The real reason behind the gun control change in Virginia

Thats kinda what I mean. For example, WA east of the cascades has been talking about joining Idaho or becoming a seperate state with eastern OR for years. And the talk gets a little louder every time Seattle rams through more prog BS with its population bulk.

 

Both ethnic and indoctrinated generations coming of age, will give the anti-American Left a permanent majority in national government within a decade or two.
Thus, we must begin a low key (at first) campaign, to persuade as many people as we can, including on the Left, of, first of all, the democratic principle of the right of
self-determination. Just starting the meme would be a great step forward.

For Leftists, it would probably be persuasive if this idea were tied to its possible exercise by non-white minorities in the US: the Kingdom of Hawai'i indepence movement, the Puerto Rican nationalist movement, the Republik of New Afrika, and any similar movements among Native Americans. And of course leftwing movements like the one in California.

It's a difficult idea to argue against in principle, especially for principled leftwingers. I've raised it among such people, and they usually concede the principle. What they really want to do is to argue over the details -- who gets the B52s? -- but first the principle needs to be established.

We can probably buy some time by 'Trumpizing' the Republican Party from the bottom up -- that is, by forcing it to be more attentive to the needs of ordinary working class people -- this might also increase its popularity among the racial groups which are powering the Democrats' take over of formerly-blue states.

 

A good idea.

If it fails, we still have secession.

 

One does not negotiate with cancer cells, nor try to sway them from doing what they do.

 

A cancer cell has no consciousness, and thus cannot be negotiated with, or persuaded.
Our poltiical opponents do. It is our job, assuming we cannot win enough of the broad middle to keep the US from going over the cliff eventually, to persuade them that it is in their own interests, to divide the country: because it is in their interests to allow this. It's also -- the "it" being the right of self-determination -- implicit in their formal ideology.

Getting rid of us, from their point of view, would be like cutting out a cancer, to use your analogy.

We have to be realistic. The US is on course to be, within another fifty years or so, another Mexico, another Brazil, another Venezuela. NOT a socialist country, although one with many of the formal trappings of socialism: a multitude of pro-labor laws on the books, which business owners will have to bribe their way out of. (In Venezuela, the government passed a law saying owners of businesses have to provide toilet paper in the bathrooms where their workers work. Fair enough, except there is no toilet paper available. So the government factory inspectors have to be bribed to overlook this fact.)

Americans have been the Top Dog in the world for the last 70 years. Even Americans who were not doing well, could take pride in their country. If this changes over the next few decades ... if China displaces us, if we become isolated from other democracies -- which Chinese diplomacy is trying to do -- if we suffer a significant military humiliation that rubs in our second-class status -- the loyalty of the left-outs in America will evaporate.

Better to have separated before that happens.

 

Thus making the analogy far more appropriate and accurate than may would wish to admit it being. Those who possess loyalty to a particular political ideology, an ideology their entire family has been raised with, can never be changed.

 

Excellent post, by the way.
But it does no good to cut off body parts when the cancer is metastasizing throughout the entire body.

Many places that used to be former Conservative bastions only 30 years are now in the process of changing. The state of Texas, for example is closer to the tipping point than many people realize, all the major big cities in that state have pretty much been taken over (by ex-Californians and the offspring of illegal immigrants, to add a little bit more specificity).
I think you need to do a better job of identifying why the problem is arising, and diagnosing what's wrong and what caused it, not just the symptoms.
Otherwise, you can break off areas, but many of those areas will just inevitably & eventually become like the same areas they broke off from, in a matter of decades.

 

What is necessary is not cutting off parts of the united states, but rather than individuals who provoke such changes. The problem is the people, so the people must be treated accordingly.

The united states needs to embrace viewpoint discrimination, and treat certain viewpoints as being so dangerous to the well being of the nation that they are akin to treason.

 

Well, I'm not sure about that. But maybe there could be policies put in place to try to address what's been happening.
Basically, mass immigration from foreign countries has overcrowded the city areas in Blue states, where everyone used to live, and displaced former Blue population into the major cities in outlying Red states. So if there's a way to address that.

The ideological shift is mainly caused by trends in movement of people, not intellectual arguments or changing opinions.

One other big factor is increasing urban and suburbanization, due to the population increases jamming in around desirable cities. As we know, when people crowd together, they inevitably tend to have less individual rights.

 

The nature of the problem is obvious. But the solution has to be realistic. If we could run the clock back to 1960, we could do several things that might change the future (in which we now live). The first thing would be to rapidly enforce civil rights for all in the American South. The second, would be to avoid plunging into Vietnam. (And as long as we're playing time machine, go back to 1945, accept the overtures of Mao and Ho, and turn them into Asian Titos. We had rather close connections with some really horrible rightwing regimes in the following years, so our virginal innocence wouldn't have been tarnished by similar connections to leftwing regimes, even communist ones. In fact, we embraced Tito almost immediately.) Doing these things might have prevented the deep alienation of the children of our cultural elite in the 1960s, the ones who went on to staff our educational institutions.

Then, having forced the South to treat all its citizens alike, we wouldn't have been wracked with the guilt that led to the 1965 immigration change.

But that's all alternative history.

Right now, we've got to do our level best to expand the base of the Republican Party, that flawed vehicle. Mr Trump, no matter what you think of him, and I don't think much of him at all, has shown it can be done. We've got to try to expand it even further into the white workingclass; and also into the Black and especially the Hispanic community. We've got to seek out the aspirational, the family-oriented, the traditional, the patriotic.

Don't think this is an impossible task. Here are some people running for the Republican nomination for various positions in New Mexico:

https://www.elisafornm.com/
http://www.garciaholmes4congress.com/
https://www.karenbedonie.com/ <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Especially Recommended!!!!!!!!!

