Quote of the Day: Fear and Loathing Edition

“(Working class gun owners) are precisely the kind of people the Democratic Party says it exists to serve. Over and over, people I met on my trip would say, ‘I don’t get it. Democrats are the party of the working man. How can the Democrats do this?’ They feel so alienated that they won’t listen to the Democrats on climate change or health care or immigration or anything else. As a Democrat, it broke my heart to hear this over and over and over again. These are our guys. These are our people, and they hate us. We take this anti-gun position and we’re giving these people away, and we’re getting nothing in exchange. We are not making the country safer.” – Dan Baum in What Liberals Need to Understand About ‘Gun Guys’ [via theatlantic.com]

comments

  1. avatar great unknown says:

    Dan Baum, with all due respect and pity, is an idiot. “Democrats are the party of the working man,” like communism was for the working man. Ask any citizen of the former USSR, and the current China, how that worked out.

    The Democratic party currently exists to push a socialist totalitarian agenda, and any promise or handout they make is purely to buy the votes of the ignorant – such as Dan Baum. It is the party of Government of the government, by the government, for the government.

    Unfortunately, as Mssrs. McCain and Graham demonstrated, this is true of the Republican establishment also.

  2. avatar tdiinva says:

    Dear Dan:

    The Democrats ceased being the party of the working man in 1972. It has become the party of government worker, professoriate, the self styled urban sophisticate and the dependent classes. It seeks render all but the nomenklatura poor and helpless. So why does it surprise you that it scorns an independent working class voters?

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      You forgot leftist radicals, commie wannabes and terrorist sympathizers.

      1. avatar ChuckN says:

        And actual terrorists a la Bill Ayers and the Weather
        Underground.

        1. avatar Lance says:

          No the ceased being workers party since the 60s and became th fascist party since.

    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      When a political party counts among it’s members people like John Kerry, the most successful gigolo of American politics… it’s no longer the “party of the working man.”

      The idea that “…Democrats are the party of the working man…” is about as funny as seeing the little fauntleroys at Harvard pitch brand-new tents on their campus and claim (with a straight face, no less) that they were “…part of the 99%.”

      1. avatar CB Demented says:

        And the Republicans have Michelle Bachmann and Todd “magic sperm” Akin. They’re no longer the party of Liberty or Conservatism.

        1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          Oh, I agree. But most people readily admit that. I admit that.

          However, we saw a flicker of hope this week as Rand Paul started a for-real filibuster on a subject of real importance… and we saw a huge split in the GOP as the old hacks (McCain and Graham) came back from their Very Fine Dinner with Dear Leader and threw a senior moment hissy fit.

          The best way to summarize McCain’s lame screed would be: “You damn libertarian kids! Get off my nicely manicured lawn!”

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          Now explain me how Bachmann is a statist? Sounds to me like you believe in a party line and anybody who deviates from it is cast out into the darkness.

        3. avatar Russ Bixby says:

          Bachman is not a Statist, no. She’s just a shining example of someone who makes the GOP look bad.

    3. avatar Anon in CT says:

      Oh, and abortion fanatics. Don’t get me wrong, I am not in favor of criminalizing or banning abortions, if only because it would not stop the practice while creating millions of new criminals, but the modern Dems have a fetish for it that is literally unholy. Especially their fanatic determination to make sure that even those who cannot countenance it on religious grounds be forced to pay for it.

    4. avatar Some Guy says:

      Thanks for making my points for me. I just want to quibble about the dates. The Democrat Party has been pretty much like you describe since FDR.

      Going back to the golden age of “Classical” Liberalism – the Enlightenment of the 18th Century, when the liberals of that time indeed called for less control from what was then a right-wing establishment of church and state. Many of the Founding Fathers were liberals in this sense.

      This was some to change, from being kibitzing outsiders they gained power and – under the influence of various socialists, reformers, and social engineers – evolved into the Social Democrats, Progressives and Libs of today. Controlling, managing and guiding along a basically good populace but one who needs to be protected from itself – the little dears.

      A new “Illuminati” based not on birth or even ability but on a talent to please the Establishment and worm your way in. Bread & circuses to keep the masses happy and permitted indulgences such as drugs and porn to keep you busy. Gun Control is merely another fascet of the system. Its no accident that many of the new laws are written exactly alike, they’re printed up and dropped from the Black Helicopters (just kidding?), sent out on the net or run in the NYTimes – the house paper.
      Why somebody who claims to be a Democrat should be surprised by this is surprising indeed.- if you take the King’s Shilling, you’re in for good or ill.

