Previous Post
Next Post

““I was honored to be endorsed by Gun Owners of America as the strongest supporter of the Second Amendment on this stage today.” That was Senator Ted Cruz’s final remarks about his pro-gun bona fides at the last presidential debate. We didn’t think much about it. Over at Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun agitprop generating website, Alex Yablon did his boss’s bidding and found a Massachusetts-based academic who’s all a-tizzy . . .

Alan Schroeder, a Northeastern University journalism professor and author of Presidential Debates: 50 Years of High Risk TV, tells The Trace, “I honestly cannot think of a parallel example from previous presidential primary debates” of a candidate on national television aligning themselves with a group so extreme.”

While it’s true that the Gun Owners of America assume the absolutist position on gun control – the Second Amendment prohibits any and all infringement on the right to keep and bear arms – Professor Schhroeder’s decision to label them extreme is extreme. But not surprising. Anti-gunners are always on the prowl for suitable subjects for vilification.

Pratt grounds his fundamentalist philosophy of gun rights not in the needs of sportsmen or those who might fear for their security, but rather the need for “restraining tyrannical tendencies in the government,” as he put it in a 2012 speech. Considering the rhetorical similarity, it is not surprising he slips into an InfoWars-style conspiracy theorist mode. Following the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting, Pratt indulged the notion that the massacre was connected with a U.N. arms treaty that some of his peers thought would result in gun confiscation within the United States.

In Schoeder’s world, in the eyes of those who seek to degrade and destroy Americans’ gun rights, the fact that the Second Amendment was added to the United States constitution has nothing to do with the fact that its framers ratified it as a bulwark against government tyranny.

Cruz is considered a longshot for the nomination. But currying the favor of gun rights extremists could keep his prospects alive as the field is winnowed by voters in those small states, where the difference between remaining relevant in fourth place or on the sidelines in fifth place could be fewer than a hundred votes. Which may be why, despite the radioactivity of GOA and Pratt outside the molon labe crowd, Cruz was the only of the 17 declared Republican presidential candidates to complete the group’s presidential survey on the Second Amendment, and was so eager to repay GOA’s ensuing endorsement at the Reagan Library debate on Wednesday night.

Senator Cruz is a strict constitutionalist. Publicly aligning himself with the Gun Owners of America may be good politics, but it also reflects his core conservative beliefs. For someone like Professor Schroeder – a man prepared to shred the Constitution to achieve his political ends – the idea that someone would walk the talk on gun rights is anathema.

It’s just another reason why Cruz is a suitable choice for pro-gun voters. Or, if another Republican candidate wins the White House, the ideal choice of Attorney General.

[h/t andypantera69]

Previous Post
Next Post


      • It’s like winning the race category you competed in, where you were the only competitor. When 1st = only entry don’t get too excited.

    • And he scored very high on the questionnaire.

      Maybe the other candidates did not submit their questionnaires, because their scores (and the ensuing negative reaction by GOA) would not have helped their campaign.

    • Well, the GOA and their endorsement only matter if one actually beleives in an unfettered fundamental Liberty which was enumerated in Amendment II to the Constitution and which went on to absolutely prohibit govt from infringing upon that fundamental natural liberty.

      If one is a ignorant NRA-sucker, then not so much, because the NRA is a quisling organization that promotes and has promoted all manner of gun -control, since its inception. You know, the NRA the govt’s Official Gun Privileges Organization.

  1. Not a surprising position for a Massachusetts liberal academic. What is surprising is the the Commonwealth has not yet melted down the Minuteman statue, which must stand as a constant embarrassment.

    • Ladies and Gentlemen , If you truly concerned with your right to purchase , own , collect and defend your rights and your right to life , you should vote and tell others to vote for Ted Cruz . There isn’t a progressive bone in this man . It’s progressives that are so destructive to our constitutional rights , not liberals or conservatives . There are progressive liberals AND CONSERATIVE ones . Progressives believe the documents are inherently flawed because they restrict government growth and activities rather than spell out what government should do to or for those it is supposed to serve . The documents that enumerate our God given rights are people empowering and government stifling and will forever be at war with those who believe themselves to be smarter or holier than ‘ the people ‘ and better able to manage their affairs , (Progressives)

      • I think the GOA stands taller than any pro-gun org. out there when defending the Right to keep and bear arms. That said, I think they are wrong for endorsing another Washington DC insider like Ted Cruz.Just because he filled out their questionnaire doesn’t necessarily make him the best Presidential candidate for the Republican nomination.We have seen politicians before say what ever pleased the voters ears, only to do the opposite or nothing at all. (GW Bush ) comes to mind.Bush was elected by the gun owners in America, and did nothing to overturn any Unconstitutional laws trampling on the Second Amendment.

        I believe Cruz would parrot Bush if elected. Trump! “IMO” is the one to back in this Republican Primary. I think the GOA did a great disservice to gun owners by backing Cruz over Trump.

  2. Trace is a propaganda outlet paid for by Mike Bloomberg- specifically set up to control guns.

    Trace follows the failure of his Mayors Against Illegal Guns, that cratered when mayors left in droves as they discovered the true agenda- gun seizure.
    Then followed by Moms Demanding Action, an astroturf group of faux mommies, conveniently set up as a “campaign” under MAIG to avoid IRS non-profit disclosure filings, then followed by the equally fake “Everytown” of PR sockpuppets engineered to create more propaganda, as if it were a grass-roots rather than top-down paid for by Mike Bloomberg entity, tapped to “destroy the NRA” as he bragged in the 2014 elections (and failed, obviously).

