Previous Post
Next Post



By Johannes P.

Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundgren Grimes (above), is challenging GOP Senator (and 2008 winner of the NRA’s Defender of the Constitution award,) Mitch McConnell for the right to represent the Commonwealth in the U.S. Senate – and she’s hinting that she stands behind the Second Amendment. Ms. Grimes recently issued a challenge to Senator Mitch McConnell . . .


The senior Senator from Kentucky has apparently not responded to that challenge, and so Ms. Grimes needled McConnell again on Twitter after he walked out on stage at CPAC Friday holding a rifle aloft while the classic Bon Jovi tune “Livin’ on a Prayer” blared from the sound system.



More important than a critique of his rifle handling techniques, however, is Ms. Grimes’ actual stand on the Second Amendment. The Democrat sure was talking a good game in a statement issued to the Lexington Herald-Leader in November:

As an NRA member, my strong support for the Second Amendment is unquestioned….  I am proud of Kentucky’s long-held gun ownership, sporting and hunting traditions. It is unfortunate that Sen. McConnell is desperate to mislead Kentucky voters about my strong support for the Second Amendment.

While we earnestly look forward to the day that the fundamental civil right to keep and bear arms has broad bipartisan support, a number of Democrat stalwarts in the past have also talked a good game on the issue (see: Manchin, Joseph), only to leave civil rights supporters in the lurch when it was politically convenient to do so. A bit of healthy skepticism is therefore warranted when a member of the party of Nancy Pelosi and Orval Faubus claims to be a defender of the right to keep and bear arms.

We found this segment of the Herald-Leader’s story to be troubling:

Grimes angered the [NRA] by attending a Las Vegas fundraiser last month where trial attorney Michael Papantonio was a co-host. In the wake of mass shootings, Papantonio has been intensely critical of the NRA.

Mike Papantonio is a highly successful mass-tort attorney from Florida, who has brought in trial verdicts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. He also is the co-host (with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Sam Seder,) of the talk show Ring of Fire. And given his opinions, the phrase “intensely critical of the NRA” is something of an understatement. Here are some of the views that this silver-tongued orator from Pensacola expressed in a December 2013 interview with RT America:

[Y]ou have a Republican filibuster….that has continued to pave the way for….an epidemic of death with our school children.  Almost two hundred school-age children have been killed by the NRA’s epidemic of death….  If you take a look at the real numbers … 1 million deaths….have taken place from guns since 1980.  And that number is geometrically increasing is the best way I’ve seen it described.  The $30 million that gun rights fanatics have placed into this effort to let the continued killing, primarily of children, that money is not matched at all with the voice from the other side….  It’s a pretty one-sided fight.

We regularly read the New York Times, and we’re confident that the NRA’s killing spree would’ve made the front page if Papantonio’s over the top comments were even in the same neighborhood as the truth. So far, we haven’t seen Ms. Grimes distancing herself from his outrageous claims.

The Kentucky Senate race, however, is far from over. Ms. Grimes’ challenge to Sen. McConnell is an opportunity. Bucking the Democrat party line seems to be her go-to strategy. She has already broken with the leadership of her party by supporting a balanced budget amendment, and said flatly that she “strongly opposes President Obama’s attack on Kentucky’s energy industry” via her website.

Since both Senator McConnell and Ms. Grimes are NRA members, perhaps the NRA could host a friendly little shooting event featuring Ms. Grimes and Mr. McConnell at a mutually-acceptable Kentucky shooting range. Ms. Grimes could use the opportunity to speak directly to the people – to explain that whatever their differences on other issues, she stands with Mr. McConnell in defending the people’s rights from infringement.

Or maybe she could promise that when she’s in the Senate, she’ll support legislation for national concealed carry reciprocity, and strengthening the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act to prevent petty little tyrants like Mike Bloomberg from harassing law-abiding citizens who travel through his city? She’d have an opportunity to explain how she’ll oppose attempts by President Obama to restrict the Second Amendment through regulatory chicanery or executive orders. Maybe she could even tell us how strongly she supports the right of every American to own modern semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 and the AK-47.

