Lecture Me Not, Gun-grabbers, on My Rights

GunRightsby Jerry Richardson11/10/14
Gun-grabbers have been increasingly losing the so-called “gun-control” debate, especially in the past 14 years. Why?

I think a major part of the reason is that gun-grabbers have become increasingly strident and hateful in their anti-gun rhetoric. Sensible people are rightfully suspicious when someone injects too much venom into their partisan arguments.

Oh, sorry; I didn’t tell you what a gun-grabber is.  I will.

But, first to the issue of scare quotes around “gun-control”; why are the scare quotes there?  Because it is a blatant lie that the issue is about “control”; the issue is, has been, and will always be about the Constitutional freedom to “keep and bear arms” versus unconstitutional citizen-disarmament advocated by gun-grabbers.

A gun-grabber is a political Progressive who hates the 2nd Amendment and is completely willing to ignore any Constitutional provisions in order to facilitate their fanatical goal of completely disarming any and all law-abiding US citizens, other than possibly government and police—of course criminals get to keep their guns by default.

And one other very important fact: Gun-grabbers always lie about their real agenda, they have to.  Their real long-term, end-goal agenda is complete disarmament of the US population. Gun-grabbers know their agenda is not popular with the American people so they always label their efforts with the deceitful euphemism, “common sense” gun-control.  Remember, there is nothing “common” about it; and there is nothing “sensible” about it.

Another contributing factor to the political losses by gun-grabbers is that freedom-loving Americans do not like to be lectured-to.  And especially do they not like to be lectured-to on how to protect their homes and families by wealthy, smug, elites such as the ex-Mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg who can afford around-the-clock personal body-guard protection.  Michael Bloomberg is the perfect prototype of a Progressive gun-grabber; so if you want to study gun-grabbers, study Michael Bloomberg.

More especially the American people do not like to be lectured-to by the leftist-establishment media (thanks to M.C. Shults for this term), and Hollywood celebrities, many who despise the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment; and who seem to know little about the how’s and why’s of using firearms for self-protection.

What is the driving force behind the stridency and condescending nanny-lecturing from gun-grabbers?

Philosophically, the Second Amendment is a hated repudiation of everything collectivists believe about the proper relationship between citizens and the all-powerful State.  The concept of private firearms as a bulwark against tyranny insults them, because they believe nobody should think about maternal, coercive leftist government that way, not even in the abstract.

The more immediate and practical use of legal firearms for self-defense is also an insult to the State – an accusation that benevolent government cannot adequately protect its citizens.  You’re supposed to let the agents of the State defend you from criminals, not take matters into your own hands.  Frankly, you little people are just too damned stupid to be entrusted with deadly force.  You can’t live any aspect of your lives without maternal government assistance, so how can you be trusted to defend your own life?
Gun Control and the Liberal ID

In a nutshell, the gun-control issue is a proxy issue that represents what Progressives hate most about Conservatives: Their rejection of the collectivist state. It is why the hatred is so visceral.  Here are two very representative examples:

Author Joyce Carol Oates wished NRA members would get shot, so they might finally give up their damnable Second Amendment rights… and insisted she wasn’t speaking “ironically.”  She also mused that a lot of “gun accidents” might not be so accidental after all, broadly accusing thousands of Americans who disagree with her of being murderers.

University of Rhode Island history teacher Erik Loomis launched into a profane tirade that accused the National Rifle Association of being a “terrorist organization” and called for the CEO’s “head on a stick,” although he did later try to claim he was speaking ironically, after being rebuked by his university.

It’s one thing to be passionately committed to a political position, but these people have gone feral.
Gun Control and the Liberal ID

Perhaps all 2nd Amendment supporters should encourage, yes encourage ex-Mayor Bloomberg of NYC to continue his campaign to disarm law-abiding American citizens.

Why should we consider encouraging Bloomberg to continue?

Because his insufferable arrogance coupled with his nanny-lecturing has apparently contributed to an increased support for gun-ownership in America—at least his efforts haven’t hurt gun owners, except in some of the Communists-states of the North East.

