Question of the Day: Who’s Going to Win?

IMG_4340

 

With a few notable, though relatively minor exceptions, the forces arrayed against Second Amendment rights have endured a virtually unbroken string of defeats since the horror that was Sandy Hook. Fortunes on the civilian disarmament side have been all over the board. Michael Bloomberg and (thanks to his bottomless pocketbook) Shannon Watts have waxed, the Brady Campaign has waned, that Kelly/Giffords thing’s sole purpose is to hoover up cash and the CSGV has become nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake. All that said, anyone who’s been around since the gun control act of 1968 can tell you, the tides can and do change. So look into your crystal ball and tell us…who wins in the long run?

comments

  1. avatar gbo says:

    Look at this BABY!

    1. avatar JohnO says:

      Hahaha! Someone should re-post that picture!

      1. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

        Who’s gonna win? I dunno but In any war or conflict the smart money are on the people who have the most guns and know how to use them. See taking a gun away from somebody is very hard if your armed with only say a sharp stick or a raspberry.

    2. avatar Cyrano says:

      What does losing my kid have to do with guns? When they disappear I go looking for them.

      Of course I don’t want to lose my guns either. Usually they are not prone to walking off though.

      *sarcasm and Sheldon Cooper impersonation off.

      1. avatar B says:

        The side that is disarmed loses.

        1. avatar MoveableDo says:

          Perhaps in a shooting war, but this is a war for hearts and minds.

        2. avatar Red In Texas says:

          It is, for now. Unfortunately, I think that may change.

        3. avatar Fred says:

          It always opens as a war for hearts and minds. The shooting starts when people realize they can’t control your heart or your mind to their own satisfaction.

          I mean, case in point for this ad. How do they intend to follow through on the mother’s demands?
          They’re thinking they’ll simply call the cops, who will enforce their laws with state owned guns.
          The irony of the end result is entirely lost on them.

    3. avatar Greg in Allston says:

      Clearly, the POTG are going to win, resoundingly. We might be reviled, ostracized and denigrated by many of our fellow citizens but in the long run we shall prevail. Our cause is just and righteous and above all, rational. What have they got? Utopianist pipe dreams bereft of any fundamental understanding of human nature or history. Yeah, that’ll get them far. Insignificant emo dust bunnies swept into history’s dust bin. And the sooner the better.

  2. avatar Gman says:

    I think it comes down to numbers. With about 100,000,000 homes owning over 350,000,000 guns, I sincerely doubt we will ever see civilian disarmament. And certainly not as long as the best gun salesman in the world sits in the White House.

    1. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

      roger that …

    2. avatar TheBear says:

      No only that, children grow up to be adults and some of them will be gun owners.

    3. avatar BDub says:

      Yes it does come down to numbers. For instance 400 children (14 and younger) are killed each year by firearms, while 1200 are killed by neglect

      Clearly “Moms” need to be locked up when not in use and have a background check before being allowed to have children.

  3. avatar Joe R. says:

    GUNS (weapons), and those who employ them.

    Let’s not play stupid like history hasn’t already weighed in on this issue like a billion times.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      NEVER FORGET. . . “THE TIDES CAN AND DO CHANGE” WE ARE GOING TO BE INNUNDATED WITH THIS INANE CRAP UP UNTIL JAN. 2017 [POST NOV. 2016 PRES. ELECTION]. Then it hides.

      There is a limited amount of time for them to push this crap without stepping on each other’s toes in pushing other liberal crap.

      If you live in a blue state, you may be part of the problem, if you have a (D) after your name, are a liberal or a rino, the problem is part-of-you, you are permanently broken and your mother (one of your two dads) owes us an abortion.

      If Shannon or Bloomberg has taken a penny in foreign $ for this campaign to overthrow our Constitution, there’s a name for that.

      1. avatar Removed_californian says:

        Living in a blue state doesn’t mean I’m part of the problem, it means I can’t move my family or my business to another state without taking a loss and getting boned by taxes etc.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Ok, you want me to burn my resources and time to come extricate you, or barge-in and solve a problem your previous tolerance has allowed to fester? C’mon, I might throw you a spare-mag, you want me to throw you the spare II Marines.

          “To briefly expound on the notion of compounded threat and damage to security in surrounding societies when societal agreement is not upheld by the party aggressed, one needs to consider translated threat, and translated effect.
          As a visual reference consider figure 8. (figure not copied – figure shows stick figure of a man in the center of a circle)
          If, by example, you are a member within the above circle [or; a member of the set of societal pairs limited in some fashion to a particular grouping, or defined within a given area, figuratively referred to by that circle], and the figure in the center of the circle is an individual member of a paired society not upholding societal agreement, there is expansion of threat of that offending member without dissipation.
          For, the individual posing the threat, who is allowed to exist within the circle, without counter threat or eradication from the surrounding societal pairs, does so either by implied invitation from the circle, (either as acceptance or tolerance), or through the circle’s implied weakness-against or ignorance-of the threat (that which you ignore, that which you tolerate, and that which you promote, define you equal to your own action or inaction). Therefore, with or without warning, other parties (outside the circle) may be forced to act on that offending individual, and as the offending individual is surrounded by the circle, eradication of the threat may come at the cost of the partial or potentially the total destruction of the surrounding circle.
          What might be a more discernable example, and equally true in counterpart is to view the picture in the inverse.
          Now you, figuratively, are the individual in the circle. You are not the threat but you have allowed yourself or inadvertently found yourself surrounded by a grouping of societal pairs that are adverse to the societal norms that are considered necessary by an individual, societal pairing, or groups of societies outside the circle.
          If the circle needs to be eradicated for the threat it poses, you will be eradicated with it if you cannot otherwise extract yourself from it, and regardless of your own opinion of the threat contained by the circle. AGAIN, that which you ignore, that which you tolerate, and that which you promote, define you equal to your own action or inaction [15]. [TERMS, J.M.Thomas R., 2012, Pgs. 43-44]”

      2. avatar Hi Power Toter says:

        “if you have a (D) after your name, are a liberal or a rino, the problem is part-of-you, you are permanently broken and your mother (one of your two dads) owes us an abortion”

        This is not helpful.

