search
top

Out of Touch, Even in Flyover Country

You say this like it’s no big deal:

Rob Quist and Nancy Pelosi are not going to take our guns. Threatening the Second Amendment would be political suicide. Quist supports a registry for assault rifles only. This old Marine sees sense in controlling a weapon designed only to kill people.

Jesus. Why not just donate to Greg Gianforte and save yourself some typing?

First off, Democratic politicians threaten the Second Amendment all the time. This being a prime example: he only supports forcing the registration of the most popular rifles in the US. That’s all. No Second Amendment implication there at all. No sir! Why yes, we Second Amendment advocates think there just ain’t nothing wrong with any regulation that don’t have the government come and take em.

Montana is having a special election this Tuesday for Congress. Dems are pouring tons of money into Quist’s campaign in hopes of taking the seat and building momentum to flip Congress in 2018. If the Dems end up in power again running on gun control in places like Montana, you can kiss our whole agenda goodbye. Whatever you might think of Trump, the solution is not to put the Dems in power in Congress.

16 Responses to “Out of Touch, Even in Flyover Country”

  1. Bruce says:

    As a Montanan, I’ve been inundated with political ads these past few weeks. Quist is being very quiet about his gun control stuff. As a matter of fact he shut it down less than a week after announcing. On the plus side, it doesn’t appear that he can balance a checkbook so it’s not looking good for him. This has been a very dirty race, every add is about the opponent. I don’t remember any ads that actually talk about the candidate’s positions. It’s all smear about the other guy. I’ll be glad when it’s over.

  2. The Jack says:

    “controlling a weapon designed only to kill people”

    So…. he’d be okay with a handgun registry then.

    • Alpheus says:

      And a sword registry, I suppose, because swords probably kill as many, if not more, people each year as those rifles designed to kill people…

  3. Dave says:

    The weapon only for killing people is the SWORD, cupcake

    • TS says:

      My sword has never killed anyone*, so mine must be defective.

      *actually, I can’t be quite certain of that claim…

  4. Look who is moving to MT in droves, the young liberal hipsters who want to be in touch with nature.

  5. Whetherman says:

    I’m not a Montanan, so I haven’t spent a good deal of time on its history; but a century or more ago, wasn’t it one of the hotbeds of the Progressive Movement?

    At this point I’m extrapolating from possibly faulty memory, but I would suppose that evolved from a large Irish population (Former Irish Brigade General Meagher was the Territorial governor at one time, and there was even a quirky movement prior to statehood, to make the territory an Irish Republic inside North America) and the Irish had a strong Socialist connection extending back to their rebels in the old country. Also, being very much a mining state, it probably has a lot of roots in the labor movement of a century ago.

    But if I have a point in all that, it is that its politics may not have young, liberal, newbie hipsters to blame, as much as to political genes dating back more than a century. Which also inspires me to reflect, that “gun control” as a liberal/progressive issue is a late 20th century addition, and has no genetic connections to the Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The linkages between “gun control” and ideologies are (arguably) late 20th century inventions.

    • The Jack says:

      Don’t forget the class and race issue.

      Like the previous post where that guy complained about guns “like those gang people have” IE minorities and guns that didn’t have pretty inlays and wood stocks IE poor people.

  6. beatbox says:

    That is so wrong. Doubling down on the stupid. Pelosi (rightly IMHO) caught flack for courting pro-life Democrats recently. How about bringing back all the pro-gun Dems you have alienated?

  7. Whetherman says:

    “Pelosi (rightly IMHO) caught flack for courting pro-life Democrats recently.”

    “Rightly” is right, IMO. I guess it depends on exactly how “pro-life” they are, but my (not so) casual observation and rule-of-thumb is, that independent of ideology, pro-lifers will sell out any other of their professed issues, to advance the pro-life cause.

    • Alpheus says:

      To be fair, this is what I’d like to see in a “pro-gun” politician, too, but the problem for us is that so many politicians actually claim to be pro-gun, but so few of them actually are.

  8. Whetherman says:

    “this is what I’d like to see in a “pro-gun” politician, too…”

    ABSOLUTELY! Also in pro-gun organizations. It’s what “single issue” is supposed to mean. But as I keep preaching, the gun issue is primarily a decoy used to attract votes to social conservative candidates, and typically their first three priorities are abortion, abortion and abortion. If anything they deliver just enough on guns, so that we aren’t totally POed at them, come next election. And even if we are, they have their front organizations to fix it for them, or cover up what they did to us.

  9. Carl from Chicago says:

    Why do you continue to use the derogatory term “flyover country?” Is there a particular reason?

  10. HappyWarrior6 says:

    Any idea what the changes are for the GOP to hold the seat now that Gianforte is facing misdemeanor assault charges after his moment of crazy yesterday?

  11. TS says:

    So he only supports a registry. But his party has in no unequivocal terms said that these guns have no place in civilian hands for the past 30 years. But, it’d be political suicude to call for a ban right now, so for now they just want to know where there are… and nobody is coming for your guns…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top