The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN! (Read 8795 times)

ButtNutt

The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« on: October 13, 2013, 11:25:10 AM »
Did you see these two snakes this weekend?  Traveling doing appearances at gunshows?  Going on about the "loophole"?  The mythical loophole?  Why is it that these gunshow operators tell them to leave and then call the cops if they don't?  I mean just to attract the media storm so that when the lefty media stick a mic in their faces they can all tell the country and the world the truth about the loophole myth and the 40% figure?  I really don't get why they don't do this.  A wasted platinum opportunity to tell the truth and embarrass the Giffords who are nothing more than snake hacks for the GunControl lobbies. 

one2boost

Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2013, 01:03:56 PM »
What is this so called "gun show loophole" they speak of?

Darmok and Jalad @Tanagra

Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2013, 01:09:59 PM »
What is this so called "gun show loophole" they speak of?

The propaganda line:  People are able to buy guns at all gun shows without a background check, which allows felons, mentally ill, and others ineligible to own guns to obtain them.

The "loophole" is actually a "private party" sale issue.  It's up to the seller to make sure the in-state buyer isn't disqualified for some reason THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF.  Without a background check, it's tough to check more than residency and age based on an ID check.

FFL dealers at shows do run background checks.  They are required to.  Private sellers are not required, so that's the only real loophole.  Anti's focus on gunshows, but their facts are way off.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 02:55:16 PM by Darmok and Jalad @Tanagra »
"... the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."
--Justice Louis D. Brandeis

one2boost

Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2013, 01:31:23 PM »
Thanks for confirming what I already know.  I thought I was missing out on something I could have been exploiting.

ButtNutt

The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2013, 08:08:16 PM »
The propaganda line:  People are able to buy guns at all gun shows without a background check, which allows felons, mentally ill, and others ineligible to own guns to obtain them.

The "loophole" is actually a "private party" sale issue.  It's up to the seller to make sure the in-state buyer isn't disqualified for some reason THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF.  Without a background check, it's tough to check more than residency and age based on an ID check.

FFL dealers at shows do run background checks.  They are required to.  Private sellers are not required, so that's the only real loophole.  Anti's focus on gunshows, but their facts are way off.
....you're missing the magnitude of the mythological loophole :
The myth is, that is constantly repeated, that 40% of gun sales at gun shows go without a background check.  this 40 percent figure comes from a 1997 report by the National Institute of Justice, a research agency within the Department of Justice, and was based on a telephone survey sample of just 251 people who acquired firearms in 1993 and 1994. This was years before the NICS system went into effect. Of the 251 participants, 35.7 percent said that they didn’t or “probably” didn’t obtain their gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Because the margin of error was +/– 6 percentage points, it was rounded up to 40 percent, although it could just as easily and legitimately have been rounded down below 30 percent.
In addition, if you subtract people who said they got their gun as a gift, inheritance, or prize, the number dropped from 35.7 percent to 26.4 percent. And, in terms of how many people actually buy firearms at gun shows, the data from this same survey indicated that in 1994, only 3.9 percent of firearms purchases were made at gun shows.

So, the 40% thing is  17 year old myth, about a lack of background checks at gun shows, based on 20 yr old data, from incredibly only 251 people via phone, which had nothing to do with gunshows, and most incredibly, was based on a survey that took place BEFORE THERE WAS A NICS SYSTEM IN PLACE!!!   Hence the "myth of the gun show loophole".  But the media, gun control lobby, and now these snakes the Giffords, all repeat the lies.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 10:54:36 PM by ButtNutt »

ButtNutt

The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2013, 08:09:13 PM »
Thanks for confirming what I already know.  I thought I was missing out on something I could have been exploiting.
.....nope, that's not it.....here's a repost of my reply above, so you really get it....
The myth is, that is constantly repeated, that 40% of gun sales at gun shows go without a background check.  this 40 percent figure comes from a 1997 report by the National Institute of Justice, a research agency within the Department of Justice, and was based on a telephone survey sample of just 251 people who acquired firearms in 1993 and 1994. This was years before the NICS system went into effect. Of the 251 participants, 35.7 percent said that they didn’t or “probably” didn’t obtain their gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Because the margin of error was +/– 6 percentage points, it was rounded up to 40 percent, although it could just as easily and legitimately have been rounded down below 30 percent.
In addition, if you subtract people who said they got their gun as a gift, inheritance, or prize, the number dropped from 35.7 percent to 26.4 percent. And, in terms of how many people actually buy firearms at gun shows, the data from this same survey indicated that in 1994, only 3.9 percent of firearms purchases were made at gun shows.