        You’ve bought into the two-party paradigm, and as a result, you can’t clearly see how to succeed in this struggle.

        We do not succeed by putting all our eggs into the Republican basket. We succeed when we convince the Democrats to become more pro-gun by shifting the national consciousness on gun rights, as we have been doing for decades now.

        Our objective should be a situation where gun rights are so universally accepted as part of American life, that they are no longer a part of the political debate in this country.

        We do not advance towards that objective by telling the people we’re trying to convince that the world would be better if they were dead.

        1. avatar Swarf says:

          We do not succeed by putting all our eggs into the Republican basket. We succeed when we convince the Democrats to become more pro-gun

          That’s me.

        2. avatar Silver says:

          “Our objective should be a situation where gun rights are so universally accepted as part of American life, that they are no longer a part of the political debate in this country.”

          Can you name one single right that’s universally accepted? This is modern America, the two parties are no longer rivals who only differ on how to help the country. One party wants to fundamentally change this nation into a fascist dictatorship. Gun rights will always be part of the political debate because the leftist politicians need a disarmed society to control, and they’ll make it happen whether their constituency believes it or not.

        3. avatar Tommycat says:

          Part of the problem is that Republicans are no better on these things. We all want the same thing, Get the government out of my life. But a D or R after someone’s name seems to be all anyone pays attention to. Don’t get me wrong, I tend to favor Republicans because they support my right to self defense more often, but they too fall into the “lets tell people what they can do in their own homes” category. I mean how stupid is the War on Drugs™ when we already saw what happened with Prohibition. And why the heck does the Republican party give a damn if two consenting adults want to get married? So your religion bars it, if they find a religion that allows it, why should it be against the law. I know a few gun folks who would LOVE to vote for gun rights, but can’t vote against their own personal lives. If you had to choose between your loved one or your gun rights, how can you choose? (Note: this isn’t the False Dichotomy from this graphic, one can own guns and have kids that are safe, but choosing between being able to marry your love versus keeping your rights to guns, I’d have a hard time with that decision)

        4. avatar neiowa says:

          Boo Hoo.

          So he failed punctuation. Perhaps this will help you understand his (correct point) if you are a Rino or have a (D) after your name you are a liberal, the problem is part-of-you

          You’ve bought into the two-party paradigm With “all due respect” you don’t know diddly about our history or politics. The Two party system is a huge part of what may the US uniquely successful. At the moment it is broken. And their dem violation of the 2nd is only part of their attack on the Constitution.

          There is NO reforming the demtard party. If is full on marxist/stalinist When the pampered princess babyboomers expire, perhaps ther might be some chance of reforming the dem party. Unfortunately this is not likely before other a rather more painful chain of events is likely to transpire.

        5. avatar MarkPA says:

          “Our objective should be a situation where gun rights are so universally accepted . . . ” You have nailed it.

          When mothers are more concerned about their ability to protect their own children then they are concerned with being members-in-good-standing in the most Progressive salons in town, then we will have achieved “universally accepted” (if we can keep it.)

          Ferguson and Baltimore may be sparking reconsideration of the Black tradition of arms. The law abiding in the inner city may see from Detroit and Milwaukee County the leadership to which they are entitled. They may begin to realize that in the gravest of danger the police may not come to their rescue. It won’t matter if they are obeying orders or defying orders; it they don’t come they don’t come. If they don’t come in time they might as well not come at all.

          Ball is in OUR court; it’s ours to forfeit. To lose we need only play into the image the Anti’s paint of us. We have to be careful to maintain our level of discourse and deportment at the level that will inspire confidence.

        6. avatar Another Robert says:

          Pretty much the only way to induce Democrats to become more pro-gun is to vote for their [at least nominally] pro-gun Republican opponents. They don’t care what you think, they only care how you vote.

        7. avatar doesky2 says:

          @ Tommycat……….who said……. And why the heck does the Republican party give a damn if two consenting adults want to get married?

          Because there were some half-way smart Republicans that think beyond the Leftist “first stage thinking” of “two consenting adults”. Before the big tide change, they were talking about the inevitable assault on religious freedom that would follow the “two consenting adults”. Just ask the florist, photographer, and that baker about the real impacts of the infantile first stage thinking of “two consenting adults”. We have evolved into a very un-critical shallow thinking electorate that parrots bromides of the Left…and you are a great example.

          Due to the idiocy of “consenting adults” get ready to be forced to smile at incestuous gay/straight “marriages” and polygamy. Yeah…I know….you’re good with that also…..hey it won’t will effect me…..once again tell that to the baker/florist/photographer or maybe one day youself at work when you get your azz fired for a slip of that tongue that “offends” one of the easily offended new protected classes.

      3. avatar Accur81 says:

        Don’t start a circular firing squad about who lives in red, blue or purple states. Let’s simply all support the 2nd Anendment. Everywhere. Although I live in a blue state, I donate to pro gun candidates, write and call politicians, train new shooters, and buy a whole lot of guns and ammo.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          I am Conservative, and all my posts, stupid or not, support similar values. The Republicans ARE FREEKING IDIOTS, most are merely glommers-on, but the well of conservatism still reposes there.

          Funny how people don’t like labels when there’s is the sh_tty one.

          You don’t hear anyone hear saying ‘hey, don’t call me a Conservative’ do you? No, there’s a reason for that, and it pre-dates people.

  4. avatar Silver says:

    “Pro-gun activists are worried about losing the concept of individual freedom and fascists are worried that their dreams for totalitarian control are slipping away. You tell me who’s going to win.”

    Fixed.

    Also, once again, the fascists seem to be under the impression that the irrational emotions of weak willed fools somehow trumps Constitutionally protected rights.

    1. avatar GreatPlainsSower says:

      “Also, once again, the fascists seem to be under the impression that the irrational emotions of weak willed fools somehow trumps Constitutionally protected rights.”

      Fixed:

      “Also, once again, the CITIZENS seem to be under the impression that the irrational emotions of weak willed fools(currentmeasureoflegislation), somehow trumps Constitutionally protected rights.”

      1. avatar Silver says:

        Fascists, citizens, what’s the difference any more in modern America?