Some elected Republicans in New Mexico
https://www.nmlegis.gov/Members/Legislator?SponCode=HMONR

Names of some Republicans running for seats in the New Mexico legislature:

Rodney D Montoya
Karen Vanessa Chavez
Kelly K Fajardo
Alonzo Baldonado
Dinah Glenda Vargas
Stella A Padilla
Adrian Anthony Trujillo, Sr
Audrey D Mendonca-Trujillo

Oh yes ... can't leave out this fellow, over the line in Arizona: https://quangforarizona.com/

The real problem, in my opinion, is not so much immigration, it's the capture of the 'cultural apparatus' by the anti-American crowd, who
institute policies which work against assimilation. Many immigrants in the past became more American than the Americans. Now, they're
taught to despise America.

So we may eventually have to break up. If this is going to happen, there is a logical step for conservatives to take, but it's so radical that no one will do it now: it's to work out the boundaries of a reliably 'Red America' in the future, and begin to concentrate there. But home and job are very strong attractors. A few libertarians started to move to New Hampshire a few years ago [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project ], in response to a campaign to concentrate Libertarians into that state, but it was not significant. People will only up and leave under strong compulsion. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer ].

The logical place to go is the inner Northwest [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Redoubt ]: unfortunately, some very unpleasant people will have beaten us to the best places -- [ https://crosscut.com/2018/02/why-nazis-are-back-and-attracted-northwest ] (There's a side story here with a lesson for impulsive people: [ https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-may-24-mn-2092-story.html ] Can't say the outcome breaks my heart, but I suspect if the tables had been turned, and a bunch of AntiFa 'defending' their commune had done the same to a conservative in a 'backfiring' (very clever of the SPLC!) car, the outcome would have been very different. We have not yet achieved the true rule of law.

 

VIRGINIA JUDGE HALTS NORTHAM’S ORDER TO CLOSE INDOOR GUN RANGE.

A circuit court judge in Lynchburg, Virginia has overturned a portion of Gov. "Blackface" Northam’s executive order that declared indoor gun ranges “places of amusement” that are non-essential and must shut down during his state of emergency, at least at it applies to the Lynchburg range that brought the lawsuit. Judge F. Patrick Yeatts declared in an order on Monday that Northam’s actions are likely to have exceeded his constitutional authority, and declared that the portion of the governor’s executive order on essential businesses that deals with indoor ranges not be enforced against SafeSide Lynchburg while the litigation continues.

Yeatts noted that the Virginia constitution declares that “the body of the people, trained to arms is the proper, natural safe defense of a free state.” Since that is the case, clearly the right to bear arms includes the right to train with them. Since gun ranges provide a place where that training can take place, they are protected under the right to keep and bear arms.

Virginia law prohibits the governor from taking any action, even in a state of emergency, that interferes with the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Nice to see a snippet of good news for a change.

 

While we're on good news, here's a video that should cheer everyone up:

https://www.prageru.com/video/americanos-anna-paulina-luna/

 

Well, the virus has actually reduced death in Chicago.

 

One thing the liberal movement into other states cannot stand is freedom.

 

Trumpism is like a cancer, killing the Republican party

take the guns first, due process 2nd

 

They ruined their states to the point they have to flee and ruin other states.

They never realize they are the problem

 

That isn't what he said, but who cares. Right?

 

Everything the left has said about Donald Trump isn't what he said.

I can't believe some people believe this crap with no rational support for it.

 

what did he say then, give the quote you think he said

“Take the guns first, go through due process second” is what Trump said, those actual words came out of his mouth, yes, they did

 

I can't believe some people don't believe Trump said the things he obviously said

 

communist activists and other collectivist authoritarians-such as the Democrat party-hate the thought of armed obstacles to their creeping crud of collectivization. Gun control has nothing to do with public safety-it is designed to allow more and more control over the citizenry

 

I love how gun banners and Democrat apologists try to excuse the fact that the Democrats are the party of victim disarmament by constantly whining about Trump. Trump's justices are probably the reason why we won't have massive gun bans in the near future. EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT ON THE US SUPREME COURT FOR 90 YEARS-has voted against Gun rights in every case that was in play

 

Well, he did say it. But, as usual, the context is missing. There's transcript and link to youtube video of him saying it with more context.
Did Trump Say 'We're Going to Take the Firearms First and Then Go to Court'? | Snopes.com

Pence: Well, the category you spoke about Mr. President -- the gun violence restraining orders as they're called -- California actually has a version of this, and I think you ... in your meeting with governors earlier this week, individually and as a group we spoke about the state's taking steps. But the focus is to literally give families and give local law enforcement additional tools if an individual is reported to be a potential danger to themselves or others. Allow due process so that no one's rights are trampled, but [allow] the ability to go to court, obtain an order, and then collect not only the firearms, but any weapons in the possession ...

Trump: We're going to take the firearms first and then go to court, because that's another system. Because a lot of times by the time you go to court ... it takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man's case that just took place in Florida; he had a lot of fires [and] they saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time, so you could do exactly what you're saying but take the guns first, go through due process second.

Of course, the context of Trump talking about a single individual that LE had been watching for his alarming activity is important and almost never included by people that quote this. Clearly, he's not talking about the general gun-owning public. Though he's naive to think that's not how red-flag laws would eventually be used (and are already used in places like CA). But still, it does demonstrate how weak Trump is on protecting gun rights. It SHOULD go to court FIRST before ANY civil liberties are infringed. Trump has a well-intentioned but decidedly unconstitutional position here.

 

95% of what people tell me he said he didn't really say.