Good thing Rep. Phillips grew up with a silver foot in his mouth. If he’d had to succeed on his merits, he’d be living in a homeless camp by the Quarry.
Example:
Uh,, no. You got 1 out of 4. Roosevelt – the president who set the stage for Wilson’s “progressive” orgy – probably qualifies.
Lincoln didn’t promote slavery, so morally-consistent modern Democrats would not know what to do with him.
Jefferson would be a Libertarian; he’d hang out with Justin Amash and Rand Paul.
Washington? Someone who was given the chance at unfettered power, even declaring himself king, and demurred in favor of a constitutional Republic? Not a chance. He’d be a proto-Reagan conservative.
And JFK would get kicked out of today’s DFL. HHH was all but kicked out of the DFL of the 1970s, for crying out loud.
CD3 – please do better.
Just like the “the parties switched” lie. Provably false.
https://newstalk1130.iheart.com/featured/common-sense-central/content/2018-05-01-the-myth-of-the-republican-democrat-switch/
In fact I just read something yesterday that 19 out of the 20 dhimmi senators who voted against the civil rights act retired as dhimmicraps.
Try again history challenged lefties (redundant)
Lincoln is a “maybe.”
He put 9 million people in the Confederacy under strict lockdown, suspended the Constitutional right of habeas corpus, and took private property from slaveowners without compensation. I don’t think he’s quite in Tim Walz’s class – as far as I know, Lincoln never banned religious worship or cancelled Christmas – but you’ve got to admit, he did have the makings of a vicious tyrant which would put him right at home in the modern Minnesota Democrat party.
Not sure where Lincoln stood on the issue of chopping off daughter’s breasts. The All-Trans-All-the-Time faction of the DFL might be a little much for a man given to quoting Scripture in his speeches. And he did permit slavery to continue in the North while freeing slaves only in the rebel states – the South – so the All-Black-All-the-Time faction might have a problem with that.
I rate him a definite “maybe.”
Historically, if I’m not mistaken, an annual county Democrat party banquet, at least down South, was termed The Jefferson-Jackson banquet or whatever… point being, until the recent takeover of the Democrat party by the communists, Jefferson was considered a Democrat by Democrats.
Dean doesn’t know anything, but Republicans don’t either.
Steve Sailer, who blogs at iSteve, has declared Minnesota to be the champion iSteve content generator. That’s a high bar, running against the NYT, CNN, California, and Joe Biden.
It would have been a better monument if they had left out Roosevelt and Jefferson. Washington, the great smith who forged a nation, and Lincoln, who saved the Union, looking west, towards the future.
I have a weird question that is off-topic but I’m going to ask it anyway and beg forgiveness later (this IS a Second Amendment blog, after all):
A friend applied for a Permit to Purchase so he could buy a used AR-15 style rifle from a private party. That’s a “semi-automatic military style assault weapon” under state law so he needs a permit to purchase. Dakota County issued him a permit but it says it’s a permit to buy from a FFL. His card looks like the photo in this article (the article is not relevant to the question, I’m linking for the photo only)
https://www.willmarradio.com/news/bca-says-gun-permit-applications-are-down-slight-rise-locally/article_ef37b944-1e19-11e8-ad80-cbae33f0f2cb.html
QUESTION: is this permit sufficient for him to purchase an “assault rifle” from a private party? Is there a different permit to buy from a private party?
Big, you don’t need no stinking permit for a private party transaction, unless MN had gone FULL Orwelian and private property and private transactions be damned!
At present, you don’t need the P2P to purchase from a private party. Even an AR. Now, it’s a good idea if you’re a seller to make sure that your buyer isn’t prohibited – so I’d prefer to sell to someone with a P2P or a P2C, if I had guns to sell
I’m not sure what the rule will be after the “Universal” background check law goes into effect. Since the entire intent was to harass the law-abiding, I’d suspect that they will not be considered legal; the point is to shovel people into FFLs to pay $50+ for the background check.
Okay, thanks!
Maybe he’ll be generous enough to take me to the shooting range with his new toy, since I lost all mine in that tragic canoe accident.
jdm, the dhimmis also think republicans are nazis, so yeah, go ahead with the dem opinion on that.
Oath Keepers Founder Sentenced to 18 Years for Seditious Conspiracy
https://www.wsj.com/articles/oath-keepers-founder-to-be-sentenced-for-seditious-conspiracy-in-jan-6-attack-ca63206a
All that education and still dumb as a brick.
18 years in federal prison… wow! His boss should get even more.
(My apologies to all bricks.)
If the Declaration of Independence asserts The People have a right to throw off their government to form a new one . . .
. . . and if the drafters of the Constitution asserted at the time that the Second Amendment was necessary to protect The People’s right to defend themselves from their own government or even to throw it off so they could form a new one . . .
. . . then how can laws against seditious conspiracy be constitutional? Can that circle be squared in an intellectually honest manner, or is this a case of “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”?
I need a brilliant legal scholar to explain it to me. Any takers?
The reason why they call people Nazis isn’t because that person is anything like a Nazi. A woman who is nervous about sharing restrooms and changing rooms with men is a normal woman, not a Nazi.
The reason they call people Nazis is because you are allowed to do anything to Nazis, and no matter how cruel or violent, it will be a virtuous act.