        1. avatar GreatPlainsSower says:

          Hope in the state for the former, and Change from the state for the latter.

  5. avatar Don says:

    Thats right. All it takes is a few bad events to undo decades worth of work.
    If you haven’t been around since the ’60’s you may not know that things haven’t been this good in many decades. That’s why I don’t care to see the in-your-face, open carry wackos. They may be technically right but it doesn’t take much to cause a setback when hysteria grabs the public and they insist their politicians “do something”.
    We’re still working at undoing the “something(s)” they did in the 20th century.

    1. avatar Swarf says:

      Yup.

      A holstered pistol is one thing. An AR slung in front with your hand on the grip is another critter altogether.

      Those guys remind me of toddlers playing “how far can I push it before Mom yells?”

      Grow up.

      1. avatar Taylor TX says:

        Had to carry the long guns to raise awareness, its a double sided coin for sure. The other side is scare the sheep, so tact is important i.e. dont be that guy (chipotle ninjas). I for one look forward to carrying my full size M&P with a smile once I find a proper retention holster.

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        The “(chipotle ninjas)” are the ‘eye-shaped/colored’ markings on the back of a hooded cobra. Not really a threat, but something that makes the snake’s enemies think twice (has your back when you don’t or can’t). They are there for when the argument boils down to “because f-u.”

        1. avatar GreatPlainsSower says:

          @don-“Thats right. All it takes is a few bad events to undo decades worth of work.”
          My rights are not granted to me by the government, because my rights are explicitly protected from the government and the statist loyalists.

          “If you haven’t been around since the ’60’s you may not know that things haven’t been this good in many decades.”
          Thanks for the discriminatory gun laws and sacrificing of rights, that are protected by men from the state, into state granted privileges. What you are seeing, sir is the younger generations who yall kicked the can down the road to, and WE know that a can on a gravel road is to be obliterated in lead on a hot sunny day, not claimed as progress.

          “That’s why I don’t care to see the in-your-face, open carry wackos.”

          You might be a FUDD with a statement like that about fellow firearms enthusiasts, who were fighting for the permission to exercise their rights, instead of negotiating them away. Some folks don’t speak so softly while they carry a big stick in the face of infringement of a natural right, and that sentiment was written down in the Second Amendment.

    2. avatar Roscoe says:

      More specifically, it’s the grabber authoritarian antis, their allies in the media and anti-gun Democrat politicians, who fanatically lament and demand that government “do something” now before anyone loses the emotional impact, whenever a tragic shooting by some deranged bad actor goes down.

      Meaning? Punish all gun owners. Why? Because Gunz. It’s the fault of available guns and all gun owners are just deranged assailants in waiting…because of guns. That’s their whole story and their sticking to it. The uninformed, miss-informed sheeple just go along with the program; gotta do *something* even if it’s literally meaningless.

      The reality is that emotion’s the only actual leverage of persuasion the antis have, because the facts make a lie of all their rhetoric and misrepresentations and make believe empirical studies that yield faulty pre-determined results. This will never end, particularly when you have one or two moneyed authoritarian deep pocket sponsors devoted to getting their way and imposing their personal view of gun rights on the entire country. ‘Mr. and Mrs. America…turn ‘em all in.’

      I can hardly wait for the first truly horrific terrorist attack at a gun free zone that involves “children”. Then these anti-gun ass-wipes will be associating law abiding gun owners with terrorists because we refuse to kneel to their pacifistic game plan; not that the grabbers haven’t already floated that assertion.

      As long as this country is divided the way it is and Democrats have prominent sway, this battle will continue. I just hope the Dems never gain control over both Houses and the Executive at the same time, with a rabidly anti-gun president.

      1. avatar Don says:

        I think they had that after ’08 for a few years.

        1. avatar Roscoe says:

          The Dem’s focus was elsewhere on the economy and healthcare, tragedies weren’t prominent, and Obama’s rabid anti-gun focus hadn’t yet gelled…at least not publically.

    3. avatar Pwrserge says:

      If previous generations had the balls of those open carry activists we would not be in this mess in the first place. The NFA and GCA should have resulted in mass civil disobedience and possibly open civil war. You pussies blinked, don’t blame us for using extreme measures to fix your mess.

      1. avatar Silver says:

        True. I love how the older generation sat by and did nothing while decades of gun control passed on their watch, then they get miffed when uppity young’uns these days actually act like free Americans.

        1. avatar Benny the Jew says:

          Hear-effing-HEAR! Anybody who thinks the antis would leave them alone if only they would “carry more politely” so as not to scare the pearl-clutchers is a damned fool! You may never choose to open carry, but don’t ever knock it. You’re welcome, Texans afraid to exercise your rights, for the legal open-carry of handguns, licensed though it may be.

      2. avatar actionphysicalman says:

        Indeed, the idea that there was or is a greatest generation is ridiculous.

        1. avatar doesky2 says:

          One thing for sure….the greatest generation hand a big hand in raising the most narcissistic generation.

          Also safe to say that the biggest values shift occurred from the WW2 gen to the 60’s gen.

    4. avatar MarkPA says:

      The right idea here is (in my opinion) to be flamboyantly aggressive about promoting the RKBA withOUT allowing our speech/behavior to be characterized as a threat to civil order.

      For example, the Chipotle “ninjas” apparently behaved in a perfectly orderly manner while laying themselves open to an innocent photo-op that the Antis could exploit to make them look fear-inspiring. Close but no cigar isn’t good enough.

      I fully understand TX was a peculiar case where carrying long guns in public was a means of promoting the right to carry handguns in public. With the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, what can we learn that might be useful when adapted to other States?

      Would it have helped to avoid AR-15/AK-47 in favor of hunting-style or historical (lever-action) long guns? Shotguns? .22s? Carry the chambers open with chamber flags? A flower in the muzzle? Dress in our Sunday best? Dress in costumes from the Revolutionary War (or, in the South, the Civil War)? Use crude mock-ups of vintage long-guns? Empty holsters? Make sure that moms with children are interspersed so densely that no OFWG could be photographed without including moms/children?

      Do the foregoing inspire any imagination on our part?

