The Trace is nothing if not deceptive perceptive. The anti-gun agit-propagators know that the Democrats’ newfound love for gun control puts their cause in a dicey position. Ms. Clinton’s full-on support for civilian disarmament could well prove that those who don’t learn from political history are condemned to repeat it; the Dems’ presidential nominee could lose key battleground states on that issue alone.
While The Trace’s spin doctors are ever-hopeful that Boss Bloomberg’s plan to gun control gun rights to death, they’re sounding the alarm. They’re posing five key questions surrounding the upcoming election and civilian disarmament.
Help a brother out, won’t you? Give their TTAG-reading writers the benefit of your expertise. Here are The Trace’s “burning” questions (and simmering observations):
1. Can gun reformers match the intensity of their gun-rights counterparts?
“A survey shows overall support for tougher gun laws at the highest it’s been since the Sandy Hook shooting.”
2. Can gun reform rally the Obama coalition?
Political journalists have observed that with Obamacare on the books, Democrats have lacked a cause to energize them, and are in particular need of one that stirs the soul in a way that pocketbook issues do not.
3. How much can the NRA help Trump in key Rust Belt states?
The political geography of the Rust Belt gives Clinton a counterbalance to the strongholds that Trump and the gun group enjoy among white men and rural residents. In Pennsylvania for example, greater Philadelphia and Pittsburgh provide such a disproportionate share of the state’s populations that Democrats can carry the state’s electoral votes by winning the big metro areas and losing everywhere else.
4. What’s the deal with the NRA’s Benghazi obsession?
“In late June, the NRA spent $2 million to launch its first ad oriented toward the 2016 presidential election. Notably, the spot did not mention guns or the Second Amendment. Instead, its focus was Benghazi.”
5. What does Hillary’s pollster know that the rest of us do not?
“Clinton’s willingness to address gun violence as an issue was clear early on in her 2016 campaign. In a September debate, she said she was proud to have the NRA as enemies.”
I am the NRA. So Hillary hates me…. Meh
Same here… She hates me too
Meeee Toooo
Hillary, NAMBLA, Black Lies Matter, Moms Demand Fascism, and the FOP hate me. Life is good!
I heard a rumor that the Stormfront White Nationalist Community hates you too.
Old Indian (American) saying: “You can best judge a man by those who are his enemies.”
I hate her back.
And why does she dress like she’s Ellen Degeneres?
More like Dr. Zeus from Planet of the Apes.
Wrong doctor:
https://goo.gl/images/LqqI8Z
More like Chairman Mao…
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a213/tcny05/Humor/Political%20Humor/Hillary%20Mao%20Suit%2001_zpsrydizlzn.jpg
A survey shows. a survey shows…….out of how many?
Trump is going to plow hillary under. Not just because of guns. But she’s adding to the carnage on her side by sticking with the guns issue.
“Trump is going to plow hillary”
ewwwww….
Now it’s “gun reformers”. New focus group?
I thought “Common sense gun safety” was the latest con?
I think their latest doublespeak label/category is “Safe Communities.” It’s hard to keep up, the way they drop the old terms and change to new ones as people catch-on to each new con.
The progressive corruption of language marches ever on.
My idea of “gun reform” is removing all the gun control laws (and anti-personal weapons laws) worldwide, and legalizing possession and carry of any weapon for everyone (except violent felons and those actively determined to be mentally deficient), short of transporting assembled explosives.
Yeah Benghazi is a dead issue (pun intended). This election is all about guns guns and more guns. And whether we can trust Donnie… sigh. Stick to the message NRA.
NO for the general population it’s “Hellery – Stalin in a pantsuit”
Should be a given that EVERY gun owner votes AGAINST the Dowager Empress. But some here claim going to vote for her by staying home (or by voting pothead). Bengazi etc is a winner in gaining the vote of OTHERS.
Recent survey says 100% know Trump and 100% know Hellery (no surprise). Supposedly something like 49/41 have decided on which to vote for (suspect stat) so 10% of wishy-washy in play.
“A survey shows overall support for tougher gun laws at the highest it’s been since the Sandy Hook shooting.”
They seem to be convinced of this, I’m just not seeing it.
Especially with every new terror attack.
I hope she continues to push it, it will help us…
Like all polls and surveys, the way the question is worded means a great deal. For example, on a simple right track, wrong track question for the country, it’s typically been around 70% wrong track. With a country fairly evenly divided, are we to believe that liberal leaners and conservatives leaners agree? At 50,000 feet yes, but if you asked why you think the country is on the wrong track, you’d would get close to that 70% agreement.
Such is what is likely here. You ask “should gun buyers go through a criminal background check”, most gun muggles say yes, hence the 80% or 90% finding that means……..absolutely nothing. If in that same survey, you had them rank issues of most importance to them, gun control is at the bottom of the vast majority of gun muggles list.
The Trace and their gun control drooling ilk are simple ignoring that which does not fit their preference. Hence, they focus on the 80%, and black out gun control ranking 15 priority out of 15 topics.
But to help them out in honing their defense mechanisms for information they don’t like, here’s my appraisal of their quesions:
1. No. See the explanation about gun control priority above. It’s been this way since Sandy Hook and that isn’t changing no matter how many San Bernadinos or Orlandos occur.
