Quote of the Day: Electoral Calculus Edition

JaimeFuller

“(T)he truth remains that while ads with guns have proliferated, the only gun legislation that has made it through Congress in the past few decades has lifted restrictions on firearm usage. The flavor of gun support that politicians have inherited imparts an “us vs. them mentality” where it often seems like Americans for Responsible Solutions and some of the gun ads from the candidates it supports can’t co-exist.” – Jaime Fuller in Guns are 2014’s hottest campaign accessory [at washingtonpost.com]

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    Yes, we’re actually winning this war. Liberation is coming for those of us in enemy held territory.

  2. avatar v v ind says:

    Trigger the vote

  3. Basically a product placement blog post for the Giffords/Kelly fiasco.

    Why can’t those ignorant voters be like us sophisticated Washington elites? You have to put *guns* into commercials to get through to them! Yuck!

  4. avatar 2hotel9 says:

    People have been living with the results of the leftist agenda for 40 years now and the backlash has solidly begun.

  5. avatar waif says:

    Democrats should make national gun control the signature issue of the campaigns this fall. Come on, guys, you know you want to. And with 90% if the voters agreeing with you, it’s a sure win! Think of the children.

    1. avatar ILSL says:

      What a great challenge! It certainly points out the absurdity of that number.

    2. avatar Bear The Grizzly says:

      Everyone knows the NRA will behead your first born if you try to vote for anti gun politicians! How can the people stand up to such a violent and RACIST organization?

    3. avatar Amok! says:

      We can only hope they will slug back their own Kool-aid

  6. avatar the ruester says:

    The little factoid about the NRAs 2012 spending is illuminating. An anti might look at a 0.07 percent ROI as a failure, but what it really means is that the NRA spends exclusively on close races. Meaning every gun control supporter in a close race feels their heat, resulting in less appetite for gun control even when they win. The right question to ask is “how many candidates who were opposed by the NRA would cast a gun control vote TODAY, in an election year?” And how many would grab a 10k dollar shotgun for the Obamaesque photo opp?

  7. avatar Shire-man says:

    The more important thing that binds all these candidates is the fact that they’re all fighting during the midterms, where the likely electorate trends conservative, and both parties feel their time is better spent imploring their base to be interested enough to vote instead of worrying about converting independents or new voters.

    See, this goes back to what I always say. It’s about them getting elected. Nothing else. None of them believe in anything but winning their elections.

    It’s a “touchstone issue,” says Al Cross, director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky, “a way to evaluate politicians” and infer their other political beliefs if you haven’t been paying much attention. And during a midterm, it’s safe to assume that most voters haven’t been watching the races closely.

    Translation: gun folks are the only ones paying attention because they’re always paying attention so the candidates are pandering to them.

    In the end they’re just commercials, they’re just politicians and we have absolutely no reason to expect them to remain consistent once elected. If Ted Nugent got elected on a “free mini guns for all!” promise I would pretty much expect him once in office to propose a new AWB because that’s what politicians do.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      Now there’s a thought for a campaign slogan:

      A chicken in every pot, a fire in every hearth, and a pistol in every holster!

  8. avatar Rope a Dope says:

    I hope gun rights are safe from further erosion and though at the federal level the only thing they can pass is gas at the state level gun rights erosion has been brutal in the North East. NY, CT and MD have all passed draconian gun laws in the last year. We’ll see if there will be blowback at the polls in 2014 and 2016. But even if there is blowback, those laws are here to stay.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Can we persuade them to secede?

  9. avatar James says:

    Well sadly, groups like Americans for Responsible Solutions, Everytown/MDA, Brady Campaign, and CPGV, don’t want to coexist with us. It’s a choice they made that has set in the “us vs them” mentality. All we can do is accept that this is their decision and counter the vilification. I wish it wasn’t this way, but you can wish in one hand, do something unsightly in the other, you know the rest. When they quit saying we are murderers and extremists, perhaps we can have that common sense discussion, but I’m not seeing it on the horizon.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Nailed it.

    2. avatar Taylor TX says:

      nice, you beat me to the “us vs them” point, they like it this way. It gives them a scapegoat and makes it appear they have the “moral high ground” etc. by showing theyre just “trying to make us safer”.