Convince us, Ms. Grimes. Gun owners with people like Mitch McConnell because they have stood with us on this issue for a long time. But we’re also uncomfortable with Senators having a tenures that are measured in decades.  So please let us know: which side are you on? Your party’s or your constituents’?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Some picture of holding onto a 10/22 doesn’t make you pro-2A. Maybe pro Ruger, but if I had to choose between these two, it’d be Mitch hands down.

  2. In TX so my vote won’t help her, but our current Congress makes me want to puke. None of the incumbents will get my vote!

    • This right here is the only way to cure some of the ills of our current system. Since we don’t have term limits, we as voters need to purge the long-term parasites ourselves. Nothing good comes of having a senator or congressman hold the same seat for two or three decades. It just gives them more time to sink deeper into corruption and get better at hiding it.

      We need to be cleaning house in the primary elections, and kick the current crop out. All of them who have held their seat for more than a decade, even the ones we can sort of tolerate.

  3. Ms Grimes is a leftist darling. She will sing whatever song is necessary for us ignorant Kentucky hicks to elect her. Once we send her to hob-nob with her friends in D.C. however she will be just another Senator who “believes in the 2A but…”

  4. She lies. She was pure anti-coal before she realized she wouldn’t win in KY like that. Mitch is a joke as well. Kentuckian btw

  5. Yeah, Wendy Davis is pro-gun too, right at the moment. My observation is that “pro-gun” Democrats are like “pro-life” Democrats–they exist only on the campaign trail in conservative districts or states, once they actually go to work, they morph into just another Democrat.

    • And as a VERY junior member of the Senate she will be quickly under the heel of her party leadership, not to mention most likely in the minority party.

      I take a politician’s (actual) position on the Second Amendment very seriously, but I have to say that the downside of electing a Democrat/Liberal/Progressive weighs heavily against any possible pro-2A stance she may or may not hold once she is in office for the next 6 years. If she does get elected you must keep in mind that if she turns out to be a SAINO (Second Amendment in Name Only), you, and we, are stuck with her for those six years. And she will undoubtedly be pressured to rubber-stamp any potential SCOTUS nominee from Barry.

      • Does anybody know of a national-office Dem who is a REAL 2A supporter? I am willing to be educated on this, but as I see it, they are right up there with Bigfoot and the Yeti on the scale of actual existence

        • Baucus, Montana, has the best voting record on guns afaik among Democrats. But he wants “smart gun tech” to be developed and required….despite being against requiring trigger locks…perhaps he is simply ignorant there.

  6. The picture of McConnell holding that rifle just showered a sticky discharge of major-league Fuddness all over my desk.


    • “The Star-Bell Sneetches had bellies with stars. The Plain-Belly Sneetches had none upon thars.”

      That’s the difference.

  7. Anyone with an ounce of commitment to personal responsibility; to the constitution, to small government, to a true belief in personal freedom and especially to the second amendment(shall not be infringed) and then to actually put a D after their name would be torn apart by the gravitational forces of such conflicting belief systems; UNLESS; she really doesn’t mean it.

    I would hold to the last statement.

    • I believe you’re absolutely correct ThomasR. If you really believe in individual responsibility, liberty, the 2A and etc why would you identify as a Democrat?

      Maybe for the same reason that John McCain identifies as a Republican? To get elected.

      Politicians suck, but the ones with the D next to their name suck more.

    • Hey, follow the link to her original statement–did you catch the comments below the photo and article? Second comment, by “guest”, pooh-poohing eye and ear pro because she’s using a “pop-gun .22”. Another idiot liberal showing complete cluelessness about firearms (and trying to pass himself/herself off as a “true conservative” to boot).

      • Early in my gun owning days, my brother in law loaded my Ruger 10/22 with subsonic rounds, assuring me we didn’t need ear protection because of how quiet they are.

        My behind. My ears are still ringing 20 years later.

