The Truth About Gun Control Advocates: Quote of the Day

David Harsanyi (courtesy thefederalist.com)

“Events like the CNN town hall go a long way in convincing gun owners that gun control advocates do have a desire to confiscate their weapons. The advocates can’t confiscate weapons right now, so they support whatever feasible incremental steps are available to inch further toward that goal. We don’t know how this plays out in the long run. In the short run, though, it does nothing to stop the next school shooting.” –  David Harsanyi, CNN’s Shameful Town Hall Is a Clarifying Moment on Guns [via townhall.com]

comments

  1. avatar Gman says:

    Though I am not a big fan of Marco Rubio, I was truly impressed with the courage and restraint he exhibited by attending that farce. I was also unimpressed that Governor Scott wasn’t there alongside him. Yes it was a roast, but Rubio was on the spit all alone.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Alone with Dana. If anything she had it worse, Marco took money from the NRA, she IS the NRA.

    2. avatar Cloud says:

      Sure he had he balls to go there and be apart of that re-enactment of “2 minutes of hate”. But he caved when he expressed desire at limiting people’s magazines and other such nonsense. He was a total wuss.

      1. avatar Gman says:

        I agree, but there was no win in that forum and certainly he was not up to the task of actually showing these people the error of their ways.

        Question: Will you stop taking NRA money
        Answer: No. The principles upon which this country is based, and upon which countless precious American blood has been spilled to defend, are what I took an oath of office to defend. Our 2nd Amendment is not simply about guns. It is about freedom and liberty and with freedom and liberty comes responsibility and hardship. The NRA also stands for those principles and I challenge any American to justify nullifying those principles for some appearance of security. So I support the Constitution and the NRA supports me.

        That’s what I would have said.

    3. avatar Bloving says:

      God bless Dana. I was watching some of her vids last night and after the scorn and hate she endured from those bigots… (low whistle) that woman is ice cold. Totally unflappable. Hiring her has to be one of the smartest moves the NRA has made in years.

      1. avatar Flinch says:

        Ice cold is right. Like psychotic ice cold. When someone gives both men and women the creeps then it’s real. Dana is seriously damaged goods. I hope she can turn this image around. To kids (and many adults) she embodies the Antichrist.

        1. avatar Bloving says:

          ???
          Perhaps to bigots and the children of bigots. I see an attractive, confident and wellspoken woman who takes no crap off of anyone when I see her. But I suppose some people are just intimidated by women like that.
          🤠

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Dana gives me something, but it ain’t ‘the creeps’.

        3. avatar Rick says:

          I must be watching a different Dana. That isn’t what I see.

        4. avatar paul says:

          Poor flinch. He looks at a strong, confident, self aware, articulate and intelligent women and gets frightened. I look at her and find all her qualities very refreshing.

        5. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Clearly a misogynist for attacking a woman for being strong.

        6. avatar Durask says:

          To the antis, every one of us is the Antichrist.

      2. avatar SouthAl says:

        I think Dana did a great job. I must admit though that I think she held back on the Sheriff too much. I wish she had taken the opportunity to bury him, she could have.

  2. avatar Salvatore says:

    Accusing 100 million gun owners of being complicit in this crime might help turn that 2018 wave a lot more red. I hope they keep at it.

    1. avatar yhsbirny says:

      Which means there are 200 million non-gun owners who care a hell of a lot more about the possibility of their kid being shot than they do about the possibility of being restricted from buying a gun in the future. We keep coming up with reasons and rationales to convince ourselves we are invincible; we are not.

      1. avatar paul says:

        Nobody said we are invincible. But, as a group, we are far more committed to preserving our rights than most of the people trying to take them away. Pray that it stays that way.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        Please stop with the falsely inflated statistics!

        There are approximately 100 million individuals in America who own at least one firearm. This means that they are most likely over 18 and eligible to vote.

        According to the Census Bureau there were a grand total of 206 million Americans of voting age in 2016.

        That means that there are only 106 million voters who in theory do not own a firearm, but this does not automatically make them pro gun control.

        The idea that there are 200 million Americans opposed to the 100 million gun owners is just crap.

        1. avatar Anon in Ct says:

          Don’t forget that gun owners also have spouses.