      +1 to you sir

  10. avatar johnb says:

    Preservation/restoration of the rights and liberty of me and everyone else in this country are the hot topic this year you twit (have been, and surely will continue to be). If the embodiment of that is a firearm, I’m good with it.

  11. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    I must be getting old. It seems like just a couple of decades ago that congress passed the assault weapons ban, but now I find out that ‘the only gun legislation that has made it through Congress in the past few decades has lifted restrictions on firearm usage.’ What year is it anyway, 2040?

    1. avatar SelousX says:

      On her part, I believe it is referred to as ‘selective memory’.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        The sad thing is that our nation’s major newspapers see fit to publish opinion pieces from people who make no effort whatsoever to research the topics they opine on.

  12. avatar ReadMore says:

    Americans for Responsible Solutions claims to be taking a moderate, nuanced, and balanced approach. Yet, they have yet to come out in support of any pro-gun rights legislation. They have the same platform as Brady, MDA, and the CA legislature. How can they honestly expect any gun rights grass root to listen to them when they have yet to offer any olive branch of any kind? They just pander to their base. The day the pick up a cause like universal carry will be the day that we actually believe they believe in the Second Amendment.

  13. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    I’d like to see an example of “legislation that… has lifted restrictions on firearm usage.”

    Buying and/or carrying a tool is not “usage.” A firearm isn’t being “used” until the lead starts to fly.

    See what she did there?

  14. avatar Hannibal says:

    If they want a compromise we can split the time difference and go back to whatever the gun laws were in 1895.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Careful, there, I understand some were pretty draconian, since they would only be enforced against freed slaves or other blacks. Now, they’d be enforced against everybody. Well, everybody except criminals.

  15. avatar John M. says:

    Winning.

  16. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    I wonder want planet this woman just arrived from? Co-exist? Gun control ideology is based on a claim of a moral imperative that is specifically intended to undermine if not eliminate an even great moral imperative: 2nd amendment gun rights. I continually run across low-information people who whine that People Of The Gun should try harder to find “common ground” with gun-controllers. That’s a fool’s errand. There is no common ground to be found with people who’s claim of moral authority disputes a major tenet of American freedom. No surrender! No retreat!

    1. avatar former water walker says:

      The planet Uranus Garrison. Where everyone has a “co-exist” bumper sticker 🙂 +1

  17. avatar DerryM says:

    “Winning” is relative. At the Federal Level, yeah, but nobody’s talking about repealing NFA 1934, GCA 1968, Background Check 1992, or modifying them to lessen their infringement on our 2A Protected Rights.
    On the State and Local Levels many infringements have been enacted and they are getting worse. Although many victories have been won, their is great inequality amongst the States particularly where they divide between “Red” and “Blue”. I celebrate cautiously until I see Gun Rights uniformly “Red” across the 50 States and Localities. Where the Democratic Socialists Rule (Blue), gun owners are less free to exercise their 2A Protected Rights. Where the Republicans, Libertarians and TEA Party, AKA…Conservatives and Constitutionalists, rule gun owners have greater freedom.

    Whether the POTUS and his sycophants admit it or not, we are in a War with Radical Muslims and every American is in danger, in every City, Town, County, Parrish and State. In the past two weeks a guy was arrested who murdered in cold blood four Americans on our home soil as “retaliation” for the U.S. killing of Jihadists overseas (he apparently confessed as much). Another guy was arrested for allegedly plotting similar random murders. The Australians just broke a ring of Muslims and arrested at least one person who was actively plotting random kidnappings and beheadings of Australian Citizens as a “demonstration” of ISIS’ power to kill “infidels” anywhere they choose in the World.

    I hope we do not have to endure some sort of mass killing of our people on our soil by these monsters to win back (as in reclaim what is rightfully ours in the first damned place) our natural, civil and Constitutionally Protected right to keep and bear Arms. Every American should have the choice to Arm himself/herself effectively (and bear those Arms wherever he/she goes) against what will likely become a decades long WAR with people who intend to exterminate us because we don’t practice their Medieval Religion. They will kill us one-by-one, or in mass, depending on what opportunity we allow them.