        It’s a photo-op.

    • In thirty + years of shooting the only people I’ve ever seen wear ear and eye pro to shoot a .22 rifle are children made to do so by their parents or people who already had it on because they’d been shooting something else prior to the .22.

      Perhaps it is a photo op, or perhaps she really enjoys her .22lr without protection. Either way she’s in the wrong party.

      • And a ton of those “I don’t wear ear protection with .22” wind up as my patients with irreversible hearing loss, or profiled out of their jobs and MOS’s. It’s physics and physiology Ardent. Look up the noise signature of .22s.

        • I didn’t day it was a good idea, I said that a great many people don’t wear ear pro with a .22 rifle and thus the absence of it didn’t necessarily indicate that the photo was purely staged and that no shooting was taking place.

        • Noted. Just get a bit touchy when I see/hear otherwise sane folks not using any form of ear pro.

      • I expect when I was a kid–about half a century ago– I would have seen lots of folks shooting without ear protection too. But in this day and age, I don’t think you’ll see anyone who actually spends as much time at ‘the range’ as this gal purports to doing so. And again, I don’t think she’s in the wrong party at all after reading the first page of her website. She may herself actually enjoy shooting, there are a few liberals out there who do. But she’s lying if she says she’ll stand up to the rest of her party in DC to protect gun rights for the masses–bet on it.

  8. OK, I just followed the link to her website, typical liberal Dem bs about the mythical “gender wage gap” and raising the minimum wage is right up at the top, obvious pandering to Kentuckians about coal (in which she lumps Republicans in with Dems, as if Republicans had ever used EPA to strangle energy producers) in the middle, no word on the page about 2A issues. I stand by my statement, I’d bet the ranch she is just another liberal Dem goo-goo trying to fool the rubes just long enough to get elected. she might even succeed, given what a dud McConnell has been of late. Oh, and BTW, at least President Obama had the sense, or an advisor did, to use eye pro and hearing protection when he made his posed “here I am at the range, see what a gun lover I am” photo.

    • Ahhhhh yes…the gender wage gap.

      If it was real can somebody explain why some “greedy capitalist” hasn’t decided to reduce his labor costs by 25% and hire an all women workforce? Can you imagine the competitive advantage that a company would have if their workforce costs were 25% lower than any of their competitors?

      TRUTH is not a value of the left.

      • Well, one reason would be that with an all female workforce one would lose a slam dunk of a gender discrimination suit. . . this would likely be right after the NLRB fined the company into oblivion.

        A good thought, but flawed none the less.

        • “Well, one reason would be that with an all female workforce one would lose a slam dunk of a gender discrimination suit. . . this would likely be right after the NLRB fined the company into oblivion.

          A good thought, but flawed none the less.”

          You’ve COMPLETELY missed the point of doesky2’s point, which is, it’s impossible to exploit the “gender wage gap” because there is no such thing as a “gender wage gap.” It’s an entirely fantastical boogeyman being used to exploit the politics of envy.

  9. ‘The Democrat sure was talking a good game…’

    Well now, that’s just the problem, isn’t it? Talk is cheap. The Democrats make lots of promises, free this, free that, you can keep your doctor and we’ll even save you $2500 a year, yada, yada. Five years later you wake up to find yourself in a bathtub full of ice water with a couple of kidneys missing and a note that says call 911 NOW! (Metaphorically speaking.) Do you really want to put your kidneys, or your AR in the hands of a Democrat?

  10. Why are liberal women typically more attractive? Just sitting here drinking with my LaRue and Sig 220. Who says guns and alcohol don’t mix?

    • I disagree my friend. Conservatives have Michelle Malkin, Megan Kelly, SE Cupp, Dana Perino, Nikki Haley, Sarah Palin (we’re talkin’ about looks, remember), Star Parker, heck if I started googling I could go on for a good long time. Liberals have Kirsten Powers (who actually talks like a conservative sometimes); otherwise, in Liberal land, Wendy Davis counts as “attractive”.