I am being sarcastic about Michael Bloomberg. I am not minimizing the disaster that idiotic gun-control laws are for the safety of those who live in states such as New York. I am very concerned for any citizen of the US who has to live under such suppression of their Constitutional rights.  When the constitutional rights of anyone in the USA are threatened, all Constitutionally-supporting citizens should be concerned.  We should, by all means, continue to oppose the efforts of fanatical gun-grabbers such as Michael Bloomberg.

How well have the gun-grabbers fared in their efforts to disarm law-abiding citizens?  Not so well.  The Washington Post just ran an article [November 8, 2014] entitled Why the NRA is so powerful, in 1 chart.

I won’t show the chart here, you can reach it though the link above; but the essence is very simple: The chart shows the poll results of whether people think that Guns make homes safer or more dangerous.  Here’s the tabular result:

Poll Question: Guns Make Homes Safer or more Dangerous?
2000 35 51
2004 42 46
2005 45 45
2006 47 43
2014 63 30

The important thing to recognize in the trend of these numbers is that the belief in the importance of gun-ownership for personal home-safety has gone up 180 percent in 14 years; and that increase has occurred despite the drum-beat animosity of the leftist-establishment media, and the hoplophobia (“irrational aversion to weapons”) of nanny-Progressive panty-wetters; and despite the brain-washing educators in elementary schools who punish young boys for even drawing pictures of a gun.

Despite the title of the Washington Post article, they did not actually explain “Why the NRA is so powerful”; they can’t bear the thought I guess.  The NRA is powerful because they do one of the best jobs of any organization in this nation of understanding and fighting for their members’ political interest. They are honest about their agenda and they do not surrender it under pressure from opposition.  If the Republican Party were one-eighth as honest, one-fourth as courageous, and one-half as effective, they would never have to worry about another election. (Note: Don’t take my 1/8, 1/4, and 1/2 too seriously, insert your own guesses.)

The same Gallop poll on guns used by the Washington Post reported the following:

The poll was released on Nov. 7. According to Gallup, a record-high “63 percent” of those polled said a gun makes their home safer. When the responses were divided along political party affiliation, Gallup found “81 percent” of Republicans and “64 percent” of Independents believed a gun made their homes safer, versus only “41 percent” of Democrats.

This squares with a Washington Post/ABC News poll Breitbart News reported in May in which Independents overwhelming supported the GOP approach to protecting gun rights over the Democrat approach to restricting them.

Another interesting aspect of the newly released Gallup poll is that a clear majority of women believe a gun in the home makes the home safer as well. “58 percent” of women said a gun makes the home safer versus “34 percent” who say it makes the home “more dangerous.”
Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Agree that a Gun Makes the Home Safer

Also, the gun-grabbers did not fare well in the 2014 election:

In Senate races, NRA endorsements carried the day, including Republican Rep. Cory Gardner’s defeat of Sen. Mark Udall in Colorado, North Carolina Democrat Sen. Kay Hagan’s loss to the GOP’s Thom Tillis, and NRA-endorsed Republicans Sen. Pat Roberts (Kansas), Bill Perdue (Georgia), Tom Cotton (Arkansas), Shelly Moore Capito (West Viginia), Joni Ernst (Iowa) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) all winning.

In gubernatorial races, the NRA also took the day, with Republicans Greg Abbott (Texas), Larry Hogan (Maryland), Gov. Robert Bentley (Alabama), Gov. Scott Walker (Wisconsin), Gov. Rick Snyder (Michigan), Gov. Bryan Sandoval (Nevada), Gov. John Kasich (Ohio), Gov. Mary Fallin (Oklahoma), Gov. Matt Mead (Wyoming), Gov. Bruce Otter (Idaho), Gov. Sam Brownback (Kansas) and Gov. Paul LePage (Maine), all winning, Breitbart reports.

Only in one instance, the passage of Initiative 594 to expand background checks in Washington state, can gun-controllers claim a clear victory.

Dave Workman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms told US News and World Report, “There is a great deal of concern that this kind of big money can be brought to bear against a whole rather large group of law abiding citizens.”
Results in Senate Races

What are three major occurrences in the time-period 2000-2014 that might have logically caused an increase in the belief in guns for home-safety?

  • Terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001
  • Televised uncontrolled lawlessness during Hurricane Katrina in August 2005
  • Loss of confidence in Government beginning with Election of Barack Obama in 2008.

