Question of the Day: Should North Korea Nuke Sacramento? Where IS Gun Control Ground Zero?

NRA commentator Grant Stinchfield made an alleged funny on his Twitter page (as above). Mr. Stinchfield soon removed the tweet — but not before the anti-gun rights mainstream media took him to the proverbial woodshed. salon.com:

Stinchfield’s joke comes after the NRA ratcheted up its rhetoric not just against proponents of gun control, but the media and a large number of Americans that support sensible gun control measures the NRA radically opposes.

Media Matters first reported on the joke, and Connecticut Against Gun Violence, a gun control advocacy group, cited it as further evidence that the NRA is increasingly flirting with calls for violence in its campaigns.

This is nothing new: the left-leaning press has long characterized the NRA as a gi-normous klavern of right-wing proto-insurrectionists. But the there’s no question that take-no-prisoners comments by Mr. Stinchfield and Ms. Loesch are adding fuel to the progs’ fire.

Anyway, my question: where is ground zero for gun control? Where should the NRA concentrate its efforts?

comments

  1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    I’ve heard both Ben Shapiro and Andrew Klavan supporting Kim nuking LA, except that they currently live there.

    Like only whites can be racist, only leftists can make jokes _and_ ONLY if the Leftist Council approves of the punchline.

  2. avatar Norincojay says:

    Salon MSM? Salon is alt-left media. Just as Infowars is alt-right. Two heads of the same snake.

    Yes NK should hit CA instead of Guam. Guam doesn’t bother anyone. CA on the other hand bothers millions of people. In reality I hope they stand down and don’t hit anyone.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      ” I hope they stand down and don’t hit anyone.”

      I think China slapped some sense into Kim when the state newspaper announced if Kim launches and we retaliate China stays neutral:

      “Beijing warns Pyongyang: You’re on your own if you go after the United States”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-warns-north-korea-youre-on-your-own-if-you-go-after-the-us/2017/08/11/a01a4396-7e68-11e7-9026-4a0a64977c92_story.html

      I bet Kim wasn’t expecting to hear something like *that* from China…

      *snicker* 😉

      1. avatar Dan says:

        That was PR bullshot. China is and will be involved in any conflict on the Korean Peninsula regardless of who shoots first.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          ” China is and will be involved in any conflict on the Korean Peninsula regardless of who shoots first.”

          I’m not so sure on that one.

          China is *very* sensitive as to how the rest of the world sees it. They *desperately* want to be seen as a respectable and competent world superpower. (Quite unlike Russia currently under Putin.)

          Right now, NK is an irritation China really doesn’t need right now. Trouble is brewing on the India-Bhutan border, and the South China sea…

        2. avatar GS650G says:

          China would occupy as much of NK as possible as fast as they could. If they could get to the current DMZ they would create a SAR out of the entire country.

        3. avatar Rincoln says:

          China is completely dependent upon the U.S. buying their products. If they lost Walmart, Apple, and every other cheap appliance, tool, or product manufacturer that sells to the uber-consumers that are Americans, their economy would collapse. They have no intention of making that a reality over some foreign, wannabe dictator who decided to play war games.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Guam has B1 bombers, so it definitely bothers ‘someone’ which is probably the real motive behind all this sabre rattling

  3. avatar CZ Peasy says:

    There is no ground zero. The left has metastasized and infected leaf, branch, trunk, and root. Watering the tree is insufficient. A new seed must be nurtured.

    1. avatar The Duke says:

      I hate saying, being born and raised here, this but the south is ground zero for gun control. That’s where the Democrats first but their teeth in creating gun control to prevent ‘violence in minority communities’ and they used arguments of social utility to justify segregation, literacy tests, poll taxes and strict control over everyone’s constitutional freedoms for ‘the greater good’

      1. avatar BLoving says:

        Yup.
        And where were the last of the enforced Jim Crow laws on the books until that state was dragged kicking and screaming into the then-twentieth century?
        California.
        Seems they have a more recent and ongoing problem with recognizing basic civil rights.

        1. avatar Rincoln says:

          They also learned their lesson. Notice how many southern states vote Democrat nationally?

  4. avatar MAGA says:

    I thought it was funny.

