But Remember, They Support the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment as an individual right is a lie, and gun owners are stupid people who lap up and regurgitate everything the NRA says, and are “primed to trade in ‘fake news’.”

There’s an old adage that one should never interrupt your enemy when they are in the process of making a mistake, and I’m certainly not going to. I think we were even accused of being Russian stooges in there, but I’m not sure.

This is why they have lost, and why for the foreseeable future they will continue to lose. For the most part, we went out into the culture with a mission to persuade and change minds, and save the handful of states where the law and/or culture has already been rigged against that, we’ve succeeded. The only reason the gun control movement has seen any success at all is because Mike Bloomberg is a good strategician, and has the will and capability to outspend us. If it had to depend on the minds at the Brady Campaign, the issue would have made no gains whatsoever in the past five years.

14 thoughts on “But Remember, They Support the Second Amendment”

  1. “I think we were even accused of being Russian stooges in there, but I’m not sure.

    I think you’re straining too hard for victimhood — at the same time you’re leaning toward the side of ridiculing the idea that Russian influence has any role in contemporary U.S. politics.

    Here is the phrase I think you are alluding to:

    The country will be led by corporate business billionaires, deniers of the truth, sycophants, campaign donors, conspiracy theorists, Russian friendly folks, second amendment enthusiasts, and others who don’t seem to care about public health and safety.

    Nothing in that phrase suggests a linkage between any of the named factions and any of the others; any more than, say, listing religious zealots and gun owners as likely Republican supporters suggests that all gun owners are religious zealots. But are gun owners ever stooges for religious zealots?

    That said: When I was a kid, I think it was still illegal to “advocate the violent overthrow of the government of the United States,” and the entity most identified with that purpose was the Russian government.

    As many as twenty-plus years ago, when I was loosely connected with the emergent “militia movement,” it began to occur to me that the contemporary advocates of a “violent overthrow” of the government of the United States were mostly “on the right,” though of course for such virtuous purposes as “defending the real constitution.”

    Can you think of any states that have (or have attempted) “nullification” legislation, saying that federal agents who attempt to enforce certain federal laws can be arrested and imprisoned? No “violent overthrow” there, huh?

    At first I would observe that tongue-in-cheek. Later I learned that the KGB finds it most effective to utilize peoples’/groups’/movements’ virtues to turn them, rather than their faults and weaknesses. The patriot can be steered more easily than the malcontent.

    I’m not saying we are always stooges; but does that mean we have never been stooges? By which I mean, unwittingly advancing an undetected agenda?

    1. “the KGB finds it most effective to utilize peoples’/groups’/movements’ virtues to turn them”

      The practical exposure I had to that was, when I worked in the high-level security world, we were constantly warned to beware Israeli agents; not only because Israel did spy on us and was known to swap some strategic information with the Russians, but because the KGB was most often successful with false flag operations, often setting up elaborate ruses to make Russian agents appear to be Israeli agents, who Americans would be more sympathetic to for engaging in overt espionage.

      Obviously “resist your government because it is violating your nation’s most basic founding principles” is a very compelling argument for the most patriotic people.

  2. Joan Petersen? I quit paying attention to her years ago. Commenting on her blog lends it legitimacy. She, like others on thst side, are interested in dictate, not debate. The 2nd is a right as long as they get to decide to whom tbe right applies.

    1. To be fair, she is a HUGE player in the anti-gun world.

      She’s a Brady Campaign board member, and the President of a Joyce-Foundation anti-gun lobby group.

      Just because she’s a complete lunatic, and is showing how feckless the anti-gun side doesn’t say anything about her legitimacy, just how desperate the anti-gun side is for support.

      1. You’re correct anout JPs stature, and I have seen your comments at her site in the past. But since we cannot change her mind, why bothr engaging her unless it is to influence others whom might read her drvel? So, I guess the question is “Does snyone read her site who we might be able to influence? I do not know the answer to that.

