Conjoiners and Distractors
A “conjoiner” is a term that links two thoughts together. Normally we think of and as a conjunction in that it links at least two parts of a sentence. A far more common conjoiner, at least as far as Democrats are concerned, is the word “but.” “But” is a big word, because it allows liberal Democrats to offer their support for a proposition, but withhold it for something else. The first statement is designed to distract you from the true purpose of the statement: slamming what you believe in. Some examples:
- I support the Constitution, but not the Second Amendment.
- I don’t want to see is make bad deals, but I am for global markets.
- Obamacare isn’t working, but we can fix it.
- I believe in the peaceful transfer of power, but not as it applies to Donald Trump.
- I believe in the Second Amendment, but I think we can have “reasonable regulation” (meaning, of course, that they get to decide what is “reasonable” – not you).
Letting Them Off the Hook
All too often conservatives let Democrats off the hook with these statements because we want to encourage that part of the statement we agree with. Yes, we all love the peaceful transition of power, but no, you can’t have it both ways. It’s a binary situation: you either support it, or you don’t. You don’t get to only support it when Democrats win.
Similarly, the Constitution is the organic document and all the Amendments. You do not get to decide not to support the Eighth Amendment. You do not get to opt out of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, you do not get the right to opt out of the Second Amendment. In fact, if the Second Amendment was interpreted with the analytical rigor applied to the First Amendment, handgun permits would be unnecessary, and crime would be almost nonexistent.
Lizzy Warren
Take the latest kerfuffle with Lizzy Warren and her ridiculous reading of a letter sent 30 years ago (and her refusal to air a separate video showing the same author praising Senator Sessions that is more recent in time). Rather than take accountability for her desire to slander a senator, she simply says “I’m just reading a letter, I’m not personally attacking the senator.” That’s like saying “I didn’t shoot that guy, he jumped in front of my bullet.”
The rumor is that everyone, even Lizzy Warren, likes Jeff Sessions and thinks he’s a swell guy. So most of this is playacting for the base. It’s the old “I put up a fight in your name, now send me money.” What’s amazing is that it works.
The Dems knew there was no chance Sessions would not be confirmed. They knew there was no chance they’d stop any of Trump’s nominees. And they know that there is no chance they’ll stop Gorsuch. So the petty temper tantrums they’ve held in the Senate is simply more obstruction. The idea is that if they delay long enough, they’ll win. But the GOP will not let that happen, and the Dems know it. So rather than cooperate and look reasonable (and possibly attract votes in state elections) they fight a pitched battle like it was Masada and there is something to be gained in martyrdom.
Those of us who support the Second Amendment need to start calling out the behavior of Democrats who say they support the Second Amendment with one hand, and hold a gutting knife in the other. Until we do, this insanity will continue.
Lizzy Warren read a lie,
To damage Sessions on the fly
But before her speech was done,
Mitch McConnell struck her dumb
The Well Armed Attorney 