        2. avatar yhsbirny says:

          Even if the statistics are inflated (which they probably are), how many gun owners favor some sort of gun control? More than we like to think. And who says their wives have the same attitude as their husbands? I agree with Paul below “Well, it would appear that the water, my fellow frogs, is getting pretty warm.” Companies severing ties with NRA (that bank in Nebraska, 3 rental car comapnies). Has the anti-gun tide ever gotten this far before? There is a fundamental change happening in society’s attitudes, and failing to recognize it is not doing us any good.

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Additionally, gun rights people are twice as likely to be politically involved than gun control people. Furthermore, having guns is a strong indicator of how someone will vote.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          “Has the anti-gun tide ever gotten this far before?”

          Yes, in fact it’s gotten significantly farther in the past.

          Case in point: 1994-2004. Those are the years the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was in effect.

    2. avatar Kenneth says:

      So long as you continue to see this as the “reds” against the “blues”, or vice versa you are playing the globalists game. They keep the house divided that way. Its the way their game is played. And they make the rules for their game, and change them whenever its to their advantage.

      So long as you play their rigged game, the deck is stacked. We must wise up and realize that both sides of the aisle are in their pockets.

      If the Trump selection fiasco in 2016, and their clownish performance since, has not shown you that clearly, I don’t know what it might take to open your eyes. Do you suppose the NRA, and virtually ALL the Republicans suddenly support any gun control measures the Dems come up with by accident?

      Do you think Trump, who campaigned on CCW reciprocity, but now supports banning anything that might be called a rate increasing device, doesn’t understand that he supports gun control? Just how many times do you need to be stabbed in the back before you decide to turn around and look behind you?

    3. avatar That One Guy says:

      The owner of a tiny automotive-oriented video production company based in Atlanta decided to call the NRA and all gun owners complicit in the Florida shooting the day after it occurred. When I suggested that I’ve never even been to Florida, he and his buddies decided they wanted to have a “reasonable discussion” which ended up being little more than my facts and topical knowledge against their feelings and ad hominem attacks.

      So…I yanked my 2yr long $10/month Patreon support and bought a 5yr membership to the NRA using the postcard that came with the black semi-auto I bought that afternoon.

      And I really don’t like the NRA. LaPierre can piss up a rope as far as I care. IMHO, the NRA has been a party to every single piece of bad gun legislation since before I was born. But, I /DO/ like Loesch and Noir and the NRA membership will allow me access to a local gun range so….I’m making the exception.

  3. avatar GFY FL says:

    Well said

  4. avatar Joe R. says:

    There’s a lot more wrong with the evil POS (D), gun control is the thing they’re after so they can do you-control.

    As it has with so many other communist scourges, this is going to come down to a physical fight.

    F em all.

  5. avatar Vanished, Like a Fart In the Wind says:

    “I absolutely believe that in this country, if you are 18 years of age you should not be able to buy a rifle. I will support a law that takes that right away,” ~Marco Rubio~

    F**K HIM, I’LL NEVER VOTE FOR THAT RIGHTS INFRINGING
    SON-OF-A-B***h

    1. avatar Cloud says:

      Yea he’s a big wuss. I’m not 100% opposed to raising the age to purchase a long gun necessarily, if that age is raise, so should the voting age and the age to enlist. But he caved in so many levels. He’s weak.

    2. avatar Scott says:

      Being 47, I don’t care if they raise the age to buy rifles and shotguns to 21. BUT, having said that, if we do make that concession, I want something in return…like national concealed carry reciprocity. Otherwise, we should tell the Dems to f**k off.

      1. avatar Anon in Ct says:

        I agree on that.

        Also, they should raise the voting age to 21 for anyone not in the military. If you’re not responsible enough to handle a gun, you’re not responsible enough to help set national policy.

        1. avatar Sprocket says:

          They’re also probably not competent enough to be committing themselves to many tens of thousands of dollars of debt. It would be best if we restrict student loans to those over 21 years of age.

  6. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    Keep in mind that Rubio also supports amnesty. He weasel words what he supports but in the end it is amnesty.

