GOP Newcomer really gets it!

Senate hopeful who has never held public office really and truly understands what the modern Republican Party is all about. Personally, I sincerely hope he becomes the GOP nominee for this Missouri Senate seat.

26 thoughts on “GOP Newcomer really gets it!

  1. Oh, we get to choose the other party’s nominees now? I’m sure we can find a nice state in which to run Louis Farahkan.

    But the article does raise an interesting issue regarding brandishing a firearm.

    Missouri has a castle doctrine law, which allows the use of deadly force to protect property if that property is your home. Had the crowd rushed the house, the McCloskys would have been legally entitled to shoot them in the yard.

    Of course, the mob did not rush the house. But was that, in part, because the McCloskys were prepared to resist? I don’t know, and certainly the McCLoskys couldn’t know if the mob would leave them in peace or not.

    That’s where I have a problem with brandishing laws. You can’t deter people using a firearm from attacking you unless they know it’s there. Would it have been better for the McCloskys to confront the mob with their firearms concealed and then surprised them with gunfire if they advanced on the house?

    It appears to me that brandishing laws are counterproductive in that they make actually shooting people more likely by causing a failure of deterrence.

    I would suggest that ‘brandishing’ only be illegal if your threat is not justified. Pointing a gun at someone whose dog poops in your yard is certainly reckless, but warning off those who are threatening you should certainly be lawful.


    1. Thanks for confirming that my headline was about right . . . This fellow really does understand the modern Republican Party.

      “Oh, we get to choose the other party’s nominees now?”

      “Choose” was not the right word, but free to hope that the Democrats nominate Farahkan for Senate in the same way that I hope the Republicans nominate McClosky. The obvious difference is that there is not a chance in Hell for your hope to come to pass while mine is FAR from impossible given the thinking of remaining Republicans.

      Personally, I am not particularly interested in discussing brandishing laws. If it were up to me I would require that all gun carrying be open carry. You will be offended by my reason so I will not state it. Yeah, I know, before murdering me the pack of crazed killers at Olive Garden would know to take you out first.


      1. That seems oddly appropriate for you. It’s OK if the mass shooter kills you so long as he kills me first compared to me stopping him because I have the element of surprise.

        For you, dying begging on your knees is much better than going down fighting, or even prevailing.

        There are times when concealing a firearm is best, and other times when displaying it works better, we should be free to take the best choice in the circumstances.


    2. “ Had the crowd rushed the house, the McCloskys would have been legally entitled to shoot them in the yard.”

      Had a crowd rushed the house, the safest place would be behind a locked door and still be armed.

      No need to confront the crowd in their space. Suppose a half dozen protesters had been armed. Standing on the steps is not nearly as safe.

      Just because the law seems to indicate you can shoot threats as they approach your home and are actually on your property, that does not mean it is the smart thing to do.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Guns make any situation more dangerous. A jackass going out of his way to brandish them trying to provoke violence is stupid and criminal. In short, a textbook example of a Trump Republican.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Right wing gang infiltrators caused a lot of violence in the mostly peaceful demonstration here and around the world.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Right, White Supremacist infiltrators caused all the BLM riots.

            You’re jumping the shark.

            Qanon conspiracy theories are better based.


          3. I said “a lot” not “all”.

            But you read what you wanted too.

            The cult magic is working, just like Senator Graham said.

            Liked by 2 people

        1. The crowd was in the McCloskey neighborhood to protest in front of the mayor’s home nearby. They were not there to burn down houses and no houses were burned down. McCloskey choosing to brandish his gun at people exercising their rights of assembly, free speech and petitioning their government was stupid, dangerous and illegal.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. BLM protests in other locations had ended in arson and property destruction, why would the McClosky’s bet their lives this one would be different?


          2. …”why would the McClosky’s bet their lives this one would be different?”

            maybe because it was CLEAR to any one paying attention the protesters in question were headed to the Mayor’s house to PEACEFULLY protest.

            Assuming the worst is not always the right thing to do. But the Right does it all of the time.

            But the picture of the unlicensed firearm brandisher (Mrs. M.) is gonna make a GREAT campaign poster.


          3. Both they and you should give up racist stereotypical thinking where legitimate and righteous protesters are labelled as a “mob” that is likely to threaten their lives because they are mostly black. Of course, you are not about to do that, are you? No matter the facts. You seem to prefer to let Trump, Hannity, Carlson and Fox News tell you what to think?

            The arson you refer to is almost non-existant. The very few instances have not cost any lives nor fancy suburban homes. The “danger” was not real, but whatever danger there might have been was exacerbated by such gun-brandishing nonsense.


            A large proportion of the small amount of violence associated with BLM demonstrations was the work of Proud Boy types and, of course, the police.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. Close, but not quite. We both agree that he should be the GOP nominee but for very different reasons. You because you like him threatening black protesters with deadly violence and me because it would turn a possibly tight race into a cake walk for the Democratic candidate.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Um, as the local Jewish member, I take offense at the idea you are proposing. Yes, Farrakhan is a well-known Anti-Semite. But then again anyone who says things like “I want guys with yarmulkes counting my money” is just as bad. Worse when you consider his Bully (BS) pulpit.


          1. No it was not. Just like it was not a perfect set up when MTG grossly equated mask mandates on the House Floor (because certain members refuse to get vaccinated for whatever idiotic reason) to Nazi Germany.

            But I am SURE you will stand with her.

            Liked by 1 person

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 )

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