So there was this former University of Missouri journalism prof who opined that the NRA is as bad as ISIS. I thought to myself, this could be fun. But alas, there isn’t enough in the article for even a bit of silly mockery, let alone a good Fisking. The old duffer’s argument seems to be that both organizations are known by acronyms. One wonders what he thinks of the National Restaurant Association.
What is it with Democrats and their inability to accept the outcomes of elections?
First it was the election of 1860, now it’s the election of 2016. The Democrats lost both elections and chose violence over democracy. (One would think that they’d recognize that word, but apparently not!) Instead, its radicalized wing is, just as it did in 1860, pushing the rest of the Party toward succession and open conflict. They chose badly last time around; this time would actually be worse.
The Democrat stronghold in 1860 was the South. The region was largely rural and well armed. They lacked numbers, but arguably had a formidable military capability. Ultimately, quantity counted more than quality. The Democrats went down to defeat, they lost their slaves, and they wouldn’t regain power for 7 decades.
Now they want a rematch.
This time, their stronghold isn’t one region; it’s a handful of urban centers. They’re separated from one another by “flyover country” and have virtually no military capacity. (Snowflakes in black do not an army make.) Their one potential advantage is that they still have a few fingertips that are able to reach the levers of power over which they formerly had a firm grasp. They hold lots of court appointments and they hold the nation’s media corporations. They can issue court rulings that ignore the Constitution and have a compliant media report how this is actually OK.
The problem comes when push truly comes to shove. That sort of heavy handed, anti-democratic behavior can only go so far before the People decide that they’ve had enough. The results of the last election ought to serve as notice that they’ve reached that point. What comes next is up to the Democrat Party. This can end in blood and fire, like it did last time, or they can choose to live up to their name. This time, they would do well to remember that the rabble are heavily armed. We own somewhere between 300,000,000 and 500,000,000 firearms. We own billions of rounds of ammunition. The military that you may have been counting on to be your muscle is made up of our sons and daughters. Who do you really think they’ll be aiming at if it comes to that?
You’ve been wondering for years why we “rednecks” keep buying more and more guns and ammo. It’s not so that we can over throw the government; it’s so we can keep people like you from overthrowing the government. We like our Republic and our Constitution and we intend to keep them. If you’re intent upon changing either, there are legal mechanisms for doing so. Convince us that you’re right and we’ll go along with you. But before you Democrats start whistling Dixie (again) and go marching off to war armed with sticks, black bandannas, and clever hashtags, you may want to rethink those plans for a glorious revolution. It will not go well for you.
…they aren’t wrong to be crazy about what they’re getting crazy about.
Perhaps I should explain the cray-cray.
The anti-gun left are losing their minds now that the only way they’ll keep President Trump from getting sworn in would be to steal every Bible within 200 miles of Washington D.C.. But let’s be honest, they have some very good reasons to be blowing a collective gasket. Let’s start with reason number 1:
DONALD TRUMP IS THE NEXT PRESIDENT!
This brings us to reason number 2: Hillary Clinton will not be picking the next three or four Supreme Court justices. Why not? See reason number 1. This is a solid justification for them to be having a Chernobyl-sized meltdown. Why? Reasons 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3:
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, age 83
- Stephen Breyer, age 78
- Anthony Kennedy, age 80
So not only will President Trump be appointing Justice Scalia’s replacement, he may be in a position to turn the 5-4 court into a 7-2 court; and, to do so for a generation.
Our 2nd Amendment freedoms have been hanging by a thread ever since the landmark Heller ruling. The anti-gun left has been looking forward to snipping that thread. The passing of Justice Scalia earlier this year looked like their opportunity to do so. They would finally be able to rule the 2nd Amendment out of existence.
But that didn’t happen.
Shockingly, the Senate GOP held the line against Merrick Garland‘s appointment to the Court. In fact, they will be holding pro forma sessions until Donald Trump is actually sworn in to keep President Obama from making recess appointments. President Trump has promised to appoint a strict constructionist to fill the Scalia seat. In other words, a justice who won’t assign different meanings to the phrase “the people” in different parts of the Bill Of Rights. If it means individuals in the 4th Amendment, then it means individuals in the 2nd. It also means a justice who won’t creatively redefine “arms” to mean something other than weapons. Or one who won’t mistake the “militia” with the Army Reserve. These were the routes the anti-gun left intended to use to make the 2nd Amendment irrelevant. They know they can’t amend it away, so they’d simply rule it away.
And now that won’t happen. And that’s making them crazy; sensibly crazy.
The New York Times, for all of its other faults, produced some wonderful resources for tracking election results. Of particular interest are the maps that they produced. These showed data at the county level, but not in the way most papers do. Most other news outlets showed an entire county as shades of red or blue. The Times used dots centered on each county seat to show amounts; either of votes cast, registration, or votes remaining. As a result, we could see, for example, that Pennsylvania was running out of Democrat votes in the counties around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh before the state could be delivered to Hillary; or that Michigan was also running out of safe Democrat counties.
