Remember Ronald Reagan’s killer app in his debate with Jimmy Carter? “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” It was perfect politics: reducing huge amounts of statistical analysis to one easily digestible calculation. I reckon the average American takes the same yes/no approach to gun control. “Do you think Americans should be able to own and carry a gun?” All the stupid ideas mooted by gun grabbers—from “bullet button bans” to micro-stamping—are background noise to Joe and Jane Public. To cut through the clatter and gain ground, gun grabbers must make Americans uncomfortable with guns . . .
It’s not that hard, really. The firearms-related ignorance of urban voters, created by politicians who [rightly] consider gun ownership a threat to their power, creates a fertile ground for the antis’ “guns suck” message. Chicken or the egg? No matter. It is what it is.
If America trained its children in firearms basics as a matter of course, things would be different. Until and unless these brainwashed knee-jerk anti-gun voters receive some direct positive experience with—or at least understanding of—firearms they will be susceptible to the arguments (such as they are) from those who would abridge their Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.
When it comes to gun ownership, familiarity breeds consent—depending on the same factors Dr. Timothy Leary identified for people who drop acid. Whether or not you have a “good trip” or a “bad trip” depends on set and setting: here and how you take the drug/encounter a gun.
Needless to say, the mainstream media aids and abets the gun-ignorant public’s hopolophobia by constantly setting guns in the context of bad things happening to good people. If the press would stop their incessant drumbeat on “negative” gun violence, reporting on any incident where a bad guy pulls a trigger in public, it’s doubtful gun control advocates would have a proverbial pot to piss in.
Can’t happen. If it bleeds it leads. That’s simple human nature. Besides, there’s an underlying unquestioning sympathy for America’s disarmed minority communities “afflicted by gun violence” amongst the white liberals who control the mainstream media. Their condescension creates an anti-gun meme: something must be done!
We do our part by showing our viewers gun crime. Here’s someone who wants to “solve” the problem. If there wasn’t this “need” the spokesfolk for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and their ilk would be very lonely people. Pro gun control pols probably wouldn’t even exist.
Fortunately, the bloody coverage cut both ways. For The People of the Gun, news reports of gun violence strengthen their gun-clinging tendencies. Lest we forget, gun sales surge after every widely reported spree killing. Truth be told, gun control advocates gain ground.
All of which leaves me wondering how may Americans share the Huffington Post’s Pavolian response to the words “machine gun”? Does the fact that a killer used a “machine gun” (a.k.a., an “assault weapon”) really push their pro-gun control bullet button? What if it’s not a killer? What if it’s members of the Asheville NC Tea Party?
On Sept. 29, the Asheville Tea Party is hosting a “Machine Gun Social” at an indoor arms range in Brevard, North Carolina.
According to the event’s flyer, attendees can give $25 for a 30-round magazine on a 9mm submachine gun of their choice — an HK MP5, an Israeli UZI or a Swedish I. Guests can spend $35 for 30 rounds on an AK47, while the most ambitious of Tea Party patriots can drop $50 for 30 rounds on an M16.
Although the Tea Party’s existence makes left wing pundits apoplectic, again, I bet the man in the street has no strong feelings about the org on way or the other. If voters had the time or interest to fully consider the Tea Party’s goals, chances are they’d support its platform of fiscal responsibility.
Hence the HuffPo’s frantic and incessant attempt to portray the Tea Party as proto-domestic terrorists. For the left-leaning gun grabbers, the Party’s Machine Gun Socials are a gift. So much so, scribe Cole Strangler [sic] falls all over himself to paint a picture of Tea Party supporter as gun-crazed extremists.
This isn’t the first time that Tea Party-affiliated groups or campaigns have held this type of fundraiser. In February 2010, Republican House candidate Tim D’Annunzio had a fundraiser that offered a barbecue dinner and a semi-automatic machine gun magazine at a Fayetteville, N.C. shooting range.
Those of us who follow such things (or care about factuality) will know that the term “semi-automatic machine gun magazine” has no meaning. Those who don’t . . . won’t care. While they may—I repeat may—feel revulsion at the concept, they’ll know that it’s not a gathering of terrorists. After all, it has the word “Social” in it.
In that sense, the HuffPo’s report actually helps gun control advocates. You mean you can fire a machine gun legally? For fun? It’s not the best possible way to normalize firearms for the firearms ignorant, but it’s not bad. Not bad at all.