Authored by Duane Norman via Fre Market Shooter blog,
Late Sunday night into Monday morning, Stephen Paddock opened fire on a country music concert in Las Vegas, killing at least 58 and injuring at least 515. At the time, my focus was on trying to figure out why Paddock went on his rampage, how he was able to commit such a heinous crime, and most importantly, showing some respect for those who lost their lives or were injured by yet another madman with a gun.
Even though this website is politically-oriented, no author at this site considered playing politics with this tragedy; we were focused on finding out the facts surrounding the incident. The same cannot be said of liberal politicians and media; they didn’t waste one second in politicizing the tragedy, and using it as yet another call for gun control. Late night host Jimmy Kimmel was one of the first to speak out, and his “speech” was one of the most widely shared by liberals…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvgXuge7Bao
…but he was hardly alone; Stephen Colbert, his competitor, did the same exact thing, using his platform to stump for gun control:
They were hardly alone. Hillary Clinton, in her ongoing attempt to remain relevant, made one of the most incredibly ignorant tweets regarding the situation:
The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.
Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 2, 2017
It is anything but surprising that Hillary Clinton has absolutely no idea how a “suppressor” (not a silencer) actually functions, as the supersonic rifle rounds used by Paddock would have been anything but “silent” in volume. But it is at least a bit surprising that Disney CEO Bob Iger felt the need to comment:
…I don’t think this is politics. I think this is a huge crisis of our country.”
“We have the worst record in the modern world when it comes to gun violence and gun deaths. I’m not saying a change of law could have changed this outcome… but we should be demanding dialogue from our politicians and some sort of action,” he said.
Lest you forget, Disney is the parent company of: ABC, ESPN, A+E, Marvel, and many others. ESPN and the entire NFL have learned the hard way that injecting politics into sports is bad for business. As a top executive, you would think Iger would be more focused on staying away from discussing hot-button political issues, but it appears Iger doesn’t realize and/or doesn’t care about the effect politics has on Disney’s business.
As for the “business” of politics, I’ll go back to the article’s header:
Gun control is NOT a winning political issue. It hasn’t been a winning issue for decades, and it likely won’t be a winning issue decades into the future.
To understand why, you first have to take a look at the history of Congressional control by party. When Bill Clinton was elected President, the Democrats had control over the House of Representatives since Eisenhower’s first term, and similar control of the Senate for all but six years of Reagan’s Presidency. Clinton lost control of the House in 1994, and with the exception of the 110th and 111th Congress, Democrats have never had control since.
Why? The ill-advised and ineffective “assault weapons ban” of 1994. Don’t take my word for it? Ask Bill Clinton himself:
And Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban “devastated” more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms — and cost then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-Wash.) his job and his seat in Congress.
“I’ve had many sleepless nights in the many years since,” Clinton said. One reason? “I never had any sessions with the House members who were vulnerable,” he explained — saying that he had assumed they already knew how to explain their vote for the ban to their constituents.
Clinton knows it – he lost control of Congress over the AWB. And yet, gun control proponents keep pushing for one. Go figure.
The people who put ridiculous laws such as assault weapons bans and “high” (read: standard) capacity magazine bans in place are the reason the NRA exists – a counter-weight for gun owners to exercise their voting rights against draconian and stupid gun legislation.
And, like it or not, it is the members, NOT the money, that makes the NRA powerful.
Don’t believe me? See for yourself:
The NRA isn’t in the top 10 organizations contributing to politicians. In fact, it isn’t even in the top 50. In 2016, the NRA ranked 75th in political contributions, well below the top contributors, notably the Fahr consulting group and the SEIU. How much is that relative to these groups? Just ask WaPo:
Since 1998, the NRA has donated $3,555,194 to current members of Congress. Find out here who has received donations. https://t.co/QVxthRTgR1
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) October 2, 2017
The NRA’s donation total is less than 4% of no.1 Fahr LLC’s. If the NRA is buying politicians with contributions, they are getting incredible bang for their buck.
An NRA endorsement is a testament to the strength and resilence of gun rights advocates to vote for gun rights, which means more than any amount of Bloomberg dollars ever will. Gun rights advocates are a group which never forgets past votes and always votes the issue, unlike the other side of the coin:
They are the types who frequently say things like “Ban all guns!” or call for an “assault weapons ban”. And some of them may actually be single issue voters, but they will vote for “clean energy” one year, and vote to kill it the next year when their electric bill goes up 200% and they are subjected to rolling blackouts.
The Democrats surely did not forget the “votes” when the “assault weapons ban” was again put forward in 2013, a proposal which former President Obama came out supporting immediately following the Sandy Hook shooting:
Obama, speaking at a White House ceremony, also proposed restricting ammunition magazines to no more than 10 rounds, as well as new school safety and mental health programs, all designed to prevent shootings like the one last month at an elementary school in Connecticut.
Unsurprisingly, that went even worse than the background checks bill did. Why? Because it again put all of Congress on the spot on the assault weapons ban:
The leader of the Democrat-controlled Senate on Tuesday dropped a proposed assault weapons ban from the chamber’s gun-control package – dealing a blow to supporters of the ban, though it could still come up for a vote.
So, what happened when it did come up for a vote? Fifteen Democratic Senators voted with Republicans against the bill:
President Obama and gun control groups back the weapons ban, which expired in 2004. Feinstein said she was “dismayed” at the lack of courage from senators who were voting against gun control measure, which was opposed by the National Rifle Association.
These Democrats learned their lessons from Clinton – don’t vote against your own constituents. Of course, Senator Feinstein’s constituents have been all too happy to re-elect her over and over again…
…in spite of the fact that she supported outright confiscation of “assault weapons” when she passed the bill in 1994.
However, the only thing more obtuse than Senator Feinstein’s position on gun control as a political issue is the continued support of foolish gun control legislation by members of the media and top media executives. Unfortunately, liberals never seem to learn that playing the blame game on guns isn’t a winning issue with voters.
This is not only bad business for media, it is bad business for America; it inhibits constructive conversation on how to reduce gun violence and keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous people. Instead of working to pass legislation to protect the rights of gun owners and keep guns out of the hands of those who should not own them…
…the liberal blame and finger-pointing leads the party to the same place it found itself after the 2016 election – a losing position.