    1. avatar T says:

      So did I actually

    2. avatar CLarson says:

      It is funny. 🙂

  5. avatar Ralph says:

    Stinchfield’s tweet makes no sense. Why would Kim nuke Sacramento when there’s a San Francisco?

    1. avatar The Boojum says:

      Because Sacramento is the state capital, presumably where the laws get made.

      1. avatar CLarson says:

        *Sigh* 🙁

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      That map from months back showed him nuking Austin but not NYC; what’s up with that?

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        Range. It’s all about the range.

        As to SF vs Sacramento … I’d miss Sacramento’s train museum.

        1. avatar Chier says:

          Range doesn’t necessarily matter. Kim can put weapons on a boat/ship/yacht and sail them right into any US port or harbor. Our ability to detect an actual nuclear weapon is limited to a hundred yards or so, if a 2010 Congressional research report on the subject is correct. We presently scan ship cargoes bound for the US at a number or foreign ports, but there is nothing to keep a rogue ship from altering course to the US.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Kim can put weapons on a boat/ship/yacht and sail them right into any US port or harbor”

          They don’t need to be in the harbor.

          Visualize this –

          A container ship approaches Los Angeles late at night. The top of one of the containers opens up and a small crew of guys starts filling weather balloons with Helium. The cluster of balloons is released, and there’s something suspended under the balloon cluster as it rises about 1,500 feet in the air and drifts over LA.

          *Flash*. *Boom*.

          In related news, Iran just had a visit from a North Korean official. Since Kim has proven his bombs work, I find it plausible the return flight to NK might have had a nice pile of Gold in the hold of that airplane…

    3. avatar doesky2 says:

      Well I’d suggest that he send one big enough to take both Sacremento and SanFran out at the same time.

      1. avatar bobo says:

        But I like San Fran the town!! the lefties that live there….not so much!

        And if someone nuked Sacramento, I don’t think most of the state 90% would even know it was missing till the welfare or state pay checks were late!

  6. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    We can’t do that, if we renamed Sacramento to Guam, we risk it capsizing! That might cause the San Andreas to break loose and drop California into the ocean. Okay, that might be almost as bad as the North Korean gargoyle nuking Guam, I guess…..

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Day after day, more people come to L.A.
      Ssh! Don’t you tell anybody the whole place is slipping away.
      Where can we go when there’s no San Francisco?
      Ssh! Better get ready to tie up the boat in Idaho.

      — “Day After Day (It’s Slippin’ Away),” Shango (1969)

      1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        Ha! Found the cut on YouTube:
        https://youtu.be/j2ZXco32IRU

        Thanks Ralph!

  7. avatar IdahoBoy says:

    Let’s send a note to North Korea that Cheyenne changed it’s name to Guam.

    Still funny? Nope, didn’t think so.

    You won’t win people to your point of view by joking about nuking liberal population centers.

    1. avatar CLarson says:

      Cheyenne is only not funny because then the joke loses context. Now for the ultimate nuke joke by Reagan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv13ZnkpWos

    2. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

      There are fewer legislators stealing and generally tyrannizing in Cheyenne, and those there are, do it to a lot fewer people.

    3. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      Cheyenne doesn’t receive the butt of everyone’s jokes unlike the majority of CA cities.

    4. avatar Defens says:

      I lived in Cheyenne for a few years in the mid-80’s. Since it was the central command and control center for a whole nexus of missile silos, we residents figured it already had a big bullseye painted on it by the Russians.

    5. avatar pwrserge says:

      You assume that we care about “winning people to our point of view.” Liberalism is a cancer, if North Korea wants to provide a free dose of radiation treatment, that’s fine with me.

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        Stalin had similar feelings. You should have left that shit at home….

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Stalin didn’t have a quarter billion dead bodies to back his argument. “Tolerating” evil does not make it less evil.

        2. avatar Snatchums says:

          Nah, he didn’t kill 250 million. only what 15 million? Though I’m certain he would have been happy to oblige with killing that many people if the opportunity presented itself.

          What the fuck difference does his body count have to do with it?

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Clearly, you didn’t read what I wrote. The left is responsible for those quarter billion dead every time they support socialism. That’s the reason why they are cancer.

