There’s no disputing that the Democratic Party has regressed dramatically on the issue of gun violence over the past two decades. [...]
...
It can be hard to remember now, but well into the 1990s, national Democrats proudly associated themselves with gun control, championing laws that restricted access to deadly weapons. [...]
The Democrats’ cowardice on guns traces back to the fateful election of 2000. Clinton, despite his aggressive pursuit of gun control measures, fared relatively well with rural gun-owning populations in his 1996 reelection campaign. But those same voters turned hard on Al Gore in ’00, shifting Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee to the Republican column. A victory in any one of those states – all of which Clinton carried twice – would have made Gore president. Democrats concluded that they’d scared off rural, lower-income white voters who had traditionally supported them – and that guns were the big reason why. A new consensus emerged: Gun control could no longer be a central component of Democratic messaging. So it was that John Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008 and 2012 did their best to ignore the issue. Kerry went so far as to embark on a goose hunt in rural Ohio just before Election Day.I firmly believe that Al Gore's stance on "gun control" saddled us with The Bush Years, which will be a stain on the nation for generations to come.
"Gun control" needs to be re-messaged as "common sense firearms safety regulation", even if the NRA and its guntards (a tip o' the Brain to The Rude Pundit) have trouble with that many words of more than one syllable.
We don't need so-called "assault weapons". When it comes to defending the nation from the government, I'll be able to not shoot down the drone that fires the Hellfire that vaporizes me just as well with one of these.
Assault weapons are mainly used to try to convince people that the owner actually has a dick anyway.
3 comments:
I am always amazed at that stupid protect-myself-from-the-government canard that gets pulled out to justify a type or quantity of weaponry. I always ask "Have you ever seen a 19 year old Marine?" "Do you really think that gun is going to protect your untrained, wheezing, out-of-shape, 300lb lard-ass from the kid who has trained physically, mentally and tactically, with and without a variety of weapons, to take out his(or her) target regardless of what happens to them? If you practice combat style shooting once a week or more, you may actually have a chance but then, if you have the money to do that, you would be better off purchasing a politician or two.
(Of course, when I say that weekly combat shooting practice might give you a chance, I mean that you may have a chance against a single 19 year old Marine (if you get one of the extra dumb ones;-) You will not, I repeat NOT, stand a chance against the drone/hellfire combination previously mentioned.
One Marine is pretty awesome. A fire team of four or five even more so, and an entire company on line is fucking amazing. I've seen a rifle company of about 150 Marines fire tracers at night in a "mad minute". You damn sure don't want to be out in front of it. Then there are air strikes...
Ask David Koresh what going up against the government got him. And that was just against a bunch of cops.
Post a Comment