2020 Candidate Steve Bullock Declares Democrats Are ‘Well on Our Way To Losing’ 2020 to Trump

H/T Western Journal.

Unless President Trump screws the pooch on gun control he will be reelected.

Presidential hopeful and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock warned fellow Democrats at the National Press Club on Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s “reelection [is] becoming more likely with each passing minute.”

Bullock made these remarks after he witnessed the 2020 presidential candidates bicker during last week’s Democratic debates.

“As I stood on that debate stage last week and then listened that next night, I saw [Trump’s] reelection becoming more likely with each passing minute,” he said, the Washington Examiner reported.

Bullock expanded on the fact that his state went for Trump in 2016. Democrats need to try to appeal to constituents in places like Billings, Montana, he said, and not just the liberals who are already going to vote for the Democratic candidate.


“Please permit me to take everyone out of the ‘Twitterverse’ for at least a minute and bring us back to Earth,” he said, according to Politico.

“We cannot defeat Trump’s politics of personal destruction if we practice self-destruction.”

He added, “We are well on our way to losing this election long before it ever really has started.”

The Montana governor then went into a variety of topics, like health care, that he said demonstrated the split in the Democratic Party that could cost them the election.

“I stood on that debate stage, and I could not believe that after 70 attempts by Republicans, it is now the Democrats who are calling to repeal and replace Obamacare,” Bullock said.

“If you propose abolishing private health insurance, you will lose. You will reelect Trump.”

He added that expanding health insurance to illegal immigrants would not sell in his home state and could create a magnet for more illegal immigration.

“We need border security. But we need sanity, not the vanity in securing our borders,” Bullock said. “Yet our every action can’t be that reaction to Donald Trump.”

Bullock has just 1 percent support nationwide, according to a recent Morning Consult poll. He doesn’t seem concerned and said that his success as a red-state governor will be appealing to people, according to Politico.

“I guarantee you if I’m the nominee … I’m going to carry Vermont, Massachusetts and California,” he said.

“But I wonder if the senators from Vermont, Massachusetts and California can make same that guarantee of carrying Montana, or Michigan or Wisconsin or Pennsylvania.”


Trump Is Unlikely To Commit Political Suicide by Betraying Us On Guns

H/T Town Hall.

For the sake of the country will not cave to the left on gun control.

Donald Trump is a lot of things, but stupid is not one of them. Like all of us, he is understandably horrified by the murder sprees of that progressive environmental eugenics weirdo and that member of Big Chief Warren’s tribe.* But Trump is also keenly aware that any betrayal of his supporters on a literally life or death issue like guns – if you’ve been listening to the left you have a good idea what miserable fate awaits you if you get disarmed and they take power – will result in his wholesale abandonment by his supporters. No, his base probably won’t go vote for the furry, or Doxxy Castro’s brother, or Gaffe-y McOldenheimer. His base will just stay home. Trump will lose, the GOP will lose the Senate, and the left will take over. And bad things will happen to the liberal elite’s enemies, not least of all to Trump and his family.

Trump understands this. And he understands that the media is trying to get him to alienate his own supporters. But so far, he has never stuck us in the back even after the garbage media eagerly reports on his conciliatory talk on subjects near and dear to us in the hopes that it means a betrayal is incoming. It never has been in the past. There’s no reason to believe he would sell us out now.

We would not forgive him. To go left on guns would be, at a minimum, political suicide.

Look, it’s right to be suspicious of all politicians, including Donald Trump. After all, we conservatives have been betrayed by our alleged leaders so often that Felonia Milhous von Pantsuits feels sorry for us over how often we’ve been cheated on by GOP pols cavorting with the Dems.

For years, our so-called champions rolled-over, gave-in and backstabbed us so consistently that, in deep desperation, we picked a New York reality TV star as the last, best hope for conservatism. And he’s delivered – most of those cruise-shilling hacks who lied to us for so long are either out of office, pretending to conform for fear of our vengeance, or are writing for whatever unread cheesy blog replaced the Weekly Standard.

Trump has always come through in the end, but on the way, his unique tactics can make us nervous. We worried that Trump was going to let them pull the amnesty wool over his eyes to get some kind of deal. That did not happen. People fretted that he would give away the farm to the pudgy Korean dictator. Trump has not. Trump’s style is to talk in a conciliatory manner and to speak nicely of his opponents during negotiations, but not to take a crummy deal.