      The modern parties have become fairly ideological:
      Republicans (generally) have a Conservative cast. Humans are what they are and immutable, need laws to keep order but not much more than that. Have traditional values often enforced by law.
      Democrats (generally) have a Modern Liberal cast. Humans are flawed but can be rebuilt with the proper education and training. Govt is not there to merely keep order but to HELP. Still use some traditions but are hesitant to judge anybody’s behavior unless it offends some sacred cow.

      Take your pick. For guys who like low taxes and less regulation in business and daily life but want to smoke pot and marry their boyfriend the choice can be tricky. In a winner-take-all political system third and minor parties are practically useless.

    5. avatar pat says:

      Not much more to add. 65′-71′ prepped America for this ‘new democrat’.
      And uh, liberalism is a mental disorder.

  3. avatar Arete13 says:

    I am more attuned to the gun guy complaint — “I am over-managed and I am under-respected as a citizen and a human being.” I think the right has a point there. We need to stop fearing capable, empowered, independent-thinking individuals.

    Great point made later in the article.

    1. avatar aweds says:

      +1 That is the most succinct, accurate description of my complaints against today’s Democratic party yet written.

      1. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

        Ditto

      2. avatar Spoons Make You Fat says:

        If anything is a threat, it’s “capable, empowered, independent-thinking individuals.” These people are exactly what must be stopped. Remember:

        Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?
        — Joseph Stalin

  4. avatar SelousX says:

    Unfortunately, it appears to me that most Democrats believe in government as a force for social good, with the emphasis on force. Unfortunately, many Republicans seem to see government as a force for moral good, again with the emphasis on force. I just see government as a necessary evil which should be treated as such. I don’t need to be told and forced to ‘feed my neighbor’ or ‘don’t smoke weed’; I’ll do either as I see fit.

    1. avatar TTACer says:

      Well said.

      1. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

        Yes, well put. Fellow Libertarian?

        1. avatar Spoons Make You Fat says:

          Or another Constitutionalist?

        2. avatar SelousX says:

          I try to walk the walk . Sometimes I’m successful.

    2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      That’s what I’ve said for a long time: one party believes that I’m too inherrently irresponsible to be left to myself, and the other that I’m too inherently evil.

      They can both bugger off, to what extent depending on the front man at the moment.

      I miss Ike. Hell, I even miss Harry!

  5. avatar JimD says:

    Could it be that a democrat finally gets it?

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      No… he’s just jerking our chains. He’s just another Democrat… who tries to have it both ways. But in the end, he’s an urban liberal Democrat, and there’s a long list of guns he finds to be ‘icky’ and wishes would go away.

      I’ve read some of his stuff before. Do not make an assessment of his stance from this one piece.

      1. avatar rightontheleftcoast says:

        I dont agree with everything Dan Baumsays but having also read a couple of his earlier articles and a review for his new book it seems fair he is genuinely listening to gun guys and learning. He has a ways to go judging by a couple of minor innacuracies but most important: he is teachable. And an example of the many well meaning libs who visit TTAG for gun info who I hope will return to read more if they find ther views treated with respectful debate like AlphaGeek expects. That civil discourse is increasingly rare and combined with some of the wit by writers like Ralph and exprrtise by guys like yourself Dys is what will keep them coming back.

        1. avatar rightontheleftcoast says:

          ps srry for typos this is on a kindle using the christopher columbus typing method… one more point i apologize in advance for preaching…the innertubes are full of gun sites and other forums for politics where the rhetoric can get….carried away and nasty personal…i myself have indulged so i am reminding myself that if we gun folk cannot treat ourselves and our guests with respect then how can ee demand respect for our own views?

  6. avatar Stacy says:

    There are plenty of Democrats who “get it”, just like there are plenty of Republicans who “get it” on e.g. gay marriage, drug legalization etc. Unfortunately neither group has any serious influence on their party.

    On the other hand, the GOP has the Tea Party. There’s no similar common sense movement on the left.

    1. avatar CB Demented says:

      The Tea Party has been coopted by religious right wingnuts and fanatics. It isn’t what it was when it started and I got involved…it’s now the Michelle Bachmanns of the world.

