Matt Shea (R), WA State Legislator Suspended, Asked to Resign Over Extremism

[The War Wagon]

Matt Shea (R), WA State Legislator Suspended, Asked to Resign Over Extremism

[Epaphroditus]

Shea could exist except for the electorate that continues to support him. Much like TDS as much as 'they' hate Trump 'they' must contend with 10's of millions of voters that support him. There is much popular support against the prog push.

In many circles Shea is considered a mealy mouthed moderate.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

John, I believe china is actually pulling these strings. Someone is bank rolling these anti gun politicians. Look at Australia recently. Big gun buyback, china walks in and starts bottling up water and running farmland dry. The timing is suspect to me. I'm watching New Zealand closely too now. I'll put money on a big chinese firm coming in and taking over. Much easier to do when the population isnt armed.

They are the big winner in all this, so your idea makes sense.

Be careful not to become too myopic with regard to China and their role in things. As I stated on another thread...

It's not just China...

European Union Firearms Directive

Any of this sound familiar?

• A ban of certain semi-automatic firearms: These include automatic firearms transformed into semi-automatic firearms, long semi-automatic firearms of length less than 60cm, long semi-automatic firearms with loading devices of more than 10 rounds, and short semi-automatic firearms with a loading device of more than 20 rounds.
• Regulation of acoustic weapons: An acoustic or salute weapon is an active weapon transformed to only shoot blank for use in theatre or cinema, e.g. Such weapons can be easily re-transformed into fully active firearms. In the future, acoustic and salute weapon can still be used in a theatre or in movies, subject to declaration, authorisation or licence depending on the category they belonged to before transformation.
• Regulation of alarm and signal weapons: An alarm and signal weapon is a device with a cartridge holder which is designed to fire only blanks, irritants, other active substances or pyrotechnic signalling rounds and which is not capable of being converted to expel a shot, bullet or projectile by the action of a combustible propellant.
• Inclusion of museums and collectors in the scope of the directive. The existing directive does not cover collectors. In the future, collectors and museums will be treated like any civilian firearms owner. They will have the possibility to acquire category A firearms but only under strict conditions.
• Deactivated weapons are included in the scope of the directive. Regulating the deactivated weapons is now subject to declaration to national authorities. Stricter rules for the deactivation of firearms were also adopted.
• Stricter conditions for the online acquisition of firearms to better control the acquisition of firearms via the internet, pieces thereof or ammunition through the internet.
• Clearer rules on marking of firearms to improve traceability: EU countries need to ensure that any firearm or part placed on the market has been marked and registered in national computerised data-filing systems.
• Conditions for medical tests: In future, all EU countries will have to put in place a system of medical check for the authorisation to acquire firearms. EU countries will define the details concerning medical checks.

You might find this Wikipedia page interesting... Overview of gun laws by nation

In other words, it's not just a Communist plot or propaganda. It's what we talk about; i.e., the 'beauty' and 'uniqueness' of the Bill of Rights, the Founders, and the 2nd Amendment specifically. It's about "global/world" citizen vs. being a citizen of the United States. It's about the relationship of citizens to their Government...

I suspect that if China has any role in this, it's more akin to...

...God help us. China is just sitting, watching and waiting for us to complete our own distruction.

That's not to minimize potential Chinese interference. It's just a caution not to allow ourselves to consider China as the sole (or even primary) influence in what the Left is doing to this country.

[wolfwood]

What exactly did this guy say that was wrong?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

What exactly did this guy say that was wrong?

That is the crux of my opinion on this whole thing. For many on this site, what he's said isn't necessarily wrong or that misguided. However, if you read the article linked to in the OP, allusions were drawn to what he has said as 'nefarious representations' promulgated by and tied to those with whom he associated; i.e., he is part of a 'vast, right-wing conspiracy' - just look at what he said, who voted for him, where he is from, etc.

This is the narrative which is being spun and it stems from the divisions we see in the country; geographically, politically, culturally, etc. It's the 'weaponizing' of political and cultural thought, not just as an agenda, but as an attack on those with whom we disagree. It's playing out on many levels, with the efforts to remove select politicians based on past associations and expressions not being something 'new,' but the frequency and viciousness of those efforts beginning to reach new heights.

Most on this site do not have a favorable view of AOC. Yet...

On Nov. 6, 2018, Ocasio-Cortez received 110,318 votes — 78.2% of the 141,122 total votes cast in the 14th District. Republican Anthony Pappas took second place with 19,202 votes — or 91,116 fewer votes than Ocasio-Cortez. And Crowley, who still appeared on the general election ballot, finished third with 9,348 votes.

Thus, her defense and one offered by the media and Democrats is, with some legitimacy, that she represents her District's constituents. This was something that came out nearly a year ago on FOX News...



