So I'm a hunter and believe in Second Amendment rights, but I also believe that assault weapons are not needed in the public population.Alphecca has transcribed part of an interview with weasel-worder extraordinaire Mitt Romney, who shows us why a vote for him is a vote for Jim Zumbo. You guys holding your nose on the new WarOnGuns poll (see left margin) who say you'd still vote for this lying creep who is only using you--are you sure you want to do that?
Think about it: The entire gun activist is up in arms and threatening boycotts over a stupid outdoors writer's ignorant remarks. They demanded his head, and it looks like, from Remington's standpoint at least, they got it.
Based on gun owner reaction, they wouldn't want any of the three leading GOP candidates to be retained as gun writers, but they'd accept them as president? Does that make sense?
So what am I saying, that I want to help Hillary?
Nope. I'm merely making a statement based on observable facts--and here's one more: Zumbo's ignorant diatribe resulted in thousands of furious comments on his blog, and countless angry emails to Outdoor Life, Remington, etc. Nice use of energy and outrage--but why don't we see enraged gun owners doing this to the chairman of the Republican party as well, now, while there's still a chance to affect the momentum?
Where is the LEADERSHIP from those who have the political reach (i.e., NRA) organizing a DEMAND to the Republican party that they field a candidate who understands the Second Amendment and will use his bully pulpit to proactively educate and evangelize to the voters about it? If someone wants to be a leader, don't you agree the Bill of Rights would be a good place to start leading?
Why is it we have the energy to storm the Bastille over a trivial hunting column, but when it comes time to applying it to something meaningful, we can't seem to mount an offensive?
7 comments:
but he'll let us keep our single shot 22's for hunting wabbits....
The public population doesn't need those EBRs anyway, only the private population of "only ones" I guess, oh, and all his body guards and mormons.
I'm only going by gun on him, and 2nd hand info, but God, if ANY gun owner would vote for him they might as well go hand their guns in for a cup of coffee on the way.
my take on why nobody's e-lynching him yet is that they already know that he's an enemy, not one that was believed to be on the gun owners side like dumbo.
IMO, part of the outrage a Zumbo was that shooters felt betrayed by someone who should have been as one of our own. Historically, turncoats are especially reviled.
I agree we need to channel this anger at politicians who seek the destruction of our RKBA.
(tried to link, but Blogger wasn't having any truck with letting me log in...)
My take.
Thanks for the excellent comment, and idea.
(Unix-Jedi)
Excellent point, David.
One thing though, which maybe has some effect. We're not being asked to choose (hypothetically) for having Zumbo or Sarah Brady as a columnist for Outdoor life. I think it's a little different when having to choose between two evils, and just getting rid of one.
Also, the 5,000+ comments betwixt the two Zumbo posts are visible. I don't know how much correspondence the RNC Director receives on a daily basis, or whatever. But I know that I feel a sense of futility that the GOP can be changed, while it's clear that public pressure can elicit a response from a corporation.
I honestly don't know what I'll do in the next election. Write in Ron Paul, probably.
IMHO I believe Newt should be the choice in 08. He truly understands history and respects what the founding fathers intended.
Cornwallis and Benedict Arnold, in answer to your question David.
Cornwallis was our enemy and we were determined to beat him. We held no affection for him, but to this day, we don't really despise him.
Arnold was our ally and betrayed us. To this day he is considered despicable and still is an object of righteous anger.
The anti-gunners are Cornwallis, Zumbo is Arnold. That is why the extra emotion and the "storming of the bastille"mentality over this, but a willingness to settle in for a long protracted battle against the gun grabbers, while not as emotional, is just as seriously approached by most is not actually a contradiction.
We don't really want to punish the gun grabbers, we just want them to quit interfering with our rights and will punish them if necessary, but we don't desire it.
Zumbo is another matter, we do want to punish him for his betrayal and willingness to abandon us to the enemy while aiding their cause. Not a nice thing to do when one has led others to believe he is on their side. Especially if one has achieved high rank in the order he has betrayed.
Just my 2 cents:
As an American citizen I have power over a number of things in my life, (though getting smaller every passing day Congress is in session). One of those things is where my dollars are spent. I think this is why gun rights supporters were so upset about Zumbo, and where he got his support from, OUR MONEY.
Since this is also America, our servants in government only derive their power from the Constitution. Our separate branches of government were designed to make them accountable to follow only what the Constitution gave them power over, (the judiciary stepping in to "just say no" to anything not specifically authorized by that document, and making sure even if an act is authorized, the bill of rights would be covered as well).
When that entire systems fails, (it has--the Constitution is used less then mass transit.), what are we to do? Lets say freedom lovers everywhere "do the right thing" and only support candidates who limit themselves to what the Constitution authorizes. That would leave socialist winning 90% of elections because freedom lovers had no one they could support and socialist would continue voting for the Clinton's and "I support Assault Weapon Ban" Bush's of the world, (pretty much where we are right now).
The powers the federal government is authorized to have does not change depending on how the president might happen to feel one morning. This would require changing the Constitution, with state ratification. If the powers of the government change depending on which way the majority on voting day might happen to feel, we are fighting an endless battle, one that can never be won while being played on an uneven field. The system is broken...
But, DAMN IT, my money better not get passed along to some gun bigot! Citizens have always had the power over where their money is spent, (of course, this doesn't include tax dollars going to places like the Joyce Foundation, National Wildlife Fund, War on Drugs, etc.) That's another game played on an uneven field, (and enforced at gun point). Without the threat of violence, we would be free to Zumbo their ass too. Under threat, we bide our time and wait for the playing field to get leveled.
Post a Comment