Thanks, Irish Robert

Let’s be honest with ourselves: “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in,” was getting pretty worn. Said years and years ago by a now octogenarian who probably won’t be with us much longer. Gun owners of the future will probably be like “Diane who?” before too long.

But thanks to Bobby Frank, we have a new scare quote we’ll be able to get mileage out of for years and years. Can we now dispense with the gaslighting fiction that no one is after our guns? Should be pretty obvious by now what the real agenda is here. Irish Robert wants to take the most popular gun in America. He said it on live TV where everyone could hear it.

Sometimes honesty is refreshing.

22 thoughts on “Thanks, Irish Robert”

  1. As I said elsewhere, I’m tempted to use the Cricut to cut some heat transfer vinyl and make a version of his t-shirt advertising the quote that doesn’t line his pockets and wear it around the gun club.

    1. Firearm Policy Coalition already has something similar out. I have one on order.

  2. Almost tempted to say so what on this. Feinslime is still in office after that, having incurred exactly zero punishment. Ditto Schumer and all the other worst offenders. It is disturbing that our side merely delays their plans and they can sit for decades awaiting opportunity and advantage.

    1. Feinstein is still in office because she’s a Senator from California. The point is what it does for the gun control cause. No one can credibly say “no one is coming for your guns.” Beto is. A lot of the current crop of Democratic candidates are, too. UBC is a backdoor registry, which is what Beto would use to take the guns. Red flag laws are another excuse to do it. It’s all of a piece. And no one on that side has any credibility anymore when they try to say they support the Second Amendment.

      1. Exactly. I’ve had debates with people before after saying people do want to come for our guns, and pointed to Feinstein’s statement. They always replied “that’s 20 years ago!”.

        Now we can finally put to rest the lie they aren’t coming for our guns.

        They are, as we always known. And now we have proof.

  3. I sometimes tend to overthink things, I suppose, but I’m entertaining a suspicion in this case that Beto (who hardly seems really Irish) was talked or tricked or volunteered to possibly take a bullet for his party.

    What I mean is, they needed a better test of “how far can we take this gun thing?” than could be gotten reliably by calling random people on the phone and asking their opinions. So, one candidate had to take the hardest position, just to see what happens to him, the candidate.

    Beto did not appear destined to go far anyway, so maybe he volunteered to be the test case. He was the one to come out strongly for a gun ban. Now everyone will watch his numbers. If his numbers plummet or just decline, the Ds will know they’re playing with fire. If Beto’s numbers stay firm or go up — look out, Second Amendment.

    1. Andy B: I might buy that, except for the fact that, in addition to the crowd cheering, nobody else on stage even attempted to walk it back in the slightest.

      They’re all on the same page. He was the only one to slip up and admit what the real agenda is.

      1. “They’re all on the same page.”

        You are absolutely right, but not just in the way you mean.

        Stop mistaking what politicians say as a tool to get votes, for what they actually think. Everybody in government wants to take guns away – can you imagine going to all that trouble and expense to acquire political power, and then allowing the people a viable means to say “no” to you?

        The Republicans just inherited or evolved into owning the “pro-gun” side of the issue, and now they still need it and can’t let go — yet. In that way it’s analogous to the “Southern Strategy,” which they merely adopted as a matter of political expediency when the Dixiecrats were done with it. Not to go off on that tangent, but even Jimmie Carter (D) used racist dog-whistles when it served his power-seeking purposes, so there’s your example of issue-sincerity right there.

        Everyone on that stage knew perfectly well what was going on, so didn’t react to it. And a Democrat audience cheering, was as much a conditioned response as a Trump rally crowd cheering for “Mexico will pay for the wall” or “I’d like to punch them in the face.”

        1. You’ll notice every big advance in gun control follows a period of political and social upheaval, though other excuses are substituted. The first serious federal inroads against the Second Amendment followed the First Red Scare of the 1920s, and followed close after the Bonus Army and Bonus Marches, but mobsters shooting each other with Tommy guns were used for the excuse. The second advance, in 1968, followed a spate of political assassinations. Certainly JFK and RFK among the political elite, and perhaps Malcolm X, George Lincoln Rockwell, and MLK among lesser beings. Cities had also been burned. In the 1968 case they did blame the political assassinations as an excuse, but downplayed the fears arising from the Civil Rights Movement, the Black Panthers, and the gathering storm of disgruntled GIs with some knowledge of arms coming home from Vietnam. What was coming in terms of dissatisfaction could be seen.

          Currently I would guess the polarization for which the Trump phenomenon is only a symptom is unsettling the politicians of both parties, and they are likely to act on their fears that they’ve harbored all along. Mass shootings are being blamed, but even mainstream pundits observe that a previous 20 years of mass shootings produced no action to speak of. Fear of loss of control will be the real reason why both political parties will eventually find common cause for the next increment of firearms restriction.

          1. 339, I am pretty sure you are right…

            Resistance to consolidated political power is exactly why the Second Amendment was written.

            No wonder it is such a threat to them.

  4. I commented on someone liveblogging the debate that it was sounding like a Trump 2020 campaign ad, even BEFORE O’Rourke gave Mike Bloomberg a fit.

    1. “it was sounding like a Trump 2020 campaign ad”

      I think that’s something ideologues can’t judge accurately. You are probably right if what you mean is, that Trump’s base would be motivated. However, a large percentage of the population no longer salivate at the sounds of the tinkling bells that the Republicans have come to depend on and now take for granted. Kids no longer fall down in fits with their eyes rolled back in their heads when someone says the word “socialist.” If they did, AOC and The Squad wouldn’t have stood a chance, even in their unique districts. I was watching the news about the GM strike this morning, and couldn’t help noticing that red has become the color of choice for union outerwear again. Red – get it? For all the recent talk about “generations,” everyone continues to act like there haven’t been any.

      1. Kids these days are smart enough to know that “socialist” is just a buzzword used by conservatives to try to scare people.

        1. The actual history of socialism is enough to scare anyone who is not ignorant.

          1. Sure, but when spoken by conservatives “socialism” is just code for “I disagree with this policy”.

            1. There is a limited degree of truth to this. A lot of things labeled “socialism” aren’t that. But some of them are important steps that pave the way toward that outcome. Perhaps some reflection is in order on all sides.

  5. My Progressive friends like to say that.

    My reply (not voiced because pointless) is “yeah, YOU might not want to actually ban and confiscate them … but your side does and occasionally forgets to lie about it”.

    Zero trust.

  6. That’s even scarier than Trumps “Take the guns first, go through due process second” quote!

Comments are closed.