      1. avatar Anon in CT says:

        Did you read that right off an MMFA press release? While most of the Tea Party types I’ve met are from Christian backgrounds, religious stuff is never in the top issues pushed at Tea Party events or in their literature.

        1. avatar Spoons Make You Fat says:

          It’s almost too easy to derail any true opposition at this point. Just set up another “Us vs. Them” paradigm. Just say the Tea Party is full of Wackos. Same with Occupy Wall Street. Throw in religion, abortion, gay marriage, etc.

          Please realize these are all diversions. Yes they are important, but it’s a question of priorities. Right now it looks like they’ve got us right where they want us.

          If the 2A is worth protecting over…

          We need to get over the false divisions. We need to put aside the petty differences. We need to Unite.

          The general who is able to unite his whole army as one will win.
          — Sun Tzu

      2. avatar jerry says:

        Better than coopted by Cuomo and his ilk I guess.

      3. avatar rightontheleftcoast says:

        Sock puppet alert. Go back to Daily Kos pls.

  7. avatar Abqjohnny says:

    “They feel so alienated that they won’t listen to the Democrats on climate change or health care or immigration or anything else.”
    He doesn’t get it. The problem is the word listen. He really means follow.

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      He doesn’t get that the Dem position on Climate Change and Immigration are ones which directly cost working people their jobs. I mean not all working people but certainly low skilled manufacturing and construction jobs, and certainly coal and oil jobs, plus the heavy manufacturing associated with cheap energy. Why does a West Virginia coal miner care about a 2 degree rise in global temps?

      Health care is more complex. Some folks who had no coverage before will benefit from the ACA. Others will be dropped by their employers (after being reduced to part-time status) or see their premiums rise radically.

      Most working folks are more concerned about their own family rather than some welfare bum across town. The Dems have become the party of the very wealthy urban elite and the urban poor, plus white middle class libs suffering from extreme guilt.

      1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

        They don’t care about global temperature because they don’t understand the ramifications, and their pastors tell their flocks of followers to disregard such things.

        Like a cat chewing on a lamp cord, however, what you don’t understand can hurt you.

        But no matter; most Americans will never understand the way the planet works, will keep on insisting that no science is real unless it can be used in warfare.

        There was neither gunpowder nor the Bomb in the Christian Bible, so why accept them…?

        The difference is that if I’m wrong and they’re right, I go to Hell. If the reverse, we all do.

    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Exactly.

      Which gets to depths of his economic idiocy on the issues of “the working man.”

      The supposed “solutions” to “global climate change” are all economically punitive in nature, and aren’t going to hit the rich – they’re going to hit the working man. Look at what various policies have done to coal miners, for example. Those are well-paid jobs, and those mines support lots of other well paid jobs in machine shops, diesel shops, etc. The current administration would love to see coal mines close down. We’re seeing the policies from DC here in Wyoming, where we’re one of the largest coal-producing states in the nation.

      As to immigration: As long as we have unrestricted immigration, we’re not going to see wages for working folks rise. The “labor market” is subject to supply and demand, just like everything else. Want to see wages go up? Then start restricting immigration to cut down on the supply of employees, and employers will have to raise wages (reduce supply, hold demand constant, compensation will go up. Really simple stuff). Want to depress wages? Flood the job market with people willing to work for peanuts.

      As to the author: A person who makes their money scribbling for newspapers… is by the definition of “work” not a “working man” and has no business talking about appealing to “the working man.”

      1. avatar Cliff says:

        Here’s a radical idea that is not well thought through but seems interesting:
        Contact all the illegals of military age and offer to train them if they will agree to re-infiltrate Mexico and mount a revolution. In return, when they have fulfilled their agreement we allow all their family members still in the U.S. to apply for citizenship. Only by overthrowing that corrupt regime and instituting social, political and economic policies that will bring that country into the 21st century will we ever remove the incentive for them to come to the U.S. illegally.

  8. avatar CZ-PA says:

    Dan Baum is a grade A douche.

    Here’s his description of a gun show in Denver a few years back:

    The weapons at this Denver show seem to have been designed by Klingons. Many are short, black, high-tech semi-automatics—ARs in the jargon—the civilian version of the rifles American soldiers carry in Iraq and Afghanistan. They fire a bullet unsuitable for most hunting, and are crusted with combat-ready lasers, flashlights, night-vision scopes, and red-dot sights. They start at around a thousand dollars. The tables that don’t cater to the AR crowd hold other modern man-killers: rough-finished Yugoslav AK-47’s for three hundred dollars apiece; Barrett .50-caliber rifles capable of penetrating an armored limousine; brand-new stainless-steel semi-automatic pistols with fifteen-shot clips selling for upwards of eight hundred dollars; tinny chrome-plated pocket pistols for less than a hundred bucks. There’s also plenty of body armor, web gear, combat fatigues, bayonets, silencers, stacks of thirty- and fifty-round magazines. It feels less like a “show” than an arms bazaar in Peshawar.