      2. avatar IdahoBoy says:

        I’m not talking about winning liberals to your point of view. I’m talking about winning anybody to your point of view if you joke about nuking people.
        If we’re going to win the hearts and minds of America, we either need fewer assholes or we need those assholes to shut up

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I have yet to meet a conservative who supports any form of gun control. The opinions of lefties don’t concern me.

  8. avatar john says:

    whew! at least he didn’t joke about cutting off some liberal politician’s head. and holding the bloody thing up on live tv.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Are you suggesting a North Korean nuclear strike could be passed off as “performance art?” …because that might actually work with these idiots

  9. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

    Nationally I would say California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Connecticut. Here in Colorado; Denver, Boulder, Aspen, and Ft Collins. The NRA should spend its cash here and other battleground states, the state is divided and I don’t want to see Co slip any more to the dark side. To many Californicators moving here and bringing their failed ideas with them.

  10. avatar Geoff PR says:

    NO!

    Don’t nuke *anywhere* in California.

    *Millions* of Cali snowflake ‘refugees’ will pour into the free states adjacent to Cali and START VOTING and turn them into little Californias.

    For the love of all that’s decent, keep Californians INSIDE CALIFORNIA!!!

    *sobbing pitifully*

    1. avatar TruthTellers says:

      If San Fransicko, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Jose, Oakland, Santa Barbra, San Bernadino, Portland, and Seattle were wiped off the map, a lot of our nations problems would be solved.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Unless the residents escaped.

  11. avatar Alan Esworthy says:

    The NORKS have forbidden private arms ownership, yes? Then Pyongyang should nuke Pyongyang.

    1. avatar Mike Betts says:

      After about two weeks under the thumb of Gov. Moonbeam and the moonbats in Sacramento the Guamanians would likely want to move back, preferring living under Fatboy’s threat of a mushroom cloud to being ruled by that bunch.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Lots of folk from Guam live here in CA already. Guam has its issues, just as any other place has.

  12. avatar 870 man says:

    What they meant to say is :

    but the media and a small number of Americans that support radical gun control measures the NRA sensibly opposes

    There, FIFY

  13. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    This may not actually be a laughing matter: if we can trust the information available to us lowly citizens, I am thinking there is a non-trivial probability that Kim Jong Un actually launches something at the U.S. … and California would seem to be the most attractive target for various reasons. (Although I believe he would target the greater Los Angeles area first, followed by the San Francisco area next, and Sacramento would be a distant third target.)

    Time will tell.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      ” …I am thinking there is a non-trivial probability that Kim Jong Un actually launches something at the U.S. …”

      He recently stated he intends to ‘test’ a salvo launch of 4 ballistic missiles and the stated target is 40 kilometer away from Guam.

      Guam *is* US soil.

      If he launches anywhere *near* Guam, it’s a near guarantee the US will retaliate with an actual strike on North Korea.

      Something along the lines of dozens of cruise missiles and B-1s dropping bunker-buster deep penetrating bombs.

      We will destroy every *known* above ground missile production facility and likely anything connected to their nuclear program.

      The only problem with hitting nuke sites will be the likely release of radioactive contamination.

      China will *not* like radioactive contamination drifting into their territory, so they may tell us not to nail those sites.

      If Kim launches anywhere near Guam, we will give him a bloody nose.

      Like making Pyongyang very dark for a long time by hitting the sources of Pyongyang electricity

      Make the Korean ‘elite’ live like the impoverished Korean country bumpkins they ‘rule’…

      1. avatar Justsomeguy says:

        That brings retaliation in the form of his unleashing his very formidable number of artillery tubes against Seoul. Yes, we can neutralize them, but not before they have done great damage. Those gun tubes are his ace in the hole until he gets real deployable nukes.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Those gun tubes are his ace in the hole until he gets real deployable nukes.”

          Kim knows if he hits Seoul *first*, it’s the end of his regime, and himself. China made it clear if he launches a ‘test’ anywhere near Guam (US soil) they won’t be coming to his aid if we retaliate and destroy his missile program. (And we would!) In that same statement, China said they won’t tolerate us or South Korea hitting Kim first.