2.Probably not. Sure Black Lives Matter may drive some turnout, but they aren’t motivated by gun control. Neither are Latinos, single women, or socialists.
3. Not much more than they helped Romney. Trump’s strengths over Romney is those states isn’t related to gun rights. It’s economics.
4. Considering the type of justice, Hillary Rodman Corruption would appoint to the Supreme Court, the NRA may feel it’s all hands on deck. Tactics aside, putting a corrupt elitist is the White House it bad for the NRA.
5. She needs all the energy and votes she can get from the progressive base. Gun control is now a top ten or top five tenet of the progressive faith. She has to pander.
I joined the NRA after Hillary made that enemy comment during a debate.
So did I. Figured I’d better make it official.
The Trace was established by Bloombast as a campaign vehicle, and also to exercise more power during a Hillary presidency. If Hillary loses, The Trace will disappear without a trace.
I wouldn’t bet on that. Bloomie has had some successes on the state level, e.g. the background check for every transfer, including loans between friends at the range or while hunting, which victory they used to catapult a similar (but less overbroad) law in Nevada. California just passed a similar ban on such “transfers”, except between family members. So I can take my kid to the range and hand him a gun, but not his best friend (assuming the friend has parental consent to participate if under 18). So I would anticipate that those legislative attacks will continue, and will extend to adding more states on the “AW” ban list, for which purpose the Trace is a useful tool to provide propaganda to news reporters.
“… among white men and rural residents…”
How utterly, disgustingly racist and prejudiced.
Cal, this should come as no surprise,
“… among white men and rural residents…”
are not on the ‘approved’ focus groups list, they are the enemy.
#1. NEVER because deep into everyone’s brain is a survival switch. Removing guns (and they want to take them – Sunday Morning devoted the entire show ending with Aussie confiscation) takes away the most efficient tool to save your life. WHAT SLOGAN….disarm so bad guy can kill, rape, and assault children. Mexicans in Mexico do this everyday.
#2. Rats on a shinking ship…however do not think this is won. Chris Wallace made her seem normal today. Be wary.
#3. BIG this is what the NRA does. Grass roots, Main Street, force multiplier.
#4. Myopic – happens to all organizations. Focusing on a abstract principle concerning her ability to lead. She can not, why waste the coin. Stay in the lane.
#5. Hillary going all in. The calculation is enough young people getting debt forgiveness, women concern for the safety of their children, illegals worried about round ups and deports.
The 5 questions of gun control (if it’s achieved):
1) Where?
2) Do?
3) You Think?
4) You’ll be able to?
5) Hide?
MF
Behind the sights of my .308.
China says you look funny from orbit.
“5. What does Hillary’s pollster know that the rest of us do not?”
In the past 20+ years, gun control has been a dead loser for the Dems, not so much in terms of presidential elections but certainly at the state level – R’s hold more state and national elected seats than EVER. So, why are the Dems pushing this “dead loser” so hard?
So, is Clinton’s pollster prescient? I think not. What I hope is true is that they are introducing a ton of emotion into the equation of whether to go all in for gun control or not. Clearly they are all in, but is that a cool, calculated decision exclusively, or is there some of that classic progressive shoot-themselves-in-the-foot irrationality based upon shit like “being on the right side of history”, people’s willingness to embrace a progressive agenda – which is always exaggerated on their side, and a classic blindness around what motivates people in states not bordering big bodies of water. I hope this is true. I hope they are absolutely screwing this up. We’ll find out in November, one way or the other.
Personally, I think the HillaryBeast just decided now was the time to push all in because she wants to demonstrate through her actions that clearly she is in a position of power, even though she’s only holding a pair of sevens. She’s a great power player in the sense of bullying any opponents. I think this stance on gun control is just more of the same. Demonstrate a strong play and hope that people buy into it. If it succeeds, she wins it all. If not, she and Bill can go back to making speeches and live like royalty. What’s to loose? Other than the soul of our country, of course, but when did that ever factor into a Clinton decision?
“Personally, I think the HillaryBeast just decided now was the time to push all in because she wants to”
Disagree. She’s all in because she has no choice. If she loses, resets the narrative in 2020. If she wins, the bluff of two sevens ends whatever America was.
HRC’s pollsters aren’t the least bit concerned with what swing voters in swing states think right now. They know the non committed voters aren’t paying a lick of attention and won’t be until the middle of October. They won’t even remember what she says now. Not that gun control isn’t part of her agenda, but watch, in a couple of months she’ll be crowing about her belief in the 2nd Amendment. For now she’s still wooing Bernie’s brain dead liberal twits.
Gun control has been a dead loser for the Dems, but the demographics have changed. New “Americans” are determined to turn the US into the sh!th0les that they fled, like Mexico, Honduras and Nigeria. Inner city voters are sucking so hard on the public teat that nothing else matters. Women are, well, women, who don’t care about guns because the vast majority of them can’t or won’t fight.
Gun control isn’t a dead loser when the votes of marginalized white males count for nothing.
