Lott’s Response to Demographic Impact on 2nd Amendment Silent on Immigration

By David Codrea

Obama and Hillary Laugh it up
What do Obama and Hillary know that “pathway to citizenship” Republicans and the NRA ostensibly do not?
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

Manasquan, NJ –-(Ammoland.com)- Demographic Death' of NRA Just Another Big Media Myth,” economist, author and Crime Prevention Research Center Founder and President John Lott writes in a “Perspective” piece for Investors Business Daily.

He’s addressing a Washington Post analysis by UCLA School of Law Professor and author Adam Winkler, which claims changing demographics will diminish the National Rifle Associations’ political influence.

We don’t know true gun ownership rates and how they have changed because we can’t rely on people admitting true gun ownership to pollsters, Lott argues.  What we do know is “concealed handgun permits and gun sales have soared.”

We also see support for “gun control” has fallen in spite of currently experienced demographic changes, more people believing they are safer with a gun in the home, and a rise in urban gun ownership, including among blacks, Lott tells us.

So Winkler’s premise has been thoroughly discredited and he’s been soundly thrashed and unceremoniously sent packing, right?

I wish. And while Winkler’s conclusion (that NRA needs to get even squishier) reflects academic wishful thinking insulated from “We Will Not Comply” enforcement realities, the demographic threat he identifies that will enable legislative and judicial evisceration of government-recognized gun rights has been completely ignored in Lott’s rebuttal. Lott does not address growing anti-gun populations, particularly as reflected by Hispanics and Asians, who poll overwhelmingly (up to 80%) anti-gun and Democrat. Completely unmentioned are the effects tens of millions of legal immigrants and illegal immigrants given amnesty will have in conjunction with the “pathway to citizenship” being mapped out by vote-seeking Democrats and cheap labor Republicans.

In truth, by stating a reality the establishment would rather we not notice, Winkler has given us an unintended gift. Rather than rejecting his thesis outright, we ought to seize on it and use it to defend against the biggest threat facing gun owners: Politically-motivated policies encouraging massive immigration leading to citizenship.

The question Lott could have addressed, but did not, is how are all these people he and Winkler are talking about voting?  Are “pro-gun” urban blacks shifting to the Republicans in significant numbers? When can we expect a majority? Ditto for Asians and Hispanics. Just because someone answers a gun poll question in a way generally favorable to gun ownership doesn’t mean they’re going to vote for anyone but Hillary. Besides, even Obama says he believes in the Second Amendment.

When the new citizens do vote Democrat, expect that to result in an unchallengeable majority. Expect federal courts where future confirmations will result in a reversal of Heller, which was only 5 – 4 in the first place.

Expect the only choices left to gun owners being to surrender and obey, or to assume the risks of civil disobedience.

Lott is more than capable of coming up with credible numbers to tell us why an unchecked tide of foreigners, coupled with a push to make them citizens, will not result in (politically) unbeatable Democrat majorities – something others can then test and validate.  I wish he would, because, his “Debacle” co-author, NRA director and immigration proponent Grover Norquist, has instead focused on joining forces with Michael Bloomberg’s amnesty-pushing Partnership for a New American Economy.

There’s a reason why Bloomberg believes that will advance his interests. There’s a reason why the Department of Homeland Security under Obama is “turning foreigners into citizens as quickly as possible.”  There’s a reason why Hillary vows she’ll go farther than Obama.

While Democrats are obviously behind an engineered infusion of new citizens in order to assure their ascendancy to power, NRA, which has reportedly spent millions of dollars alerting members to tangentially-related concerns that depart from its “single issue” when that serves its purposes, refuses to even mention immigration, let alone admit it's a relevant concern. If they did, they would then have to reevaluate “A” ratings of establishment Republicans like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan, and resultant downgrading could upset relationships. So it’s not surprising that a recent fundraising email warns “If we lose the Presidential election to an extremist anti-gunner like Hillary Clinton … our Second Amendment rights and our guns are as good as gone,” yet NRA won’t even bring up the major card Clinton and the Democrats are playing to “fundamentally transform” the electorate.

Unfortunately, many gun owners still appear to be dismissing Winkler outright simply because he’s a “progressive,” selectively ignoring polls they don’t like (while citing those they do), or offering anecdotes about seeing people from all demographics at gun stores, shows and ranges. There's also no shortage of unsubstantiated opinions about how people will behave once they “taste freedom.” None of that addresses the questions that ultimately matter: How do ethnic and immigrant populations currently vote and what are the data-based probabilities the influx of immigrants is going to pull a major reversal?