So, the 40% thing is  17 year old myth, about a lack of background checks at gun shows, based on 20 yr old data, from incredibly only 251 people via phone, which had nothing to do with gunshows, and most incredibly, was based on a survey that took place BEFORE THERE WAS A NICS SYSTEM IN PLACE!!!   Hence the "myth of the gun show loophole".  But the media, gun control lobby, and now these snakes the Giffords, all repeat the lies.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 10:54:59 PM by ButtNutt »

punaperson

Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2013, 08:11:36 AM »
Did you see these two snakes this weekend?  Traveling doing appearances at gunshows?  Going on about the "loophole"?  The mythical loophole?  Why is it that these gunshow operators tell them to leave and then call the cops if they don't?  I mean just to attract the media storm so that when the lefty media stick a mic in their faces they can all tell the country and the world the truth about the loophole myth and the 40% figure?  I really don't get why they don't do this.  A wasted platinum opportunity to tell the truth and embarrass the Giffords who are nothing more than snake hacks for the GunControl lobbies.

My guess as to why a gun show would allow these people entry to propagandize their false narrative is that when the Attorney General of your state shows up with them and asks to be allowed entry and media time, the people running the show, and probably any vendors that hold FFLs suspect that if they were to say "NO", that they'd likely be facing serious scrutiny from various government licensing and taxation agencies in the near future. I did read a couple of articles that mentioned that there were a few boos and hisses when the Giffords were introduced, but like I say, I'm guessing most people in that situation error on the side of caution when it comes to placing their livelihood in possible jeopardy. Bottom line: government intimidation. And given the documented IRS targeting of a certain spectrum of political advocacy groups, it's not paranoid to think that any "resistance" might result in reprisals.

ButtNutt

Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2013, 08:18:53 AM »

My guess as to why a gun show would allow these people entry to propagandize their false narrative is that when the Attorney General of your state shows up with them and asks to be allowed entry and media time, the people running the show, and probably any vendors that hold FFLs suspect that if they were to say "NO", that they'd likely be facing serious scrutiny from various government licensing and taxation agencies in the near future. I did read a couple of articles that mentioned that there were a few boos and hisses when the Giffords were introduced, but like I say, I'm guessing most people in that situation error on the side of caution when it comes to placing their livelihood in possible jeopardy. Bottom line: government intimidation. And given the documented IRS targeting of a certain spectrum of political advocacy groups, it's not paranoid to think that any "resistance" might result in reprisals.
....I hadn't thought of that, but it's an obvious possibility though.  But wouldn't it be beautiful to see them treated like shit?  I can't stand Kelly's freakish bird like features every time they slap him on tv with his little organ grinder monkey wife.  I can't stand these animals and I have no sympathy for her.

punaperson

Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2013, 08:42:32 AM »
....I hadn't thought of that, but it's an obvious possibility though.  But wouldn't it be beautiful to see them treated like shit?  I can't stand Kelly's freakish bird like features every time they slap him on tv with his little organ grinder monkey wife.  I can't stand these animals and I have no sympathy for her.
Again, I'd be guessing, but that guess is that well over 90% of the people (sellers and buyers) at any gun show would disagree with the Giffords' policies. It would be nice to see people there stand up to them in a decisive manner. I believe that a lot of people do "feel sorry" for her, as she has been rendered into a relatively low cognitive-capacity human. I'd like to see her alone in an interview and asked ten questions about the specific details of "her" "common sense gun safety"  proposals and see what she can say without help. I definitely get "a weird vibe" from her husband, and am puzzled by exactly what he is up to. I am a subscriber to their email alerts, so I can follow what they are doing, and it is clear that they have raised millions of dollars and fly on a private jet to these events. Not that there is anything wrong with that.  :wtf:

one2boost

Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2013, 09:46:23 PM »