          The ball is fully in Kim’s court now. We get to wait and see if he returns the serve…

        2. avatar Justsomeguy says:

          Yes he does. Folks on this side of the DMZ are doing the math too and also know that any first strike against him will become costly quickly. We would undoubtedly win in the end, but there would be a significant cost to the S Koreans. At the same time, delay strengthens his hand and his people continue to suffer. Quite the quagmire.

  14. avatar Kyle says:

    I put no stock in anything said by the anti-gun community against the gun community. They will take out of context, or not, so as to frame themselves in the best way possible and attack us.

    Worrying about insulting or inflaming their snowflake sensibilities is not worth my time.

  15. avatar former water walker says:

    It doesn’t matter…the protards will blame the NRA-and Trump. Calexit for the win!😄

    1. avatar TruthTellers says:

      Calexit is the best solution for the California problem. I know Northern California and the Eastern parts of it aren’t that bad, quite conservative and anti-communist people there, hopefully if there is a “Calexit” it will go by county, that way most of the urban cities and such on the coast will no longer be part of the USA, but the good parts of California and the agricultural parts of it will stay in the US.

      Then, after that’s done, North Korea can invade the independent Socialist People’s Republic of California and annex it after shipping most of the people back to North Korea to work in the coal mines and labor camps.

      1. avatar Klause Von Schmitto says:

        “…shipping most of the people back to North Korea to work in the coal mines and labor camps.”

        Now there’s a happy thought. Thanks, I needed that today.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        I dissagree. I think door to door purges of communist leaders are the best solution to the California problem.

    2. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Seriously, here’s what I’d want to see:
      – mostly the coastal areas would go; but we would like to keep the breadbasket, er, inland areas
      – California takes on its fair share of the national debt, probably done via population so call it 12-15%?
      – Several of the few remaining active USN facilities in California (let’s say San Diego, Port Hueneme and China Lake) are Guantanamized and remain US territory. The Naval and Defense language schools in Monterey can be relocated.
      – provisions are made to facilitate property swaps between people living in the area to be detracted, and those in the states on the coast (e.g. Oregon and Washington), so the people living in Oregon and Washington can secede if they want to, and those living in coastal California who don’t want to, can be accommodated.
      – Washington and Oregon are off the table for secession as we need the west coast ports.
      – the seceded state of California has no guaranteed call on US resources – no defense, no backing of bonds, no representation in Washington DC outside of an embassy.

      But honestly, while I think that would be fair, I don’t see any California poll who thinks it through, going for it.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        You forgot the part where California has to pay for a border wall running around the perimeter.

        Once they exit, there’s no coming back.

        1. avatar TruthTellers says:

          That’s one of the big reasons I’m not entirely for California leaving the US: it increases the length of the border into an indefensible situation. With California now, it’s doable, without California, it’s not.

          Let California succeed, NK nuke them, invade them, annex California, then the US can retake California and annex it back without all the leftists cuz they’ll be dead or slaves in North Korea.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          If they seceded and we took the land back, there is nothing saying we have to give them statehood or US citizenship.

  16. avatar jwm says:

    If you want to nuke ground zero for gun control then you have to target soros office and kapo bloombergs office. At this point in history gun control efforts in the US are bought and paid for by those 2 men.

    They go and the gun control effort dies because there is no longer a profit for the shannons and the huffpos to make.

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      That’s what I wanted to say. Follow the money and choke off the supply. Getting the two billionaires mentioned above plus couple more on west coast out of the picture would take care of the whole “gun safety, commonsense measures” movement.

  17. avatar barnbwt says:

    At any rate, it’s practically assured that he’ll launch it during the eclipse while nearly everyone’s googley-eyed, so we’ll know in a week

    1. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

      Yeah, but we’ll have the funny glasses on and many will be looking in the wrong direction:-)

  18. avatar strych9 says:

    I don’t know where “ground zero” is but I agree with a post in this thread and one which I’ve seen elsewhere, probably another thread on TTAG: battle ground states where they can actually make a difference.

    Gun friendly states don’t need the help and deep blue states like NY, NJ and CA are a lost cause unless the NRA can find a “slam dunk” court case to shut them down.

    At this point the realistic battlegrounds for those states are Federal Courts but probably ones outside the 9th Circuit. Those states need an outside force to corral them because they sure as hell won’t do it on their own and clearly don’t care about the US Constitution or their own State Constitutions in some cases.

