Quote of the day—Andrew Mitrovica

Innocent after innocent has been murdered. Burial after burial has been consecrated. Eulogy after eulogy has been delivered. Tear after tear has been shed. Vigil after vigil has been held. Plea after plea has been made. Solution after solution has been offered. Column after column has been written.

Still, nothing changes.

Today, this much is clear if it wasn’t apparent before: most of America has conceded. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has won.

The slick defenders of America’s absurd addiction to guns have prevailed. The NRA’s victory over scores of unarmed Americans – including grade-school children – who have forfeited their lives to the astronomical arsenal of guns that litter America is as complete as it is emphatic.

The merchants of mayhem are no longer obliged even to feign concern for the latest casualties of the latest carnage or to trot out the familiar, trite catch phrases to defend what enlightened Americans consider indefensible.

Andrew Mitrovica
January 28, 2023
The NRA has won
[The comments have quite the ratio in favor of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But Mitrovica is one of the “enlightened” ones who believes they should be allowed to infringe upon that right.

But how “enlightened” is he really? Does he know how many people have been murdered because they didn’t have access to a gun? Does he know how many of those mass shootings were in “gun free” zones? Those victims were, in some sense, created by “enlightened” people like him. And tens of millions of others were murdered by their own government by similarly “enlightened” people who first disarmed.

Just keep saying, “No!” to those “enlightened” people who insist on infringing your specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. They are not “enlightened”. They are ignorant and/or evil. Just keep saying, “No!” until you run out of ammunition.—Joe]


4 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Andrew Mitrovica

  1. Sorry Joe, I no long buy the ignorance argument. They know. And if they don’t know, they should find out before they drag out the poison pen.
    No one that’s earnestly studied the subject could come to any such conclusion. That gun control works in any form it’s tried.
    There is no plea of ignorance when one is a reporter. Of any kind. In fact this brand of maliciousness among reporter types is traditional.
    Lest we forget the famous report of “breaking a few eggs to make an omelet”, that was given to America. All the while knowing people were being starved to death in mass, on purpose.
    No excuse for not knowing. And malice to report it any other way.
    They have chosen a side. We need to treat them as such.

  2. Before you get too cocky, keep in mind that the NRA was not particularly effective before about 1999… and the anti-2A forces were still portraying them as a huge juggernaut.

    The pattern repeated itself over and over: there would be some shocking murders by guns; the usual suspects would call for massive restrictions on 2A rights; a compromise would be hammered out that restricted them almost as much; the NRA would object; the media would say that the gun control law was in danger; and then, just in the nick of time, some crucial previously pro-gun legislators would come out in favor and get the anti-rights law passed.

    Occasionally the measure would fail, but it would always come back later. The ratchet definitely was going toward full confiscation.

    It wasn’t until the boycott of Smith and Wesson, due to their knuckling under to the lawsuits brought by the Clinton regime, that gun owners started winning. Even then, most of us thought it would be temporary. It was a big surprise when the “assault weapons” ban was allowed to expire in 2004, even though George W. Bush and congressional Republicans were totally gutless about it.

    Gradually the 2A supporters started getting victories, first with shall issue, and more recently with constitutional carry. And of course, there were the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen decisions. (Although truth be told, I was worried that Heller’s pro-rights decision would be made massively unpopular by the media, especially since Bush was very unpopular at the time).

    Anyway, my point is that what was won was won the hard way, and could be lost again.

  3. Joe: But how “enlightened” is he really? Does he know how many people have been murdered because they didn’t have access to a gun? Does he know how many of those mass shootings were in “gun free” zones?

    I’m with MTHead. He knows. All but the most head-in-the-sand “gun control” supporters know; certainly all the “gun control” organizations’ executives know.


    Andrew Mitrovica: The NRA’s victory over scores of unarmed Americans – including grade-school children….

    I’m sorry, whose “victory over scores of unarmed Americans”?

    Not the NRA’s. The only people claiming victory over scores of (dead) unarmed Americans are the criminals and terrorists.

    And who forced the victims to be unarmed? People like Mr. Mitrovica. “Gun control” supporters had a hand in those deaths, too.

    So really, it should read, “Criminals’ and ‘gun control’ supporters’ victory over scores of unarmed Americans – including grade-school children….”

    And no, the “astronomical arsenal of guns” neither “litters America” (wouldn’t that be nice?), nor is it directly responsible for murders. The gun is a tool, an inanimate object; it has no will or morality of its own, and therefore cannot be held responsible for any act performed with it. Like any tool, it merely reflects the will and morality of the person wielding it.

  4. Kind of a stretch, maybe, because of the limits of liability law, but if a link between Mr. Mitrovica’s activities, or those of his fellow travelers, (specifically activities, not words) and the creation of a no-guns area, or additional restrictions on ownership or possession, and the death or injury of a party so restricted, can be established it would make for a dandy lawsuit, one that if successful would establish precedent.

    Lots of moving parts with excruciatingly close tolerances to be assembled in the correct order but I wonder if anyone on the pro-gun jurisprudence side has thought about it.

Comments are closed.