      While I once felt we ought to avoid OC I have come to recognize that OC is likely critical to normalizing civilian-guns-in-polite-society. Unless-and-until the sight of a civilian OCing in public has become unworthy of note, guns will remain “in-the-closet”. Guns will not survive “in-the-closet”.

      Suppose the only time non-gun-owners see guns is in the fields/woods/streams or at the range. What would that really mean? Non-gun-owners would NOT see guns at all! They would not see us concealed-carrying any more then they see us wearing boxers or briefs. Guns would remain unmentionable.

      Still a worse nightmare; what if Bloomberg weren’t here to keep gun control front-and-center of the MSM? No one in polite society would be talking about guns let alone gun rights. Legislators would be free to do whatever they wish to restrict guns.

      I hope that Texans will actively begin and sustain OC as soon as the law takes effect. I hope that Texas practice will spread to adjacent States (where it is not already practiced) and then spread beyond.

      An important next theater of operations will be Florida where OC is banned except while fishing and in-transit. We need to think about very long OC-strolls with fishing poles conspicuously displayed with a bone fide – albeit brief – wetting of the line between the stroll to/from the fishing pier.

      Where ever OC is legal but unpracticed we need to plan on events such as OC picnics.

      Americans will tolerate just about anything – no matter how weird it might strike them – so long as it is a political expression and non-threatening. Are we smart enough to accomplish this?

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        + 1,000,000

        Fantastic and incredibly pertinent points MarkPA.

  6. avatar Gunr says:

    Who’s gonna win?
    Nobody!

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Ok, who’s going to be the last one to ask if anyone’s got a spare mag (when only St. Peter will answer).

  7. avatar Tanner says:

    Unfortunately for those of us who would like to keep our rights to self defense with a firearm, we cannot truly win. There will always be another push to remove that right, and we will always have to be ready to defend it. We could, however, lose. Although it is a pessimistic view, I think we can hold on to our rights through my lifetime, and hopefully for many generations moving forward.

    1. avatar spankeythejarhead says:

      Tanner is right.
      Unfortunately we will ultimately lose. It may be in the next generation or a couple more down the road.
      Unless we as a nation turn away with our flirtation with socialism/liberalism and restore our Republic.

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        I’ll go one further, and say we’ll still be at risk even if we can survive both socialism and radical Islam. For most of human history (at least, recorded history), freedom and respect for individual rights has been the exception, and authoritarian rule of one form or another the norm. There have always been those who would impose their will on others, and I don’t see that changing (except on an evolutionary time-scale).

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          I agree completely. Democracy and freedom are the exception, and all democracies in history have eventually devolved into tyranny. Tyranny, or class rule by “nobility” is the rule. We could probably generalize into suggesting that we are pack animals that follow the Alpha (usually male, but not invariably) and a status hierarchy/pecking order. Such pyramidal structures are not democratic.

        2. avatar Taylor TX says:

          One of my favorite parts of that movie: “There are always men like you…”

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

        Thomas Jefferson

    2. avatar Silver says:

      Making the proposal of legislation infringing upon the 2nd Amendment, or any other Constitutional right, punishable by life imprisonment or some such would certainly stop the pushes. Leftist politicians are selfish, unprincipled creatures and would simply move on to more politically safer options.

      1. avatar Tanner says:

        The use of the word “selfish” in a negative way has always confused me. Each of us is selfish to a degree, and each of us has the ability to do *some* selfless actions, but if we were all to behave selflessly all the time, then each of us would starve trying to feed all the others. Selfishness is no crime in my eyes. I want to retain the right to keep and bear arms for the selfish reason that I may someday need it. Not to protect anyone or anything other than the people and things that I, myself, selfishly, want to protect.

        1. avatar Silver says:

          There’s nothing wrong with being selfish. But there is something wrong with corrupting a seat of political power for selfish reasons when the design of the seat is public service. Selfishness behind a mask of innocent altruism is what politicians do.

          Selfishness is fine. In fact, altruism is the path to truly horrific tyranny. But people can at least be honest about it.

        2. avatar Tanner says:

          Thank you for the clarification. I agree wholeheartedly.

    3. avatar Pwrserge says:

      It will only be a problem if you refuse to make the price of tyranny too high to attempt. If we used the Mississippi chapter of MDA to make some wind chimes, I guarantee that their membership would drop like a rock. The problem is that the MDA membership is not held personally accountable for their treason. So long as we allow open defiance of the 2nd amendment, we will continue to have it.

    4. avatar MarkPA says:

      Tanner correctly calls out the tenor of history. However, he neglects to mention a couple of really huge differences applicable to America.

      First, never in the history of mankind has a civilian population been so well armed as Americans are today. Partly, this is owing to our historical traditions. Partly, to prosperity and the plummeting of the cost of manufacturers. In what place and time were there as many civilian guns as population? In what place and time did the expression “I have a few guns” imply a number somewhere between 15 an 50? When and where was it unremarkable to have 1,000 rounds of each calibre in inventory and consider oneself to be “out of ammo”?

      Second, the policy of “up or out” in our armed forces is quite unusual historically. What we regard as our “standing army” looks more like what the founders would have thought of as “the militia”. The typical serviceman serves a hitch or two and returns to civilian life. What we regard as our “police” looks more like what the founders would have recognized as a standing army; a 20+ year career followed by an ample pension. Our vets are trained-to-arms to a level unheard of in history. And, their sentiments toward the Federal government as an institution are strained; they are cared for by the VA.

      While these two facts remain substantially unchanged the limits of Federal tyranny are held in check. No matter the shadow-boxing we may see, it would take an arrogance not even seen under the current administration to go beyond isolated kangaroo court cases.

      The population at large (i.e., outside the “gun culture”) is beginning to warm-up to the role of guns in civilian hands for self-defense. After Ferguson and Baltimore there is a recognition that the police might not arrive in time; if at all. If we can sustain this gradual awakening to the limits of the police’s power-to-protect and the efficacy of self-defense then the tide will keep coming in.

