Category: Anti-Gun Folks

Now even the Democrats are asking the question:

“The gun thing, I would have done it differently,” Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax) said. “It’s speculation at this point, but I feel the Gecker seat was one we thought we were going to win. . . . [The gun issue] was one variable that was thrown in at the last minute.”

How long before the Democrats start telling Bloomberg, “Thanks, but no thanks.” I’m honestly not sure why the calculus changed for the Dems. Up until about 2010 gun control was considered political suicide even across the aisle, unless you were in a safely Democratic urban district. The Dems of a decade ago successfully used the blue dog strategy to get back to a majority in Congress. Then in 2010, they flushed the blue dog strategy down the toilet in order to get enough votes to pass Obamacare without a single Republican vote. Obama won re-election, but he spent most of his first term not really playing up the gun issue. After Sandy Hook, the Democrats convinced themselves everything had changed. But polling shows pretty clearly it hasn’t. So what makes them so sure it’s a winner now?

I believe the Democrats are pursuing gun control because it’s what the donor class wants, and when you dangle the fish in front of the seal, you can expect the seal to bark to get the fish. Bloomberg has a lot of fish, and Obama, who is now very enthusiastic about gun control, is going to command a lot of big donors for many years to come. That will go double if Hillary Clinton loses in 2016. The barking seals will follow the follow the people with the most fish.

A common theme I’ve been seeing floating around in the media is that gun control is back, baby! They’ve crossed “the threshold” and are on their way to victory. There’s a certain zeitgeist, and the pendulum is swinging back in their direction. Is it true? Even WaPo’s Dana Milbank thinks they are overstating their case, but agrees there’s some truth to it. How has the gun control movement revitalized itself? According to Milbank, gun control movement has seen revitalization by lowing their sights to win on more achievable issues like background checks.

But there is some truth to what he says. From the legislative debacle following Sandy Hook, the gun-control movement has retreated to a limited but pragmatic approach. Gone is the notion of “gun control,” replaced by “reducing gun deaths” or “gun violence prevention.” Gone, for now, are efforts to restrict any type of gun or ammunition. Instead, the movement has found a laser focus on background checks.

I can’t think of too many real movements that have revitalized themselves by thinking smaller, and thinking smaller is nothing new. None of the new terms Milbank points to are actually new. Gun control advocates have been trying to get away from the unpopular term “gun control” since at least the mid-1990s, and none of those efforts made any difference. Andrew McKelvey couldn’t sell “gun safety” any better than Sarah Brady could sell “handgun control.”

All of the articles I’ve seen have ignored the elephant in the room. I agree that the gun control movement is seeing some revitalization. I would agree they’ve recovered from their post-Heller blues. I do think that’s correct. But it’s almost entirely because Mike Bloomberg is willing to spend millions of dollars of his massive fortune to make that happen. Without Bloomberg’s money, the gun control movement would be going nowhere. All the victories the gun control movement has achieved have been bought and paid for by one multi-billionaire who thinks he can buy our Republic, and he may be right!

The Washington Post takes a deeper look into the huge sums of money Mike Bloomberg is dumping into the Virginia races, and finds that one of his big ad buys isn’t even about the gun issue. One is a race baiting ad that has nothing to do with guns at all, but rather a local school district issue. Moreover, the ad misleads the reader into believing Glen Sturtevant himself is being sued, when it is actually the school board being sued.

I think this is tacit admission on the part of Bloomberg that guns aren’t a huge motivator for people on the left side of the political spectrum, and so a hard-hitting ad was needed in order to boost black turnout at the polls; a necessary thing if the Democrats are going to take that seat and have a shot at taking the Virginia Senate.

Bloomberg is absolutely determined to buy this election for himself, and he doesn’t care if he has to use issues other than guns to do it. If he’s successful, he will still own Dan Gecker, and he can use it however he wants. No one will care how he bought it. Our people need to turn out in large numbers. Don’t believe for a minute that Bloomberg doesn’t have the money or the drive to buy your state government away from the people of Virginia and make you vassals of the New York elite.

Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence isn’t happy about the Hearing Protection Act. If that’s not a good reason to pass it, I don’t know what is. But it’s pretty apparent he’s not a physics major:

“It’s only a matter of time until a silenced round injures or kills an innocent person who had no opportunity to hear the report of gunfire and find cover,” warned Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Bullets fired from a typical hunting rifle are moving anywhere from two to three times the speed of sound. A person in the path of a hunter’s bullet is going to be hit by the bullet before they hear the shot. At that point I don’t think it will much matter to them whether the report they hear is full or muffled. This isn’t like Star Trek the Next Generation where you have a pretty good chance to duck out of the way of a fired phaser.

Aside from this one ridiculous argument, a lot of anti-gun people are ignoring the fact that hearing is a two way street, and a hunter who does not need to wear hearing protection, and hasn’t been deafened by gunfire, stands a much better chance of hearing people nearby before taking a shot.

This time is a cool 1.5 million, in addition to the $700,000 he pledged yesterday. He means to drown us in money, and unfortunately for us, he has enough to do it:

Less than two weeks before Election Day, Everytown for Gun Safety on Thursday announced that it would spend $1.5 million in TV and online ads for Democrat Jeremy McPike. He is running against Manassas Mayor Harry J. “Hal” Parrish II (R) to succeed retiring Sen. Charles J. Colgan (D-Prince William).

Bloomberg thinks he can buy his way to victory, and unfortunately, he may be right. This is big big money; far more than NRA could ever afford to dump into a single race in a single state. If he wins, you can bet he’s going to be talking about the tide changing, and how he showed NRA can be beat in its home state.

The big question was always how much Bloomberg was really willing to spend. These gestures indicates the answer is big-big money, and that he’s willing to do it at the state level where this kind of money is unheard of.

This is not good for us. Whether we like it or not, his money can overcome our grassroots energy if he’s willing to spend enough of it. Hal Parrish’s campaign web site can be found here. NRA-PVF can be found here.

Yes, it is possible for one rich asshole to buy power in our Republic if he has enough and is willing to spend enough to do it. Bloomberg seems able and willing. I’m sorry that’s the case, but it is just is. Grassroots is the only way we can counter it. But will it be enough? Will enough people step up?