    • because many attractive women just so happen to be shallow, and are only interested in what’s cool and hip.

      democrats, through years of savvy political marketing, have absolutely bagged the cool factor for their candidates and policies.

      go ahead, I challenge you to meet a random attractive young woman on any major public university campus who isn’t a democrat – and many of them won’t even be able to tell you why.

      “yeah I vote democrat, don’t you?!”

      • You’re close, but when they say ‘I vote democrat. . . ‘ what they mean is ‘I would, except actually registering to vote and going to the poll is, like, hard and stuff’.

  11. MDA and Bloomberg also say they are for the Second Amendment. Grime’s statement that: ” I am proud of Kentucky’s long-held gun ownership, sporting and hunting traditions,” is right in line with that. Notice she only mentions sporting and hunting use. I have no doubt she’d vote for magazine and “assault” rifle bans. There may be a lot of reasons not to vote for McConnell, but Grime’s assertions of being equally pro Second Amendment is not one of them. A vote for any Democrat is a vote for Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and statism.

  12. Politicians and political-hopefuls posing with [insertgunhere] in order to plaster on a facade that screams “I R PRO-GUN1!1!!!1!” honestly sickens me.

    That’s a tactic reserved for racist, sexist, anti-rights gun-grabbing sock-puppets.

    I never had any logical, rational, or moral reason to believe a single fucking thing that has ever come out of any politician’s mouth, anywhere, at any time, or under any circumstance. Literally the only thing that anybody should ever, ever care about is if what any scumbag politician does matches up with what they say.

    Don’t just pay us lip-service, Grimes. Prove it. By doing it.

  13. As a libertarian, I would much rather vote for a Republican than a Democrat. The domestic policies of Republicans that are repugnant to me are much more likely to be quickly overturned by the courts than those of the Democrats. Sad that we are in this state of affairs, but I am far too much of a realist to consider otherwise right now.

    • I feel your pain sometimes. Socially I’m a libertarian; I don’t believe in drug prohibition or discrimination. I think that what adults do in their homes is not the business of government. I don’t believe that the contents of peoples pockets is a legitimate concern of government. The problem with Democrats is that they are even more oppressive in fact and action than Republicans.

      I like what you said about the most deplorable social constructs of the right being easily reversed. I tend to think though that the worst of it wouldn’t be enacted even if both houses of congress and the president were 100% Republican. Much of the crazy talk either comes from a couple of ignorant individuals or is simply pandering to low information portions of the base. There are useful idiots on both sides of the political spectrum and just as the Dems have to sometimes go full retard to appeal to their base, in some parts of the country GOP candidates have to do the same.

      The thing is that if you total up the sum of insane, oppressive and plain bad ideas that politicians actually believe (as opposed to those things they say to get elected) I think the Democrats heavily tip the scales towards tyranny.

      • How can a libertarian be against “discrimination”? As an individual, I should be free to discriminate however I see fit to my blighted heart’s content in a libertarian society, no? Unless you are strictly addressing “discrimination” by the government itself.

    • Not to me–has too much of that “gold digger” look about her, not to mention that unfortunate wart-like protuberance on her cheek. But to be fair, I guess Soledad O’Brien was pretty attractive, until she opened her mouth. And of course, all the hot Hollywood babes are hopeless goo-goos–but that’s because they are airheads. 😉

  14. The gun owners of KY need to call out Alison Lundgren Grimes. Have her state in public that she does not support background checks. The last thing we need is another Manchin -Toomey type of politician.

    Seriously, go to her rallies and town hall meeting and see what she really believes while in public.

  15. Recent Kentuckian here, and I must say that McConnel’s tactics have really turned me off on voting for him. Immediately attacking his opponents? There’s enough negativity in politics nowadays without throwing even more mud around. I haven’t followed Ms. Grimes enough to know where she stands, but I never did get a good feeling about her, and this article doesn’t help.