      1. avatar Aaron says:

        Some good points. However, America is also splitting ideologically among geographic lines. There are no more large Army close to most major coastal liberal cities. There are no more combat arms troops stationed in or near San Fran or NYC or Boston. Ft Dix NJ is now a reserve base. Active duty Soldiers no longer live in these big cities, except for maybe a tiny handful of ROTC cadre and recruiters. The only exception might be Ft Lewis (or Joint Base Lewis-McChord) an hour from Seattle, and San Diego which has some marines and seals.

        The Army has repositioned itself AWAY from the big population centers to huge tracts of cheap, desolate training land such as Ft Hood and Ft Bliss/WSMR, but now is more disconnected from these population centers than ever before in our history.

  8. avatar Bill says:

    …and *some* *uninformed* moms are worried…

    There, fixed it for her.

  9. avatar Governmentknowsbest says:

    As much as I can’t stand Alex Jones he had a point with the whole 1776 comment

  10. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “who wins in the long run?”

    Those with the guns.

    Next question?

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      Let’s hope it never has to come to that.

      1. How will you know when it is time to fight?
        If you think it is time to bury your guns, it is actually time to dig them up.

        1. avatar Roscoe says:

          The real question is will people of the gun be willing to resist, or will there be a few martyrs, and the rest acquiesce to sheepledom, unwilling to risk it all.

          I think I know the answer to that, which is why supporting the political fight now and into coming years is so damned important. Sustained money to organizations like NRA, letters to politicians, pro-gun votes, and more gun owner participation is all a must.

          That’s our best option to remain ‘free’. This is by necessity a long term fight that has been going on a very long time, and will continue, unless the independent self reliant nature of freedom loving Americans is conceded to complete government dependency.

  11. avatar Danilushka says:

    It is a deliberate falsehood to create a “choice” targeting legal guns versus children’s lives that does not save any lives. Most of children are killed by parents committing a criminal act or in drive-by shootings by criminals illegally possessing illegally obtained guns. Yet her whole focus is my legal guns that haven’t killed anyone yet.

    Let’s not even let them improperly frame this. the real problem is criminal behavior with guns and criminals, by definition, don’t obey laws there fore more gun laws won’t affect them.

    1. avatar PeterW says:

      I was waiting for someone to point out this false choice “my kid or my gun”
      Frankly, I can’t throw my kid at a bad guy in self-defense, nor would I want to, but I certainly would push them behind me while protecting them with my body and my weapon pointed at threat.
      And [expletive deleted] you gun-grabbers for trying to murder my kid!

    2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      It is a deliberate falsehood to create a “choice” targeting legal guns versus children’s lives that does not save any lives. My thoughts on the matter. In my experience guns used by parents can save their kid’s lives.

  12. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    Individual Liberty will continue to erode. It is the natural order of government.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      I’m afraid you are on to something there. When a New Mexico Supreme court judge, with a straight face and admitting that he was forcing people to go against their most deeply-held personal beliefs, used the full power of the state to order that someone bake a cake for someone else, and excused that massive overreach as simply “the price of citizenship”, I figured right then that people were not, as Rousseau said, born to be free.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        People may, in fact, be born to be free, but nowadays they spend their first 20 years or so having any desire for freedom beaten out of them by a school system that’s designed to produce easily-exploited, consumable automatons.

        The real miracle is that anyone at all manages to reach adulthood with even a slight desire for liberty, after the constant onslaught they’ve been subjected to.

    2. avatar Bob says:

      That’s correct. The masses have been tricked into thinking that these people with the imagined right to initiate the use of force are legitimate. The sole foundational principle of government is the initiation of the use of force, which can only result in chaos and destruction.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Government is force, not eloquence.

  13. avatar Dan says:

    Why not both?

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      Compromise?

      When have the anti’s ever agreed to compromise and been satisfied. They ALWAYS come back for more ‘compromise’.

      That’s why we’re now in a perpetual state of ‘locked horns’.

  14. avatar Red In Texas says:

    I’ll consider a meaningful discussion about “gun violence”, as soon as the start calling for the ban on the 1000’s of other things that kill children on a daily basis.

  15. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    I guess that depends on how many cowards voluntarily surrender their rights for fear of breaking a law.

    All rights are only as unalienable as we make them.

  16. avatar JeffM in Atlanta says:

    It is going to be a constant nibbling of rights, new ruling here, executive order there. I personally hope that we can hold on to our rights until there is a Republican in the White House that can make a difference. Until then, lets keep fighting to hold on to every Right that we have.

  17. avatar Phil LA says:

    As goes the second amendment, so too does the nation.

  18. avatar Sammy says:

    Ultimately, given enough time we lose.

  19. avatar AllAmerican says:

    We will win. We have no other choice but to win. The Facist Nazi gun grabbers want a war of extermination on those who would seek personal liberty. If they win, humanity will enter a new dark age, followed by one thousand years of pain.

  20. avatar pod says:

    We only win if we keep fighting the good fight. We can never take a break. That’s the nature of rights, whether it’s the right to keep and bear arms, or freedom of speech. There’s always someone who wants to take that right away. Gotta stay vigilant.

  21. avatar William B. says:

    How about the moms who carry precisely because they want to protect their children? We need a pro-gun “Moms” organization for a counter political voice.

    1. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

      There is a “one million moms against gun control” group. http://www.1mmagc.org

  22. avatar Spencer says:

    Though I agree with Don and Swarf’s points about the unintended consequences of “in your face” open carry demonstrations, their message seems to be lost on the majority of gun rights activists. Perhaps Second Amendment backers might win more support from the general population if that Constitutional right were not used to scare the daylights out of folks in restaurants and other public venues when black-rifle-waving diehards invade to “win hearts and minds.” Instead, why not engage in nonthreatening, logical discussions that show firearms owners as responsible and law-abiding citizens? There’s no guarantee the latter tactic will work in today’s America, but it did when I was a kid over fifty years ago.

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      The Dems have basically given up on the white working class (especially its make component), and feel that they can win elections based on a coalition of liberal rich and upper middle class folks, single women, gays and visible minorities. To make this possible, they are facilitating the importation of million of “New Americans”. While there are state-level Dems who may care about 2A, at the federal level they are gone or going. The Dems’ current and future electoral coalition is completely hostile to 2A. That was not always the case, but it sure is now. The future of the party is Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley and Elizabeth Warren.