Sure, some will turn out to be “pro-gun.” Some will even join NRA. But the overwhelming majority – according to all credible evidence – will vote to strengthen the other side. Based on what is observable, what will be the likely net effect to future laws and court decisions?

If anyone wants to take that on, including John Lott, Grover Norquist or an official spokesperson for the NRA, please share what evidence you have — not anecdotes, not opinions, not platitudes, but conclusions others can independently corroborate — that the new citizens being recruited by the administration will not be overwhelmingly supportive of Democrats, a party that includes “gun control” as part of its official platform.  Because I would love to be able to stop worrying about this, admit I was wrong and apologize to all concerned for ever doubting them.

Just make sure your numbers account for what’s happened and is still happening in California.

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and also posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 21 thoughts on “Lott’s Response to Demographic Impact on 2nd Amendment Silent on Immigration

    1. “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.”-
      Benjamin Franklin.
      We’re not voting our way out of this, folks. The whole point of the structure of our Republic is so that a majority cannot threaten the rights of even the smallest minority. That would be you and/or I, in extreme cases. This is why each of us has been Constitutionally guaranteed our God given right to defend ourselves and/or others who are threatened by anyone. This is the entire argument; all the rest is smoke and mirrors used in attempts to distract, confuse, and ultimately disarm and oppress/rule you. If you snooze, you lose…big time. Keep your powder dry, keep stackin’, and keep practicing. “Common sense” gun control means multiple rounds through the same hole…

      1. Bravo, Tiger Talker! Great excuse for doing nothing!

        Of course it’s not enough just to vote. You have to organize, volunteer, donate, sacrifice. But it’s so much easier to blab about how you’ll be there for us, right behind us, “when TSHTF”, when you wouldn’t lift a finger to repel an invasion when there was no risk to yourself.

    2. Lott is in denial. These immigrants will put leftists in power and they will rape the First and Second Amendments.

    3. The next Governor of the State of California will be either Newsom or Villa-Rigosa, both are rabidly anti-gun. Jerry Brown vetoed several anti-gun bills, this will not happen with the next governor. We in California are facing draconian anti-gun legislation, no more bullet buttons, no more semi-auto rifles, criminalization of magazine possession, curtailment of our ability to buy ammo, gun parts, etc. California is a perfect signal of what is to come for the rest of America thanks to uncontrolled immigration. I sincerely believe Donald Trump is our only, last hope. Not only to stop illegal immigration but also to stop the 1.75million/yr legal immigrants (Thank you Teddy Kennedy – 1965 immigration act). Our culture, our country is being destroyed right before our eyes. Wake up America!

        1. Clark Kent says: ‘Soap box, ballot box, cartridge box’ – Abraham Lincoln.

          ….

          “Yeah, that’s nice. The problem with unsourced internet quotes is that any delusional chatroom warrior wannabe resistor can just make them up. WOOO!!! WOOVERINES!!!”
          – Abraham Lincoln, April 15, 1865 email to Union Troops

            1. Thanks. Wikipedia actually has the alleged Miller quote as “There are three and only three ways to reform our Congressional legislation, familiarly called, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box”. “Citation needed”, indicating that even that quote is suspect.

              Three and only three is almost four. However, for the past 20 years true conservatives and real Republicans have relied excessively on the soap box, at the fatal expense of grossly neglecting to organize and use the power we already had — hard-corps focused organizational use of the ballot box. Virtually all the conservative talking heads are guilty of gross neglect of this massive potential duty and power, which is why, for example, the Tea Party is a co-opted circle joke and why Karl Rove and his ilk had a nearly clean sweep in the 2014 Republican primaries. That’s unfortunate because, had conservatives not neglected that power, we would not be poised on the precipice of losing the USA. But it crosses the line from unfortunate to repugnant when chatroom commandos use cartridge box “tiger talk” as a convenient excuse for gross dereliction of the citizen’s moral duty to take direct personal responsibility to organize, volunteer for and donate directly to effective election campaigns to hold politicians accountable and save the Republic peacefully.

      1. Well said. I think you may have misspelled one of those names, though. I believe the correct spelling is Vivalaraza.

    4. The fastest growing population of gun owners in California is Latinos. They have a love a fair with the AR.

      So before I make my point, how many of the Friend’s of the NRA volunteer groups have reached out to the Latino or other communities? My group has and were adding one or more Latino members this year to help in that out reach.

