of thumb, it aint over til its over....... and outside of my vote, I can't control, even with my words, what politicians do.

    Trump knows how his base feels, he also has his own opinions, he also knows how to play dum bass politicians and the media. He knows exactly what he is doing and whom he is dealing with, more so than even we do due to how these people talk in private meetings.

    If Trump does something I won't like, its because he wants to do it, and he has his reasons, and I helped elect him. I have to deal with it next election. However, so far, he hasn't let me down and I have few if any reasons to doubt him.


  9. Publius Huldah Powerful Speech: All Federal Gun Control Is Unlawful

  10. Trump the Trojan Horse: Red Flag Laws and Background Checks - YouTube

  11. Trump Demands Gun Control, Executions For 'Hate Crimes,' Asks DOJ & Social Media to Detect Pre-Crime..
    Donald Trump on Monday demanded anti-Second Amendment "red flag" gun seizure laws, swift executions for so-called "hate crimes," "involuntary confinement" for people the state deems "mentally disturbed," and directed the DOJ to work with states, local law enforcement and social media sites to "detect mass shooters before they strike" -- all while repeating generic leftist slogans about "hate."

    He only described the Ohio shooter as a "twisted monster" before launching into his assault on the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the internet itself. Even though the shooter in Ohio was a leftist antifa-supporting lunatic and Trump could have used that as a reason not to move against Americans' rights, he chose not to reveal that to the public and only focused on the El Paso shooters' alleged manifesto.

    There is no way to interpret this other than a complete and total betrayal. If Hillary Clinton was elected President, there is no way she could have gotten any of this through a Republican-controlled Senate and the same goes for the terrible spending bill Trump passed in February which threw open our borders and led to the record immigration levels we're now experiencing.

    Taking away American's rights is only going to accelerate the collapse of our country and lead to more violence, but our leaders, including Donald Trump, don't give a damn. If you don't think they're going to expand this censorship to everyone who questions the establishment then you haven't been paying attention.