      1. avatar Anon in CT says:

        “make component” => “male component”

      2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        I think a Mister Webb who is a Democrap politician has stated that they have given up on white males.

  23. avatar Fred says:

    That there poster is what you call a false dichotomy. When your main concern is spin and framing and not truth and law you’re playing a liar’s game. I happened upon an old Ayoob video about lawyers called “Cute Lawyer Tricks” on YouTube. He said in court a lawyer thinks like this; if the law isn’t on your side use the facts, if the facts aren’t on your side use the law, if neither are on your side attack the character of your opponent. Seems pretty obvious what Shannon has in her corner.

  24. avatar Heartland Patriot says:

    Mao, evil tyrant that he was, got one thing correct: all power flows from the end of the barrel of a gun. Either you have it, or they will.

  25. avatar JJ48 says:

    “Pro-gun activists are worried about losing their guns and moms are worried about losing their children. You tell me who’s going to win.”

    I refuse to select a winner between the two named groups because to do so implies that pro-gun activists and moms are somehow at odds with each other! Many moms are themselves pro-gun, and deal with their worry about losing their children by buying guns to protect them! Furthermore, though Ms. Watts may not realize it, the loss of firearms freedom would be a loss for all citizens of this country, even the ones who are working the hardest to bring it about.

    In the long run, if MDA accomplishes their goals for civilian disarmament, they lose (as their children will be far less safe than they are now. The only way for them to win and keep their kids safe is if they fail to accomplish their goals.

  26. avatar PeterK says:

    This is what makes me most angry. That they assume that my gun means anything other than my own desire to see my kids into adulthood where they’ll take care of themselves.

    This is also why I hate when I or others ascribe more to them than a desire to protect their kids. They may be horribly misguided. And painfully ignorant, but most of these people have honest intent.

    Still. It’s no excuse to rob a someone of their rights.

    1. avatar Silver says:

      If someone puts on the uniform of the enemy, they affiliate themselves with the enemy. I don’t care what their intentions are.

  27. avatar Chadwick P. says:

    We all know Shannon isn’t the founder… She is a paid face to spread the influence farther than bloomturd’s money could travel alone. Nothing more. Chances are that she drank the kool-aid because she was not very bright and now she thinks any if these horrible ideas are hers alone. I feel truly sorry for her. Kidnapping someone’s soul is one of the worst things a person can do.

  28. avatar Pascal says:

    The next POTUS will be choosing one if not two members of the next SCOTUS.

    If the next POTUS is a Democrat the appointments will be far left types who could not give a crap about the 2a.

    The current POTUS has already poisoned the legal system with far left judge who do not respect the constitution and the next Democratic POTUS will help finish the job with SCOTUS

    If you are not going to vote for your gun rights in the next presidential election, then you will be conceding all gun rights because given the chance, the left will do all they can to remove your gun rights per their agenda.

    Hillary who is being dogged for not being left enough will look to gun owners and see them as a good lambs to sacrifice to show her Bona fides to the far social left. She has already stated if given the chance, she will choose someone for SCOTUS that will limit 1st amendment rights so getting rid of the second is not a stretch either. And, I am not talking about wiping out the 2nd amendment, but make it so difficult or expensive to own a gun that it would be the same as being gone and she will elect more liberal judges to do her bidding.

    What I am stating next I understand is too simple. Because Rs and Ds are pretty much the same these days and I myself am an “I” but we have a system where we vote for either Rs or Ds when it comes to presidents.

    So, here goes, gun owners who normally vote D Presidents and whose hands start shaking at the thought of voting for an R President will have to decide how important gun rights are to them. The next president will be voting in SCOTUS members that may seal the fate of gun rights in the USA.

    We will see how important some believe their gun rights are in 2016. I predict, many will vote for Hillary.

    Why? Given how many gun owners voted for Obama in 08 and again in 12 and the “you don’t understand” responses in the past. Some may not even bother to show up on some absurd principle that apparently trumps gun rights.

    1. avatar JJ48 says:

      “Hillary who is being dogged for not being left enough…”

      Inside the American political system, how on Earth could Hillary be any more left than she is? O_o

      1. avatar Silver says:

        Call for the internment and execution of her political dissidents, nationalize all private businesses and media outlets, rewrite American history to glorify her agenda. You know, the usual leftist stuff.

        1. avatar doesky2 says:

          She’ll never do that….until her 2nd term.

    2. avatar JR Pollock says:

      Ginzberg, Scalia, Kennedy, & Breyer are all over 75 years old. Old age or illness could claim any one of them. That should be what any gun owner should be thinking about on Election Day next year.

    3. avatar doesky2 says:

      Yep, the next election is not for president, but rather the type of SCOTUS judges you want appointed for the next 20-30 years..

      Simple. As. That.

  29. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Pro-gun moms are going to win.
    They’ll fight for their kids, and fight for the means to protect their kids.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      Hah.

      Unless it means getting one of ‘their own’ into the Oval Office, just as it was with the amature; Obama.

      Americans love novelty.

  30. avatar Ralph says:

    Don’t you get it? Nobody is going to win. This war will go on forever, just like the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty.

    The question is not “who wins?” The question is “how many casualties will there be?”

    1. avatar Silver says:

      Cui bono.

      Behind every conflict is someone reaping the benefits.

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      Yeah, but you’ll maintain your freedom until the generation following you picks up the rifle.

  31. avatar Dave357 says:

    “… the forces arrayed against Second Amendment rights have endured a virtually unbroken string of defeats …”

    Not in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington State, not to mention exciting new developments in some of the usual suspects (NY, MA) as well as CT and MD, plus some nasty stuff temporarily vetoed in NJ and CA.

    Perspective, perspective, perspective.

  32. avatar Don in PA says:

    Moms with guns will win on both fronts.

  33. avatar BDub says:

    ANSWER: Probably, all the Moms with guns.