Returning to the OP and the quote from The New York Times article...

He went on to win with nearly 60% of the vote...

Actually, that's not strictly accurate. In 2008, he won with 58.47%. In 2010, he ran unopposed. 2012 was 56.7%. 2014 equaled 57.8%. In 2016, he garnered 64.64% of the vote in his District. In 2018, he was back 'down' to 57.7%.

In other words, while he may not share the same popularity in his District as AOC has for Federal office in her District, it is safe to say he has majority support in his District and has for a decade or more. Thus, while we may not agree or entirely agree with either of them, they do appear to represent their respective constituencies. As a result, when talking about suspending, removing, or impeaching elected officials based on differences of perception/opinion, it needs to be asked whether the individual truly represents a 'danger' (treason, insurrection, et al.) or if it is based more on the idea that those people (the constituencies in their Districts) are 'unacceptable;' the latter thought being a potentially scary one moving forward.

As I posited in the OP and the National Guard thread...

...The conundrum (and the problem) comes in relation to who is designating the 'undesirables' and the criterion/criteria being used. As I observed in the OP, the same group has concerns related to Gun Owners of America and how the NRA has been influenced by them. Isn't that the refrain we often hear... "I support the Second Amendment, but...?" Isn't that the same as... "I don't want to tread on the Constitution, but...?"

At what point does "radical Islamic fundamentalist" (a legitimate concern) become... "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the NRA or Gun Owners of America?" Where is that 'bright line' between differing opinions and dangerous views vis a vis Free Speech, the right to freely assemble, etc.? If it is akin to the 'pornography' definition - "I know it when I see it." - is that simply an inevitable 'discomfort' in a free society or is it an hazardously slippery slope in terms of what is viewed as 'acceptable?'...

This is something we've accused Democrats of as a result of the media, statements like those from Clinton and Obama, in relation to Trump's Impeachment and the Democrats trying to "negate the vote of 63 million Americans," etc. We resent, with more than a little justification, the oversimplification, deflection, and political divisiveness inherent in such declarations. We also worry over the potential such views has with regard to laws, cultural changes, et al.

Yet - What was that in Matthew 7:5?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

In certain respects, they represent the concerns of their constituencies. Their views are an 'alternate reality' to us and our views are an 'alternate reality' to them. Put another way, what is right is wrong and what is wrong is right. So, when you ask - "What exactly did this guy say that was wrong?" - maybe it's not necessarily about someone being "wrong" or "on the wrong side." Maybe it has to do with our losing sight of the idea that the United States and American society represent a compromise or 'balance' and that 'extremism,' whichever direction it takes, disrupts that 'balance.'

This was the key to Trump's election and one we tend to overlook. Many voted for Trump as a means of 'correcting' what had become an imbalance; i.e., the judiciary, too much Government regulation, a political class usurping powers which belong to "the People," etc. To an underappreciated degree, Trump has been successful in restoring a certain degree of balance; but, the means by which he has done so (arguably, means which have proven necessary) is and can be seen as 'radical' in many cases, particularly depending on your worldview.

This has led to things like the California Exodus, the movement by the rich/affluent from New York, etc. People are moving to locations where they feel more 'comfortable' with the in situ culture; particularly where the laws more closely align with their personal beliefs. In fact, it is something I remember being declared by the Courts (though I can't find a documentable reference at the moment); i.e., if you don't like the way the laws are, you can always move. The ultimate result is what we're seeing with "red vs blue states" or "Constitutional Carry States," and even posts on Calguns that 'warn' someone (erroneously) perceived as holding different views than they have in their region from moving there lest they be 'tarred and feathered.'

This is one of the intrinsic dangers involved with too much focus on expressions such as we see in the immigration, race, LGBTQ, etc. debates: "It's out differences which make us strong." Yes. Those differences provide this country an unique ability, rare and necessary resources/resolve/insight, not to mention the necessity of 'maintaining a balance.' What is too often overlooked or deliberately ignored by both 'sides' is that it isn't our differences (some of which being truly inappropriate/unacceptable) which 'make us strong,' it is our shared goals, ideals, and cultural touchstones which are the reasons for our very existence, not to mention our past and continued success as a nation/country.

Focus on our differences and you tear us apart as a nation/country and woe be unto us as regards the resultant laws and society we will have to deal with. Focus on what we are supposed to share and we will continue in our success. Well... At least until the next difference of opinion.

[CCWFacts]

He should make a pledge that he will apologize for his extremism and resign just as soon as Ilan Omar does the same thing. But in fact he's normal compared to Ilan Omar. At least his extremist is in defense of his own country, people and civilization, whereas Omar's is in hatred and hostility to her hosts (us). Actually he should agree to resign as soon as every presidential candidate who has had repeated meetings with Al Sharpton, Calypso Louis, etc, withdraws.