For the final results, their mapping convention produced this map showing where each candidate won and by what margin. The dots make large, but mostly empty western counties less prominent and cities moreso…
Now some of you might think that this looks familiar. Take a look at it with a few additions…
Better? You’ve probably seen maps like this all of your life; at airline ticket counters.
The cause of Hillary Clinton’s loss should be obvious: She only won at the nation’s airports. Donald Trump, on the other hand, won “flyover country”. The places that she only wanted to see from 35,000′ chose not to vote for her. Go figure! Sure, she won big in Los Angeles County and Cook County, but that does make up for the way she alienated voters in lots of little places like Atascosa County, TX or Daniels County, MT. Those deplorable, little, red counties add up.
Let’s face it, LAX, JFK, and ORD are not a sound foundation for an electoral college win.
The history books will, no doubt, tell us that Hillary Clinton’s political career came to an abrupt end on November 8, 2016. In fact, that was merely the date that it finally succumbed to a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head received on September 9, 2016. That was the night that she decided to insult half of the electorate.
The joke played well to the audience in the room (They thought it was hysterical!), but she forgot that “the room” extended beyond the four walls she could see at the time. She also forget to parse exactly what she was saying.
Hillary said that half of Trump’s supporters were “deplorable” and “unredeemable”. True, she tried to say that the other half were simply frustrated with big government, but that’s not really what she was meant. By calling some of Trump’s supporters “deplorable”, the implication was that Trump himself was deplorable. But that also implies that anyone who supports him is deplorable. And as we saw on November 8th, roughly half of the electorate was thus in her cute, little basket.
I suppose she could have also called them “a menace to the community”, but I digress.
Hillary did something that gun rights supporters do too often. She limited her social circle to only those who agree with her. This, in turn, caused her to believe that everyone agrees with her on any given issue. Similarly, we have a habit of assuming that everyone understands how truly harmful gun control laws are since all of our gun owning friends understand that fact.
This inside-the-bubble thinking hurt Hillary and us on election day. Sure, everyone we knew was opposed to Prop. 63. However, it won nearly 63% of the vote. We limited ourselves to appeals to other gun owners just as Hillary limited herself to a roomful of far-left, liberal gays and lesbians on September 9th. A quick look at election results from precincts around West Hollywood will show you that this particular room was far more liberal than gays and lesbians as a whole. In the same way, only talking to gun owners at a gun range or gun store will lead you to think that all gun owners opposed Prop. 63. This generalization was no more true than the one Hillary made that fateful night.
It ain’t fun hearing a bullet whiz past your ear. It means that you almost got your head taken off. On the upside, it does mean that you dodged one that could have taken your head off.
We dodged one of those last night.
Hillary Clinton, possibly the most anti-gun candidate in American political history, came within a hairsbreadth of winning the White House last night. While Donald Trump will come away with a commanding electoral college win (306-ish to 228-ish as I write this), Hillary won a slight majority in the popular vote. 59,408,297 people (as of 8:31 PST), damn near sent that harridan to the Oval Office. Had she gotten to that desk, your freedom to own and use whatever firearms you deem fit for your needs would have flushed down the nearest toilet.
However, this isn’t the time for gun owners to pack up and head home. The battle was won and the end of the war is in sight, but this is the GOP we’re talking about here. If anyone can rescue defeat from the jaws of victory, it’s that pack of creepy clowns. Trump has put forward a list of names for possible Supreme Court justices. Our job now is to vet these and others before they receive the consent of the Senate. (Remember that Souter and O’Connor were appointed by Republicans!) Don’t start thinking that having a little “R” behind someone’s name makes them a friend to your gun rights. We have the opportunity to reshape the Court for at least the next generation.
It’s time for the mopping up to begin.
America’s gunnuts are actually on the Left…
Clinton Pushes Semi-Auto Ban as Public Rejects Gun Bans in Record Numbers
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2016
Hillary Clinton has made clear that she would make gun control a top priority of her presidency, and has pointed to a new ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms as one of her chief goals. At a June 17, 2014 CNN “town hall” event, Clinton was asked, “Do you think that reinstating the ban on assault weapons and banning high capacity magazines would do any good?” Clinton affirmed her support for a ban, and stated, “We cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.” Clinton’s team might want to rework this line of attack, as a Gallup poll released this week shows that a record number, and a majority, of Americans oppose a ban on popular semi-automatic firearms.
In a poll conducted October 5-9, Gallup asked 1,017 adults, “Are you for or against a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles?” An overwhelming 61 percent of respondents answered that they were against such a ban, while a mere 36 percent support the restriction.
Gallup began asking this question in 1996, and has done so several times in the last two decades. The trend in favor of greater respect for gun rights is undeniable. Since 1996, support for a ban has dropped more than 20 points and opposition has risen 19 points.
Moreover, Gallup’s data shows that support for a ban has fallen across both major political parties and independents. Gallup points out, “Currently, 50% of Democrats and 25% of Republicans favor a ban; in 1996, 63% of Democrats and 50% of Republicans did so.” Additionally, support for a ban is well below 50 percent in both gun-owning and non-gun-owning households.