  34. avatar mk10108 says:

    Anti-Guns will never win. Shannon’s statement gun owners vs. mom, who will win…forgets one thing and that is mom’s brain stem. For all the I’m woman hear me roar, deep down they know ink on paper doesn’t stop a baddie headed for them or their children. My wife is about anti gun as they come, not in a F 2A way but, never been around them, not part of her culture. Gave her the data, she changed her mind, knowing I’m on the road and the only way to protect the twins, (forbid it ever happens) is a gun. Showed her how to use one and although she’s still not 100% comfortable, has a tool that levels the field.

    Concerning women we need to frame 2A not as a right, a background check, or common sense safety concerns but quietly ask, when no one is available how do you plan saving you and your childs’ life?

  35. avatar Mark N. says:

    Who wins? Until the Supreme Court decides to comprehensively address the issue–which at this point seems unlikely–it all depends on which state you live in. The Blue states will continue to try to limit if not outright ban various firearms and the bearing thereof, while the red states will eventually have “constitutional carry” when it turns out that the loosening of gun restrictions have no measurable negative effect.

    1. avatar Dave357 says:

      Seems reasonable, and in that case it is fair to ask whether there are more blue states turning red or more red ones turning blue.

      One might also watch the results of the 2020 census – it may further shift the power to the cities at the expense of the rural areas.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        The 2020 US census-takers will need to speak Arabic and Spanish.

  36. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

    The truth of the matter is that the antis depend on misinformation and scare tactics and the American mainstream media, which they are starting to lose also.
    It’s extremely unlikely someone’s child, baby etc will die from gunfire.
    The top five accidental deaths are:
    Motor vehicle accidents 42,000
    Poisoning 39,000
    Falls 25,000
    Fires 2,700
    Choking 2,500

    Let’s not forget that tobacco kills 440,000 a year and medical mistakes cause another 400,000 deaths a year.
    So to the Shannon Watts, Bloombags, and Capt Kelly and spouse, keep being bold and courageous, spend every dime you got…because in the end, YOU WILL LOSE!

  37. avatar 357M28 says:

    Look at this baby! It is safe and sound because Mom and her gun was the child’s first responder.

  38. avatar Jus Bill says:

    Why is that woman chewing on that child’s hair?

    1. avatar Gatha58 says:

      She is probably insane. Better outlaw teeth or at least register them. 😉

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      She’s trying desperately to suck the youth she lost out of that small child…

      I really can be a cold bastard, can’t I?

      *Snicker*

    3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Why is that woman sucking on that child’s head? She actually is a vampire.

  39. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    Historically speaking based on human history since the discovery of gun powder, the people with guns win every time.

  40. avatar Gatha58 says:

    The choice is not me losing my guns but losing my right to defend myself, my family and my loved ones. Their children have nothing to do with the equation and are red herrings in their argument. If all the guns were gone tomorrow children would still die due to many other causes. Therefore the basis of their argument is preposterous propaganda. Is it any wonder they are falling behind ? More and more people are wising up to their ridiculous rhetoric.

  41. avatar Steve says:

    Sadly, they’re going to win in the long game. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight tooth and nail for freedom, but they employ the ”slipper slope” doctrine, where they go “We just need this ONE small thing”, then the next, then the next, then the next.

    When firearms go by the wayside due to technological advances such as lasers or otherwise, you bet your ass they will prohibit civilian ownership of such advances.

  42. avatar Pillager1900 says:

    If giving up my guns would guarantee the safety of me, my family and that little baby, I would do that in a heart beat. But, we don’t live in that “all roses and sunshine” world Shannon and her lemmings think we do. So I will never be giving up my guns.

  43. avatar Larry says:

    What about mom’s worried about losing their babies because they’ve lost their gun rights? I know of a few families that experienced home invasions, ex-spouse attacks, etc. that I’m sure would have benefited from have a loaded gun. Unfortunately, those families did lose their babies. How’s that for tugging on the heart strings? Two can play that game.

    Oh, by the way, I’m sure a lot of upstate NY residents are also wishing right now they didn’t have 10 round limits to their magazines – given they have two escaped killers from a local prison on the loose.

  44. avatar Haiku Guy says:

    I am worried about losing my children, which is why I am worried about losing my guns.

    Our liberal democracy is only possible because power has been decentralized through the popular ownership of firearms. If firearms are removed from private hands, it is only a matter of time, and a very short time at that, until tyranny rises again.

    Are the children of Auschwitz any less dead than the children of Sandy Hook? What about the Armenian children or the children starved in the Ukraine by Stalin or the Millions of children exterminated in the Chinese Revolution? And how about the Yazidi children being slaughtered by ISIS or the Mexican children being killed by narco-terrorists? How dead are they?

    Crime can be controlled without removing firearms from the population, but tyranny can be controlled no other way.

  45. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Once again, distilled down to the most base analysis, MDA’s argument becomes:

    “I have a vagina. You don’t. Therefore, I win this argument.”

    This sense of intellectual entitlement by liberal women in the US is becoming just a tad insufferable.

  46. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    We will win-very similar to late 60’s-early 70’s-only now there are many millions willing to fight(literally)for their rights. And it ain’t gonna’ be pretty…

  47. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    The only place I have ever seen MDA is on TTAG.

    1. avatar Aaron says:

      me too. they did make the local radio news for their lame wear orange thingy.

  48. avatar Aaron says:

    Gun rights activists also care about losing their children. And there are probably more moms in our camp than in Watts’.

  49. avatar Lurker_of_lurkiness says:

    I would be more worried that my (hypothetical) progeny did not have the freedoms I enjoy. I don’t want a 1984 sitch happening; that is worse than death for sure….

    1. avatar Dustin says:

      Orwell is only a by-product of Huxley. The latest wave of anti-gunners is a direct result of people so entertained that they don’t think at all. This was Huxley’s presentation. Such people are too helpless and stupid to wipe their own butts, they need the Orwellian to survive. They beg for “freedom from responsibility” falsely portrayed as responsibility itself. Look around you. Being dumb as a rock is socially considered to be the ultimate display of opulence “I don’t need to know anything, I’m rich.”

      Orwell and Huxley are both wrong, becasue they failed to realize that both of their ideas are intertwined. One begets the other, their ideas not only co exist, they bring each other into existence. The Yin and Yang of humanity failing upwards into delusion and self-destruction.

