Think of the hundreds of millions wasted by the antis over that time. I wonder if they figure it was worth it? Plus, Charles M. Blowhard of the NYT discovers the Law of Unintended Consequences. Sheesh. What a slow learner.
Pew: Highest Support for Gun Rights in 25 Years
And then there's this from Charles Blowhard: It is now fair to ask whether the National Rifle Association is winning — or has in fact won — this era of the gun debate in this country.
“Self-protection is part of the reason. But a bigger factor, say gun dealers, is fear of something else: politicians, specifically, their ability to enact restrictions on gun ownership and acquisition of ammunition. When a high-profile shooting takes place, invariably the airwaves are full of talk about gun control.”
It appears to be an extreme example of unintended consequences, or a boomerang: the more people talk about gun control, the more people buy guns. And not only do gun sales surge, but apparently so does N.R.A. membership. As The Huffington Post reported in 2013: “The National Rifle Association’s paying member ranks have grown by 100,000 in the wake of the December school shooting in Newtown, Conn., the organization told Politico.”
I'm confused. Does this statement of "debatability" of the second amendment mean the other nine are equally so ? And where does this "debatability" stop ? Are the foundations of our government also "debatable ? >Jeff
Let's reword this for a portion of the First Amendment instead:
"A bigger factor ... is fear of something else: politicians, specifically, their ability to enact restrictions on free speech, the press and acquisition of information."
The ability and predisposition of politicians to enact and attempt to enforce unconstitutional laws is something to fear.
I started paying attention shortly before I graduated from High School. Since then I've lost track of how many time the "main stream" media has declared the imminent death of the NRA. IIRC, when I joined in the late 1960's, NRA had something under 2 million members. I still have my "Project Two Million" belt buckle.
But I also take exception to the reporter's primary premise, that the perception of crime is the primary driver of gun sales and NRA membership. Note his and others puzzlement that crime is actually down, but you wouldn't know that from their reporting, yet demand for guns is up. I suspect if you plotted a graph of gun demand/sales/background checks with an overlay of significant gun control proposals and legislation actually passed you would find that actual and proposed gun control is the primary driver for gun demand. Perception of crime is a secondary factor at best.
"Fly Over America", a place completely out of the experience of a NY Times reporter, is the home of the "Bitter Clingers". And Bitter Clingers have a tradition of doing what outsiders have told them not to do.
We should all thank the deity of our choice for that.
As for the NY Times, I believe the "New Yawk" expression that fits best would be: "Pound salt, Buddy!"
The comment section of that article made me want to vomit. I was tempted to leave a comment of my own. Instead I went and bought ammo.
There is a great moral sickness in this country. Thank You Lord for letting me live to be in this time and place, thank You for putting this task in our hands. It is a rightious task indeed, and we are the generation that will save our country. Thousands of our brothers in arms even now no doubt feel the same call. May God watch over each and every last one of you. Until all of my countrymen can live free every place is " behind enemy lines". I sleep in relative safety, as do my children while those in places like Connecticut live with the question day in and out of when Einsatzgruppen Amerika will be stacking at their front door.
It troubles my heart deeply.
Rest assured, we watch and wait. The worlds biggest flyswatter poised to smash the Spider who thought it was the only game in town. Pray and prepare accordingly.
- The Bellevue Headhunter.
Post a Comment