search
top

Irish Robert Visits Newtown

Gun control isn’t going to save this guy. He might rival Hillary for the title of most awful candidate I’ve seen in my life.

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.

19 Responses to “Irish Robert Visits Newtown”

  1. Countertop says:

    Keep taking people shooting. And if you hunt, take them hunting. Familiarity and actual experience (and the joy of pulling a trigger and hearing BANG and seeing a hole show up 100 in paper or the ping of lead on steal) is our secret weapon. Just like Bacon is the secret weapon against Vegans. Once people try it, they realize the opposition is lying.

    But social media is horrific. And the people arguing about politics endlessly on social media are only driving other people away. Or being ignored.

  2. Andy B. says:

    “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.”

    Dang, if there had only been some way to anticipate that before we made Trump “our” candidate, huh?

    My mom always told be I’d be judged by the people I chose to associate with, but that’s not fair, and what did she know, anyway?

    • Joe says:

      That’s what happens when you have a faux-independent media acting as a Thug-Posse and Politburo for the Democrat Party.

      The Democrats did the same thing to Mitt Romney in the 2012 Presidential Campaign. They’re just more rabid with Trump because he at least, somehow punches back, and that’s the reason they’re so aggressive.

      They’ve never face retaliation before, and if one thing can be taken from Trump is that our side has no other option than punching back. Romney rolled over……..look where it got him.

    • 399 says:

      Lately they’ve been playing clips of one of Trump’s Greatest Hits, his recital of the lyrics from “The Snake”. “You knew I was a snake, before you took me in.” More than a little ironic, while we are getting bit in the ass.

    • Scott in Phx says:

      I didn’t make the choice to associate with Trump.

      AZ didn’t decide who the nominee was.

      But as much as I find him personally distasteful (and I still don’t trust him – I really fear for gun rights in his 2nd term) I don’t think I’d have gotten as much from even Cruz as I have from Trump (overall, though Cruze would probably not have gone after bump stocks but he might not have gotten us out of the Paris accords).

      My wife abhorred Trump when he was just a celebrity but glommed onto him pretty fast as a nominee – she believes he loves the country (me I think he’s more likely more of an opportunist).

      I think he just likes to fight and chose the “conservative” side since the liberal side was taken and since then he has more or less stuck to his side.

      The media would have savaged Cruz too if he had been elected and gun control never goes out of style.

      That’s not Trumps fault.

  3. Richard says:

    There is no “our” there. We have two mutually hostile countries inhabiting the same physical space. This will not end well.

    • Andy B. says:

      “Our” in the sense of “gun owners” and/or “gun rights advocates.” There are rumored to be some in blue states.

      But, in 1861 there were Abolitionists in the Slave States and slavery advocates in the North, and people out to make a buck, everywhere. And that didn’t end well.

  4. Andy B. says:

    “Deplorables vs urbanites.”

    My same point: Cities contain a lot of Deplorables and the countryside harbors a lot of the “urban elite.”

    The thing is, it is not clear how solid a bloc “Deplorables” are, as opposed to those who were merely willing to fellow-travel with Deplorables and vote for Trump for some issue of personal self-interest. Given enough time Trump will probably offend those people with certain issues, one by one. For example, I know several of my fellow veterans who were giddy Trump supporters, getting off on things like how snappily he saluted his Marine guards compared to how Obama did it (that coffee-cup thing) but who are now put off by the way Trump cut-and-run in Syria, and his abandonment of our Kurd allies. They are now more willing to entertain that he dances on Putin’s strings, or at least the strings of autocrats like Erdogan. They are less inclined to forgive his “bone spurs”. In many cases veterans supported Trump based on promises of fixing the VA, and many at first thought that was actually being done. They now know it wasn’t being done, and those who valued that as their issue are more likely to question the competence or motivations of Trump appointees.

    Those are only a couple examples, and my point isn’t to argue those issues, per se, or whether one interpretation of them or another has been wholly manufactured by the MSM. My point is that more and more things like that will get traction, and “Deplorables” as a culture will become reduced to a hard core who only treasure Trump for his traits that really are, well, deplorable. Those we can count on him to stand behind, because they are his true nature. So while a lot of people may have savored the label of “Deplorables” while HRC was calling them that, those who are less authentically deplorable may not be sufficient in number to make up an entire major faction of American culture. But, even insignificant minorities can persuade themselves they are a vast majority, by communicating only inside their own bubbles or echo chambers.

    I think next Tuesday is going to be a good barometer. I think there are mostly municipal elections, nationwide. Municipal elections are more “ideology”-free than state and federal elections, so if Republicans take a statistical drubbing (partisan votes will be mostly irrational in municipal elections), they are in trouble. If they do OK, or even reverse 2017 trends, then they are on solid ground, and their base is substantial and dependable.

    • Richard says:

      Yeah, it is mixed up. Look at me with my graduate degree and career in the Deep State. Yet I live in a double wide, drive pickups, shoot guns and listen to country music. I identify as a Deplorable. As long as Trump continues to be the Tribune of the Deplorables, I will support him. It gets less mixed up all of the time as the Great Sort in residential patterns and personal relationships continues.

      • Andy B. says:

        “I live in a double wide, drive pickups, shoot guns and listen to country music.”

        Please don’t take this in the wrong way, but as someone with a similar story, I ask, have you ever considered those things may be as much affectations as the penthouse apartment, S-Class Mercedes, and opera of an urban elitist?

        This is not terribly profound, but, often what we believe can be as much a function of the subculture we choose to identify with, as of reason and rationality. Someone who showed up at the range dressed stylishly for the golf links would get at least a few strange looks, while a guy wearing camo would pass unnoticed. But functionally what they were wearing would be equivalent. So, why is one outfit “typical” and the other not? And does living in a double-wide, driving pickups, listening to country music, and identifying as Deplorable make you a more authentic shooter than anyone else?

        As I said, please don’t interpret that as meant in a challenging way; it’s just the type of philosophical thought I like to play with, anymore. It may have started when I observed that non-conformists usually all non-conformed in the same way.

        • Richard says:

          I did all those things before I ever heard the term “Deplorable”. Doublewide is fairly new to me in retirement but I got my first pickup 20 years ago, switched to country 50 years ago and don’t remember a time when I didn’t shoot. All this in an urban/suburban environment, so no, not affectations. What is new is that the Left has politicized all this stuff, individually and as a complex of traits, so they are going to have to live with the consequences.

          • Andy B. says:

            I guess we’re flipping life-experiences here, but I’m sure your double-wide would make the house I grew up in look like a palace. I never lived in a house with indoor plumbing or a telephone until my 23rd birthday. It’s possible your double-wide would make the house I live in now look like a palace, because my area is actually used to define “blue collar” as a category in the marketing/advertising industry.

            My first “car” was a 1951 Willys panel body truck I bought for $25 and rebuilt its engine under the maple tree behind our house. Most of my cars were used until about 25 years ago. I never had a pickup though because they didn’t seem practical for my needs. The kids and I could camp out of the back of old station wagons.

            My dad used to lean toward country music, but I never really did. Of course back in the late ’50s, early ’60s a lot of country music was crossing over to the pop charts, as the artists defined their identities, so its a little hard to say. I lost almost all taste for it while inundated by it in the Army.

            But as for shooting — no, I can never remember a time when I didn’t. My first “theological” debate was in First Grade, regarding whether Santa Claus brought BB guns. No one could tell me he didn’t, no matter what their parents said, because he had brought one for me. But by the next year I was wandering the fields unaccompanied with a .22. Later the town kids would swipe .22 ammo out of the hardware store and bring it to my house to shoot out of my guns. I was sort of a Huckleberry Finn in that regard.

            But as for “culture”: Where I grew up was still very rural at the time, but I don’t remember having any affection or affinity for the “culture.” To this day I recall the people people as being mostly petty, gossipy, judgemental, and hypocritical in their judgments. Guns were really “only tools” and treated as such, brought out once or twice a year for some token hunting. Mostly the farm community was too busy. In my family, we hunted for food, to supplement the pantry. I remember a year when my father encouraged me to skip school, mid-week and mid-season, to hunt deer, because we needed the meat.

            (A gun anecdote: The farmer who was most our “mentor” in the neighborhood hunted with a Win. M’86 .40-65; then he thought he needed more power, so bought a Win. 71 .348 — an update to his familiar M’86. Wish I could have gotten that ’86!)

            But what I’m getting to is that I don’t remember guns being a “cultural” component. My dad and I were gun “hobbyists” and I grew to be a fanatic, but I don’t remember it being part of the rural “culture.” Most people could take them or leave them. To my recall their transformation into something “cultural” began around 40 – 45 years ago, and with hindsight I’m thinking that was because their political utility was becoming apparent. I hesitate to make a negative analogy, but it may have been somewhat akin to the “Southern Strategy.” Look for things that were bound to change “culturally” over decades, and embrace cultural preservation for its political value. That was about when religion became politicized.

            • Andy B. says:

              “To my recall their transformation into something “cultural” began around 40 – 45 years ago”

              I take that back. It was more like ~60 years ago. “Guns and Ammo” magazine started beating the drum to “Defend your right to Keep and Bear Arms” c. 1960 – 1961. Way in advance of the NRA. For a buck or two they sold a little “kit” that included stickers that said that. I had the girls in my senior class in HS pasting them on their purses. Now that was outreach! :-)

              “Most people could take them or leave them.” (guns)

              The thing is, people will take something for granted until you tell them they can’t do it anymore. Being apparently born with “Rebel Spirit”, if you told me tomorrow that bananas were going to be controlled, I would probably be a pro-banana activist on the spot, even though I think it’s been months since I ate one.

        • 399 says:

          If a lifestyle can be stereotyped, there is a good chance what you are talking about is a “cult”, not a “culture.” You can save a syllable.

  5. fuzzyKBP says:

    Well, it doesn’t appear to have saved _former_ presidential candidate O’Rourke.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/01/politics/beto-orourke-drops-out/index.html

    • Sebastian says:

      I am disappointed. He was the gift that kept on giving.

      • Andy B. says:

        As I suggested we watch right after he made his “Damn right I’ll take away your AR-15” statement, it seems his poll numbers were really dwindling in recent weeks. We can only wish it could be demonstrated that that dwindling accelerated immediately after his loudmouthed attack on gun rights. I have not attempted to track or plot his numbers versus time, though.

        • Alpheus says:

          There’s really only three possibilities:

          First, that his support dropped because of his stance, which would be a *very* good sign.

          Second, that his support flatlined. It could be better, but this is also likely a good sign: it’s not an issue that can rally Democrats easily.

          Third, that his support increased, but not by sufficient amounts to justify his campaign. The significance of this would be difficult to read — because it means that the issue is important to some Democrats, but it’s certainly not important enough to catapult an otherwise mediocre candidate into a good position.

          Of course, these signs might be all wrong: it may be the case that the issue *can* catapult a candidate, but it has to be the *right* candidate. Time will tell, but at the very least, Beto proved that taking away guns *is* a popular Democratic sentiment, even if he wasn’t able to ride that sentiment to the nomination….

Leave a Reply

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

top