    If ever, in our History, the National Militia (even if in units of one-by-one) is needed, that time is NOW. We need to insure our People are able to prepare for and succeed in the long and bloody fight we are being forced to undertake. So, while some American’s 2A Rights are stronger and I am glad for them, others chafe under unjust infringements, which increases their vulnerability and risk. I cannot be anything but deeply concerned for them. “Winning” is relative.

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    I’m quite comfortable with “us vs. them.” In fact, I wouldn’t have it any other way.

    I don’t want any “dialog.” I don’t want any compromises. I don’t want any co-existence. And I’m goddamn tired of their one-way conversations and their stupid, offensive laws.

  19. avatar MarkPA says:

    With the rise of ISIS and the news reports of law-abiding citizens being attacked or killed, I wonder if RKBA is beginning to become a nonpartisan issue. Maybe it doesn’t matter much that the leading Antis and leading Pros are Democrats and Republicans, respectively. Maybe it matters more that the non-vociforous Congress-critters don’t clearly line-up Anti/Pro Dem/Rep. If this were so, then we ought to take advantage of the separation of RKBA and party labels.
    We ought to frame our message: ‘Look, it doesn’t matter if you are Democrat, Independent, Libertarian or Republican. It doesn’t matter if you are Black, Brown, Yellow or White. We all share certain common values. Among these are crime control and public safety. Let’s look at the facts and the issues and find solutions to violent crime and its relationship to guns, knives and blunt objects. . . .” Now, we aren’t trying to tell Jack that because he is a Democrat that we presume that he is an Anti-gun person; nor telling Jill that because she is a Republican that we presume she should be Pro-gun. We can try to get our neighbors to try to put themselves in the shoes of a woman who needs to protect her children; or a husband who needs to protect his wife.
    I’m heartened by the observations that gun-control legislation is becoming a third-rail in States where there is a substantial presence of gun owners. Unfortunately, that’s not good enough. There remain too many States and too many Congressional Districts where RKBA is the third-rail. We remain at jeopardy from these latter States/Districts.
    It’s not good enough to temporarily block gun-control bills. That works only so long as it works; i.e., that we have just enough Congress-critters who fear the gun-owner vote. We can lose our marginal advantage every 2 years.
    It is critical to motivate enough Congress-Critters to advance RKBA legislation such as National Reciprocity, restoration of 2A rights and the like. If we fail to gain the initiative we are always at jeopardy of losing the initiative. I have NOT noticed any pro-RKBA legislation at the Federal level. We still have opposition in the 2’nd, 3’rd and 4’th Judicial circuits. We need to motivate our tepid supporters in Congress to advance our agenda. We have FAILED to accomplish this.
    Occasionally, a Senator or Congressman throws us a bone by introducing a pro-RKBA bill; however, these bills don’t go anywhere. Such bills merely bolster support for that particular Senator/Congressman in his own State/District. Such bills are no more useful than a resolution honoring Samuel Colt’s birthday. If any such bill fails to pass by just 1 vote (as was the case with a National Reciprocity bill) the bill is useless. The proof of the pudding is passing a bill in BOTH chambers; and, then, getting it signed by the President or over-ridden by a 2/3 vote in each chamber.
    We need enough Senators and enough Congressmen to demand their respective leaderships to push through RKBA bills. The leaderships decide what survives in a bill and what will be excluded. Today, Republican Congressmen need to compel Boehner to let RKBA amendments in bills; Democrat Senators need to compel Reed to let RKBA amendments in bills.
    We need to get enough Congress-critters in the corresponding chamber/party to advance RKBA amendments and bills. To do that we have to threaten to primary weak Congress-critters who fail to aggressively push our agenda.

  20. avatar publius2 says:

    TL;DR: long article saying:

    ” vulnerable Democrats in the Senate want nothing to do with Gabby Gifford and other gun-grabbers…”

  21. avatar publius2 says:

    Love that quote- “there’s no education in the second kick of a mule”

    I guess that would apply to all the Dems who lost their job after Clinton pushed the gun-grad in the 90s…

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