Articles by Herschel Smith

NYT:

In the early 1880s, legend has it that Daniel B. Wesson, a co-founder of Smith & Wesson, the gun manufacturer, heard about a child who injured himself by cocking the hammer and pulling the trigger of one of his firm’s revolvers. Wesson, known as D. B., was so distraught about the accident that he and his son, Joseph, developed a more child-safe revolver that they called the .38 Safety Hammerless.

Wesson was also my great-great-great-grandfather. Though it has been half a century since my family was involved with Smith & Wesson, I feel a twinge of responsibility every time a mass shooting occurs. I realize this is not entirely rational: I play no part in making or selling firearms and have never lost anyone close to me from gun violence. But it still haunts me.

[ … ]

It is only fair for me, for all of us, to demand that our gun manufacturers become leaders in this national discussion around gun violence. They create products designed to kill human beings. The responsibility that must accompany the creation of weapons like an AR-15 is too large to be brushed aside by shouting about freedom and an amendment to our Constitution ratified in 1791.

Yes, the company and other gun makers have taken some steps in calling for better enforcement of the national background check system and sponsoring firearm safety programs. But they can do so much more.

I would start by asking the parent company of Smith & Wesson, American Outdoor Brands Corporation, to push for gun-violence research. Since 1996 the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been severely restricted in researching gun violence. If gun manufacturers are truly responsible organizations, they should wholeheartedly want to back this research as a public health concern. Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the C.D.C. from 2009 to 2017, asked Congress repeatedly to fund research in gun-violence prevention but never succeeded.

In response to recent questions from BlackRock, an investment firm that owns the largest share of American Outdoor Brands, the gun maker’s president, James Debney, and chairman, Barry M. Monheit, said, “We must collectively have the courage to ensure any actions are guided by data, by facts and by what will actually make us safer.” Sounds like Mr. Debney, Mr. Monheit and Dr. Frieden are on the same page, so let’s see Smith & Wesson lead the charge in renewing gun-violence research by the C.D.C.

I would also ask that the company publicly endorse the Brady Campaign’s Gun Dealer Code of Conduct. It should support requiring universal background checks and a national registry for tracking its products, and indeed all firearms.

To the author, Eliza Sydnor Romm, I would say that it’s not that it doesn’t sound entirely rational to feel responsibility for the criminal behavior of others, I’d say that it’s so irrational it makes you seem like an imbecile and a dolt.  It would be no different than feeling responsibility for hit and run accidents perpetrated by drivers of Ford trucks, and then trying to tell Ford how to design and build trucks because of that.  If that sounds stupid, it’s because it is.

As for Smith & Wesson, I don’t know much about the parent company of American Outdoor Brands, but I have heard fairly bad things about Black Rock.

BlackRock announced new products for clients looking to avoid investing in companies that make or sell firearms for civilian use, a significant step for the world’s largest asset manager as Wall Street comes under pressure to take a stance in America’s gun debate.

“As it has for many people, the recent tragedy in Florida has driven home for BlackRock the terrible toll from gun violence in America,” it said in a statement in March. “It has put a spotlight on the role of companies that manufacture and distribute civilian firearms. Some of the largest manufacturers and retailers are held in the portfolios of millions of individual and institutional investors around the world.”

On Thursday, BlackRock said it had created new exchange-traded funds and products for pensions and retirement plans that screen for companies that make or sell firearms. BlackRock is also shifting the indexes of existing exchange-traded funds focused on socially responsible investments to avoid gunmakers and sellers.

Back to Smith & Wesson, such moves as the author describes would mean certain, sure and almost immediate death in the market place as gun buyers turned their backs on the company and their workers fled for greener pastures with Ruger or other companies.  Perhaps the Performance Shop at Smith & Wesson could relocate South like so many other gun makers and start up shop in a friendlier climate.

And perhaps busting up one of the leading manufacturers of firearms is the purpose of pressure like this.  What will Smith & Wesson do with an owner who doesn’t like their products?

TFB:

According to the Swedish online hunting magazinecalled Jakt & Jägare, Norway is to ban some semi-automatic hunting rifles.