ButtNutt

Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2013, 09:06:48 PM »

Again, I'd be guessing, but that guess is that well over 90% of the people (sellers and buyers) at any gun show would disagree with the Giffords' policies. It would be nice to see people there stand up to them in a decisive manner. I believe that a lot of people do "feel sorry" for her, as she has been rendered into a relatively low cognitive-capacity human. I'd like to see her alone in an interview and asked ten questions about the specific details of "her" "common sense gun safety"  proposals and see what she can say without help. I definitely get "a weird vibe" from her husband, and am puzzled by exactly what he is up to. I am a subscriber to their email alerts, so I can follow what they are doing, and it is clear that they have raised millions of dollars and fly on a private jet to these events. Not that there is anything wrong with that.  :wtf:
.....sitting down with her to hear her 'common sense' ideas....you were joking I imagine?  You know what that term means.  In other words, she and her husband are dems.  Which means - in this era of dems vs reps - they are progressives/libs/statists, whatever.  To be dems means they agreed with the gun control propaganda long before here shooting.  she having historically said that she was 'a supporter of 2a rights' was as honest as when schumer, Obama, boxer, Feinstein, et Alia have said the same. 
In a vacuum, saying I have no sympathy for her sounds uncomfortable, but ask people who have had a loved one, who spent years trying to get a carry permit, get raped and murdered - which of course would not have happened if she got a carry permit - and they'd tell you Giffords and any other politician who belongs to a political party who's main platform includes the anti 2a agenda, cloaked in friendly terms (like common sense...), deserves no sympathy.  at least Giffords is alive, will be cared for royally for the rest of her life by our taxes, and will go to sleep every night with her loving husbands warm body next to her instead of cold dirt. 
Point is of course, anyone who feels sorry for an anti 2a lib who gets shot and then goes on a crusade to FURTHER attack the 2a, needs to think of the real life effects of that agenda - as illustrated above.  If they did, I think the sympathy would quickly evaporate and be rapidly replaced by an epiphanic realization of a macabre irony.

ButtNutt

Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2013, 09:10:17 PM »


....yep.....there goes that bizarre freakish bird-like face.  Can you just imaging the violent visceral disgust they both must feel when they handle what represents the very object that maimed her, while trying to pretend they are fascinated gun enthusiasts like the rest of the show goers???  You ever think of that?

Darmok and Jalad @Tanagra

Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2013, 09:56:43 PM »
I personally have sympathy for her.  She was the victim of a random attack by a certified nut job.  The shooter SHOULD have been stopped before it ever happened, if you read all the background on the lunatic.

I also feel pity that she is being manipulated into a spokesperson and symbol for a liberal political agenda.  That agenda's resulting laws would have had zero effect on the events that culminated in her being shot. 

She is being used by the people she trusts to take care of her.  Propping her up in an emotional appeal to pass anti second amendment legislation is unforgivable.

These progressive Liberals have no morals.  They only have an agenda and the ingrained belief that the ends justify the means...
"... the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."
--Justice Louis D. Brandeis

punaperson

Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« Reply #13 on: October 16, 2013, 07:03:14 AM »
.....sitting down with her to hear her 'common sense' ideas....you were joking I imagine?  You know what that term means.  In other words, she and her husband are dems.  Which means - in this era of dems vs reps - they are progressives/libs/statists, whatever.  To be dems means they agreed with the gun control propaganda long before here shooting.  she having historically said that she was 'a supporter of 2a rights' was as honest as when schumer, Obama, boxer, Feinstein, et Alia have said the same. 
In a vacuum, saying I have no sympathy for her sounds uncomfortable, but ask people who have had a loved one, who spent years trying to get a carry permit, get raped and murdered - which of course would not have happened if she got a carry permit - and they'd tell you Giffords and any other politician who belongs to a political party who's main platform includes the anti 2a agenda, cloaked in friendly terms (like common sense...), deserves no sympathy.  at least Giffords is alive, will be cared for royally for the rest of her life by our taxes, and will go to sleep every night with her loving husbands warm body next to her instead of cold dirt. 
Point is of course, anyone who feels sorry for an anti 2a lib who gets shot and then goes on a crusade to FURTHER attack the 2a, needs to think of the real life effects of that agenda - as illustrated above.  If they did, I think the sympathy would quickly evaporate and be rapidly replaced by an epiphanic realization of a macabre irony.