  50. avatar Roscoe says:

    The real question is will people of the gun be willing to resist, or will there be a few martyrs, and the rest acquiesce to sheepledom, unwilling to risk it all.

    I think I know the answer to that, which is why supporting the political fight now and into coming years is so damned important. Sustained money to organizations like NRA, letters to politicians, pro-gun votes, and more gun owner participation is all a must.

    That’s our best option to remain ‘free’. This is by necessity a long term fight that has been going on a very long time, and will continue, unless the independent self reliant nature of freedom loving Americans is conceded to complete government dependency.

  51. avatar johnb says:

    As if those are mutually exclusive concepts…my wife would disagree and does not want some clueless twit speaking for her.

  52. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    The question as-asked is unanswerable, because it is based on a false dilemma. Saving guns and saving children are not mutually exclusive.

  53. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “Moms are worried about losing their children. Pro-gun activists, including moms, are worried about losing their children, their moms and themselves … and are willing to do what they can about it. Who’s going to win?”

  54. avatar John says:

    I am not worried about losing my guns. I do not have to give them up. I am worried about YOU giving away YOUR civil liberties.

  55. avatar gsnyder says:

    I despise the MDA of calling themselves “Moms” whereas they use children to promote their political agendas against the US Constitution. Using children is common within the anti-2A movement. Their ethics are zero. Maybe Watts and Bloomberg need to consider these “children” might like their are people out there willing to use the force of a firearm to PROTECT them? Maybe those children would enjoy the opportunity to decrease the odds of death? And hey, death doesn’t have to come from a bullet, there are many ways to die, but I bet they’d all choose to decrease the risks.

    Who wins depends a great deal on the Fed Gov’t and if it respects and protects its foundational structure. Our current administration does not protect our Rights, is in breach of their Oath of Office, and is openly willing to step on the Constitution. Who wins may depend on our future ability to defend ourselves against traitors who hold Office.

  56. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Not sure if I can post direct images here, so lets see what happens:

    Nope, apparently not (probably a good idea!)

    So instead here is a link to my attempt to rebut the question posed visually:

    http://screenchimp.com/TTAG/MDA'Sucks.png

    And then this one is a bit more forward…

    http://screenchimp.com/TTAG/WIN.png

    yes, both are work safe. Same picture for both, a mother and child with a text overlay. Just thought I should say that.

  57. avatar Dustin says:

    Children are helpless and depend upon parents to do what they cannot. When that parent chooses to be just as helpless as the child they claim to love, they betray that child in the worst way that they can.

    Who’s going to win? People who actually care; armed parents willing to fight for their childrens’ lives. Those who care so little that they’d rather tell the news reporter how terrible the slaughter was, instead of prevent said slaughter…

    Call me all the names you like, but they reap what they sow. They deserve to cry over the tiny bodies. The tiny bodies deserved real parents that actually give a damn. But, they had none such… And now those crap excuse for parents attack us, the ones that actually care. They’re not happy until every experiences the pain of their uncaring irresponsibility.

  58. avatar Dustin says:

    If they care so much about the children, why to they keep throwing them to the lions and pretending that it’s anyone’s fault but their own?

    They’ll never admit that the blood is on their hands, no matter how obvious it gets. It’s too hard to take on that truth as they pretend to be the ones that care. They’d rather it keep happening than swallow their pride and admit they’re wrong, for the children….

  59. avatar Virginia Gunner says:

    The fallacy of the Shannon Watts quote is that it implies gun owners are not ALSO afraid of losing their children or other family members. We all fear that kind of loss. We happen to be well aware that among the many ways we might lose those we love, or lose our own lives, is to fall victim to violent criminals should we be left without the means to protect them and ourselves. In defending our gun rights, we are also fighting to protect our families, as they claim to be. We are fighting for both their lives and their future freedom. Many of us, I will wager, would be willing to put our own lives on the line, and even sacrifice our lives if needed to preserve that freedom for future generations. I wonder if the antis would be willing to give up their own lives to deny our children that same freedom. I doubt enough of them would be so willing. Which is why we are going to win. One way or another.

  60. avatar Pg2 says:

    Probably been said more than once already, using erroneous chhd safety arguments more than the 2nd Amendment is under siege.

  61. avatar Ben Parsons says:

    One side is inspired by an important right that shouldn’t be even considered for curtailment.
    The other side, inspired by a treatable phobia.
    We do have a violence problem in America. Some of it done with firearms.
    Yet the solutions presented don’t seem to address the ‘violence’ root problem. Instead, they go after but one of the tools sometimes used. And then, not even those tools in the hands of persons most likely to use them violently.
    Are there honest solutions out there? Probably. But not in any of the directions we’ve looked or are considering looking so far.
    Need to stop wasting our time, money, and resources and do some new thinking.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      Whenever has a liberal admitted to the importance of identifying and resolving a “root” problem?

      Liberals admit of just two solutions:
      – laws prohibiting a disparaged conduct;
      – throwing money at deserving recipients.

  62. avatar J E says:

    “We do not succeed by putting all our eggs into the Republican basket. We succeed when we convince the Democrats to become more pro-gun by shifting the national consciousness on gun rights, as we have been doing for decades now” -Hi Power Toter

    Amen

    Politicians are, as a whole, to be regarded as snakes – they will promise with their lips and turn their backs on you when time for backbone arises. It is in our best interests to NOT be known as right or left, or centrist, but as gun owners – rational, well-spoken, literate, reasoned people who will readily vote for those who will reliability uphold the constitution, keeping the first 10 as co-equals, each critical in protecting liberty.

    I refuse to fall victim to the two-party false dichotomy and will vote for those who remain faithful to the cause of liberty and I will vote for D, I, R after actually investigating a prospects history and character. I suggest other take a similar approach.

  63. avatar ADM says:

    I feel like a big part of MDA’s problem [but certainly not their only one, obviously] is that they seem to believe that pro-gun moms don’t exist. I gotta say, I know more pro-2A moms than civilian disarmament moms. And I know a lot of moms.

  64. avatar lowell says:

    In the long run gun rights will lose the political fight. Government will eventually stop taking no for an answer and just go door to door. Wait much longer and it will be drones and termanator combat chassis doing the collecting.

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