  7. avatar paul says:

    Well, it would appear that the water, my fellow frogs, is getting pretty warm. What is clear from the CNN “town hall” is that the anti’s loath us and that there is nothing they won’t say or do to further their agenda. And yes, that means taking your semi auto away; all of them. While the water is warming nationwide, its much closer to very hot in places like NJ and Murphy is turning up the heat.
    Semper Paratus.

    1. avatar Cloud says:

      They can try. They will fail.

  8. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Dana is and was a perfect representative for my personal views. She takes no crap at all. Never seams to have in what Ive seen and heard of her.
    As for Marco.
    For now Im willing to give Marco a slight break. Id like to believe that he like any politician with no real ballz. Was just telling the setup CNN audience what they wanted to hear. When and if push comes to shove. Marco hopefully wont vote for any real changes. Im holding off on condemning him till when and if. If he does go against his words of the past.
    Then I will do all I can here in Florida to help burn his butt.

  9. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    So… on the stroke of midnight, the 21st birthday… the previously crazy mass murderers are all turned into peaceful, productive citizens? Hmmmm

    1. avatar Oh noes says:

      Stephen Paddock was 64, ban anyone over 60 from buying rifles.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        HEY! I resemble that remark! Iike Dana and f##k little Marco. And Trump if he pushes any gun control. President Pence sounds fine by me…

    2. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      I agree, no one has really pointed this out yet. How many people under 21 with legally acquired (not straw manned or stolen) guns actually killed people. I don’t think it’s very many.

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I can easily imagine that many — possibly even most — gun-grabbers are okay with us owning revolvers, pump-action shotguns, and bolt-action rifles. Of course that would change in a heartbeat as soon as two or three spree-killers used those firearm platforms to kill a couple dozen people. (A spree killer could easily murder well over a dozen panicked people in a crowd with two large caliber revolvers or bolt-action rifles loaded with heavy-for-caliber projectiles — or two pump-action shotguns loaded with slugs.)

    The fact of the matter is that the only firearm platform that would truly inhibit spree killers are single-shot firearms. That is ultimately where we are heading if we continue trying to ban firearms as a “solution” to stopping spree killers.

    1. avatar A Brit in TX says:

      Didn’t the Navy Yard killer use a pump action shotgun?

      Didn’t the Beltway Sniper use a bog standard bolt action hunting rifle? (Admittedly not single shot but I think for each murder only one shot was fired).

      Didn’t the UT Austin killer use a bolt action rifle?

      They will only stop when all firearms are banned, they will not admit this but they have let this fact slip out from time to time.

      1. avatar Rick Bunn says:

        The beltway snipers use a Bushmaster AR

        1. avatar A Brit in TX says:

          Many thanks! My memory was hazy, should have done a little research so I stand corrected.

      2. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

        In the time almost all of these spree killers have been given, they could have killed just as many with a single shot rifle. They take around two seconds to reload, aim, and fire each shot.

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      As Brit in TX pointed out, being restricted to single shot ri fles wouldn’t impede a serial sniper in the least. People who do these things are not normal. There’s no way to take away their ill will by taking any number of tools from them. They will find new tools. They will make pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails, they will drive their dad’s F-250 into a crowd at 70mph. They will invent new strategies. They will become serial killers rather than spree killers. They may become much more dangerous.

      As far as the left, their ultimate goal is to make us the UK. Just all but the most delusional of them realize that it will take generations to transform us to them and since they’re the ones who don’t have gu ns, there’s no way to push up that time frame. They’re not going to win a revolution. If they got their way and we banned all semi-automatic weapons they’d be anxiously waiting for the next killer to push a the next ban. They’re not going to have an epiphany when it happens, that the last ban wasn’t good enough. They will be ready, pre-mobilized like they were this time, waiting for the next opportunity. Which is why we can’t give in to them this time (or the next).

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      Charles Wittman comes to mind. He killed 18 people and wounded another 31. Mostly with 6mm Remington 700 IIRC.

    4. avatar Brian says:

      The only difference between a sniper rifle and a hunting rifle is the verbiage a person uses to describe them. Something like “If your hunting rifle can accept a scope mount, it’s a sniper rifle and needs to be banned for civilian use”

  11. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    Yes, we know how this plays out in the long run. It’ll be a literal genocide of the gun grabbing Liberal Terrorists™️ if they attempt confiscation which would necessarily force the next Civil/Restorative War. “It is no longer enough to be willing to fight and die to preserve our rights, one must be willing to kill for them, too”

  12. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

    My biggest concern about the future of civil rights in this country, and make no mistake, we are talking about civil rights, is a lack of unity amongst gun owners.