    I’m sick of hearing from this clown.

    1. avatar Rab says:

      That pretty much says everything I need to know about Dan and his book.

      “Douche” is far too kind.

      1. avatar Sixpack70 says:

        GFY is all I have to say to this guy. Way to make tables of guns that will not be used to hurt anyone into super scary mam killer objects.

      2. avatar Pascal says:

        “Douche” how? Have you read his articles? You should read some of his work before you make accusations.

        Like this one? (PDF)
        http://tinyurl.com/awcaepx

        1. avatar CZ-PA says:

          See my additional quotes from Baum below. I’ve read enough of his work.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      Once again somebody conflates hunting with big game. The 223 was originally a hunting round. It is very effective against small game and pests like coyotes. Seeing that this gun show was in Denver you would expect to find many people who hunt coyotes and prairie dogs on their land. Why wouldn’t they being interested in an AR platform? The other alternative is a mini-14 which pretty much has the same rate of fire but I guess it’s traditional wood stock and conventional shape makes it less scary looking.

      1. avatar DaveL says:

        I was thinking along those lines as well. What does it mean to say a round is “unsuitable for most hunting?” There are so many different game animals and so many different types of round used to hunt them, that I don’t know if any of the most common hunting rounds could be considered “suitable for most hunting”.

  9. avatar anonymous says:

    As a Boulderite myself, I understand a lot of what Dan is feeling. I’m not politically liberal (except for being anti-corporatist, due to personal experience), but I’m definitely more at home in the liberal culture of Boulder than I am in certain gun cultures. And having been to the Colorado state capitol for hearings, votes, and the Day of Resistance rally over the past month has been incredibly frustrating, because the behavior by more than a few people on our side has been embarrasing.

    The following is from an e-mail I received yesterday from the Boulder County Democratic Party. I was at the Feb. 22 meeting referenced.

    One of the most dramatic comments [at the Feb. 22 2013 meeting] was about the NRA and its ability to galvanize its followers into deluging legislators with hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls – many from out of state – but all demanding that their Second Amendment rights not be infringed. The fact that this is not even part of the legislation is conveniently overlooked as they blindly follow their leadership’s call to action. The gun lobby communications completely outnumber the thoughtful letters from caring constituents who want legislative action.

    The emphasis in the Legislature is on the prevention of gun violence, finding ways to stop the killing of innocent children and civilians, and to make the carrying of firearms “well-regulated” as the Second Amendment states. It has nothing to do with gun registration or taking guns away from anyone – unfortunately, because there are many who would like to see a ban on private ownership of military style assault weapons, not just in the future but immediately and retroactively. But that is not what the current legislation is about. But ignoring the truth, the NRA has stirred up its followers with false information, dire warnings of imaginary future evils and has given a new and scurrilous meaning to the term bully pulpit.

    It is time the silent majority of good decent people spoke up more loudly to drown out the NRA and its clones who are spreading lies, creating fear and alarm amongst its ill-informed members and gaining support from a gullible following, who have rushed out to buy firearms in record numbers, gratifying the gun manufacturers who are their biggest funders.

    One has to wonder why they are so sure that their rights are so much more important than the rights of non-gun owners who want to live a free and peaceful life. It is time we, the silent majority, reminded the NRA that there is more to the Constitution than just their right to bear arms – what about the bit that says “liberty and justice for all”?

    Aside from the fact that the phrase “liberty and justice for all” is from the Pledge of Allegance and not the U.S. Constitution, this e-mail is rather insulting.

    Ms. Browining is telling Boulder Democrats that gun owners are too stupid to know when their rights are under attack, and “blindly follow” the NRA rather than appreciate what Colorado Democrats are doing to increase their safety.

    I posted really long commenthere that can pretty much be the conclusion to this comment, so I won’t repeat myself.

    1. avatar Keith says:

      This is the moral busybody that C. S. Lewis spoke of who tyranizes us for our own good.