Norway is not even a member of the European Union, but they seem to be following – and even prepared to go much further – than the EU Gun Ban that is going to be implemented in the rest of the EU in 2018.

Where Norway used to be is outlined here.

Today there are 1,329,000 guns registered in private ownership in Norway, some 90,000 more than in 2011. Anders Groven, secretary-general of the Norwegian Shooting Association, reckons that the increase reflects the rising affluence of the country, as hunters can now afford selections of rifles for different sorts of game.

Gun laws have been prominent in public debate since far-right terrorist Anders Behring Breivik used two semi-automatic guns to kill 69 young people at a youth camp on the island of Utøya on July 22, 2011. A commission appointed to investigate the mass murder has recommended that semi-automatic weapons be prohibited. But a complete ban seems unlikely, as there’s political opposition to it in the Storting.

After the January 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, the EU initiated drafting of a new directive that will further restrict semi-automatic guns. Countries throughout the Schengen Agreement area, including Norway, will be obliged to comply with it.

The man in Norway most aware of the current and imminent future changes in gun ownership most likely is Willy Røgneberg, the manager of Oslo Skytesenter (shooting center), the country’s largest gun shop (shown above at the shop counter). He observes that, “In Norway we’ve always had lots of guns, as we have a hunting culture. Most people in Norway respect weapons and view them sensibly. Here in the shop we’ve hardly ever had a customer come in to buy a gun on impulse, not least because so doing is illegal.” To that he adds the opinion that the country’s gun laws are sufficiently strict.

“Sufficiently strict.”  Sufficient enough to have to register guns.  So it looks like a gun registry is indeed a precursor to gun illegality and confiscation.  Turn them in, boys.  Or fight.

NPR:

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy has signed an executive order making data on gun violence more accessible to the public.

The so-called “Name and Shame” order will cite the origin of a gun involved in a crime. According to the state, approximately 80 percent of guns involved in crime come from outside of New Jersey.

Now, New Jersey authorities will identify the origins of those guns involved in crimes. Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy, who was elected to replace Republican Chris Christie, touts the order as being in the public interest, saying in a statement, “Any death due to gun violence, is one death too many.”

According to the order, department and state police would periodically publish data on guns involved in crime and where they came from. This data is already collected and open to the public via the FBI, but according Murphy, this law would streamline the process. The first published data is expected next month.

Currently, New Jersey is ranked as having the third-toughest gun laws in the nation, behind California and Connecticut, and is poising itself to pass more gun legislation. The governor is also urging the Democratically-controlled legislature to pass half a dozen gun-tightening measures for him to sign. Of the measure, one would require people applying for a gun permit to demonstrate a “justifiable need.”

Name and shame.  “Justifiable need.”  Now, replace the words “gun” and “gun permit” with automobile, and read it back to yourself and see how utterly ridiculous the article sounds.  All cars that cause deaths must have their sellers shamed.  In order to purchase a car, you must demonstrate justifiable need.

And to think, driving a car isn’t even mentioned in the constitution.

David Codrea:

“The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional rights to ‘bear arms,” U.S. District Judge William Young wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over Massachusetts’ so-called “assault weapon” ban.

[ … ]

And Young is living proof that, as bad as the Democrats re on guns, no one can hurt us quite like a Republican turncoat. He was appointed by Ronald Reagan, making him a disappointment along with no shortage of other “conservative” federal court nominees. And Reagan himself, reputation as a “conservative hero” for gun owners notwithstanding, in actuality was not.

I hold other things against Reagan as well, including the withdrawal of the U.S. Marines from the barracks in Lebanon, and the first immigrant amnesty, not to mention Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor.

As for Young, he is a tyrant.  The think about King George is that he lived a long ways away and had soldiers do the fighting for him.  Judge Young lives among you.  At some point this is going to turn violent.  Do they understand that?

Charleston City Paper:

Republican Congressman Ralph Norman from the Upstate pulled out a loaded pistol during a meeting with gun control advocates Friday morning, upsetting at least one woman who said she felt “unsafe” by her representative’s actions.