The same is likely true now on guns. Trump is talking in a conciliatory way as a prelude to negotiations. But Trump has not said he would embrace a ban on so-called “assault weapons” – he understands that if he does so he might as well call a moving van. Nor did Cocaine Mitch – the Murder Turtle (his enemies bestow the greatest nicknames upon him) only observed that it would be “front and center” in the debate because that’s where the Democrats seeking to disarm us would put it. McConnell knows a sellout on guns makes him the minority leader; he’s not going to let those socialist creeps take our AR-15s.

Trump did mention improved background checks, and frankly, there is room for improvement. How many times have government incompetence let some leftist freak* who should have been barred by a conviction or mental instability buy a gun? Way too many. As for “red flag” laws, the idea of a process where a guy announcing his intent to go on a murder spree to, say, promote the Bernie Sanders agenda by attacking a baseball field full of Republicans,* is sensible in theory. But in practice, the due process considerations are essential – I mean serious due process guarantees, with teeth. Leftists have already promised to abuse these laws, so massive penalties for misuse of them to persecute political opponents must be part of the mix.

But any move toward the Democrat position that our basic gun rights are negotiable or that we can be disarmed in any way would be utterly unacceptable. And Trump knows this – he knows what we will and will not tolerate. He’s certainly not like the Fredocon GOP goofs who get MSNBC hits because they are eager to submit to the media’s narrative. He’s too smart to do exactly what the Democrats are using this furor to try to trick him into doing – create a rift between him and his base so one of the 272 pinko morons running for the Donkey nom can sneak in and win an election that right now is Trump’s to lose.

Trump does not want to lose.

And Trump knows he had better not lose because of his fate and the fate of his family are at stake. You have heard the leftists – they want him and his family jailed, literally. They’ve said it, again and again, and when people say they wish you harm you should probably believe them. Do you think, in light of the RUSSIA TREASON COLLUSION EMOULUMENTS nonsense we’ve endured for three years, that something like the lack of any actual crimes would stop them from prosecuting Donald, Don. Jr., Ivanka, Eric and probably Barron if they had control of the DoJ once again? My pet unicorn Chet does, but no one else buys that jive. And remember what New York tried to do to Paul Manafort. If he wasn’t dead, you could ask Jeffrey Epstein how being in prison while also being a threat to the liberal elite turns out.

Trump needs to stand firm in the face of a bogus panic initiated by the acts of leftist monsters.* And he almost certainly will. He’s literally got everything to lose.

At the request of the left, the stupid liberal new rule that assigns the blame for the acts of criminal freaks to opposing politicians based upon a cursory and bad faith comparison of their politics is, unfortunately, in effect. I prefer the old rule, where a criminal is responsible for his own actions, but liberals feel differently and so the new rules are the new rules and the liberals can choke on them.

For a look at what happens if Trump allows himself to get rolled and loses the election by sucking up to his enemies, check out my action-packed yet hilarious novels about the United States’ split into red and blue countries, People’s RepublicIndian Country and Wildfire. These liberal-infuriating books have been called “Appalling” and have earned the hatred of leftists geebos and their vinyl-clad fake con minions who sank the Weekly Standard. There is no better blurb!

Books By Kurt Schlichter

Elizabeth Warren: Nuke the Filibuster To Pass Gun Control

H/T Bearing Arms.

Princess Fauxahontis is on the warpath against the Second Amendment.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren says she has a plan to reduce gun-related deaths by 80% in the United States, but in order to pass it, she wants to nuke the filibuster rule that, in essence, requires bills have the votes of 60 Senators. With the filibuster gone, a simple majority of 51 could pass any law they wanted, and Elizabeth Warren wants a LOT of new gun control laws.

We’ve previously pointed out here that gun licensing reduces gun ownership, and the more bureaucracy you have to navigate to exercise your constitutional rights, the fewer Americans will bother. We’ve also noted that “universal background checks” are unenforceable without gun registration as well.

Warren wants to raise the taxes on guns and ammunition, because making it too expensive for people to exercise a constitutional right will also reduce legal gun ownership. Gun rationing (limiting the purchase of a firearm to one per month) will impact law-abiding citizens far more than it will impact criminals, most of whom get their firearms from family or friends, through theft, or on the black market. And raising the age to purchase a firearm to 21 would prevent many young adults from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

But that’s not all, folks.

First off, the Clinton Gun Ban wasn’t effective. Even the Justice Department acknowledged this back in 2004 when the first AWB was sunsetting. Now, Warren wants to require existing owner to register their semi-automatic rifles under the NFA, pay a $200 fee per firearm to continue to own them, or turn them in for some unknown amount of cash. If not, you’ll face “penalties”?  What kind of penalty? Warren doesn’t say. Weird how that little detail escaped her, isn’t it?

Next up, a ban on magazines beyond a certain size (again, Warren doesn’t say what her magic number would be), suppressors, and anything else she thinks makes guns “more dangerous”.

And we’re not done yet.

“Red Flag” laws come with their own set of problems, including due process concerns, a lack of mental health treatment, and a focus on the gun instead of the person deemed to be “dangerous”. Expanding the number of prohibited persons by making misdemeanor offenses a disqualifying factor to own firearms is also dangerous in my opinion. Felons are already prohibited from owning a firearm or even a round of ammunition, so what Warren is talking about here is lowering the bar to prohibit gun possession. Her idea to make anyone who’s the subject of a restraining order a prohibited person for life is absolutely absurd. It’s common, for instance, during divorce proceedings for both sides to file restraining orders against their soon-to-be ex. And as someone who’s had a stalker in the past, the bigger issue is actually prosecuting them in the first place.

Warren’s push to declare college and university campuses “gun free zones” would gut campus carry in states like Colorado, Texas, Utah, and others that allow for lawful gun owners and those who possess a concealed carry license to carry while on campus.

And she’s still not done yet.

Basically, let’s make it so legally dangerous to own a gun store or a firearms manufacturing business that companies will either be sued out of existence when a criminal uses a firearm in a crime. No gun stores and no gun companies means a lot fewer legal gun owners, right?

It’s no wonder Warren says she’ll need to nuke the filibuster to get these bills through Congress. But Warren says as president, she won’t just rely on Congress. She’ll abuse executive actions as well.

Essentially, Warren has adopted virtually every gun control proposal that’s been introduced in the past decade with the exception of “microstamping” and “smart gun” laws, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see her amend her gun control plan to include those ideas as well.

You can’t help but notice that Warren’s plans (with the exception of her call for a federal gun trafficking statute) are all directed at legal gun owners, legal gun sellers, and legal gun manufacturers. There’s nothing in her plan about helping communities target the most violent offenders, or reducing the number of plea bargains offered to individuals who use firearms in the commission of a violent crime. It’s clear that Elizabeth Warren believes, as so many anti-gun politicians do, that the way to address violent crime is to keep as many Americans as possible away from their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

If Psychologists Can’t Peg Dangerous People, How Will Red Flag Laws Help?

H/T Bearing Arms.

I want any politician that favors red flag laws to answer this question.

Extreme Risk Protective Orders, otherwise known Red Flag orders, are premised on the idea that someone will see alarming behavior, notify the authorities, and the person’s guns will be taken away so they can’t commit a mass shooting. The idea comes because we examine mass shootings with the benefit of hindsight and look at these killers and think, “How did someone not notice all of this?” I include myself in that. I said as much about the Parkland killer, for example.

However, it’s not that simple. Leaving aside the Second Amendment and due process issues with red flag laws, both of which have been written about here at Bearing Arms extensively, there’s also the fact that red flags just won’t work.

Over at Reason, they pointed out some important points about how red flag laws aren’t going to do what some think they will. The first is perhaps the most important point, though:

Writing in The New York Times, psychiatrist Richard Friedman notes that “experienced psychiatrists fare no better than a roll of the dice at predicting violence.” He therefore thinks it is unrealistic to rely on the mental health system to identify future mass shooters and stop them before they kill anyone, as Donald Trump has suggested. Yet Friedman argues that “more effective policies might involve gun control, including enhancing background checks and expanding so-called extreme risk protection orders, which would allow law enforcement to temporarily remove firearms from people deemed potentially violent.”

If experienced psychiatrists aren’t any better at predicting violence from someone, then how in the hell are co-workers or family members going to predict it?

Let’s also remember that while one person working at the municipal building in Virginia Beach was worried about a mass shooting on the day it happened, she believed it was going to be another individual committing the shooting. In other words, a co-worker misidentified the shooter. Had she been carrying, as her husband urged, she could have stopped the shooting that occurred rather than the one she feared. However had she used a red flag law instead, not only would an innocent man be disarmed, but the shooting still would have happened.

Then there are those times when the law is used. What do those look like?

There is no solid evidence that red flag laws, the oldest of which (Connecticut’s) was enacted two decades ago, prevent homicides. But there are anecdotes. The New York Times describes the case of a San Diego car dealership employee who “told his co-workers that he would shoot up the place if he were fired” and who “praised the man who had carried out the Las Vegas massacre.” There was also a man who “told his fiancée he wanted to shoot her in the head” and “threatened to kill her ex-boyfriend.” Another man “told co-workers that he wished his supervisors would die, and that he could invite them hunting so it would look like an accident.”

San Diego’s city attorney, Mara Elliott, obtained gun confiscation orders against all three of those men under California’s red flag law. It is hard to tell from the sketches in the Times article whether the men’s threats (especially that last one) were in earnest, and it is impossible to say whether any of these men would have followed through on them. But it certainly makes sense to be concerned about people who own guns and have threatened to use them. “Of the first 100 restraining orders [Elliott] obtained,” the Times says, “one in seven involved people who had threatened violence at a workplace or a school, and about 10 percent involved people who made threats on social media.”

That accounts for less than a quarter of the orders. What about the rest? Based on the track record of red flag laws in Connecticut and Indiana (the first two states to enact such statutes), I’d guess most or all of them involved people who were deemed suicidal. Were they actually suicidal?

Even the most generous estimates, based on a method that may not be reliable, suggest that 90 to 95 percent of people who lose their Second Amendment rights under red flag laws because they are deemed a threat to themselves would not actually have committed suicide. Whether or not you think those odds are good enough to suspend someone’s constitutional rights for a year or more (and whether or not you think the government should be in the business of stopping people from killing themselves), it is notable that red flag laws are sold as a way to prevent murder but are mainly used to prevent suicide.

In other words, not only are mass shooters not generally disarmed by these laws, but neither are suicidal people.

The problem with red flag laws regarding suicide is that it may dissuade some, particularly veterans, from talking about being depressed. That can actually cause suicide as there is no outside vent for their feelings, which can cause even worse problems. They begin to feel like people would be better off without them since no one knows to tell them otherwise.

The post continues:

When you combine the focus on suicide with the dubious evidence and vague standards for gun confiscation orders, it seems clear that the vast majority of people subject to these orders do not actually pose a threat to others. The other side of the coin is that red flag laws do not necessarily identify people who are in fact bent on violence. Connecticut’s red flag law did not prevent the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, even though the perpetrator was conspicuously troubled and had contact with the mental health system. It is unclear that even last year’s attack at a high school in Parkland, Florida, which prompted the recent spate of red flag laws, would have been prevented by the availability of gun confiscation orders.

Further, Thousand Oaks happened despite California’s strict gun control policies and a red flag law on the books. It also failed to stop the Gilroy shooting as well.

Some of the most recent mass shootings happened in states with red flag laws, after all.

The problem, however, is that proponents of the laws tout the number of times the law is used as proof it works. They don’t care about false positives. After all, those just make them look even better. Who cares about what ruined lives they leave in their wake?

If psychiatrists can’t figure out how people become violent and if those closest to depressed people are unable to predict suicide, then just what the hell are these laws going to accomplish?


Joe Biden: Jokes And Quotes

H/T Clash Daily.

Slow Joe The Gaff Machine Biden is the gift that keeps on giving.

“If we were in high school, I’d take him (President Trump) behind the gym and beat the hell out of him,” Gropin’ Joe Biden.

“Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun!” Joe Biden

“You’ve all seen over the last eight years what President Obama means to this country. He is the embodiment of honor, resolve, and character – one of the finest presidents we have ever had.” Joe Biden

Joe Biden wanted to punch President Trump but he couldn’t get his fist out of his… mouth.

Joe Biden has been wrong about every major foreign policy decision in the last 40 years, but Trump’s a bum?!

If Joe Biden becomes President, Obama will have his hand up Joe’s shirt, working his mouth.

Joe Biden claims to be a common man, the descendant of working stiffs. He learned well that hard work was for suckers, so he’s been in public office for 50 years.

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. is a prophet. He once talked about FDR appearing on television before television was invented.

Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. is a fount of wisdom. He once said: “No one ever doubts that I mean what I say. The problem is I sometimes say all that I mean.”

“Foreign policy is like human relations, only people know less about each other.” The wit of Joe Biden

Joe Biden calls corruption a cancer, the essence of tyranny, serving as Vice President to the most corrupt President in American history. Joe would know!

“Most liberals think of civil liberties as their Achilles heel. It isn’t.” Joe Biden demonstrating the importance of clarity

“In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.” Joe Biden

“I know why we’re strong. I know why we have held together; I know why we are united: it’s because there’s always been a growing middle class.” Master fact blaster Joe Biden

“Just talk to me as a father – not what the Constitution says. What do you feel?” Poppa Joe Biden, defender of the rule of law

“You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt? The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you.” Joe Biden, master economist

“ . . . on complicated issues, I’m going to give them straight answers. And if it takes more than three minutes, I’m going to do it.” Joe Biden

“My recollection is – and I’d have to confirm this – but I don’t recall paying any money to go to law school.” Joe Biden

“I used to say to my late wife, ‘I have great faith in the American people.’” Joe Biden (No more?)

“Reality has a way of intruding.” Joe Biden

“You never make fun of anybody with a club foot or a withered arm, but it’s open season on anybody who stutters.” Yo Joe Biden!

“I don’t say very much I don’t really think through. I know that sounds inconsistent with Joe Biden.”

“Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be Vice President of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend.” Joe Biden, team player

“People everywhere in the world are hungry for economic opportunity. And it’s about a lot more than being able to make money.” Joe Biden

“There’s only one person in this race who will be there, who’s always been there for you, and that’s Hillary Clinton’s life story.” Joe Biden

US Border Patrol Comes Under Cartel Gunfire On Rio Grande

H/T Western Journal.

When fired up these border agents should be able to return fire.

United States Border Patrol agents came under fire from members of Mexican cartels Friday in Texas while making rounds on the Rio Grande.

The agents were conducting a morning patrol by boat near Fronton, Texas, according to a news release from U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, when they reported shots fired from the Mexican riverbank.

CBP reported multiple shooters, armed with automatic rifles, fired more than 50 rounds at the watercraft, making contact several times.



A Marine Unit patrolling near Fronton, TX reported they were fired upon from the Mexican riverbank. Agents saw 4 subjects who shot over 50 rounds at them. No one on board was injured, but the boat was hit. The incident is under investigation. http://bit.ly/2OMpbsB 

View image on Twitter
393 people are talking about this

The agents were, however, unharmed in the attack.

“Agents saw four subjects with automatic weapons who shot over 50 rounds at them,” CBP wrote. “The boat was hit several times but no one on board was injured.”

“This incident is currently under investigation,” the department added.

According to Breitbart News, the U.S. Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Sector Office immediately reported the ambush to Mexican authorities.

A “Tamaulipas law enforcement source” told the outlet that authorities were unable to find the cartel gunman who carried out the attack, but “did find ‘signs of activity.’”

The area has been a hotbed for cartel activity in recent months, acting as a smuggling lane for the organizations to bring drugs and human cargo across the Mexican-American border. This has apparently led to an uptick in violence, however, resulting in several bloody turf wars.

Cartel gunman injured two civilians while engaged in a firefight that lasted more than three hours earlier this week in Camargo, Mexico, Breitbart reported.

And this is not the only example of escalating violence among the Mexican cartels this week.

Some 250 miles west of Mexico City, nearly 20 victims of cartel-related violence were found in several locations around Uruapan, Mexico, The Guardian reported Thursday.

Nine of the bodies — which were reportedly dismembered, bullet-ridden and in various states of undress — were found hanged from a bridge in the city for all to see.

In an interview with The Western Journal, Breitbart co-founder and former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon indicated the violent escalation is likely a result of the current administration’s heightened attempts to shore up the southern border in recent months.

As Advisory Board Chairman of We Build The Wall, Bannon currently oversees the building of a section of high-tech border wall in Sunland Park, New Mexico, and said the cartels are watching every day as sections of the wall go up, shaking their fists and growing more desperate.

“During that time, they had the complete spotters right there from the cartel. You still see that there every day. The cartels are quite angry about this,” Bannon told The Western Journal.

Bannon also argued that the deep logistical knowledge and outright depravity of the Mexican cartels is reason enough for anyone to want a wall along the Mexican-American border, stressing that anyone who believes these organizations are no more than common gangs “does not understand” the “sophisticated” enemy Border Patrol is stuck dealing with.

“These are very sophisticated paramilitary operations with very smart logistics. Very smart operation. Very smart marketing. These are very sophisticated. Anybody that thinks the Mexican cartels are not very sophisticated does not understand the enemy we have,” he said.

“There are sections up around northern Mexico — Juarez and sections around Juarez — that are much more dangerous than Afghanistan.”