+1. I had a similar thought: demographics are changing such that the big cities in the major states are democratic party strongholds, and can carry a state no matter what the politics of the fly-over country. See, e.g. Illinois (Chicago), California LA, San Diego and the Bay Area), Washington (Seattle), Connecticut, Massachusetts (Boston and surrounds), New Jersey (Canton and all surrounding cities), New York (NYC), Colorado (Denver), and more and more so Virginia (Alexandria and surrounding suburbs). Oregon is teetering due to increased populations in Salem and Portland. Ohio is still fifty-fifty, despite the solid democrat majorities in Toledo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, etc. As long as the population becomes more urban and less rural, the pressure for gun control will remain strong.
Hence why we must continue to remain vigilant.
“Personally, I think the HillaryBeast just decided now was the time to push all in because she wants to”
Disagree. She’s all in because she has no choice. If she loses, sets a narrative 2020. If she wins, the bluff of two sevens ends whatever America was.
All I can say about the Trace in polite company is a great big ‘meh. Five questions, two of which are stupid, one of which is incredibly racists, and all of it revealing just how low you are looking regarding ‘low information voters.’
In only very slightly related news, one of my local political candidates is running a television commercial calling himself a ‘true progressive’ and takes pride in the fact that he got an F from the NRA and makes it clear that he isn’t in the pocket of the gun lobby. He is the typical ‘true progressive’ in that he has never seen a law he didn’t like. And every mailer I get, and I get one just about every day, includes something about how much he is against guns or the NRA or both.
Well if Hillary wins by promising to raise taxes, never tell the truth, banning guns, put coal miners and frackers out of work, selling the US out to the highest bidder willing to pay her off, having her perv husband in charge of White House interns, flood the country with Islamic terrorists and Latin American gang bangers, triple down on the debt…
My advice about stocking fat and deep is going to pay off big time!
For me, THE question is “Who is responsible to protect me?”
Very simple answer: You.
YOU are responsible for your life, your choices and actions, and your safety. Nobody else.
@ MamaLiberty:
Your answer is spot on and I accept that responsibility. My point in writing what I wrote was to share THE question that every American needs to answer.
Appreciate your reply.
Details matter in this “support for gun control” meme they keep repeating.
When the majority of those surveyed are unfamiliar with current law they very likely are “supporting” something that already exists. The opinion of ignorant people is null.
Add in those who already have theirs and think they can keep whatever group they hate\fear (minorities, poor people, ‘terrorists’, dumb people) from getting theirs and the talking point is empty. You know, Fudds and gated community types.
One of the biggest problems the “gun control” movement has is that very, very few “gun control” proponents care about restricting guns. Sure, if asked, a controller will prefer more laws and bans, but if new laws aren’t passed they really don’t care that much. After all, everyone instinctively knows that such laws merely inconvenience terrorists, criminals, and deranged spree killers- even if such knowledge is suppressed. The laws just disarm law abiding people.
The same can be said of the pro gun side. All else equal, if everyone who thought “gun control” was a bad idea voted accordingly, GCA 68 and probably NFA 34 would be repealed in months.
The difference is that the pro gun, pro civil rights crowd has a much larger remnant of passionate people than the controller crowd.
The controller crowd has one more disadvantage: yell too loudly and people may say to themselves “I like ‘sensible’ gun laws, after all I’m a sensible, civilized person, but why does Michael Bloomberg want us disarmed so badly…it’s kind of creepy, what does he have planned for us”.
Hillary’s pollster knows that she can get away with gun control in the Primaries. Now that we’re in the General, it will be interesting to see how she behaves.
Gun right proponents are idiots though if c they just assume that gun control will be an automatic political loser for Hillary. We must remain vigilant.
Kyle, u nailed it. Gun control is the only issue she is left of bernie on. Now that he is out of the picture, we havent heard nearly as much of her gun rhetoric. Do not get me wrong. She is still talking her gun shit, just not as hardcore as before. Its all about votes, so i doubt we will hear her gun talk as much in the generals. If she wins the chief seat, who knows what she will try to do. I dont even want to imagine.
If Hillary wins, she will have 2+ Supreme Court nominees and we’ll be moving quickly toward a civil war over 2A. (Thomas has already indicated he will retire soon and Ginsberg is older than God already.)
For some, the destruction of 2A will present a Patrick Henry moment. It won’t be pretty.
If Trump wins, he MAY vote to balance the court on the issue and the republic MAY be preserved, but even then there are no guarantees.
I see this issue as kind of a Cuban Missle Crisis redux in slow motion. I’m not sure that we have a crop of politicians smart enough to either see the danger or to pull the country back from the brink as the crisis unfolds.
How’s that for optimism?
Hillary’s war on coal as well as her war on guns may be her undoing in PA. She will carry the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh metro areas no doubt, but she’s losing other democrat strongholds in SW Pennsylvania simply because of her attitude toward coal. Those people know the mines are done, but they can’t stand the distain that Clinton has shown toward their livelyhood. Their identity is very much tied to coal and related industry.
Here are my answers:
A1: No.
A2: No.
A3: A lot.
A4: This is a rhetorical question.
A5: Nothing.
Comments are closed.