      So here is a point you’re missing. All these new emigrants….. they are pro-life and pro family values. Their natural home if the GOP. But you NEED to reach out and explain why. Do you HONESTLY think the 3 million new immigrates to California are pro abortion? Give the move by the far left in America to destroy the Catholic church we might find we have more in common with these new Americans that we think. These new Americans are pro family values and LOVE their ARs!

      Help them onto the fold.

      1. Anecdotes to not make valid population statistics and preferences. The Latino community is rapidly growing in California, so OF COURSE they’re the most rapidly growing segment of gun owners, even while the Latino community has handed California to the Dems. So what? It’s totally consistent with Codrea’s point that Latinos will do vote, and will continue to vote, overwhelmingly Democrat.

        Correction: They SHOULD be voting overwhelmingly pro-life, pro-family values, pro-gun, and pro-liberty, but the REALITY is that they overwhelmingly VOTE vote the opposite. Clearly those are not the priorities of the vast majority, and no amount of delusional wishful thinking based on ridiculous anecdotes makes it not so. And sense when are Catholics “naturally” conservative, especially immigrant Catholics? Check party affiliation. Check the subversive leadership of the Catholic Church. Check REALITY. More wishful thinking. Immigrant Catholics, whether they’re “naturally” pro-life or not, don’t prioritize it. They VOTE DEMOCRAT, which means they VOTE for partial birth abortion on demand.

        Just because someone SHOULD understand something doesn’t mean they do. Otherwise, Jews would be the most pro-gun Americans of all.

        The Members Councils have had 20 years to change that, yet California is overwhelmingly Democrat and anti-gun due to over-immigration and the invasion-occupation, and able to pass virtually any gun control they please. (However, the pathetic failure of the Members Councils to engage in any effective electoral politics to halt the destruction of California would be a little less obvious had the vampires who run the NRA not sucked hundreds of millions of dollars out of California, stuffing it in their pockets in the form of outrageous salaries and sweetheart contracts and donations to Democrats and RINOs and lobbyists.)

        It’s not a choice between trying to help immigrants into the fold vs halting government-assisted invasion and suicidal over-immigration. Both must be done.

    5. Winkler wants to pretend the 2nd Amendment doesn’t exist, I want to bump into Scarlett Johannson and find out she has a thing for middle-age bald guys…everyone has their unattainable fantasies.

      1. Really. Unattainable fantasies. So the idea that the Democrats are in solid control of California is just a fantasy. In reality it’s still a conservative Republican state with respect for gun rights, no traffic jams, and affordable land. Genius! Just suspend disbelief and all your dreams come true.

    6. Dr. Lott needs to shove Los Angeles and California up into his “cheap labor” Left-“Libertarian” open-immigration happy meal model, spin it around, and see what comes out. His own alma mater is UCLA, aka University of *California* at *Los Angeles*. I wonder if he’s ever returned to LOST Angeles? If so, was he wearing a blindfold? One that filters out any empirical evidence that open immigration isn’t such a tasty sandwich after all?

      It’s no secret to any sentient being that California was already going off like bad carne 20 years ago thanks to the Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act Trojan Horse and the 1986 Reagan-Simpson-Mazzoli reformnesty, and it’s no secret other states are poised to do the same for the same reason.

      1. You make ad hominem attacks but don’t address the problem cited. That gets us nowhere. If immigration continues at this unabated rate we have two choices, both daunting, either stop it or educate those coming in. Neither is cheap, easy or doable in a short period of time and will require a massive effort.

        1. Vanns40: “You make ad hominem attacks but don’t address the problem cited.”

          What ad hominem attack would that be? Is the massive empirical evidence of California and LOST Angeles an ad hominem attack? Your false claim is itself an ad hominem attack, a diversion to evade the evidence.

          “If immigration continues at this unabated rate we have two choices, both daunting, either stop it or educate those coming in.”

          False choice. There is no reason we can’t do both. Stop the over-immigration and invasion-occupation, cut back to the kind of non-suicidal levels and criteria we enjoyed from the 1920s under Coolidge through the 1950s under Eisenhower, and also educate those who are here. Of course, the “cheap labor” crowd wants to put up false choices like yours as a pathway to preemptive surrender. You assist the takeover of the USA, permanent cultural and political terraforming by over-immigration and invasion-occupation, and then you tell the victims it will all be a happy meal if only we get with the program and educate the tidal wave you inflicted on us.

          “Neither is cheap, easy or doable in a short period of time and will require a massive effort.”