Let me clarify a bit. I put "her" [ideas, thoughts, beliefs, policies] in quotes because Mark Kelly always says "Gabby and I" and "we", and I have doubts as to her cognitive capacity to actually be involved in formulating any of those ideas. That's why I'd like to see an interview of her where she is alone and must answer detailed questions about their organization's policies without the help or coaching of her husband (sample question: Please cite research or explain your reasoning in determining that 11 rounds constitutes a "high capacity" magazine. Why not 11 or 9 or 3?). It's possible she can think clearly, and could write lucid answers (though her writing arm is paralyzed), but she certainly doesn't have any speaking capacity beyond fairly primitive. As for the "common sense gun safety"  term, I put that in quotes because those of us supporting the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms know that phrase to be a euphemism for ending those rights. As a congressperson she voted for the national concealed carry reciprocity act, supported the NRA Eddie Eagle education program, and voted to end restrictions on handgun ownership in Washington, D.C., so she wasn't among the most rabid of gun grabbers in congress (though the rest of her voting on gun rights issue is very poor). No matter how she voted, or what she believed and believes, her injury and the injuries and deaths of the others in the same shooting incident are tragic, and Mr. Kelly's use of her to promote whatever it is he is promoting is very sad to me.

ButtNutt

Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« Reply #14 on: October 16, 2013, 11:43:27 AM »

Let me clarify a bit. I put "her" [ideas, thoughts, beliefs, policies] in quotes because Mark Kelly always says "Gabby and I" and "we", and I have doubts as to her cognitive capacity to actually be involved in formulating any of those ideas. That's why I'd like to see an interview of her where she is alone and must answer detailed questions about their organization's policies without the help or coaching of her husband (sample question: Please cite research or explain your reasoning in determining that 11 rounds constitutes a "high capacity" magazine. Why not 11 or 9 or 3?). It's possible she can think clearly, and could write lucid answers (though her writing arm is paralyzed), but she certainly doesn't have any speaking capacity beyond fairly primitive. As for the "common sense gun safety"  term, I put that in quotes because those of us supporting the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms know that phrase to be a euphemism for ending those rights. As a congressperson she voted for the national concealed carry reciprocity act, supported the NRA Eddie Eagle education program, and voted to end restrictions on handgun ownership in Washington, D.C., so she wasn't among the most rabid of gun grabbers in congress (though the rest of her voting on gun rights issue is very poor). No matter how she voted, or what she believed and believes, her injury and the injuries and deaths of the others in the same shooting incident are tragic, and Mr. Kelly's use of her to promote whatever it is he is promoting is very sad to me.
....I understood you, and the significance of the quotes. And I hear your list of seeming evidence - based on her voting history - that she indeed supported the 2a.
But here's a few reasons why why I say that voting history means nothing - and I mentioned this above:
1) she has been a lifelong member of a party, one of whose defining platform agendas is gun control. This is so significant to me I can't describe it!  Without humor, I equate it to someone who was a KKK member but asked for recognition from blacks cause he supported desegregation. Small acts of support can only be received as dubious when you are a member of a group who collectively does the opposite.
2) I'm sure you are aware of how it is a well known strategic technique for dems in gun loving states to vote pro 2a to ensure reelection and dem numbers in the congress - right?  I would laugh if it weren't so fake, the 'support' dems show for the 2a for political expediency!  You understand right?
3). Similarly, it is also a well known overall strategy to pick and choose when to be pro or anti 2a. For example, she voted pro as you cited, but also voted anti on numerous other occasions: the grotesque UN arms trade treaty, HiCap ban, assault weapons ban, etc.. So how can one possibly not question the sincerity of pro votes when there were an equal number of anti votes?  I don't know...this is so intensely significant to me.
To restress my sentiment, I'd say a legislator being a victim of gun violence, while a member of a party whose platform is legislating away the 2a, is as poetically judicial as a legislator who was a lifelong supporter of criminal rehab, work furloughs, understanding why, and overall leniency for violent criminals, being the victim of recidivism.
And I tell you, though this is off the guncontrol aspect of this, dems - Gifford - are also members of a party who have been conspiring - since Wilson and Roosevelt - to destroy constitutional republicanism and impose socialism (communism, despotism, tyranny).  The list of hellish experiences Americans have and will experience as a result that party's policies is sickening and I'd go dizzy listing but a few. 
I don't fell sorry for politicians who directly or by default (by association), have lead us to the brink of despotic darkness - and you know that is precisely where we are now.

