Pirro Blasts GOP: 'You're In Power - Do Something' to Pass Trump Agenda

[EC]

Actually, one of the salient beefs about King George III and the colonial governors was over taxes. "No taxation without representation" was a common complaint.The burning of two tea ships in Annapolis harbor, the Boston Tea Party, the ruckus over Stamp Act, all were disputes over taxation.

Both of which were fairly vain attempts to get a loss making set of colonies (look up the figures sometime - we almost never collected tax) pay a little bit towards the costs of a pointless war which THEY had dragged us into. Something missing from the US text books. 

[Bigun]

@Smokin Joe
It would be interesting to compare the tax rate then to the burden we have now... Today, both the husband and the wife work from January to July just to pay taxes - I wonder how that stands up to the rate which drove our forefathers to rebel.

2 pence tax on a pound of TEA!

[Bigun]

Both of which were fairly vain attempts to get a loss making set of colonies (look up the figures sometime - we almost never collected tax) pay a little bit towards the costs of a pointless war which THEY had dragged us into. Something missing from the US text books. 

There is a GREAT DEAL missing from our text books today my friend!  And ALL of it is purposefully missing!

[EC]

There is a GREAT DEAL missing from our text books today my friend!  And ALL of it is purposefully missing!

  There is.

Although, in this particular case, I can both see why it is missing and completely agree with it being missing. Said it before - a nation NEEDS it's legends. They are far more important to the fundamental question "Who are we?" than facts ever can be.

[Bigun]

There is.

Although, in this particular case, I can both see why it is missing and completely agree with it being missing. Said it before - a nation NEEDS it's legends. They are far more important to the fundamental question "Who are we?" than facts ever can be.

That is probably true in the grand scheme of things but I prefer the truth over myth every time!

[roamer_1]

IIRC, the Crown was demanding something close to three percent (total), based on the consumption of tea, tobacco, and printed materials.

@Smokin Joe

Yes, I understand that to be the kerfuffle, but I am unaware of any other taxes incurred by governor, company, or other such feudal representations... If indeed it was merely 3%, compared to our approaching 50%(actually conceptually double that, as families relied upon a single income from the man of the house only back then)... It could be said that, "The conditions faced by the Founders are not the conditions of today." as @Jazzhead has opined... Indeed the conditions are far worse.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

1994 Texas House District 18.  The democrat incumbent voted against concealed carry three separate times but his former colleague and then NRA area rep got him endorsed over me!

Wait a minute.  The debate was whether or not the NRA openly goes after incumbent Republicans who betray them by supporting a Democrat who has a worse record on guns.  You weren't an incumbent Republican because every single incumbent Republican member of Congress won that year. 

Also, Tx-18 was won by first-termer Sheila Jackson Lee (D- TX18)) in 1994.  She defeated the incumbent Democrat in the primary, then beat the Republican in the general.  So it is impossible for the NRA to have endorsed the "democrat incumbent" over you in the general election because the democrat incumbent was defeated in the primary by Sheila Jackson Lee, who won her first term that year.

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=222684

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=29125


So, I'm confused.

[Bigun]

Wait a minute.  The debate was whether or not the NRA openly goes after incumbent Republicans who betray them by supporting a Democrat who has a worse record on guns.  You weren't an incumbent Republican because every single incumbent Republican member of Congress won that year. 

Also, Tx-18 was won by first-termer Sheila Jackson Lee (D- TX18)) in 1994.  She defeated the incumbent Democrat in the primary, then beat the Republican in the general.  So it is impossible for the NRA to have endorsed the "democrat incumbent" over you in the general election because the democrat incumbent was defeated in the primary by Sheila Jackson Lee, who won her first term that year.

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=222684

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=29125


So, I'm confused.

STATE house district 18! Not US house district 18!