The brandishing took place during a “coffee with constituents meeting” hosted by Rep. Ralph Norman, 64, a Republican from Rock Hill representing South Carolina’s 5th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Lori Freeman, a volunteer group leader with Moms Demand Action in Fort Mill, said she found out about the meeting on the congressman’s Facebook page and decided to go after he rebuffed a previous meeting request on the heels of the February shooting of 17 people at a high school in Parkland, Fla.

Freeman thinks Norman might have been encouraged to take out his weapon by another constituent who was at the table Friday morning.

“This gentleman offered up that he was concealed carrying, and he asked if we felt safer because he was concealed carry,” Freeman said in a phone interview with CP. “Once the gentleman said he was concealed carrying, that’s when [Rep. Norman] reached into his blazer. He pulled his gun out, told us it was loaded, put it on the table, and let it sit there for five to 10 minutes.”

Norman told the Post & Courier that he pulled out his loaded .38 caliber Smith & Wesson to prove that “guns don’t shoot people, people shoot guns.”

“I’m not going to be a Gabby Giffords,” Norman told the paper, referencing the former Arizona congresswoman who was shot in the head during a constituent meeting outside a Tucson-area grocery store in January 2011. “I don’t mind dying, but whoever shoots me better shoot well or I’m shooting back,” Norman said.

“Honestly it was just a strange feeling,” Freeman said about Friday’s meeting. “I don’t know that I felt scared. I was trying to figure out if he was using it as an intimidation factor or to have some kind of bravado. I kind of felt angry more than I felt scared, I felt very angry that he was doing that to us. I felt that he didn’t know our history, if any of us were survivors of gun or domestic violence, if anyone may have also had a criminal history.”

Freeman maintains that both of her encounters with Rep. Norman have been mostly pleasant, and that he even expressed support for a “red flag law,” which would allow family members or law enforcement to temporarily restrict gun purchases to anyone deemed to pose a danger to themselves or others.

There is no evidence he “brandished” the weapon, so the author of this report has leveled an accusation of a felony at the man without the slightest proof.

As for Rep. Norman, I like what you did and what you said, but if South Carolina was an open carry state like it should be, you wouldn’t have had to remove your weapon from concealment like some sort of criminal.  I’ll not be a Gabby Giffords either, but I open carry “For the peace, good and dignity of the country and the welfare of its people.”

But I don’t support your “red flag law,” and I think you need to revisit that support in light of what the constitution says about it and the corruption of the judiciary in the country (along with the stupidity of juries).

One commenter, Jan Napack, says this.

Where did Congressman Norman get his gun safety training? The first rule is never, repeat never, handle a firearm (especially around kids, in mixed company, at a crowded function, in a restaurant, close quarters, etc.) without first checking that it is unloaded. An extension of that rule is never hand over a gun, put it down, or receive it from someone unless its proven to be unloaded.

Sorry dear, that’s not a “rule of gun safety.”  Swing and a miss.  Try again some time.

Yahoo:

Just like I said would be the case.  It’s all just window dressing.

From Mack and other readers, this.

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit on Friday challenging Massachusetts’s ban on assault weapons.

U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling that the firearms and large magazines banned by the state in 1998 are “not within the scope of the personal right to ‘bear Arms’ under the Second Amendment.”

The features of a military-style rifle are “designed and intended to be particularly suitable for combat rather than sporting applications,” Young wrote.

Massachusetts was within its rights since the ban passed directly through elected representatives, Young decided.

“Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens,” Young wrote. “These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy.”

Well, I have a friend who hunts hogs in Georgia with a 6.5 Creedmoor AR-10, and the only reason I don’t hunt hogs in Georgia with an AR is because I haven’t been invited to go.  Hogs, he tells me, are tough critters and aren’t persuaded with single shots.  They often have to be shot multiple times.

But of course, that’s not the point, is it?  The point is that the second amendment is there for the amelioration of tyranny.  Because the politicians in Massachusetts are tyrants, they don’t want their subjects to have proper means of combat.  The judge is a tyrant too.  He told us so in his ruling.