      She is either stupid and sincere, or cunning and deceitful. In either case, the only way to oppose her is with force. She is either incapable, or unwilling to see her position as mistaken and tyrannical. If this gets violent, it will be her fault.

      And, how much you wanna bet she has a “COEXIST” sticker on her car.

      1. avatar Spoons Make You Fat says:

        One has to wonder why they are so sure that their rights are so much more important than the rights of non-gun owners who want to live a free and peaceful life.

        There are already laws to deal with any person (gun owner or not) who tries to take away someone’s freedom or life. There is also the Bill of Rights to re-affirm our human rights.

        From Democracy Web

        The American founders—Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike—considered rule by majority a troubling conundrum. In theory, majority rule was necessary for expressing the popular will and the basis for establishing the republic. The alternative—consensus or rule by everyone’s agreement—cannot be imposed upon a free people. And minority rule is antithetical to democracy. But the founders worried that the majority could abuse its powers to oppress a minority just as easily as a king. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warn in their letters about the dangers of the tyranny of the legislature and of the executive. Madison, alluding to slavery, went further, writing, “It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”

        A half century after the United States was established, Alexis de Tocqueville saw the majority’s tyranny over political and social minorities as “a constant threat” to American democracy in his pre–Civil War travels. While visiting the state of Pennsylvania, when he asked why no free blacks had come to vote in a local election he was observing, he was told that “while free blacks had the legal right to vote, they feared the consequences of exercising it.” Thus, he wrote, “the majority not only makes the laws, but can break them as well.”

    2. avatar anonymous says:

      > She is either stupid and sincere, or cunning and deceitful.

      Having met her, I think it’s more just being a victim of a “groupthink” dynamic.

      I saw the same dynamic when I was active in the Colorado State Shooting Association ( 1999 – 2002 ), and those were people I agreed with.

  10. avatar CZ-PA says:

    Here are some more gems from Baum:

    Sarah Brady has Second Amendment rights too: the right to have the militia –– the community of armed citizens –– well regulated. Why is she –– and the rest of the country that wants tighter restrictions on guns –– not making a Second Amendment case?

    There may be some dark “real” reason that I like guns lurking under there –– something about my penis, perhaps, or a latent desire to dominate others by force.

  11. avatar CZ-PA says:

    Here are some more gems from Baum:

    Sarah Brady has Second Amendment rights too: the right to have the militia –– the community of armed citizens –– well regulated. Why is she –– and the rest of the country that wants tighter restrictions on guns –– not making a Second Amendment case?

    There may be some dark “real” reason that I like guns lurking under there –– something about my pen1s, perhaps, or a latent desire to dominate others by force.

    Had to use pen1s to defeat the filter.

    1. avatar Cliff says:

      To paraphras the Supreme Court decision,
      “I don’t think the word regulate means what she thinks it means…”
      Need I point out that for all these liberals the answer to every problem seems to be more government “regulation”? Not exactly what the purpose of the 2A was intended to be.

  12. avatar ThomasR says:

    It truly is amazing; up until this current push by liberal/progressives to restrict or out law guns, I felt we had reached some level of accomodation with these people, more CC laws, more states going to constitutional carry, it felt like freedom was breaking out all over.

    Now this all out attack on our freedoms and our second amendment, it feels exactly as if these liberal/progressive were trying to reinstate slavery after the emancipation act was passed.

    We are in a very similar state of fracture between the free states and the slave states before the civil war, now it’s the liberal/progressives and the intelluctual elite supporting enslavement and it’s the common citizen supporting freedom.

    It was the philosopher and the intellectual that helped to show us the tyranny of hereditary monarchy and helped to galvanize our fight to free ourselves from king George, now it’s the intellectual and the philosopher trying to enslave us all.

  13. avatar Michael B. says:

    I think we are all too cavalier with our guns. I fault both sides, really. The NRA and its handmaidens want us to believe that the whole problem is criminals, and they will not take responsibility. We need to lock guns up. Training should be better.

    What? Collective responsibility, Dan?

    Furthermore, the fact that he didn’t mention the War on Drugs as fueling violent crime and specifically the murder rate (even though it is decreasing) suggests that he hasn’t really thought about it that much.

    I could be wrong about that and if he reads TTAG and sees this comment, I’d welcome his response.

  14. avatar Data McBits says:

    Dan Baum is no friend to gun rights advocates. One brief moment of lucidity doesn’t excuse the rest of the leftist drivel he’s written over the years, or the fact that he’s obviously trying to sell a book here.

