Democrats reveal their true color, and it’s yellow

Democrats make capitol a defense free zone

You could not better illustrate the difference between the parties. Republicans trust their constituents they have been elected to serve, Democrats fear the people they seek to rule.

42 thoughts on “Democrats reveal their true color, and it’s yellow

  1. Oh Please, the GOP “trust their constituents“ ??

    The OTHER party are cowards(?) Weaker than weak….

    Maybe you should check with North Carolina, West Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas and Louisiana.

    Hotbeds of overbearing gun restriction laws…

    Liked by 2 people

    1. And yet when the GOP was in charge, they allowed CHP holders to carry and no one was harmed or threatened.

      Since the Rules Committee passed this without following their own rules, I wonder is they can be sued as individuals should someone come to harm due to being disarmed?


      1. Guns in the Capitol? Probably not a good idea.

        We don’t allow guns in the courthouses for pretty much the same reasons.

        Or in the White House. Or at Trump rallies.

        The political atmosphere is pretty volatile now.

        “Baby killers, open borders, cop haters, gay rights…”. The right extremists are not exactly exuding confidence of being calm and collected in a reasonable debate. At least keep the arms outside of the Capitol.

        Liked by 4 people

        1. We don’t allow guns in court rooms because their are dangerous criminals there who might take them from their lawful owners and do harm.

          I guess it is possible the same applies to Democrat legislators.


        1. Yes they do, and those consequences have consequences next election.

          Nonetheless, it is appropriate to point out the mindset of those in office who see themselves as rulers and not servants. Something to remember next election.


          1. ‘ those in office who see themselves as ruler’

            Does no one in the current Administration REALLY not come to mind??

            Take a moment…

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Yeah, I get that you’re not a Northam fan, but I was referring to another someone that “knows more” than all of our Intelligence, Military, and Science professionals combined.

            And HE is making decisions about ALL our lives on a much more impactful and damaging level.

            Liked by 2 people

  2. Keep driving those wedges Doc. Keep driving those wedges.

    Elections have consequences and the picture I saw on Pilotonline of Todd Gilbert’s face showed that the shoe is definitely on the other foot.

    Learn the word compromise; you’ll be be less strained.

    Republicans may trust their constituents, but that is because they have pulled the wool over their eyes for more years than I care to count. At least the Democrats are more honest about things. You may not like those things, but they don’t hide.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Actually, they did hide, they passed this measure without prior notice or presenting it to the public, before a committee without proportional representation.

      Cowards both in what they did and how they did it.


      1. Cowards don’t need guns. Only little boys with little … egos… do.

        And if that is the case the GOP had been the cowards for the past 20 plus years. Get off your holier than thou horse and get over the fact your side lost. In basically a landslide.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Compromise on rights is poor policy.

      We’ve been compromising since 1967 and every compromise has been the starting point for new demands within a year. Perhaps it is your side that needs to learn the meaning of compromise.


      1. Dig dig dig. The divide grows wider and you are holding the shovel.

        And recognizing rights only suite you when it is your rights that may be at issue. You don’t give crap one about anyone else’s unless they agree with you 100%

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Well,on net they obviously do, at least for non-criminals. Murder, for non-criminals is very rare, most murders are between criminals. When you compare the successful self defenses with guns to homicides of non-criminals, guns save nearly 100 for each one lost.(Remember that successful self defense does not necessarily mean a bad guy is shot. Driven off or deterred is just as good.


          2. @Tabor

            Your made up statistics are not convincing. Guns are a necessary condition for gun deaths. If we were to follow the model of other civilized countries and strictly limit guns to those suitable for hunting we would save many thousands of lives every year. Yeah, I know people would still commit suicide, but people with a gun in the house are 5 times as likely to die of suicide than those without.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. @Murphy

            Guns are necessary for gun deaths? OK, people are also necessary for gun deaths. So what?

            What you ignore is that MY GUNS will not cause gun deaths unless it is to prevent other deaths, so MY GUNS are at worst neutral and may save many more under some circumstances.


        1. @ Murphy

          Made up statistics?

          There are about 12,000 homicides using firearms each year, at least 8000 of which are between criminals.

          When the CDC studied defensive gun use, they found a wide range of estimates up to 3 million successful defensive gun uses per year but even at their lowest estimate of 108,000 per year, that’s still more than 8 times as many saves as losses, and if you exclude criminal on criminal homicides, you get 27 times as many.

          There is nothing made up about the adverse consequences of disarming law abiding people and leaving arms only in the hands of criminals.


          1. @Tabor

            So guns DO save lives. I figured. Odd that we are the most heavily armed advanced nation on earth and still have BY FAR the highest rate of gun deaths. Seems incongruous but it may be that all those successful defenses and deterrents are with respect to people – wait for it – with guns.

            At least 8,000 of the homicides annually are criminal against criminal. Really? How do you know? So, only 4,000 regular people are murdered each year. Not a problem then, right? ONLY 4,000.

            By the way, it remains a completely made up statistic since actual statistics are based on data and not on wild-ass guessing. Was that criminal deterred by a gun intending to kill? No reason to think so. Some lesser crime is far more likely. At any rate, the number now appears to be 8x instead of the 100x that we started with.

            Small steps.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Please read more carefully.

            It is 8X by the MOST CONSERVATIVE estimate of 108,000. That result was an outlier with the other studies conducted varying from 1.2 million to 5 million.

            And it is true that we can’t know if all those thwarted crimes would have resulted in fatalities, some might have only been rapes and robberies, hardly worth preventing at all, right?

            The point is that out in the counties, where often only a single deputy is on duty to patrol the entire rural county at night and response times run 20 to 30 minutes, people rely on their firearms AND THEIR DETERRENT effect for their safety. That same CDC study found that the possibility of encountering an armed citizen, and not the police, is the primary deterrent to crimes against persons and occupied dwellings.