James Wesley Rawles at Survival Blog has done a simply magnificent job of upbraiding the ATF.  It’s an absolute throw-down of blood and gore and broken bones when Rawles gets through with the ATF.  If you like seeing the FedGov slapped around, visit Survival Blog.  Here is a taste.

My specific objections are as follows. Note: I reserve the right to litigate on any or all of these. Furthermore EACH of the following numbered items are distinct separate objections and must be addressed individually with logical and complete specificity by the BATFE before the proposed rule is put into force:

1.) To declare existing privately owned devices contraband machineguns with no available method of registering them as machineguns constitutes an uncompensated taking.

2.) To declare existing privately owned devices contraband machineguns with no Grandfather Clause flies in the face of many decades of Federal case law, under Federal Jurisprudence. This also constitutes an uncompensated taking.

3.) The proposed redefinition of “machinegun” (per 26 U.S.C. 5845(b)) is vaguely worded. For example: What is meant by “function of the trigger”? Does that mean a trigger pull (only)? Does that mean a trigger release? Does that mean a pull OR release of a trigger? Or does that mean a pull AND release of a trigger? Does a partial pull of a trigger still constitute a function? Or must a pull of a trigger be through its entire arc to a stopping point to constitute a function?   Or must a pull of a trigger be through its entire arc to a stopping point and then a release to a reset point to constitute a function?   Or does a release of a trigger from a stopping point to a reset point to constitute a function? Or does a release of a trigger from a partially-pulled position to a reset point to constitute a function?

4.) More than a mere interpretation, it REDEFINES, AMPLIFIES and EXPANDS the wording of the NFA-’34 (26 U.S.C. 5845(b)). This is clearly bureaucratic overreach by the Executive Branch. Per the Constitution, only congress can MAKE laws. The executive branch and agencies can only ENFORCE already legislated and duly enacted laws.

5.) How can the BATFE redefine the meaning of the phrase “single function of the trigger” (per 26 U.S.C. 5845(b)) without the consent of congress?

6.) How can the BATFE further restrict the possession of Militia Weapons without a modification or repeal of the 2nd Amendment?

7.) By declaring a previously legal and constitutionally-protected “arm” suddenly “illegal” and “contraband” is a violation of the 2nd Amendment

8.) By declaring a previously legal and constitutionally-protected “arm” suddenly “illegal” and “contraband” and mandating its surrender to authorities would IDENTIFY the owner is thus a violation of the 5th Amendment protection from self-incrimination. It would also violate the 5th Amendment’s “taking” clause.

9.) By declaring a previously legal and constitutionally-protected “arm” suddenly “illegal” and “contraband” and mandating its surrender to authorities would violate the 4th Amendment protection from seizure without due process.

10.) I take exception to this wording: “Because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle”. That is vague.

11.) I take exception to this wording: “…initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger.” That is grossly vague and violates the plain simple, Black Letter Law and the manifold intent of congress when it enacted NFA-’34 See: 26 U.S.C. 5845(b))

12.) I take exception to this wording: “…these devices convert…” It is not a conversion to the operating mechanism. Rather, it is either an adjunct or a firing technique, or both.

13.) I take exception to this wording: “…these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun.”   By your new definition, then so does holding your your thumb in your belt-loop when firing from the hip!

14.) I take exception to this wording: “…these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun.”   By your new definition, then so does holding the buttstock of a rifle a short distance from your shoulder when firing!

15.) I take exception to this wording: “…these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun.”   By your new definition, then so does holding a rifle loosely at either shoulder level or hip level when firing! See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdAhTxyP64

16.) I take exception to this wording: “harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.” The reset IS indeed physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter because BOTH the shooter’s body (including the trigger finger) and the gun itself (including the trigger itself) are in motion, when under the force of recoil.

17.) I take exception to this wording: “Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger.” It is NOT automatic fire, as defined by congress in NFA-’34.

