search
top

Winning! But Not Quite.

The Daily Caller, a conservative leaning news outlet, is giving away one gun per week up until election day, in an effort to get people to subscribe to their newsletters. The fact the the DC is using firearms to promote their business is rubbing the right people the wrong way, such that Soros has his minions poring through everything the owner of the company that makes the gun ever wrote, looking for things to use against the guy. Sadly for the owner, they don’t come up empty, since he seems to have written several race-laced diatribes over at his blog on the topic of Obama.

They paymasters who are bankrolling Media Matters have to understand that mainstreaming of guns in America puts them on a road to utter defeat on this issue. That’s why they are quick to dig to try to discredit those who undermine their agenda. What would be really nice is if people on our side didn’t make their job so easy. I’m not of the opinion that race discussions are never to be had, but I do indeed question someone who seems hung up on Obama in the race department. I’ve never been of the opinion the man’s skin color really needs to be an issue in this debate. That particular fever swamp is really best left to the left.

But I don’t believe this ought to reflect badly on the Daily Caller, who I doubt had the time or inclination to pore through everything the owner of the company ever wrote to see if they could find anything to use against him. I guess the folks over at Media Matters are upset that the owner of that company never offered to give away a gun to David Brock so he could have an assistant illegally tote it around D.C.

14 Responses to “Winning! But Not Quite.”

  1. johannes paulsen says:

    Looking at the comments posted by Media Matters on Jim Pontillo, it looks like he’s (big surprise) another apologist for the traitors like Jeff Davis and his fellow-travelers.

    I have yet to understand why people who are concerned about protecting the individual right to bear arms are nostalgic for the Confederacy, which systematically refused that right to its own people.

    • Sage Thrasher says:

      State’s rights is a legitimate topic of debate in our federal system. Unfortunately, it’s also a code term and cover for a lot of naked bigotry, as is Confederate nostalgia in general.

    • Arnie says:

      Dear Mr. Paulsen,
      I googled Confederate gun laws looking for a national law that infringed on its citizens’ right to bear arms and came up empty. Do you have a link that could help me, please? Thanks!
      Arnie

      • mobo says:

        @Arnie: I believe Mr. Paulsen was referring to individual state governments within the confederacy denying blacks the right to keep/bear arms – something that is now (supposedly) a federally protected right today.

        • Arnie says:

          Thank you, mobo! I suspected the same thing.
          Prior to the 14 Amendment, every State (North and South) had the sovereign authority to discriminate with regard to race, religion, color and national origin unless their own citizens prohibited such action in their State Constitutions. At the same time that certain Confederate States were denying arms to slaves, so indeed were Union States such as Kentucky and Maryland. Other Northern States were denying voting privileges and certain offices to freed blacks solely because of their color. Some Northern States denied employment to freed blacks and would then arrest them for vagrancy and put them to slave labor on chain gangs, all while fighting against the “evil” Confederacy.
          Do I need to mention the bloody discrimination against the red man (several Indian tribes fought for the Confederacy because of it), or the 1863 race riots in New York where men were lynched for being black or the persecutions against the Irish.
          The Confederacy was admittedly bigoted, but at least honestly so and in accordance with the prevailing moral sentiments of the time. But the U.S.A. was bigoted as well, and hypocritically so!
          So I have no qualms wishing for the return of State sovereignty as promulgated by the Founding Fathers to prevent the Federal tyranny we are seeing today. With the progression of prevailing moral sentiment over the past century and a half, and the State governments to buffer us from intrusive federal “do-gooders”, we would ALL be freer today, and our posterity would not be slaves to 16+trillion dollars of debt (and growing), not to mention the 100 trillion dollars more they shall owe on Medicaid, Medicare and social security. No EPA, OSHA, endangered species Act protecting a stupid bug…. O yes, I yearn for State sovereignty – Big Time!

          • mobo says:

            I firmly believe that even without the 14th amendment, most states would do whatever the fedgov wants them to anyhow. However, I’m sure that RKBA would not be on the list of things the feds would push for. Feds can hold back money, which is the functional equivalent of having absolute control over the state governments.

            Case in point – my property taxes are *less* than $1500 a year. Without federal money to prop up the Philadelphia school system, they would probably exceed $10,000/year. Most people (and, by extension, most state legislators) will do whatever it takes to keep that money coming in. Game over.

            • Arnie says:

              Good point, sir.
              I do wonder, however, if schools would cost so much if the Federals didn’t require so many hoops to jump through to attend an “accredited” college or to be multi-cultural or to be properly climate-concerned and “socially responsible.”
              Without federal intrusion, the States might be able to run their schools more efficiently and less expensively. Federal lawsuits cost a lot if money!
              But your point is spot on. What the feds can’t legislate, they bribe into fait accompli using our own tax money against us!
              To be honest, I don’t think we’ll ever turn this around.
              I feel for our children!

  2. St Mark says:

    It’s one gun PER WEEK so they are giving out a lot of guns.

    [quote]The Daily Caller will be giving away one gun per week until Election Day – November 6, 2012.[/quote]

  3. Old NFO says:

    Anything to spin up the left! :-) Love it!!!

  4. Oranje Mike says:

    Thanks for sharing this. I had no idea this was happening. Simply amazing. I’ve been wanting to purchase a gun but don’t have the funds currently. This might be worth my time to enter.

  5. Right Wing Wacko says:

    I never sign up for these types of give-a-ways, however if it pisses off Media Matters, I’ll not only sign up, I’ll forward it to my friends and get them to do so also.

  6. Andy B. says:

    But I don’t believe this ought to reflect badly on the Daily Caller, who I doubt had the time or inclination to pore through everything the owner of the company ever wrote. . .

    Time or inclination? Why not? For quite some time now when I’ve encountered a writer or commentator who has caught my attention, almost the first thing I do is a simple Google on them. Unfortunately a large percentage of the time people who are nominally on “our” (gun owners’) side turn out to be (or have been) connected to things that are quite unsavory, and it usually takes less than five minutes to find that out.

    I’ll give you that it took a few decades, and the invention of the internet and search engines, for me to get smart, but if I were operating an organization or website in the political arena, I guarantee I would spend a lot more than five minutes checking someone out before I embraced them for publication.

    Maybe I resort to Old Stories too often, but, I remember a time right before the internet days came along when I was invited to travel across the state to speak to a citizens group. After I did, I learned that the speaker at their previous month’s meeting had been David Duke — “a real nice fellow,” they said.

  7. Andy B. says:

    Oops, gotta correct the above slightly: I wrote as if Pontillo had been published in the DC, when actually he is the owner of the gun company. But the same principle applies — you check someone out before you tie any knots with them.

    Since Pintillo owns a firearms company, I guess we can assume he’s a genuine gun guy. Otherwise, I’d suspect him of only being someone who knows how easy it is to suck our crowd in with pro-gun rhetoric, as preparation for leading them to supporting another agenda.

top