    I definitely need to do my research, but it looks like Matt Bevin (R) might be the best, at least from a cursory check of his page and stance on issues…

    I absolutely despise politics, but damned if the current crop of politicians and lobbyists aren’t forcing me to wade into the morass and do what [little] I can do to fix things. Doing away with the double-speak and backstabbing would help a whole helluva lot, though.

  16. Good ole Mitch isn’t running for Senate reelection yet. He is going to have to make it thru a primary. As the figurehead of the RINOs in DC he deserves to get canned. The libtards think they can then win the seat with a pretty little thing the Harry Reid can control. 2014 is NOT going to be kind to RINOs and the Dems.

  17. Another Robert, I didnt see that thing on her cheek. Anyways Sarah Palins daughters are more on my radar than she is. I’m a relatively young guy…

    • LOL!! As you can probably tell, I’m not–heck, I can remember when Kathleen Parker was both good-looking and conservative…

  18. Ms. Lundergan, the right to keep and bear arms is not about any “long-held” gun ownership, sporting, and hunting use. Recognize it for what it really is about, individual self-defense AND serving as a check on tyranny, and maybe we’ll be getting somewhere. I do not trust her though, too many of these supposedly pro-gun politicians think it’s about hunting, and thus are willing to fold when the whole assault weapons and magazine capacity debate comes up, and on universal background checks.

    And pardon me, but why the hell do these supposedly pro-gun politicians always have to pose with a hunting rifle or whatnot? Why not some posing with an AR-15?

    • Remember Bill Clinton’s “national consensus” that people should be able to have firearms for hunting? Not a right, mind you, and not for anything much other than hunting. That’s probably the extent of this lady’s concept of the legal basis for individual ownership of firearms, if that much.

  19. Oh, she will vote with the NRA, right up till the Donks really need her vote. Then when Harry Reid cracks the the whip, she will fall right in line, just like the good democrat she is.

  20. Any chance Kentucky Gun Co. could throw a Kel-Tec their way for a shoot off? Just to make it unique and interesting?

  21. There are a lot of people who are Pro-2A, who think that keep and bear means:

    1. Single or double barrel shotgun.
    2. Deer rifle.
    3. Grandpa’s old .38 revolver that the wife makes hubby keep in a shoe box in the attic above the garage.
    4. Red Rider.

    It’s important to dig a lil deeper when any politician makes the claim that they are a friend of the 2A. I’m betting most of the time they mean one of the above four items and will vociferously inform you of their support for sportsmen and hunting and fishing.

    Which is cool and all, but it means they are not addressing the main concerns. To steal a phrase from the leftys, “They is ignorant. They need to be educated so they stop hating.”

    • Manchin was a textbook example of this. Was talking after Sandy Hook about how he knows of no hunters who use more than one to three rounds in the gun when hunting and how every person has the right to hunt.

  22. Is Manchin still in office?? That dude should be looking for a new job by now!! Do you want fries with that sir?? Well yes, yes I do and how about I add a super sized f*** you for trying to screw the entire nation!!

  23. Guys, I feel like your energy would be better spent getting behind Matt Bevin if you want to un-seat Mitch McConnell. From his website:

    “Matt is a proud conceal carry gun owner and he believes the Second Amendment is the lynchpin of the Bill of Rights, as it was designed to protect all of the other Amendments. The right to bear arms is not just limited to ownership but includes the right to carry as well. Matt will fight to fully restore the Second Amendment by pushing for national right to carry legislation. He will also fight off any attempt by career politicians to dictate the types of guns and ammunition that Kentuckians choose to own.”

    I find it hard to argue with a statement as black and white as that.

  24. This state had its chance, but they keep electing this same RINO for no other reason than he has seniority and brings home the pork. Tax Foundation analyzed about a quarter century’s worth of data and found KY absorbs $1.51 in federal spending for each dollar they pay into the federal government.

    KY can call themselves conservatives or whatever lie gets them through the night. In the end, though, they’re just another state full of socialists like dozens of others. People pre-disposed to steal from their countrymen like that shouldn’t have firearms. Go ahead and vote Democrat. You’ll want a headstart on senority when the GOP’s last gasp comes and the Democrats take over for good.