18.) I take exception to this wording: “Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger.” It is not producing automatic fire. The shooter’s trigger finger is still producing the fire, one shot at a time.

19.) I take exception to this wording: “With limited exceptions, primarily as to government agencies, the GCA makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute.” The Hughes Amendment to FOPA restricts only machineguns, not semi-automatics. Only congress can redefine the word “machinegun”.

20.) I take exception to this wording: “Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.” To “surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable” would constitute an uncompensated “taking” which is not allowable under Federal jurisprudence.

21.) I take exception to this wording: “The bump-stock-type devices covered by this proposed rule were not in existence prior to the GCA’s effective date, and therefore would fall within the prohibition on machineguns if this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is implemented.” That is fallacious. Stocks that were spring-loaded or hydraulically buffered (to absorb recoil–but that unintendedly can create a bumpfire condition) did indeed exist and were on the open market before FOPA 1986. For example, Winchester’s Hydra-Coil stock was invented and produced starting in the early 1960s. It was made for variety of guns, including some semi-autos including the Remington Model 58 semiautomatic shotgun and the Remington Model 742 semiautomatic rifle (with a detachable magazine). See: https://www.si.com/vault/1963/09/09/596517/an-inventor-takes-the-kick-out-of-shooting

James goes on through number 42.  It’s just a bloodbath, frankly.  He’s not a lawyer and clearly much smarter than anyone who works with the DoJ or ATF.

Closer to home, our own Fred Tippens writes the ATF with the following.

“Turning law abiding patriotic Americans, veterans, suburban moms, and men just trying to raise their families into criminals? Really? Why would I give a flying rat’s backside about a country that does this? Why? Why would I have any loyalty to this country if its government simply takes whatever it wants? I’m sure the irony is completely lost on you but are you going to send men with guns to take them? If you’re going to just up and ban things don’t you make the case for us to stockpile weapons and ammo? Do you know the definition of irony? The courts won’t help. The congress won’t help. The executive won’t help. What redress do we have? Why not just redefine and then ban all of the component parts and accessories of the common rifle? Are you going to ban them one at a time and hope that nobody will notice? Is this not tyranny? Do you want war with your own neighbors? Seriously? I’m only writing this so that I know I’ve done my part to avoid civil war. Now do your part, be for liberty…. I don’t want war so it’s your war to start or avoid. Please choose wisely.”

I have yet to come to terms with writing again.  They clearly didn’t engage what I wrote earlier and have no intention of engaging my points in the future.

I will point out one more thing about this ban.  The GOP establishment is clearly very good at playing the long game.  Trump won, but the GOP establishment is burning the place down, not Trump.

There was no logical or necessary reason to pack the Omnibus bill with spending for Planned Parenthood or for the CDC to issue gun control studies.  They have cut his support from two main constituencies: [1] right to life, and [2] gun rights.

Trump cannot win again without those two constituencies.  I’ve already heard folks in both camps tell me that they won’t vote for Trump again if hell freezes over.  Among pro-life workers (I know some) there was great sadness over the monies given to PP.

Thus the GOP has done two things it wanted to do.  They’ve got their gun control to run on in the next election without having to vote on it themselves (they are cowards).  They got the ATF to do the dishonest work for them.  Second, they have ensured that Trump is a one-term president.

As I said, it is the GOP establishment and not Trump who is burning the place down.

Bloomberg:

Over the past decade, patient investors benefited greatly from one of the longest economic expansions in U.S. history, using stocks, gold and even cryptocurrency as vehicles of profit. A few of them even used machine guns.

Yes, machine guns. Not the readily available, semi-automatic rifles that have figured so tragically in recent mass shootings, igniting a national furor over gun laws. We’re talking about actual machine guns, which are about as far from the local gun store inventory as you can get, and much more difficult to buy. A machine gun typically shoots about 600 to 800 rounds a minute, while the Bushmaster AR-15 will fire about 45 rounds a minute, depending on how fast you pull the trigger. Fully automatic firearms are often depicted in movies, but in real life they’re a rare commodity except to members of the military.