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

Yes, I understand that to be the kerfuffle, but I am unaware of any other taxes incurred by governor, company, or other such feudal representations... If indeed it was merely 3%, compared to our approaching 50%(actually conceptually double that, as families relied upon a single income from the man of the house only back then)... It could be said that, "The conditions faced by the Founders are not the conditions of today." as @Jazzhead has opined... Indeed the conditions are far worse.

In terms of taxation, they are.

The British tariffs were levied on goods imported to the Colonies. If you didn't use those good, you didn't pay tax on them.
We have a 'tax' for breathing (ACA penalty) and not being insured.
We have taxes on fuel, the electromagnetic spectrum (which cost the government nothing to install)
...and virtually everything else we consume, either at time of purchase or buried in the price as excise taxes, corporate taxes, property taxes, etc. that the company selling goods must recover before it can make a profit, which will be taxed also.
We have taxes on the exchange of our time or skills for money (it's called income, but really, it is an exchange).
We have taxes on our real estate, which amount to rent. (You'll be evicted for nonpayment).

You tell me if we're worse off.

[Bigun]

In terms of taxation, they are.

The British tariffs were levied on goods imported to the Colonies. If you didn't use those good, you didn't pay tax on them.
We have a 'tax' for breathing (ACA penalty) and not being insured.
We have taxes on fuel, the electromagnetic spectrum (which cost the government nothing to install)
...and virtually everything else we consume, either at time of purchase or buried in the price as excise taxes, corporate taxes, property taxes, etc. that the company selling goods must recover before it can make a profit, which will be taxed also.
We have taxes on the exchange of our time or skills for money (it's called income, but really, it is an exchange).
We have taxes on our real estate, which amount to rent. (You'll be evicted for nonpayment).

You tell me if we're worse off.

And in addition to all of that we have ALL of the corporate income taxes and ALL of the costs of compliance with it rolled up into the price of every good and service produced or provided in this country today!

http://fairtax.org

[truth_seeker]

Try giving the credit to the Constitution.   Alone among nations, we have a two-centuries-plus tradition of respecting the peaceful transition of power in accordance with the expressed will of the people.   (In the one exception, in 1860, I'll concede that guns certainly played their part - over a half million dead - but the perpetrators were armies, not renegade citizens.)     

Anyone who advocates the overthrow of the Constitution by means of the citizenry brandishing their private arms is an extremist to me.  One such nut almost shot dead a dozen members of Congress a week and a half ago.   I support the gun right, because it codifies the natural right of personal self defense.   That is why is it valuable, that is why it must be preserved.   Not all gun owners believe they need guns in order to exercise their political power, to "use" on "perverts" and others with whom they disagree.   The conditions faced by the Founders are not the conditions of today.  I can defend the gun right, but not for the cockamamie notion that guns are our defense against the IRS.     

You have a flawed view of history. America became free by revolting against the British monarchy (King George III), because the colonists felt the rule was unjust. I agree that it was "extreme," but it was also justified and the correct thing to do.

They used guns. And they planned to keep the guns, if needed again for similar reasons. They put that intention is writing in the II Amendment.

England's King Charles I, lost his head in 1649 when civilians decided they wanted to change the government. They had guns, too.

France's King Louis XVI, lost his head in 1793 when civilians decided they wants a change of government. They had guns, too.

You seem convinced our government is fine, locked in as it is, and not ever needing a challenge. I disagree. We should keep the government of a short leash.

If the government in the US does not serve the citizens well, it will be justified to take "extreme" measures; perhaps use arms.

The mere threat of an armed citizenry tends to keep the government, from becoming too "extreme."

Extreme is not always a bad thing. Extreme can be the right thing, as I have shown above.

You suggest that since we have had peaceful transfer of power for over 200 years, we have no further concern--and need not be armed any longer.

I submit we have had peaceful transfer of power, because we have an armed citizenry, or militia--and we need to remain so armed.

The first act of tyrants is to disarm the citizenry. What can the civilians do in Britain and in France to assist when muslim terrorists run amuck in their community?

That is another justification for a well armed citizenry. These days an armed citizen can save lives, while waiting on the police.