    Now, the above is old news for any long time readers of TTAG, but helpful as an introduction to new readers, and hopefully, in google searches, for anyone seeking The Truth About Guns.

    To my point- anything in the Trace is therefore suspect- its no more a “news” organization than Joe Nocera’s gun blog inside the NYT was news- its just more made up spin and agitprop, with feedback in comments section censored, as admittted by Jennifer Macias- Nocera’s executive assistant and web moderator- who was conveniently organizing at the same time working for the New York chapter of Everytown and MDA.

    So- tl;dr- “Alan Schroeder is a liar-for-hire”, simply by affiliation with Bloomberg.
    Northwestern should be ashamed of itself, for allowing its good name to be misrepresented by Prof Schoeder, especially as its only 80% Leftist- compared to near 100% at other elite eastern schools:

    • F___ That place runs more anti-gun articles than MDA, preying on ignorant gun owners seeking to take the “moderate” position. It is an utter funnel of bulls___.

      1. Use of terms like “assault weapons” (which are fictitious),
      2. Referring to extremist gun control efforts as “Reforming lax gun laws”.
      3. Referring to groups like GOA as “extremists”.
      4. Blaming suicides and criminal homicides on “Lax gun laws.”
      5. Endless regurgitation of flawed statistics from biased studies in an attempt to give them the appearance of validity.

      I’m looking at you Jennifer Cruz (no relation to Ted).


    • I’ve been thinking the same thing.

      This presidential election is critical for a variety of reasons, but one of the most important is that the next president will appoint anywhere from 1 to 4 Supreme Court Justices. All the more reason not to stay home even if you don’t agree with every position on every issue.

  3. The GOA may take a firm stance, but as Barry Goldwater once said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

  4. Ted needs to be AG, then VP, then Pres, then live out the rest of his days on the SC.
    Any higherup positions where he can defend the Constitution is where he needs to be.

  5. Alan Schroeder, a Northeastern University journalism professor and author of Presidential Debates: 50 Years of High Risk TV, tells The Trace, “I honestly cannot think.”

    This excerpt from the article would be more accurate.

  6. Gun rights extremists? Oh you mean the libtards that wish that only the elite have guns… Yeah they are a bit extreme. Meanwhile the idea of shall not be infringed is still a very rational view. That’s the opposite of extreme.

  7. There will be an overwhelming urge on the part of any GOP nominee not named Cruz or Rubio to select a running mate named Cruz or Rubio.

    I don’t care about Rubio, but the last thing we need is to waste Cruz’s talents running the Bucket of Warm Spit department. Cruz would be much more valuable as a Supreme Court justice than anything else, including president.

  8. Ted C. is simply the worst senator Texas has had since we regained representation during reconstruction. There is no doubt about his demonstrated radical denial of the representative process in the senate and his desire to punish the general population by denying them the services they have voted for, as part of his search for personal power. Now he’s cronying up to Trump hoping to be the VP candidate. One of the very worst votes I have ever made was for this radical nazi. If it would make any difference I would vote demoncratic in the next election instead of republicon.

      • Good question. In 2014, Texas took in 538,572 refugees from other parts of the U.S. and the world. Of those, 28,362 were from NY or NJ.

        NY and NJ combined, on the other hand, saw only 387,482 people move there. Of which, only 15,826 were from Texas.

        We get our fair share from good states, but my goodness do we take in boatloads of failed state refugees! California, Illinois and Maryland combine to dump some 100,000/year of their residents on us; people fleeing suffocating regulations, confiscatory taxes, and intolerable civil rights infringements.

        One they get here, though, they vote staight ticket Democrat, thinking it’ll be all different this time and that they won’t ruin this state like they did their last.

    • Do you actually live in Texas or just wish that you did? SENATOR Cruz was elected by the citizens of this state despite people like you. You sound like a Wendy Davis supporter.

  9. Cruz or I write-in my left nut again.

    I will not give the GOP another pass. They put a real man up there, or they don’t get my vote. I’d rather keep letting the democrats openly win than have another democrat in disguise. If Trump, Fiorina, or Bush are elected it’s a fake win because they’re not conservatives.

    • Is there some way to determine who, precisely, *is* a conservative, without your X-ray glasses and tinfoil hat?

      • Probably not. I don’t suspect there is. But when candidates overtly prove NOT to be conservative, there needs not be such a technique. Derp!

  10. Pratt is “radio-active?” Ummmm… I’ve never seen or heard of a politician whose tried to distance themselves from him. I guess when your a journolism professor, you practice what you preach journalists should do. Lie and slant the stories to a political aim of your choosing.

  11. Cruz has argued and won 10 cases in front of the Supreme Court. He is a die-hard strict constructionist.

    He would be far more valuable on the Court than as President. The idea of AG until an opening on the Court has more than a bit of merit though.

  12. I want nobody on the SCOTUS that thinks the USA Freedom act is compatible with the bill of rights. Cruz thinks allowing the feds to retrieve telecom data without probable cause is A-OK. The 4th amendment says otherwise. He’s a strict constructionist only when he wants to be.

  13. He is still a politician and loyal to the party. Have we forgotten how many Presidents have said one thing and did something else? Here is a good question for sincerity, when will double standards end and the DC politicians are put on Obamacare and SS
    Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word.

    • Please check out Cruz exhaustively . He would make an incredibly good president of this country at a time in history when returning to constitutional government is the single most important issue we face , more important than economy , jobs , healthcare and even guns . We are at a tipping point and very close to losing our way forever .

Comments are closed.