Some of the hoops a buyer must navigate to get one mirror what some proponents of tougher gun laws would like for all firearms. But the red tape has also helped make machine guns the ultimate collector’s item, with some having doubled in value over the past 10 years.

Frank Goepfert is one of the biggest machine gun merchants in America. From a 100-plus-acre ranch he shares with his wife, son and German shorthair puppy in rural Jasper, Missouri, he runs a small empire of automatic weapons. Inside a tornado-proof vault, dozens of automatic firearms worth millions of dollars hang on the walls. There are Tommy guns, M2 Brownings, Uzis, a Sterling submachine gun and AK-47 assault rifles, the most popular machine gun in the world.

Goepfert, 47, who regularly sports a leather jacket and a black Stetson, says his company, Midwest Tactical Inc., sold as many as 500 machine guns in 2017, averaging thousands of dollars each. He’s made enough money to purchase two planes and even a tank.

His best customer, a technology company executive, spent $1.6 million on guns last year, while an oil and farming tycoon dropped $1.2 million, he says. By Goepfert’s tally, he has 20 clients who each have spent more than $200,000 on his wares. He declined to identify them, citing privacy considerations. And while the government keeps a record of automatic weapons, it’s not public. That may make Goepfert one of the best sources of information outside the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives when it comes to who has a machine gun in America.

There are “a fixed amount” of such weapons, says ATF Special Agent Joshua Jackson. “Demand has caused the value of these firearms to increase.”

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed an act effectively banning civilians from purchasing new machine guns. Suddenly, most of those already out there became a lot more valuable (Goepfert says there were 250,000 at the time). Today, the exact number left isn’t known, though one industry expert put it at 182,000.

Some of Midwest Tactical’s best-selling models have climbed in value by tens of thousands of dollars since Goepfert and his wife Joy, 45, started the company. According to data collected by the Machine Gun Price Guide, which uses information from dealers, auctions and gun shows, the cost of a Tommy gun (the Thompson M1) went from about $9,000 in 2004 to almost $27,000 last July—a 200 percent increase. The Heckler & Koch MP5 soared 250 percent, from almost $12,000 in 2003 to $42,000. Meanwhile, the MAC10, technically a “machine pistol,” more than doubled in price from 2011 to 2017, to more than $8,000.

In addition to the GCA of 1986, a traitorous act along with the NFA, there is another reason that fully automatic firearms will never be manufactured for civilians in America again.  Investments.

There are too many people who stand to lose too much and who also donate too much money to campaigns and the coffers of the NRA for the gun community to come together on repeal of the GCA.  The NRA provides the cover.

As always, follow the money.

That is the title of a Las Vegas Sun letter to the editor.

The March 16 letter to the editor, “Bullet control is the answer,” hit the nail on the head. It’s not guns or people that kill people, it’s bullets. Without the correct bullets, every AR-15 would instantly become a wall-hanging collector’s item. Banning the sale, use and possession of bullets used in these weapons to anyone other than military and law enforcement would eliminate the need to take anyone’s gun.

Mandatory prison time for selling, using or possessing these bullets would eliminate stockpiling. The right to confiscate vehicles and houses where such bullets are found would further discourage people from hanging onto existing supplies.

Of course, the National Rifle Association would say that would leave the bad guys as the only ones with the bullets. True, but an automatic 10-20 years for anyone using this type of weapon in the commission of a crime or 40-to-life when it results in death would assist law enforcement in weeding them out one by one.

Note that it is quite alright to the letter writer for peaceable men and women to be left with the criminals being the only ones with ammunition, as long as one by one, the cops chase down criminals who use ammunition after commission of crimes – against peaceable men and women.  The letter writer doesn’t care about you, just outlawing ammunition.

This isn’t an oddball view.  It can be seen at some point on virtually every major newspaper editorial page, and virtually every progressive politician has floated the idea.  You’ve seen it as have I.

Listen to your enemies.  Learn from them, especially when they publicly inform you of their tactics.  Plan accordingly.  By my calculations, Trump (being I suspect a one-term president) gives us about two more years.