    • How much of that federal money comes from financing Fort Knox and Fort Campbell? How much is Agricultural subsidies that mostly go to large Corporations? How much taxes paid by corporations in Kentucky are credited to Delaware Corporate Headquarters?

      • Don’t forget the fairly large Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers presence we have due to the many major navigable waterways we have.

    • I think it is safe to say that most states get back >$1 for every $1 they send to the feds. After all, the feds spend something like $1.50 for every $1 they take in.

  25. Choosing between Grimes and McConnell will be like choosing between mouth cancer and ass cancer.

    McConnell deserves to be voted out simply because he refuses to come to Kentucky without his phalanx of security guards.

  26. I met Matt Bevin (running against McConnell in the KY Republican primary) at the booth had a booth at a recent gun show. A women hired by McConnell’s office was video recording his every word.

  27. Everybody in every state can point to something special about their state that justifies the federal spending they receive. All of that is just so much rationalization and chit chat when you learn that the majority of the federal budget is spent on transfer payments to individuals, and that 11 states have more residents on welfare than who work.

    Per the Economic Policy Journal, Kentucky is one of the 11. So set aside your firearms and all pretense of self-reliance. Kentuckians are serfs now. They should vote Democrat, keep the Uncle Sugar tap flowing, and at least start being honest about themselves.

    • Do they count Social Security as being “welfare”. Kentucky has a large population of seniors.

      Honestly, you can go perform an unnatural sex act on yourself. 🙂

      • I dunno–Kentucky has a really large percentage of really poor people, Owlsley County KY is the poorest county in America I think. “The draw” ( ie AFDC, or whatever they call it now, and food stamps) is a way of life for most in some areas of Ky. Not saying I agree with the Houstonian analysis mind you.

  28. Oh that’s clever, Chrissy. I was going to let it go, but that was uncalled for. Sooo….let the debate beatdown continue!

    Yes, social security is “welfare”, defining that term as money given to you by the government, but taken from somebody else, in excess of what you paid in. You can go verify this for yourself at a million credible websites, but the fact is that on average people receive far more in SS payments than they pay in throughout their lives. Yes, I’m aware that some people pay in, but never collect, or collect only a little. Those are the outliers and are atypical of most people’s experience.

    Take a typical man who works from age 22 through 64 and retires at age 65; earning the average wage of about $43,100/year throughout that period. Yes, early years will be lower, but later years could be higher. Just assume the average throughout because, well, overall that’s correct for the typical man, not necessarily each and every specific man. Ok, so given that, he’ll pay in some $345K in his lifetime, including both his and his employer’s contributions. However, he’ll receive about $417,000 in retirement benefits, which is $72K more than he paid in. For women, with their longer life expectancies, the free money adds up to $192K for a woman with that same earnings profile. THIS is why social security is essentially insolvent and in dire need of reform: the elderly, as a group, are by far the wealthiest of Americans, yet they’re soaking up the largest portion of the welfare payments out there. And don’t even get me started with Medicare……

    Oh, by the way, KY has an age 65+ percentage of population of just 13.3%. U.S. national average is 13%. So KY is *slightly* higher than average. Does that explain their massive welfare payments? Doubtful. You see, MANY states have higher percentages of 65+ than KY does (including highest-in-the-nation Florida at 17.3%). Yet, those states aren’t among the top welfare case states like KY is.

    Soooo…..any more crap you’d like to make up, or do you just want want to write more filth in the place of facts?

  29. Papantonio: “If you take a look at the real numbers … 1 million deaths….have taken place from guns since 1980. And that number is geometrically increasing is the best way I’ve seen it described. ”

    Well, of course it has! If you’re counting the number of deaths by firearms or murders by firearm since a particular date, any death is going to add to that number. The question is whether or not the annual rate of death/murder (whether with or without a firearm) is going up or down, and the numbers indicate that it’s been going down since the early-to-mid 1990’s:


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here