            That’s where you make your biggest error, it is not just that those 108,000 to 5 million crimes will not be defended against, it is that if we disarm people there will be a lot more crimes attempted and they will succeed.

            By any rational measure, armed citizens keep us safe, and they keep you safe even if you aren’t armed.

            If you want to test that, post a “gun free home” sign in your front yard.


          3. @Tabor

            Trying to keep your claims somewhere near reality is almost a full time job. Your initial claim was that 100 lives were saved by guns for every life lost to a gun. (Yes, I read your claim carefully). Now we find zero basis of that claim and a very wide divergence of estimates for the deterrence of crimes (not murders) driven mainly by the assumption that . . . Gee, the existence of so many guns keeps criminals more passive than they otherwise would be. There is no evidence supporting that postulate.

            Your whole argument is based on another assumption – that if we strictly and effectively controlled the availability of guns as, say, Britain does then the criminal population would still be heavily armed and would then prey on helpless people willy nilly. No evidence for that assumption either. The opposite, in fact. From Politifact . . .

            “The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by an arm of the United Nations most recently in 2005, shows the difference between reported crime and all crimes committed by conducting polls that ask people if they’ve been victims of specific crimes. Polling data showed that England and Wales had 2,600 cases of robbery per 100,000 population and 8,100 cases of “assaults and threats” per 100,000. While those figures are even higher than the meme suggested, the U.S levels are also much higher — 1,100 cases of robbery and 8,300 cases of assaults and threats per 100,000. And the rate of sexual assault is actually about 50 percent higher in the United States than it is in England and Wales.”

            So, the overall violent crime rates are very similar between an armed and an unarmed country while the armed country has a homicide rate roughly three times that of the unarmed country.


            Liked by 1 person

          4. @Murphy

            Why compare with Britain when we have amuch closer choice. Mexico’s gun laws are even more prohibitive than Britain’s. There’s only one gun store in the whole country, and it takes a years for the paperwork to buy one, and even then, you cannot take it out of your home. Your choices are limited to a few fairly ineffective calibers, the rest are reserved for police and military.

            Yet the drug cartels can out gun the police with not only handheld machine guns but heavy machine guns and RPGs.

            Why? Because the cartels compete for control among themselves and they are in the smuggling business. They would have no problem supplying their sales force here in the US as well.


          5. @Tabor

            Why compare to the United States to Britain?

            1. Because they are – outside of Canada which also makes us look sick – closer to us culturally and ethnically than just about any other advanced country.

            2. Unlike Mexico, their laws are effectively enforced.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Still no registration, training or permitting required. None of which would take away the rights to own an arsenal by law abiding citizens. Sounds like plenty of compromise.

        Meanwhile, probably another 150 million guns have found their way into the streets.

        Liked by 3 people

          1. Wrong button.
            You seem to misunderstand the process. Proposed bills are debated, amendments offered and COMPROMISES found. At least that is how it should work. Nothing will get rammed down anyone’s throat.

            And you’re right. The GOP is adamant about not compromising. EVER!

            Liked by 2 people

          2. @Tabor
            “Guns are necessary for gun deaths? OK, people are also necessary for gun deaths. So what?”

            We cannot get rid of people. But we could get rid of guns and kill fewer people. See the difference?

            Your statements about “MY GUNS” are what every gun owner who is not yet insane says before they go insane or get depressed and kill themselves or kill a spouse out of rage or jealousy or a child finds an unsecured gun or their gun is stolen. And in your case, when “tyranny” is upon us and you use them as you have stated you intend to.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. Your constant hissy fits on this topic are good for a laugh. And as someone who is afraid to go out to a restaurant without carrying a pacifier – I mean a gun, you should refrain from calling others yellow.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Yet another cowardly act.

    The Democrats have scheduled several important gun bills for their judiciary committee hearing on Monday,only notifying Republicans at the close of day Friday, allowing them no time to organize expert witnesses for the hearing.

    After all, can’t have their “common sense” challenged with facts.

    Proper notice no longer required. If you can’t win fair, change the rules.


      1. Really? On what occasion did the GOP delay the organizational rules until after the session had begun? When did the GOP hold committee meetings before the opposing party members had their committee assignments?

        When the GOP allowed CHP holders to carry in the capitol buildings, a vote was held on the floor of both chambers, but the Dems gave that authority ti the Rules Committee alone, so their members would not have to face their voters with a recorded vote.

        The Democrats are turning Virginia into a banana republic.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. @Tabor

            Reason? You are entitled to you own values and priorities and free to use reason based on them to determine your preferences for public policy. But yours are not the only values and priorities and others are free to use reason based on theirs to determine their preferences.

            To put it another way, your claim that people who disagree with you have abandoned reason is one you ought to drop. It is not flattering. It draws attention to the solipsistic nature of your core values.

            Liked by 1 person

  5. Maybe they know something about one of their own.

    Used to have a co-worker who carried in his briefcase. Always had it out cleaning it.
    Had another one who used to reload her brass at her desk. First time I ever saw a T-shirt with “Kill ’em all and let God sort it out.”

    A lot of workplaces institute no-carry policies for good reason.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yeah, that worked so well at Building 2.

      If you have a co-worker who gives you reason to worry, you should be prepared to defend yourself, as if that co-worker decides to start killing people, he’s not going to be stopped by the threat of losing his job.

      A sign on the door won’t save you.


  6. So my question is will Va legislators follow their own new legislation? Since they are not searched to enter, my bets are NOT. This was nothing more than to placate the anti-self defense crowd. You know the ones who yell Hep me, Hep me when being robbed in their home or maimed on the street by thugs.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s