Despite what Bloomberg’s money has convinced many Dems of, I still don’t see it as an issue lighting the fire under the Dem base. Otherwise Beto would rank, which he doesn’t. The reason gun control is hot right now is because it’s been associated with Trump, and everything the Bad Orange Man associates with is awful. The people who voted for him are awful. So gun people are awful, and we have to get back at them.
It’s really sad what our politics have degenerated to. I used to enjoy arguing for gun rights, and while I still do believe taking a newb shooting and breeding familiarity is one of the best ways to help our cause, I’m coming to believe that no one these days is interested in any kind of reasonable political conversation. Political discourse is absolutely ruled by the aggressively ignorant. Make more shooters and rally those we already have. I think right now that’s the only thing that matters.
I agree with Cam Edwards: bringing forward Mike Bloomberg as the cure for the elitism of the Democratic Party is like dropping someone off in the desert to cure heat stroke.
I think the Dem elites are scared to death of Liz Warren, the left-populist candidate. I don’t think they mind rhetoric, as long as at the end of the day, the tech elites are permitted to do what they want. Their real fear is to have someone in the White House who won’t play ball.
The thing with having a monopoly or oligopoly is: people have to be convinced you’re making their lives better. Zuck particularly has a real problem there. Amazon and Wal-Mart have changed shopping, and I want to love Amazon, but go take a look at any small town main street. I think people are starting to ask real questions about whether we’re really better off for all this change. Even I am, and I’m a lot more change tolerant than average.
Cam is right here. The Dem elites are getting the vapors that their preferred candidate is melting down, and they might be dealing with a left-populist candidate who’s not sympathetic to their bullshit. This will be a key thing to look for:
If Elizabeth Warren becomes the Democratsâ€™ chosen candidate in 2020, donâ€™t be surprised if Bloomberg and his gun control groups donâ€™t spend a lot of money supporting her. Instead, I would expect tens of millions of dollars to flood into states around the country in a bid to reshape state legislatures along with the U.S. Senate and Congress.
Grassroots gun control supports shouldn’t have any issue with Liz Warren. If there isn’t much money for her from gun control supporters, it’s a strong indication of who is really calling the shots in the movement.
Imagine a reality in which people can own other people (buying them with or without a warranty), or a person can buy himself, and become free. A reality in which slaves can sue their masters, and have a jury decide whether they are really free. Into this not-alternate reality came a remarkable cast of Americans: Dred and Harriet Scott – the slaves whose suit for freedom sparked a battle in the Supreme Court and in the White House. John F. A. Sanford – the mountain man turned New York millionaire, who agreed to pose as the Scott’s owner so the suit could be filed. Rep. Calvin Chaffee – the prominent Massachusetts abolitionist, who was shocked to discover that he and his wife owned slaves, indeed the most famous slaves in the United States. Roger Taney – Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who tried to preserve the Union by protecting slavery, and instead brought on the Civil War and slavery’s abolition. James Buchanan – the President-elect who secretly connived with the Court’s pro-slavery Justices, seeking a ruling that would let slavery spread throughout the territories. Abraham Lincoln – the failed frontier politician who awoke one morning to realize that Taney and Buchanan had given him the roadmap to the White House.
I highly recommend it. This is not the story of the Dred Scott case you learned about in high school.
ANTI-GUN SENTIMENT SHRINKS DICKâ€™S. In reference to this article. I’m actually really hoping Dick’s gets out of the gun business entirely, if only so I don’t have to listen to the fuddie duddies talk about getting this or that at Dick’s. Not everyone gets the message. They’ve been a problem for years. None of this shit is new. It’s just that the mask is off now.
I love that he goes to the: “But if we do these things and it saves one life, don’t you think it’s worth it?” That’s such a vacuous argument, and after all these years I’m sick of hearing it. It’s a refuge of people who don’t really have an argument and instead want to resort to emotional blackmail.
Dick’s Sporting Goods is selling 8 of its Field and Stream stores to Sportsman’s Warehouse. I’m going to assume those stores will be rebranded, since Dick’s isn’t selling all its stores to the company. There’s speculation that Dick’s will exit the hunting and gun market entirely. I hope that’s the case, because they don’t deserve our money.
I always hate writing articles like this, because I don’t like pooh poohing other people’s work. Any effort for the cause is appreciated, and I’ve learned over the years not to look a gift horse in the mouth by critiquing volunteer efforts.
But my skepticism of rallying as a tactic is still alive and well. It’s not that it doesn’t work, but in order for it to work you have to turn out numbers that make politicians stand up and pay attention. For DC, that’s a huge number that have to turn out, and it’s harder to generate numbers in DC than it is in other places. Making a DC rally a success takes a lot of organization and money. If you’re depending on people to get there on their own, you’re probably not going to turn out the numbers needed to really put the scare on lawmakers. Making a rally or march on DC work is a gargantuan effort, and it takes a combination of top down and bottom up organizing if it’s to truly be a success. You can joke all you want about Bloomberg buying a bus and boxed lunches, but that’s how it’s done. The reason Bloomberg’s outfits struggle with rallying is they lack the bottom up component that is necessary for making it successful. Our error has traditionally been assuming that bottom up is all you need. It’s not. It’s a lot of work from the other end too.
So if you’re not about putting out that effort in both directions, the rally is an exercise in growing your list. That could be important, especially in the battles ahead both internal and external. But even if list growth is the goal, is a DC rally really the thing to accomplish that? That’s the big daddy. You need a lot of organization and money, and November 2 is awful close.