  3. We haven’t won anything yet. All we did was stave off an obvious angle of attack. I voted for Trump – heck, I even went to Florida and did GOTV for him – but I’m not about to trust any group of politicians no matter the color of the flag they fly.

    We were made explicit promises, and they must be kept. So far all I have seen is evidence of more “Show Bills”, where we watch the things we need go down to a filibuster in the Senate. This is avoidable (amendments to bills the Dems will pass), but only if the GOP is actually pro-2A.

    When the time comes and we see “Show Bills” meant to get us angry at the evil Democrats who are filibustering, we need to rise up and instead get angry at the GOP for playing us for fools again.

    We need to break their cycle of stupid, or it’ll break us.

    1. It makes me so optimistic to see that more people have caught on!

      Maybe tomorrow there’ll be three of us in the country!

      1. Dude, I’ve been there long before today. I worked with an earlier Congress on another version of reciprocity and knew it wouldn’t pass. We were just setting some bars. I’ve been a registered lobbyist. Nice to see you join in.

        This can go a few ways right now. But the only way it goes anywhere this time is if the community calls bullshit starting in late January.

        Right now I can pretty much guarantee that the plan is to pass a bill in the House, get it through committee in the Senate and then let the Dems block it. Much will be made about, “darn, if only we had 60 Republicans in the Senate. Aw, shucks. Maybe if all you gun lovers send money and give us a better Senate we can finally make good on this promise. See ya in 2018, suckers!

        This is called, “The Show Bill” – where they get to show how much they care without actually doing anything. In the time gun measures fail to move, the GOP will fund most every progressive extension of government intrusion into your life, and probably more than a few pet projects to transfer your federal dollars into liberal causes.

        The community needs to catch on early and force gun measures to be attached to big spending and authorization bills. We don’t want to wait for the filibuster – we want the primary path to be something Schumer cannot filibuster.

        And yes, a lot of this comes down to what Trump really wants. If he wants reciprocity (for example), then the GOP will relent. If he doesn’t…then it’ll be time to call him out and it doesn’t matter how much GOTV I did in Florida on his behalf – I’ll be right first to call BS.

        1. I kind of figured they’d do that. I agree we need to pressure them. But I’m not expecting that bill to pass until the next Congress because the temptation to use it as an issue in 2018 will be really high. Of course, the problem the GOP will have is there’s a very good chance the most vulnerable Senators, Heitcamp and Manchin, are going to vote for cloture. I also think that the GOP getting to 60 even with their advantages headed into 2018 would be very optimistic. So at some point they need to stop showboating and pass the bill over Dem objections.

        2. “… it’ll be time to call him out …”

          That will really show him!

          First, in consideration of and respect for your actual experience, let me apologize for the sarcasm.

          But, you seem to be assuming a remarkably conventional political scenario for 2018, in a current national political situation that is far from conventional.

          By 2018 I’m betting we either will have a Trumpite faction dug in beyond hope of extraction; or rejected and deposed to such an extent that the political fallout/backlash will be unpredictable.

          Any interest group believing that just “calling [anyone] out” is going to have an impact is probably going to be very disappointed.

  4. Speaking of “regurgitating what other people say,” the left are totally dependent on doing that very thing. Rush Limbaugh has a weekly “montage” where he plays back nearly a dozen main stream media outlets all using the exact same wording to denounce a conservative act or declamation, even if their critic has no merit.
    The article linked below, excoriating FedEx for giving NRA members discounts, contains several groundless claims made by various gun control/sjw groups who are simply repeating the fabricated power points made by anti-gun pundits for years, if not decades, in spite of contradictory evidence published by John Lott, the FBI, and even the CDC. It’s akin to Mrs. Clinton accusing Mr. Trump of disseminating “fake news,” after she publicly claimed to have “dodged mortar fire on the tarmac.” Heres the link:
    – Arnie

    1. That is what most anti-gun people do on their sites. Easier to have a “debate ” when the other side has duct tape over their mouths.

Comments are closed.