ButtNutt

Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« Reply #15 on: October 16, 2013, 12:08:30 PM »

I personally have sympathy for her.  She was the victim of a random attack by a certified nut job.  The shooter SHOULD have been stopped before it ever happened, if you read all the background on the lunatic.

I also feel pity that she is being manipulated into a spokesperson and symbol for a liberal political agenda.  That agenda's resulting laws would have had zero effect on the events that culminated in her being shot. 

She is being used by the people she trusts to take care of her.  Propping her up in an emotional appeal to pass anti second amendment legislation is unforgivable.

These progressive Liberals have no morals.  They only have an agenda and the ingrained belief that the ends justify the means...
....I hear you, but along the lines with what I've said before, she is a lifelong dem, and by default, helps their anti 2a policies expand.
Truly, she IS now being exploited - she is her husbands sock puppet. But here's how I look at it:
before she was a 'soft' gun controller, by varying her votes to appear moderate; now she is a 'hard' gun controller, by unabashedly going anti 2a. But in the big picture, what is the difference?  the result is the same; byebye 2a!!
You're familiar with 'soft tyranny' verses 'hard tyranny' as Alexis de toqueville presciently warned us of? precisely what has been transforming this country since the dawn of progressivism??  Remember, soft tyranny or soft gun control is NOT an unintentional consequence of misguided good intentions; soft tyranny and soft gun control is a purposeful strategy by which tyranny/gun control can be incrementally imposed by not making it obvious enough to blip on the free citizens radar, so that by the time they realize they are no longer free, theres nothing they can do about it - the innumerable laws, regulations, policies, indoctrinations, mind sets, bureaucracies, engrained in the fabric of society can never be undone! 
This zoomed-out big picture way of assessing politicians disallows much sympathy for them, regardless of circumstance.

Darmok and Jalad @Tanagra

Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« Reply #16 on: October 16, 2013, 12:12:22 PM »
....I understood you, and the significance of the quotes. And I hear your list of seeming evidence - based on her voting history - that she indeed supported the 2a.
But here's a few reasons why why I say that voting history means nothing - and I mentioned this above:
1) she has been a lifelong member of a party, one of whose defining platform agendas is gun control. This is so significant to me I can't describe it!  Without humor, I equate it to someone who was a KKK member but asked for recognition from blacks cause he supported desegregation. Small acts of support can only be received as dubious when you are a member of a group who collectively does the opposite.
2) I'm sure you are aware of how it is a well known strategic technique for dems in gun loving states to vote pro 2a to ensure reelection and dem numbers in the congress - right?  I would laugh if it weren't so fake, the 'support' dems show for the 2a for political expediency!  You understand right?
3). Similarly, it is also a well known overall strategy to pick and choose when to be pro or anti 2a. For example, she voted pro as you cited, but also voted anti on numerous other occasions: the grotesque UN arms trade treaty, HiCap ban, assault weapons ban, etc.. So how can one possibly not question the sincerity of pro votes when there were an equal number of anti votes?  I don't know...this is so intensely significant to me.
To restress my sentiment, I'd say a legislator being a victim of gun violence, while a member of a party whose platform is legislating away the 2a, is as poetically judicial as a legislator who was a lifelong supporter of criminal rehab, work furloughs, understanding why, and overall leniency for violent criminals, being the victim of recidivism.
And I tell you, though this is off the guncontrol aspect of this, dems - Gifford - are also members of a party who have been conspiring - since Wilson and Roosevelt - to destroy constitutional republicanism and impose socialism (communism, despotism, tyranny).  The list of hellish experiences Americans have and will experience as a result that party's policies is sickening and I'd go dizzy listing but a few. 
I don't fell sorry for politicians who directly or by default (by association), have lead us to the brink of despotic darkness - and you know that is precisely where we are now.