In addition to the question about semi-automatic firearms, Gallup also asked respondents, “Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?” As with commonly-owned semiautomatics, the results reveal that Americans are opposed to a handgun ban in record numbers. In the 1980s and early 1990s Gallup measured support for a handgun ban at around 40 percent. Today, only 23 percent support this restriction.
While Clinton might like use incendiary rhetoric that labels gun rights supporters as a minority that “terrorizes” the majority of Americans, in fact it’s her support for gun bans that is extreme. We’d ask Clinton to stick to the truth, if she were familiar with the concept.
A few take-aways from this:
- Hillary Clinton knows what she knows and she’s not going to let the opinions of the “small folk” stand in her way. (Like that’s a surprise!)
- Support for an “assault weapon” ban fades away when it’s not called an “assault weapon” ban. Did you notice how Gallup phrased the question? Usually the question is “Do you favor banning deadly assault weapons that slaughter women and children?”. Whether they mean to or not, pollsters push-poll the question with wording like that. One wonders why Gallup did not do so here. Perhaps they’re tired of getting smacked for it by people like us.
- Gunnuts, those who obsess over firearms, are on the Left in America. Only people like Hillary get their knickers in a twist over rifles that are almost never used in violent crimes.
Virtually all Americans are of the opinion that this is the single worst presidential election in our nation’s history. I submit that the opposite is true.
The candidates of the two major parties are a weasel and a toad. I’ll let you decide which is which! There have never been two more unlikeable characters running for elective office. For every negative thing you can say about Hillary Clinton, there’s something just as bad to say about Donald Trump. Neither can be held up as shining example of virtuous living. But, as TownHall.com columnist Wayne Grudem points out, this makes the election about policies instead of personalities.
Voting for Clinton and her ultraliberal policies is not an option for me as an evangelical Christian. Therefore I am left with two options: (1) vote for Trump, or (2) vote for a third-party candidate whose hopes of winning belong to fantasy, not reality.
And if these are my only two options, then voting for a third-party candidate has the clear effect of helping to elect Clinton, because it is taking my vote away from Trump. That is why the liberal media loved it when I said I was finding it hard to decide.
It also means that my two options are actually this: (1) vote for Trump, or (2) help Hillary Clinton get elected.
Once I put the choice in those stark terms, there is a good way to make a decision. Since I find both candidates morally objectionable, I am back to the old-fashioned basis on which I have usually decided how to vote for my entire life: Whose policies are better? Do I agree more with Trump’s policies or with Clinton’s?
And that is how elections are supposed to be!
Elections in the US (Well… everywhere.) devolve into beauty contests. Who said or did what to whom becomes far too important. What a candidate did in the past is important, but not nearly as important as what they will do once elected. We should, but never really do, look at their policies rather than their wardrobes. But since neither Clinton nor Trump are viewed by the American People in a favorable light, we’re forced to decide based on their policies.
For gun owners, this is a no-brainer. The stated policies of each viable candidate are known. Yes, Trump could be lying about his support for gun rights; but what are the odds that Hillary is lying about her hostility toward your liberties? So unless you agree with Hillary that the 2nd Amendment only protects the National Guard, then you’re left with one and only one option: Donald Trump.
Today is your last day to register to vote in California. You can register online here. You’ve been reading about how awful Prop 63 is here and elsewhere for months now. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Even if Prop 63 wins at the polls, the NRA and other groups will fight it in the courts. They will do so on solid legal footing, but there is an undeniable influence that polls have on judges. A resounding victory for Gavin Newsom’s vanity proposition could provide a weak-kneed judge the cover he or she needs to ignore the Constitution and approve the law. If it squeaks by, that’s another story. Your vote matters whatever the outcome!
Don’t let the party elites (in either party!) demoralize you and keep you away from the polls. Register today and vote on November 8.
As a gun owner, someone who respects the 2nd Amendment, or someone who wants to see the rule of law defended in this country, Donald Trump is your only choice for president. Fail to make that choice, and Hillary has some definite plans for you…
In October, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced her gun control plan, promising that if she’s elected, she’ll ban some guns and impose other restrictive gun control laws, in some cases without Congress’ approval. Clinton’s plan would prohibit Americans from selling a “significant” number of privately owned guns without a license, prevent gun purchases by indefinitely delaying purchasers’ background checks, repeal the federal law that prevents gun control supporters from pursuing groundless lawsuits designed to stop gun sales by driving firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business, ban all semi-automatic shotguns and detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles (and some other categories of guns), ban the possession of firearms by people in troubled dating relationships without due process of law, and empower the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to revoke the licenses of dealers for unintentional recordkeeping errors.
Are you really going to let the MSM and the Democrat Party fool you with idiotic stories about what Trump allegedly did decades ago? (Stories that were debunked, by the way.) You really need to pay more attention to what Hillary will do come January if you allow her into the White House.