          First off, the arrogance and hubris to think you can let ultimately hundreds of millions of immigrants in who lean Democrat, anti-gun, etc, — an ultimately overwhelming percentage compared to the native born electorate — and tell them the “right” way to vote, expect to “educate” them to vote the way you want them to, tell them what’s really good for them. The prudent bet for setting immigration policy is that they will import their cultures and continue to vote the way they want to, the way they have – overwhelmingly DEMOCRAT.

          The smaller the number brought in, the easier to assimilate, and the less damage done if you can’t bring a majority over the “right” side in a short enough time frame.

          Suppose we repel the invasion and cut net immigration back to between zero and 200k/year for another 40 years, to give ourselves some breathing room and time to assimilate. And, suppose I’m wrong, i.e., that we actually could’ve quickly brought the majority of 100 million or more immigrants and invader-occupiers to the conservative Republican, pro-gun side. If I’m wrong, no harm done. Indeed, the worst that happens is AMERICANS avoid turning the USA into a Darwinian rat race inside a sardine can inside a banana republic or even an Islamic State. We would enjoy vastly improved quality of life, cost of living, standard of living, job opportunities, real wages, real wealth per capita, liberty, security, freedom of movement, open spaces, elbow room, affordable land, etc.

          Alternately, suppose we embrace your false choice of over-immigration and invasion-occupation, and bring in 100 million people in 10 years in order to appease and “reach out” to the tail that you turned into the dog. And suppose you’re wrong. Suppose that as hard as we try, they still vote overwhelmingly Democrat. If you’re wrong, you will have executed the USA for a happy meal theory, for “cheap labor”, for pandering. Plus we get to live like rodents treading water in the teeming, high-density, go-go, continuous-struggle, treadmill ideal that the open-immigration crowd has already inflicted on us — only times 10.

          As to how hard it will to enforce the sovereignty and rights of the USA and our citizenry. Just because it’s hard to save the USA from invasion-occupation-takeover doesn’t mean we should preemptively surrender. Of course it will be much harder after 50 years of accelerating betrayal and subversion by the “cheap labor” crowd, but it must be done or we don’t have a country. The people flaunting difficulty as a self-serving excuse for surrender are the very ones whose subversion and betrayal of their fellow citizens caused the problem in the first place. In order to continue their ever increasing supply of “cheap labor”, in order to pay invaders and immigrants a dollar an hour less than they would have to pay the 125 million Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, or on welfare, in order to create demand for their own businesses at the massive expense of their fellow citizens, they are using the same tired excuses to lock down what is in all likelihood the irreversible destruction of the native-born citizenry’s voting control of the USA. These are the same excuses they were using 30 years ago when the invasion could’ve been easily reversed.

          But it really won’t be that hard to reverse the invasion.

          Much of the success of the invasion-occupation is not due to any inherent enforcement difficulty, the porous border excuse, etc. It’s due to active, pervasive, relentless subversion of enforcement at all levels of government, federal, state and local. Sanctuary cities. Catch & release. “Birthright” citizenship. etc., etc., etc. The excuses are used to cover the subversion.

          Secondly, millions would very likely be forced to self-deport with some adjustments to law. Among many examples, e-verify, abolishing tax-deductability of payments to invaders, abolishing government services and entitlements to illegals, abolishing “birthright” citizenship.

          Moreover, Eisenhower repelled a smaller but still massive invasion with just 1,075 border patrol agents and a tiny budget. No wall, no e-verify, no high-tech surveillance, no national ID, no exit visas, and none of the other excuses every subsequent president has used to justify gross dereliction and subversion of our most fundamental national defenses — our borders and immigration controls. Eisenhower simply honored his oath to defend and faithfully execute, fired the corrupt immigration officials who were collaborating with the invasion, hired loyal Americans to replace them, and started deportations. Virtually all the illegals were deported or self-deported to avoid arrest.

          Most of the “difficulty” could be resolved if our “leaders” WANTED to repel the invasion-occupation-takeover instead of wanting to assist it.

          1. Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback” program would be stopped by the courts before it ever got started today and today no President would even attempt it. Through your very long diatribe did you miss the part in my relatively short reply that one of the solutions was to stop the influx? I believe that’s the same point you made and I did it with considerably more brevity.

            1. Sure thing, genius. Great excuse for preemptive defeatism and surrender, so we don’t even try to repel the invasion-occupation-takeover of the USA. Way to evade inconvenient issues you’re not equipped to address!

              Don’t be coy. Why not be honest and admit you don’t want them deported?

    Comments are closed.