    Back in 68, my first rodeo. we were American gun owners fighting for an American right.

    Now we’ve allowed ourselves to be split up into a bunch of folks from different states. And we are happy if our individual state, for the moment, honors our rights. We will disparage our fellow gun owners for ‘living in slave states’ or for them to ‘just move’. They got the ‘government they deserve’.

    This plays directly into the hands of the folks that want to give us all ‘the government we deserve’.

    1. avatar anarchyst says:

      You are correct…
      Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned.
      Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
      There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
      ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…

  13. avatar Gman says:

    No one under 21 should be allowed to buy an “assault weapon” because these are too powerful weapons of war.
    No on under 21 should be allowed to buy a handgun because these are, what?

  14. avatar Gman says:

    Notice that none of these useless idiots pushing another “assault weapons” ban are talking about the 200 million (est) semi-automatic rifles already in our hands. Banning the purchase of new ones does absolutely nothing.
    And OMG, if one of these useless idiots ever figured out the AR-15 (5.56) is actually the smallest caliber and that there are way bigger, badder, and faster ones I think they would just shat themselves.

    1. avatar Gun Free School Zones are a crime against humanity says:

      The useless idiots see shitting themselves as a badge of honor.

      ‘Look, i got so worked up and committed that I shit myself’.

  15. avatar Cliff H says:

    For what it’s worth, I believe the NRA is missing a golden opportunity by not running a nation-wide campaign:

    DEMOCRATS! THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY TOO!

  16. avatar MasterGunz says:

    Here is something I think might help. How about we stop calling “firearms” “weapons”? I carried “weapons” for 30 years in the Marines. And yes, I did use those “weapons.” I have been retired from the Corps for 24 years now and my 3 gun safes have 50+ “firearms” in them. Not a damn one has ever been used as a “weapon.” Could they be? Yep!

    We play along with these morons that just love the word “weapons.” WE, well some of us, listen to liberal blowhards like Jake Tapper, Obama, George Looney and fall into the trap of trying to make a reasoned argument with them. Folks we can’t win at that one.

    They are FIREARMS! Put one of my ‘firearms” in my hands and kick in my front door…the definition of “weapon” will become quite apparent at that point. Negotians would be over.
    Enjoy the day.

  17. avatar Uh-huh says:

    Dana Loesch Is fierce, IMO she has cute toes too.

    1. avatar Vanished, Like a Fart In the Wind says:

      Dude, Shut up, don’t be stupid.

  18. avatar anarchyst says:

    There is another way to force change. Hit the school officials and politicians with a Title 42 1983 “deprivation of civil-rights” lawsuits. Official immunity CANNOT be used to invalidate such a lawsuit and they will be held PERSONALLY responsible for their actions. Since the Second Amendment IS a “civil right”, denying exercise of that right IS a “deprivation”, filing a title 42 1983 lawsuit might be the way to go. File one for each child and the brave coach who lost his life. Hit ’em where it hurts.

  19. avatar That One Guy says:

    The owner of a tiny automotive-oriented video production company based in Atlanta decided to call the NRA and all gun owners complicit in the Florida shooting the day after it occurred. When I suggested that I’ve never even been to Florida, he and his buddies decided they wanted to have a “reasonable discussion” which ended up being little more than my facts and topical knowledge against their feelings and ad hominem attacks.

    So…I yanked my 2yr long $10/month Patreon support and bought a 5yr membership to the NRA using the postcard that came with the black semi-auto I bought that afternoon.

    And I really don’t like the NRA. LaPierre can piss up a rope as far as I care. IMHO, the NRA has been a party to every single piece of bad gun legislation since before I was born. But, I /DO/ like Loesch and Noir and the NRA membership will allow me access to a local gun range so….I’m making the exception.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      open your board of directors ballot, vote for some new blood.

  20. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    Once you’ve been a member for five years, you can vote in the elections.

  21. avatar David Thompson says:

    Anyone claiming ” no one wants to take your guns” hasn’t seen my Twitter feed.

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