Jump to content

MrTriple

Members
  • Posts

    2,224
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    I have no idea where I am right now. Wherever it is, it smells funny
  • Interests
    The 2nd Amendment, music, motorsports, trucks, bacon, art, bacon, bacon, steak, bacon, bacon-wrapped bacon burgers, and bacon-wrapped bacon strips.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,577 profile views

MrTriple's Achievements

Member

Member (22/24)

  1. That occurred to me as well, but the problem with this strategy is when the State Supreme Court issues a ruling (like they did in Brown) that completely dodges the 2nd Amendment question in favor of some other dumb legal argument, which effectively renders that case worthless on appeal to the Supreme Court, who probably won't touch it unless it's a straightforward 2nd Amendment case that actually attempts to delve into the merits (even if the merits arguments themselves are faulty).
  2. C'mon folks, stop filing these cases in state court, you gotta file in federal court because you can't win a gun case before the State Supreme Court. Or did we learn nothing from the Brown case?
  3. The deficit is a big issue, but reducing spending requires a larger majority than the GOP got. Since they didn't, compromise becomes a necessity. The same goes for McCarthy: That's the best the GOP was gonna get given the circumstances, and waging a messy political battle to remove him hurts the GOP's prospects by making them stupid and unable to lead. In that light, many swing voters would rather have the Democrats, because at least they know how to get stuff done, no matter how harmful. Remember: Conservatives like Rush aren't the only voting block out there, even within the wider GOP caucus. A good leader can get all of those elements to work together, but engaging in stupid and childish fights like Gaetz, MTG, and Boebert do repeatedly doesn't do anything to advance the conservative cause or conservative policy goals. Fighting for the sake of it, without any plan for advancing long-term policy goals, is always and everywhere self-defeating and doomed to failure.
  4. Sure, Cook ranks Bost's district as +24R, so the chances of any Republican losing are very, very remote, and either candidate would likely win in the general. But we don't need more Gaetz' in the House, since disruptive individuals disrupting House business for the sake of disruption doesn't accomplish actual policy wins. The GOP desperately needs more Kemps, DeSantises, and Youngkins: People capable of competent conservative governance without the drama and showmanship. It's the House, not a clown show. Governance is serious business, and thus far we're not getting that.
  5. The problem with Matt Gaetz-style political gamesmanship is that it looks good to the base but doesn't achieve the sort of durable, lasting victories you need to actually enact change, while making the party look stupid to the swing voters that actually decide elections (the base never decides, the swing voters do). McCarthy's selection as a compromise Speaker was because the GOP failed to win enough seats in the midterms, and selecting unelectable candidates like Majewski and Kent didn't help in that regard. Sure, it felt good to vote for the MAGA candidate in the primary, but that's a useless gesture if they can't win in the general (swing voters matter). And then Gaetz stupidly sided against his own party (and with the opposition) to oust McCarthy which, when combined with McCarthy's pending retirement and that of other critical members of the caucus, reduces the GOP's effective lead in the House to a single seat. That doesn't bode well for 2024. And for what? So that Gaetz can claim he's "MAGA" and fought the "RINOs"? What does that really accomplish if they lose the House and Hakeem Jeffries becomes the next Speaker? It's nothing more than a massive self-own. That's why disruption for disruption's sake is always poor policy, and that's the problem with candidates like Bailey. The base loves a "fighter," but fighting without a long-term strategy to win over the persuadable middle and achieve lasting victories, especially when your actions result in self defeat, is dumb and counterproductive. It doesn't matter if the GOP base disagrees with that assessment, you're not a swing voter. And Bailey, like Gaetz, is big on fighting but lacks any sense of a long-term strategy.
  6. But what does it say about the state of the gun control movement that they're reduced to pushing this payment code nonsense again? It was only a few years ago that they were pushing the "assault weapon" issue on an almost daily basis, but fast forward to today and they've largely dropped the issue (with a exceptions now and again). Same for concealed carry, etc.
  7. Any updates on this? I really don't understand why Maag wants it moved back to state court. I'm hoping the federal judge tells him to pound sand. Which, ironically, would actually benefit Maag (and the rest of us, too).
  8. The problem is the State Supreme Court may do what they did in the Brown case, which was to completely ignore the Second Amendment question and find another reason to rule against the plaintiff, creating a body of bad case law that SCOTUS wouldn't be inclined to take. It would be better to stay in federal court.
  9. Yeah, there's no reason to move it back. As I've said before, any FOID case has to go through the federal courts, so I don't understand the strategy here.
  10. Whenever I see the gun control movement doing stupid stuff like this, it doesn't strike me as the sort of behavior you'd expect if they were truly winning the war on guns.
  11. The public interest argument is weaker now than in the past. Combined with the fact that most support for gun control is very soft and non-committal at best (and how insane the gun control movement has become) these "public interest" arguments are really starting to sound unhinged and out of touch.
  12. I don't either, but I would observe that gun control has been in decline across the nation for over several decades at this point, so whatever laws the blue states try passing are essentially doomed to get struck down by the courts in due time. While I could see them trying to shift the culture in a more anti-gun direction, the shift has to be organic or else it will fail, especially since people don't like cultural astroturfing. As for constitutional amendments, they'll never get the votes needed to make it happen, and the fact that they are even considering such action (Newsom) really doesn't reflect well on their prospects. They wouldn't pull this one out of their hat if they had better options available to them, since the idea of gutting the Second Amendment is politically toxic.
  13. But that's the thing: Bruen is a panacea, and in a way that Heller and McDonald were not. The whole point of text/history/tradition is to make it effectively impossible for many forms of gun control to survive long-term. But in the short term, you're unfortunately gonna have judges who either misapply Bruen or resist applying it properly. That's why you have SCOTUS and the appellate courts. And even they have various options for dealing with the problem that don't necessarily involve granting cert, such as GVR'ing cases (Bianchi for example). Also, look at how aggressive SCOTUS is being with 2A cases. They could've just denied cert in cases like Bianchi; they didn't. They could've ignored us completely on Bevis; they didn't. That didn't happen post-Heller, now it is happening, and it's having an effect. We got a hearing on Barnett in under 50 days; that's unheard of for civil cases. You can thank SCOTUS for that. And the average American normie isn't questioning the legitimacy of the Court; that's a media fiction. Sure, the idea has some traction on the left, but I can guarantee you that the more strategic thinkers understand the risk in doing so, and like ignoring the courts, this is nothing but political bluster. Once you start ignoring rulings you don't like, your enemies will begin ignoring rulings you do.
×
×
  • Create New...