    1. avatar CZ-PA says:

      As an active and vocal democrat in CO, I’m sure he’s worked towards electing the knuckleheads who are currently making a mockery of our rights in CO.

      He calls black rifles “man killers”, claims .223 isn’t suitable for hunting, and insinuates that we like guns because we have small man-parts.

      And TTAG shills for this guy?

      I have no problem with advertising if ads are clearly labeled as such, but this is BS.

      Dan Baum has no business being promoted on what I thought was a pro-2a site.

      1. avatar Spoons Make You Fat says:

        I have a really difficult time understanding why TTAG has such a bromance going with Mr. Baum. Unless TTAG shares his views. Then it makes perfect sense.

        1. avatar El Chupacabra says:

          It’s to create drama in the comment section.

  15. avatar DB says:

    If you start with a false premise you will naturally be bewildered. People here have fallen for the first of the two political fallacies of American government. The first fallacy is that Democrats are the party of the little guy, of the working man. They are not. They are the party of statism, of elites who want to arrange society for others. So, yes, you will be scratching your head if you try to figure out why Democrats aren’t more pro-gun, like working class Americans.

    The second fallacy, btw, is that Republicans are interested in fiscal responsibility.

  16. avatar Jim D says:

    The current workforce is 6% union, the number have declined steadily. The Dems are refocused now on the yuppy-urbanite-Starbucks types. Who the hell do you think votes in such whackos as Feinstein, Pelosi and of course the dynamic duo, BHO and ol’ double barrel Joe?

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      The private sector is only about 6.6% unionized.

      Government employment is over 35% unionized. And government employees enjoy, on average, a very nice premium over private sector comp packages. The highest level of unionized jobs are in local government, and in three areas particularly: Teachers, firefighters and police.

  17. avatar Don says:

    Yeah, pretty much.

    There is no party of the working man. There is no party of the middle class.

    It’s not left or right, it’s in or out, and we’re all out.

  18. avatar Silver says:

    There’s a pretty stark difference between a Democrat and a Progressive. One is a legitimate party that no longer exists, the other is a loathsome cabal that exists to destroy traditional America.

    1. avatar rightontheleftcoast says:

      Well said! Progressive≈Alinskyite Marxist

  19. avatar ensitu says:

    That pistol is an Assualt Weapon under SAFE ACT
    But what else would one expect from the Classic Neo-Con.
    Arrest him!

  20. avatar Chuck in IL says:

    Democrats control the greatest propaganda machine the world has ever known. When the rubber meets the road, they get the votes they need from gun owners who have been whipped into a frenzy using the tactics of Saul Alinsky. If you don’t believe, just attend a union meeting around election time.

  21. avatar IdahoPete says:

    ” “I am over-managed and I am under-respected as a citizen and a human being.’ I think the right has a point there. We need to stop fearing capable, empowered, independent-thinking individuals.”

    And that is the key to understanding the leftist politicians, from Obama on down to the mayor of NYC – they do NOT WANT an America full of “capable, empowered, independent-thinking individuals.” They want a bunch of dependent, incapable, jello-brained victims who rely on the state for everything. That enhances the powers of the rulers.

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    Baum admits that he doesn’t fit into either camp, but he still doesn’t get why and he never will. Allow me to help. Liberals can like guns. Conservatives can like guns. Libertarians can like guns. Republicans can like guns. Independents can like guns. But Democrats are supposed to hate guns because of what they stand for.

    Nobody can be a true Democrat and allow an armed populace. The Democrat agenda and an armed populace cannot peacefully coexist. Which is why Baum doesn’t fit into either camp. Unfortunately, he can’t see the contradiction.

    Baum will never acknowledge the single immutable political truth: power comes from the barrel of a gun.

    1. avatar rightontheleftcoast says:

      I think you are on to something here Ralph. I hope Dan Baum is intellectually honest enough to question his beliefs much as David Horowitz @ Freedom Center at or Roger Simon @ Pj Media did in their conversions to Conservativism.

  23. avatar William says:

    The Democratic Party doesn’t only think it can get along fine without us; behind the curtain, they are, in effect, undergoing a sort of merger with the GOP. Don’t vote for either side of that coin EVER AGAIN.

    In my opinion, you’re better off withholding your vote if they don’t allow other parties to come and play.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email