My list:

1.  We will NEVER be able to fix the problems we face today as long as  until we, the people, stop letting the parties, the media, the so-called, self-appointed community leaders, the President, and Hollywood divide us against ourselves.  We spend more time being angry at "them" than we spend trying to make a difference for "us".  This is why we will never be a great nation.  Too much "sports team" mentality.  As long as your "team" wins, you are happy.  The problems, though, are never addressed and solved.  They are only planks in a platform, nothing more.

2.  There ARE 2A supporters in the Democrat party.  But, as you illustrate, they are quiet so as to not attract attention or offend their party leaders or constituency.  They only speak out in small gatherings and out of the media limelight.

3.  How a person votes is not necessarily the way that person believes.  MOST votes are along party lines when they are national or agenda type issues.  Only local issues for that rep's home district are important enough for them to actually develop an independent opinion.  I've talked to one of our reps in the past.  That's the basic process.  If they go against the party and actually cause them to lose a vote, nothing else that rep wants to accomplish locally will get much support if any at all.

So don't judge a representative by their record.  Too many factors besides personal beliefs and values come into play.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2013, 04:45:30 PM by Darmok and Jalad @Tanagra »
"... the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."
--Justice Louis D. Brandeis

ButtNutt

Re: The gunshow loophole & the Giffords - AGAIN!
« Reply #17 on: October 16, 2013, 01:30:00 PM »

My list:

1.  We will NEVER be able to fix the problems we face today as long as we, the people, stop letting the parties, the media, the so-called, self-appointed community leaders, the President, and Hollywood divide us against ourselves.  We spend more time being angry at "them" than we spend trying to make a difference for "us".  This is why we will never be a great nation.  Too much "sports team" mentality.  As long as your "team" wins, you are happy.  The problems, though, are never addressed and solved.  They are only planks in a platform, nothing more.

2.  There ARE 2A supporters in the Democrat party.  But, as you illustrate, they are quite so as to not attract attention or offend their party leaders or constituency.  They only speak out in small gatherings and out of the media limelight.

3.  How a person votes is not necessarily the way that person believes.  MOST votes are along party lines when they are national or agenda type issues.  Only local issues for that rep's home district are important enough for them to actually develop an independent opinion.  I've talked to on of our reps in the past.  That's the basic process.  If they go against the party and actually cause them to lose a vote, nothing else that rep wants to accomplish locally will get much support if any at all.

So don't judge a representative by their record.  Too many factors besides personal beliefs and values come into play.
....I hear you, and I'm not sure if you meant what I think you did but I'll clarify something anyway. 
As far as the us verses them mentality?  You're wrong and right about me, if I understood you correctly......
I don't have a reps vs dems mentality. I only focused on the dems cause Gifford is one, and guncontrol is now part of their platform. But for the record?  The Republican Party (as a party) is not only worthless, it is complicit in the soft tyranny agenda.
So if it helps you, be clear that my attitude is not a reps vs dems one, but a constitutional republican originalist vs everyone who is not. In other words liberty vs tyranny.
I appreciate the rhetorical substance of not letting them divide us, but that its a quaint MO that will not help us any more.  We need to restore federalism and constitutionalism and the beltway ruling class republicans not only won't help us achieve that, but do not be mistaken - they absolutely do not want that because they benefit from the status quo; they want nothing more than to continue being members of the ruling class and maintain the power structure; they want to co-rule with the dems.
Can you just imagine what a glorious America would exist if we had a rep party full of Ted Cruz and mike lee congressmen? 
As interesting supporting evidence of the ruling class mentality of reps - and I've never heard anyone anywhere discuss this - take note of the previously unheard of reference from the mouth of a republican, that we hear all the time now from many reps....the word 'leader' to describe oneself! 
Listen to boehner use this profusely now, eg. "The American people expect their leaders to......"; or "the American people's leaders in DC..."
Don't tell me that's not a conscious, deliberate word selection. 
Screw it....even if it weren't deliberate; if it were SUBconcious......ask Freud what he'd say about!!