  19. avatar Cadeyrn says:

    Funnies aside, we really don’t want anywhere in CONUS nuked nor our base in Guam, nor Japan, nor anywhere else.

    I would, however, fully support the following measures:

    1) Establish a fund to help people go hug it out with radical islamic jihadis if they are so inclined.

    2) Bus illegal immigrants directly to the palatial estates of the billionaires and Hollywood moguls and actors who so strongly support illegals entering into the US and being given sanctuary; order all such supporters to house, feed and clothe however many illegals are deemed appropriate for the size of the estate and make it binding for the forseeable future.

    3) Remove all armed protection from Bloomberg and other gun control advocates so that they will not appear to be raving hypocrites of the first order. It’s doing them a favor, really.

    4) Order the Federal Election Commission to actually audit each and every county where there are more voters registered than actually exist on the official census; prosecute local election officials who have permitted this to happen (we love our California brothers, sisters and unidentifieds, however there’s something fishy with 144% of voting age public being registered to vote).

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I rather suspect that the voter roles are not purged for deaths, people who move, or college students who return home after school. Voter registration drives are pretty aggressive here. Every time someone has a petition to sign that they want on a ballot there is a voter registration table. It doesn’t take long before the bad data gets to be pretty large.

  20. avatar Mark N. says:

    The one fact that is buried in all of this fear mongering is that Un has nuclear devices (maybe seven, and from seismological evidence, not very pow erful ones at that) and a few ICBMs of uncertain reliability (most have blown up shortly after launch), but he does not have a nuclear tipped ICBM. He is working on it, but apparently it is a big technological leap to go from a bomb to a bomb small enough to be carried by a missile. SO this really is just saber rattling, unless of course Trump is stupid enough to pull a first strike. I wonder though if China would look away if it was a precision nonnuclear strike (they have said they will not, but they are not stupid). It will retaliate against us, starting WWIII, if nuclear weapons are employed.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      So you’re proposing that we just kick the can down the road a few years until they day that he has a deployable ICBM?

      That will put us into a stronger position?

      1. avatar Kommieforniastan Deplorable says:

        Apparently so, that’s exactly what Clinton, Bush and Barry did and here we are with a fat boy playing bully. And I’m not talking about our President.

    2. avatar Frank says:

      It’s not just the ICBMs. In theory, they could do a lot of damage to South Koreans and Americans based there in a short period of time with just artillery pieces.

  21. avatar David Walters says:

    Honestly, this shit’s getting out of hand…on and from both sides…antifas and skinheads.

    I’m for ORDER!!!!!! In my vicinity I’ll make sure order prevails…that’s all folks.

  22. avatar Noishkel says:

    I refuse to hot damn about people that think this is an unacceptable joke. Especially given how the popular media makes these exact kind of jokes every time something bad happens to a conservative.

  23. avatar Paelorian says:

    I’m still living in the five cities of the plain—excuse me, I mean the five boroughs of New York City (it’s hard to tell them apart!) and I’m willing to vouch that this is a degenerate den of iniquity. Though I’ve been to California, and San Francisco and Los Angeles certainly give NYC a run for it’s money. I’d be OK with the downfall of these societies so long as all decent people were provided ample opportunity to leave. No, I’m not saying I want everyone murdered. I’m a moral person. It’s just that I’ve been expecting the fire and brimstone to drop any day now. Hell, I’ve been thinking that when I finally leave for good I may refuse to look back out of the airplane window just for symbolic reasons.

    California would really be a great place to live if only the people who lived there didn’t. It’s a wonderful climate. It’s ideal for gardening and growing fruits and vegetables. The free states either don’t have water or they have cold winters, and often infertile soil to boot. So it’s ranching and hardy desert or northern crops and short seasons. I wish I could grow a healthier diet, but I won’t be growing avocados outside in Idaho, even in the mildest areas like around Lewiston. Meat and potatoes is certainly hearty and liveable, but California has it all and is spoiled for choice. Unfortunately in the remaining 2A-observing states I’ll be spending a lot of money on imported produce in order to have a more varied and healthy diet. But I’ll deal with what’s there, because since I want freedom living with Californians is not an option!

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