Quote of the Day
They see this as a fight about how Democrats can start winning again, which makes it not merely tactical but also existential: Party officials, strategists, and activists have spent a year sifting through the wreckage of an election that was calamitous to the Democrats’ governing plans as well as their very understanding of themselves. And there is no shepherd to guide them. The party’s erstwhile leader, Joe Biden, is widely scorned. Harris, its would-be standard-bearer, is busy promoting a backward-looking volume of grievances.
Elaine Godfrey
October 14, 2025
The Democrats’ Heterodoxy Problem
As a libertarian/constitutionalist I’m always somewhat amused by a political party changing its policies. And here we have members of the Democrat party considering all policies up for revision as long as they can regain power:
“Permissive” isn’t a word you would use to describe Democrats over the past few years. The party has suffered from a perception that it has become intolerant of different perspectives and preoccupied with identity politics and language policing. Litmus tests aren’t just applied to gun policy, but to policies on LGBT rights, immigration enforcement, policing, and other matters.
But losing power has a way of shaking up party canon. And there are some signs that Democrats are ready to move past this era of ideological purity and rigidity.
I have my differences with Republicans, but the Democrats have been the sworn enemy of the Second Amendment for 60 years. To see them struggle with relevance, self-doubt, and even identity, invokes a fair amount of schadenfreude.
Speaking of litmus tests, the Bulwark is not a good look. You are only allowed to have opinions that are anti-MAGA there. In fact, that is their only reason for existence except for shilling for Democrats.
Here is their publisher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Longwell
I chose the references I did to show the chaos, befuddlement, and death spiral the Democrats themselves recognize in their organization. Using a hostile outsider describing the failings of the Democrats would make the analysis suspect because of various biases, in particular, confirmation bias.
Suggest you look at the writing of Ruy Texiera. Definitely a Democrat rather than a turncoat Republican. A rather prominent Democrat at that. His judgment on the current Democrat Party, its direction and prospects are quite harsh. As a conservative populist, I would feel a lot safer if the Democrats weren’t completely insane.
60 years? Make that 150 years, at least. See “The racist roots of gun control” by Clayton Cramer. Or just remember the well documented reasons why the 14th Amendment was created — freedmen being disarmed in violation of their right was one of the expressly stated motivations, as Stephen Halbrook documented in “That every man be armed”.
JFK was a life member of the NRA. Prior to pushing for what became the Gun Control Act of 1968, gun control was only for black people and even then, I believe it was almost entirely in the south. Hence, it wasn’t they were opposed to the 2nd Amendment, per se, it was they were opposed to blacks exercising that right.
That is why I said 60 years.
The infamous Sullivan Act from 1911 was directed at Italians as was the 1934 GCA. The local ordinance
that was the pretext for the OK Corral was directed at white people, blacks being thin on the ground in Tombstone. The Jim Crow laws that were the first are a great example of the slippery slope and by the time of the GCA of 68. It included everyone.
JFK was an NRA member. And so was MLK, which is an interesting fact worth remembering.
MLK’s application for a CCW was denied under the May Issue law then in place in Alabama
I would say that the 60-year mark is also defensible in that the mid-60s seem to mark the beginning of *explicit* campaign pledges, largely by Democrats, to restrict gun ownership if elected. Gun control became an issue on which to campaign, rather than something that sometimes matched the consensus of office holders.
“Confusion to our enemies!” Was a common mealtime toast in the fairly recent past, nearly as common as “you’re excellent health!” Long may Providence keep them befuddled.
Communists trying to morph is nothing new. I doubt they can be successful. Their base is to far gone.
As the lord told us long ago.
” Pride goeth before the fall.”
The CIA, (Criminal Invasion Association) is another matter.
Between them and the elites controlling AI and banking.
Were in deep do-do.
Side note.
Joe, you might want to make your bunker an air-gapped and hard paper bound repository of how to actually build and grow things for future survivors.
Relearning the basics will be the key for our country/future generations to regrow into something better.
Commie-crats: “. . . if we can just find the right magic words, we will be able to fool the people again(as usual) .
This is the lefts only real agenda. Win. At any cost, by any means. Nothing else matters. And the costs to society are irrelevant. In fact to the left society is irrelevant. If they can’t rule then they will happily destroy society.