Gun Control supporters are in the grips of a long term voter backlash that shows no sign of abating anytime soon, the gun control gains made in the early 1990’s planted the seeds, and those seeds, having grown into trees, are bearing fruit now. Every time a politician even mentions any kind of gun control, email servers melt, mail bags multiply, phone lines get red hot, and politicians get the message very quickly.
As long as gun owners perceive a threat, their activism will continue, after all, it is much better to be on the offensive, than the defensive. They are reminded of the threat, regularly, like the push to ban assault rifles in Washington state…Eric Holders comments..”talk” of closing the gun show loophole. Even Brady giving Obama an “F” reminds us, that their are people out there, who are plotting and scheming against the US Bill of Rights.
The talking heads on the news, that talk about “meaningful gun control” and complain about “lack of movement” on it, don’t realize that all they are doing is reminding, millions of TV viewers in “rest of the nation”, that “they are still trying to ban guns”…They elites just don’t get it, so they keep talking, and the people, keep listening, and seeing the threat..
The Brady Campaign’s and VPC’s successes, almost 20 years ago, has come back to bite them, they kept “poking” the sleeping giant that is several million, peaceful, law abiding, reliably voting, solid block of gun owners… The politicians where quick to learn that gun control did not bring near the votes, Sara and her ilk promised, instead it costed them dearly, when their first votes on Gun Control, became among their very last votes.
Now those gun owners have reached the political strength, to not only stop, most gun control proposals before they even get to the floor for a vote, they have the ability to form their own legislation, and get it passed into law, and that is what we are seeing now…
15 years, of constant, steady political gains, has made it so..
Brady and the VPC should have quit, when they where ahead in 1993….The Hated AW ban of 1994, was the legislation that enraged millions, and most of them are still pissed about it.
If they would have stopped then, gun rights would not have moved so far today, but when they started banning guns, because of cosmetic features, gun owners woke up and said this is pure political BS, and “not one step more”.
In a way, Brady, MMM, and the VPC, are their own worst enamy…We are a creation of them, now they can feel our wrath, its not our fault that we outnumber them by 10 to 1 at every meeting, lobby day, or public event..
The sad truth is, if they really want the gun right movement to go away, all they need to do is SHUT THE HELL UP about gun control, and in a few years, many strong gun rights supporters would stop pushing the legislators….BUT, Sara Brady, Paul Helmke, Micheal Blomberg, all republicans, cannot shut their traps that long to let the issue die down…
They keep the wound raw, so we, the great mass that is the Gun Rights movement, will march on…to victory…
Virginia Mountainman
January 31, 2009
Death of the Gun Control movement, birth of the Gun Rights movement
[I think this is a little overstated but the essence is true.–Joe]
I’m still pissed about the AWB because Connecticut has one.
“…it is much better to be on the offensive, than the defensive.”
“…that their are people out there, who are plotting and scheming against the US Bill of Rights.”
Sure enough. If there were no anti rights activists, and especially if there were no one in Congress listening to them, we’d have no reason for pro gun activism. Our rights would be secure.
The very fact that there are anti gun rights weasels in Congress is in itself a crime. When will the time come that it isn’t considered “balance” to include the bigoted comments of the anti gun rights activists in public discourse, and it is seen for what it is– a lying, bigoted, anti American movement? The Enemy Within. Would we tolerate the KKK being invited to speak in public forums? Would we tolerate an anti women’s suffrage coalition of Mayors?
One thing we should always keep in mind is what victory would look like. One feature of victory would be that any politician who, even under his breath, even caught in a private conversation, suggests an infringement on a constitutional right risks swift impeachment. What could be worse, after all, than someone charged with protecting our rights actually fighting against them? Would you tolerate your nanny abusing your kids? Would you tolerate your security guard stealing from you or attacking you? Would you tolerate your grounds-keeper tearing up your lawn and garden, demanding that you have no right to a nice lawn? Would you tolerate your accountant embezzling from you? Why in the hell should we as a society tolerate any politician who hates the very fact that we have rights? If the term, “enemy of the state” has or ever had any meaning, surely an anti-rights politician is a prime example.
“Going on the offensive” is a good term, but really it’s defense, isn’t it? Defense of liberty. Sure; there’s a big difference between waiting around for the next anti rights proposal, and then fighting it, verses going after the whole idea of anti rights legislation, un-doing it, and punishing the perpetrators. Technically, it’s still all defense of rights. The only real offenses are being committed by the anti-rights movement that has infiltrated government.