Disarming the good guys, does nothing to disarm the bad guys.   

[Cripplecreek]

Its kinda funny how similar Trumpbots sound to Obamabots who also declared that because he was elected, everything Obama wanted was mandated.

Same as then, Sorry children, that isn't how this works. Even among conservatives there is a great deal of variability and the concerns of my republican district may not be the same as the concerns of your republican district. They damn sure aren't the same as the concerns of liberal NY and Washington DC.

[DiogenesLamp]

In which specific election did they back a Democrat with a bad rating on gun rights?

You are changing the criteria.   You are adding a qualifier that I did not mention in my earlier commentary. 


If a Republican was not sufficiently pro gun rights,   the NRA would back the Democrat (if he were pro gun rights)  in the General election.   


Nobody said anything about backing an anti-gun Democrat. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Anyone who advocates the overthrow of the Constitution by means of the citizenry brandishing their private arms is an extremist to me.  One such nut almost shot dead a dozen members of Congress a week and a half ago.   

Here you flip the premise on it's head.   You presume that arms in the hands of the citizenry would only be used to overturn the constitution by force,  and you completely ignore the much more likely possibility that arms in the hands of citizens would be used to restore a government to it's proper constitutional powers.   

You make of the Arms bearers the "bad guys" instead of the rescuers.    Why do you see things this way?   Why do you equate them to that Democrat kook that shot congressmen?   

[DiogenesLamp]

Both of which were fairly vain attempts to get a loss making set of colonies (look up the figures sometime - we almost never collected tax) pay a little bit towards the costs of a pointless war which THEY had dragged us into. Something missing from the US text books. 

People always make textbooks that make them look good.   They always leave out the bad aspects of what they did.   

In the last few years,  I've learned a great deal about the US civil war which I did not know,  (because they failed to mention any of it in any of the textbooks I had read while in school)   and it greatly changed my understanding of the war and the events leading up to it. 


Textbooks are more or less government approved propaganda. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Wait a minute.  The debate was whether or not the NRA openly goes after incumbent Republicans who betray them by supporting a Democrat who has a worse record on guns. 

No it wasn't.   You added that twist.   I implied no such thing in my statement on NRA tactics.   


The NRA punishes backstabbers,   but it does not support anti-gun opponents under any circumstances. 


The larger point is that the strategy of destroying traitors has led to a very successful establishment of their principles in the Congress. 

Congress will not currently (or for the foreseeable future)  enact gun control legislation. 

[Jazzhead]

Here you flip the premise on it's head.   You presume that arms in the hands of the citizenry would only be used to overturn the constitution by force,  and you completely ignore the much more likely possibility that arms in the hands of citizens would be used to restore a government to it's proper constitutional powers.   

You make of the Arms bearers the "bad guys" instead of the rescuers.    Why do you see things this way?   Why do you equate them to that Democrat kook that shot congressmen?

Those who try to effect political change by means of violence are, in my mind, the bad guys - especially in the context of our Constitutional system where bad leaders can be removed by means of the vote, or impeachment. 

Why is that "Democrat kook that shot congressmen" any different from the revolutionaries that took on the British with arms?   It's not a trick question - from HIS perspective he was doing nothing different than what the Founders did - a citizen using his guns to usurp what in his mind was tyrannical leadership.   

But the world of the Founders is different from the world of today.  I reject the notion that the gun right exists to provide an antidote to tyrannical government.  That poisonous notion is a slap in the face to the magnificent Constitution we live under - and has spawned,  a week and a half ago,  a moron armed to the gills who almost took out a dozen Congressmen.     

[Smokin Joe]

Those who try to effect political change by means of violence are, in my mind, the bad guys - especially in the context of our Constitutional system where bad leaders can be removed by means of the vote, or impeachment. 

Why is that "Democrat kook that shot congressmen" any different from the revolutionaries that took on the British with arms?   It's not a trick question - from HIS perspective he was doing nothing different than what the Founders did - a citizen using his guns to usurp what in his mind was tyrannical leadership.   

But the world of the Founders is different from the world of today.  I reject the notion that the gun right exists to provide an antidote to tyrannical government.  That poisonous notion is a slap in the face to the magnificent Constitution we live under - and has spawned,  a week and a half ago,  a moron armed to the gills who almost took out a dozen Congressmen.   

Reject all you want, but that's exactly the reason the RKBA was enshrined and enumerated.

Reading the Federalist Papers will make that fact manifest, as would the idea that those arms, in the hands of the people are necessary to the security of a FREE STATE. (A Free State has no security without them.) Note also that the oath taken is to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign AND domestic. It is those enemies of that free state that those arms in the hands of the people exist to defend against, and that is the reason for the Right to not be infringed.

Note that the founders long suffered the indignities that led to the Declaration of Independence, repeatedly petitioned the Crown for relief, and that the first battles of the Revolution were not sniper attacks on recreational activities (preparatory to a charity event, no less), but the interdiction of efforts by regular troops to seize their arms and ammunition.

In no wise is there any comparison between those patriots at Lexington and Concord and the nutcase that shot up a ball game, unless he had repeatedly petitioned for redress of grievances and was acting in concert with others of like mind to secure property those ball players had come to seize by force of arms.
That conspiracy theory has been pretty well rejected and there is no way the congressmen playing ball were a direct threat to him or his community. I reject your premise that there is any comparison except to say, no, they don't compare at all.

[roamer_1]

Reject all you want, but that's exactly the reason the RKBA was enshrined and enumerated.

Reading the Federalist Papers will make that fact manifest, as would the idea that those arms, in the hands of the people are necessary to the security of a FREE STATE. (A Free State has no security without them.) Note also that the oath taken is to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign AND domestic. It is those enemies of that free state that those arms in the hands of the people exist to defend against, and that is the reason for the Right to not be infringed.

FACT. And in that fact, one might do well to remember that the BoR was designed specifically to offset the power granted to the federal government in allowing a standing army. Hand in had with that burgeoning power comes the responsibility to protect specific and enumerated rights, designed to guarantee that the people would remain more powerful than the standing army.

[sneakypete]

Anyone who advocates the overthrow of the Constitution by means of the citizenry brandishing their private arms is an extremist to me. 

@Jazzhead

Who is advocating that? You are exposing your leftist background. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to insure there are firearms in the hands of citizens to PRESERVE the Constitution by preventing any dictator from seizing power and using the army to keep the people in line. THIS is why they were discussing  insuring that MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS TYPICAL OF THOSE CARRIED BY THE TYPICAL INFANTRYMAN BE GUARANTEED AS A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.

If you are going to go up against an army,you had damn sure better be armed like an army.

To sum it up,you have it assbackwards.

One such nut almost shot dead a dozen members of Congress a week and a half ago.

He wasn't a gun nut. He was a leftist. Which means he was a political nut.

 

I support the gun right, because it codifies the natural right of personal self defense.

   

The 2nd Amendment doesn't have a single damn thing to do with self-defense. It is all about providing for the defense of the nation and the American way of life,period. The fact that firearms are handy tools to defend self as well as nation is just a happy coincidence.

That is why is it valuable, that is why it must be preserved.   Not all gun owners believe they need guns in order to exercise their political power, to "use" on "perverts" and others with whom they disagree. 

I don't see anybody but YOU saying that.

The conditions faced by the Founders are not the conditions of today.

You obviously have been miseducated because you don't understand squat. The Founding Fathers faced a government that wanted to dictate to them what they could and couldn't do,and wanted to confiscate their firearms. What's different now

[Jazzhead]

In no [way] is there any comparison between those patriots at Lexington and Concord and the nutcase that shot up a ball game

 That "nutcase that shot up a ball game"  was using his guns in exactly the way you claim the Founders intended him to.   Obviously his perspective is warped,  but the rhetoric he employed before he decided to take up arms wasn't all that different in spirit from a least one of the "nutcases" here, who claims to justify his "use" of firearms to prevent the hated "homosexual agenda" from being "forced" on him. 

I utterly reject such justification for the Second Amendment. 

The Constitution and the democratic institutions of our Republic put the lie to the claims of the extremists that claim the 2A is necessary as a bulwark against tyranny.   The conditions of the Founders are not the conditions of today.  YES, the 2A is necessary,  but - as Heller explains - its purpose is to make efficacious our natural rights as human beings to protect ourselves, our homes, our families, our property.

 Political change?  No one has any natural right to use a gun to overturn the expressed will of the people.   

[Smokin Joe]

That "nutcase that shot up a ball game"  was using his guns in exactly the way you claim the Founders intended him to.   Obviously his perspective is warped,  but the rhetoric he employed before he decided to take up arms wasn't all that different in spirit from a least one of the "nutcases" here, who claims to justify his "use" of firearms to prevent the hated "homosexual agenda" from being "forced" on him. 

I utterly reject such justification for the Second Amendment. 

The Constitution and the democratic institutions of our Republic put the lie to the claims of the extremists that claim the 2A is necessary as a bulwark against tyranny.   The conditions of the Founders are not the conditions of today.  YES, the 2A is necessary,  but - as Heller explains - its purpose is to make efficacious our natural rights as human beings to protect ourselves, our homes, our families, our property.

 Political change?  No one has any natural right to use a gun to overturn the expressed will of the people.   

No, he was not. When you can explain how shooting up a bunch of folks practicing for a charity ball game is a response to a threat of tyranny and not a cowardly act of terrorism, we'll talk.

Human nature is not significantly changed over recorded history, so yes, the same conditions exist.

People with power will be tempted to abuse it.
Having repercussions for egregious abuses of power is a deterrent, as it ever has been.
 
The founders intended for the People to have the ability to defend themselves and the Constitutional Republic against those who would abuse their power, to act first as a deterrent, and if necessary to be used to resist the imposition of tyranny by force of arms with arms of their own.
 
Heller did not visit the question of protection against tyranny (although Heller was a response thereto), only the question of bearing arms, and chose an easy path (especially in the Federal District) to substantiate that Right. If defending against a small time crook is a Right, then defending against assault by one with more resources simply follows, regardless of who is breaking the law of the land in that assault. If no dog is supposed to bite you, big dogs don't get a pass.

The guy shooting up the ball game simply cannot show where the people in that game were actively assaulting him in any fashion. They were not. They were not engaged in robbing him (although some might see that as their ordinary purpose--they are congressmen).

Even the Colonists who met the Armies of the British at Lexington and Concord sallied forth to engage an armed force in the act of marching on their town to rob them. The ball players posed no imminent threat; the security force responded to one. As a 'victim' in this instance he has no standing, either before or after his criminal acts. (Assault with a deadly weapon (multiple counts), assault with intent to kill (multiple counts), attempted murder (multiple counts), discharging a firearm in a public park (multiple counts), etc.)

[Jazzhead]

Human nature is not significantly changed over recorded history, so yes, the same conditions exist.

People with power will be tempted to abuse it.
Having repercussions for egregious abuses of power is a deterrent, as it ever has been.
 

Correct.  Those repercussions are (i) elections, and (ii) the rule of law. 

Not the use of firearms.   The nutcase who shot up that ball game believed he was effecting a revolutionary act of defiance.  He was using his guns just as you claim the Founders intended. 

I won't make a mockery of the Founders as you do.   No one has the right to use a gun to usurp the expressed will of the people in a democratic, constitutional Republic such as ours.

[DiogenesLamp]

Those who try to effect political change by means of violence are, in my mind, the bad guys - especially in the context of our Constitutional system where bad leaders can be removed by means of the vote, or impeachment. 

I think many of your points here are flawed because they are based on flawed premises.   Effecting political change by means of violence is not always bad.  Sometimes it is a necessity,  such as in Romania. 

Another of your flawed premises is that "bad leaders can be removed by means of the vote."   This oversimplifies the problem of removing a "bad leader"  such as Obama who had the power of the Media monopoly keeping him afloat,  as well as the power of non tax paying voters keeping him in power. 


Over the years since the constitution was created,   politicians have learned several ways of gaming the system.    What we have now is not what was created in 1787.   It is far more susceptible to abuse than it was in the 18th century. 

Why is that "Democrat kook that shot congressmen" any different from the revolutionaries that took on the British with arms?   It's not a trick question - from HIS perspective he was doing nothing different than what the Founders did - a citizen using his guns to usurp what in his mind was tyrannical leadership.   

You do not have enough of a legitimate argument here to even begin a discussion.   I reject this premise outright.   It is not even rational to debate such a false analogy. 

But the world of the Founders is different from the world of today.  I reject the notion that the gun right exists to provide an antidote to tyrannical government. 

You may reject it as you like,   but that is self delusion.    There is quite sufficient evidence extant that demonstrates the second amendment was intended primarily to prevent Tyranny,   and not for any other reason.   

That poisonous notion is a slap in the face to the magnificent Constitution we live under - and has spawned,  a week and a half ago,  a moron armed to the gills who almost took out a dozen Congressmen.   

The Congressman were not engaging in any Tyranny.   They were not threatening the security of a free state.    The man was a crack pot nut who had been wound up like a toy soldier by the Enemy Media propaganda and launched at their political enemies. 


He was not a rational man acting on principles,  he was a low information voter propagandized by the Left wing Media,   and he likely had mental illness issues. 

[Smokin Joe]

Correct.  Those repercussions are (i) elections, and (ii) the rule of law. 

Not the use of firearms.   The nutcase who shot up that ball game believed he was effecting a revolutionary act of defiance.  He was using his guns just as you claim the Founders intended. 

I won't make a mockery of the Founders as you do.   No one has the right to use a gun to usurp the expressed will of the people in a democratic, constitutional Republic such as ours.

You are making a mockery of the Founders. I am not. Either you have not read or you did not comprehend the Federalist Papers, which were a discussion of the logic behind much of the Constitution, or you are having difficulty understanding English. At no time have I defended the actions of the person who shot up the ball game, nor are those actions defensible. One person acting alone cannot claim to speak for 330,000,000 people.   

I won't pretend to know what the nutcase was thinking, and unless you have a credible track record for reading minds, you just might not either. One demented person shooting up a practice ball game is a world of difference from a citizen militia showing up to keep their town from being looted by "authorities", and today, as ever that use of the Right, to PREVENT rogue forces from usurping the power and rights of the People, in defense of the Constitution against tyranny is what the Founders intended. 

We aren't talking about the RKBA existing to "usurp the expressed will of the People in a Constitutional Republic". That was not only not what the Founders did, but expressly what they intended the Right to be protected to prevent.
There are only so many ways to stand this issue on its head and try to tie it in knots, and I think you have just about exhausted the permutations.

It is really very simple. The Right of the People to keep and bear arms, to keep a free state free and secure in that freedom, and to control (regulate) the Army in the event it turns on the civil government, shall not be infringed (pissed around with, in any form).
There is no way hunting down people you simply disagree with, who have not personally posed a threat to your existence, who are not posing any imminent threat, is considered legal. We have laws against that sort of use of any weapon, which I have already outlined in a previous post, in part. The various charges that could have been justly brought against the shooter are many, and that list I provided was by no means exhaustive. Those have been agreed upon by our civil government, at the behest of the people, and the shooter was in violation of the laws that were duly enacted by our government acting well within the constraints of the Constitution, to wit: laws against murder, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, assault on a police officer, reckless endangerment (discharge of a firearm in a proscribed area--the right to keep and bear does not include indiscriminate use), to name a few.