All three items above arguably provide excellent reasons for a prudent home-owner to consider owning a firearm for home and family protection.

It always seems to surprise the leftist-establishment media when it becomes apparent that people are buying more guns because they perceive a threat either to their lives, their property, or their freedom.

Gun sales increased in the Ferguson, MO area after the rioting which following the shooting death of Michael Brown.  Metro Shooting Supplies is about 10 miles west of Ferguson:

“Historically in August, it’s very slow,” owner Steve King told The Washington Post by phone, “because people are getting ready to go back to school.” Not this August. “We have made the same amount of money since Monday the 11th — almost as much money as we did the entire month of July. It’s unbelievable. It’s four times, five times the volume.” He compared the volumes favorably with sales during the “Obamascare” — the fear of new gun controls after the Sandy Hook shooting — that prompted big sales in 2013. “When you’re posed with losing your firearms, you buy guns,” King said. “When you’re posed with losing your life, you buy more guns.”
Gun Sales Up Near Ferguson

There are two issues on which I can truly be a one-issue voter: 1) Gun rights; and 2) Pro-life.

The reason for my adamancy on Gun-rights is the fact that world history has clearly demonstrated that if a government disarms a population, there are then no realistic impediments to that government taking away any or all other rights from the disarmed population.  This, of course, is the very reason why Progressives support citizen disarmament, aka “common sense” gun-control.

The reason for my adamancy on Pro-life is that I can’t conceive of a greater violation of human-rights, that a government can support, than to permit laws that can prevent a person from being born: A sentence of death before life outside the womb begins.  That power should be in the hands of God, not in the hands of government.

© 2014, Jerry Richardson • (1902 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Lecture Me Not, Gun-grabbers, on My Rights

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    I refer to the Bloombergs and Cuomos as gun prohibitionists, since that best reflects what they seek, or even gun confiscationists (since they ultimately seek that). To be sure, I can see a basis for some controls — but I’m reluctant to support anything that makes it easier for the prohibitionists. Moving the Overton window leftward does no good.

    As for why people are learning better, I think one reason is that the synoptic media no longer have as much control over information as they used to. More people are able to hear about people defending themselves with guns, and also that most massacres happen in “gun-free” zones.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:


    Was that last paragraph meant for another piece? It seems out of place as a wrap up for this article.

    • Jerry Richardson says:


      No, I was closing with 2 issues I feel strongly enough about to use either as a single-issue in voting. Gun-rights and Pro-life.

  3. Rosalys says:

    Wow! I am heartened to hear that a whole 41% of democrats believe that guns make their homes safer. That kind of shows that a large minority of dems are not hard core leftists. They are probably democrats because Dad and Grandpa were democrats – but they can still add two and two together and come up with four.

  4. Timothy Lane says:

    In Washington, a referendum pushed by anti-gun billionaires won (as Brad is all too well aware). So several thousand gun owners plan to do a rally in which they will openly do things like trade guns in defiance of the new law (which will take effect in early December). Anything that exposes the illegitimacy of Big Government without actual criminal behavior is desirable.


    Interesting update on the progress of gun rights, Jerry. Of course in the communist states of the Northeast, and in progressive bastions like Washington State, we have lost ground. Basically, where the Democrats are so strong they don’t have to fear Republican challengers, they feel secure in showing their true gun-grabbing colors. (In Washington, it was a less-overt but still obnoxious measure that passed, one of those “commen sense” measures that sounds good to those who aren’t inclined to do much thinking – background checks to “keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” a ridiculous waste of time and very intrusive).

    I’m still very worried about the patriots in Connecticut, although this election will probably dissuade the Democrats from pushing too hard to enforce their new law in the face of widespread civil disobedience. In the end, despite the recent election results, our side is going to have to prepare ways to resist the government and compel it to back down in certain cases, beginning but not ending with civil disobedience.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      One minor correction: Washington isn’t exactly a Democrat bastion. There is a strong Republican presence (they actually took control of the State Senate, 25-24, which they had previously controlled with the assistance of some rogue Democrats), and in fact seriously contested state-wide races have often been very close. The Seattle area gives the Democrats a small but durable edge, but it’s a long way from being California or Rhode Island.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *