Gun Owner Rights Don’t Depend on How Tired Shannon Watts is of Joe Scarborough

By David Codrea

Shannon Watts
“Let's face it, I'm tired.”
David Codrea in his natural habitat.

USA – -(Ammoland.com)-  “I Am Tired of Correcting Joe Scarborough — Gun Safety Is A Winning Issue,” Bloomberg Mom Shannon Watts complains to a sympathetic HuffPo readership. “It is patently false to claim Democrats will see more favorable results by embracing the gun lobby.”

She evidently knows something Bill Clinton did not, and must also have an explanation (besides “the Russians”) for Donald Trump’s electoral wipeout of Hillary Clinton. (Incidentally, she didn’t believe her “husband” either, not that we can blame her.)  But as long as Watts is intent on repeating a denial meme that’s been around for years (Isn’t that what Opposite Day “progressives” do? Recycle failed ideas from the past?), gun owners will happily take a Republican in the White House, controlling both houses of Congress and appointments to the Supreme and federal courts.

“Not only is gun violence prevention supported by a majority of Americans from both parties, but it is also a winning issue,” Watts prattles on undeterred. “ Just last week, Pew Research Center’s new polling came out showing that 84 percent of Americans believe background checks should be required for private gun sales and sales at gun shows. And lo and behold, just 19 percent of gun owners reported being members of the NRA.”

That's some majority!

That 84 percent Watts and other gun-grabbers love to cite manifested itself in Nevada’s Question 1 ballot measure by a less than one percent “victory margin,” losing in every county but heavily-populated Clark. That’s after Boss Bloomberg pumped $20M into the campaign. (And you’d think for that kind of money, they’d be able to come up with something that isn’t unenforceable due to incompetence of the “law’s” drafters.)

That’s not the only place Watts runs aground on funky numbers:  A representative poll could not possibly accurately identify 19 percent of gun owners as NRA members. Anti-gunners would have us believe there are only 55M gun owners (but NSSF says don’t believe declining numbers). So a random sample of self-identified gun owners, factoring in that there are around 5M NRA members (and the antis would have us believe that number is even smaller) would at most include around 10 percent (best case Washington Post scenario, and their agenda is to minimize NRA influence) being members.

A similar disconnect was recently pointed out when The Dallas Morning News admitted they and the rest of the media got the number of “American kids [who] have witnessed a shooting” ludicrously wrong. The problem is, a simple Google search demonstrates how that fake news claim has been repeated without correction and predominates articles influencing public opinion.

As for the survey Watts referenced, disregard that you have probably never participated in one and wouldn’t be inclined to tell a stranger that you owned a gun. And disregard that you probably don’t know anyone who has been shot (outside of a war scenario) despite the survey claim that “(44%) say they personally know someone who has been shot, either accidentally or intentionally.” Let’s stipulate that the survey is correct and the responses accurately indicate preferences expressed by the respondents.

So what?

First of all, if you asked a “Second Amendment absolutist” like me if people with dangerous mental health issues should have access to guns, I and anyone who is sane would say “Of course not.” The reality is, anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. But that’s determined by them being adjudicated a danger to themselves and others after being afforded full due process protections, not on accusations and administrative decisions relying solely on politicized anti-gun shrinks.

Likewise, no one is “for” terrorists having guns (well, except for the terrorists). But again, unsubstantiated allegations from nebulous and subjective sources must not be used to deny due process and fundamental rights — at least that’s what rational and informed people think.  Case in point, some years back I wrote about a citizen placed on the “terror watch list” because he took a giant pink inflatable pig to political rallies.

That, of course, is the gun-grabber M.O. As many gun owners as they can disenfranchise through mere accusations, the better they like it, and they have no shortage of useful idiots helping to spread that message.

The other problem with such surveys: Everyone has opinions. There’s no indication that the respondents have informed ones.  And that's what Watts is counting on.

When asked about background checks, are they aware that the National Institute of Justice’s “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies” observed “Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration,” that criminals are exempt from registration, and that such lists have been used for confiscation? When asked about “assault weapons,” there’s no indication many of them even know what they are (thanks in large part to a media that has consistently been getting it wrong either ignorantly or intentionally.)

Even if the 84 percent number were true, not that long ago, historically speaking, the “majority” was fine with burning Giordano Bruno at the stake for, among other “heresies,” daring to suggest not just that the earth revolved around the sun, but for adding insult to injury by postulating the sun was but one of the stars. Leave it to Opposite Day “progressives” like Watts to embrace that method of gauging public sentiment as a green light to craft laws.

Joe Scarborough
Morning Joe doesn't lean far enough to the left for Shannon.

That sentiment is being further misdirected simply by Watts pitting herself against the controlled opposition.  Representing RINO gun-grabber Joe Scarborough as a model of “conservative” and “pro-gun” excesses allows anyone to “the right” of him to be dismissed as an extremist, which is another M.O.  And that allows them to smear any gun owner rights adovcate more “no compromise” than Wayne LaPierre as a domestic terrorist.

Watts appears to be setting herself up to test her theory in practice.  Having moved (carpetbagged?) to Colorado, she’s eyeing a Congressional seat. It’s in a safe Democrat district, so add in some Bloomberg AstroTurf money and she’ll be able to crow about what a political genius she is, that gun contro … uh … safety is a winning issue, and that the grassroots have spoken.

About David Codrea:

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

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 48 thoughts on “Gun Owner Rights Don’t Depend on How Tired Shannon Watts is of Joe Scarborough

    1. I like David Codrea but

      https://www.ammoland.com/2017/06/gun-owner-rights-dont-depend-on-how-tired-shannon-watts-is-of-joe-scarborough/

      When asked about background checks, are they aware that the National Institute of Justice’s “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies” … misses the point. The issue is not about whether background checks work or not (demonstrably, they do not); the issue the FACT that they 1) convert the RIGHT to keep and bear arms into a revocable government-issued privilege; they violate our 4th amendment right to be secure from search (Form 4473 & NICS) in the absence of probable cause of criminal conduct; they violate our 5th amendment right to be secure from the taking of any of our rights without Due Process (conviction of criminal acts by a Court of Law); they violate our 9th amendment right to be secure from being compelled to give up a right in order to get revocable government permission to exercise a right, and they violate our 10th Amendment right to be secure from federal exercise of authority not Constitutionally delegated and State exercise of authority Constitutionally prohibited to the States.
      The federal government does not even have the authority to license firearm dealers or operate an excessively powerful gun control agency like the ATF. And no background check has ever prevented criminal access to a firearm and was never intended to. The intention of the background checks is to get you to waive every right you have in order to acquire revocable government permission you don’t need, so that when government revokes the permission, you won’t have any rights left to say anything about it.

    2. The challenge I have with people like her is they fundamentally believe it is the firearm that is bad which incites otherwise decent thugs to commit a crime. They do not accept there are just some bad people out there, waiting for ways to infringe your personal safety. Most conservatives tend to be pretty commonsensical people and would go along with “common sense” gun laws. The problem is we have been burned repeatedly by that position. It seems each year they rachet the restrictions up. They pass background checks, ok, next they limit magazine capacity for common sense, ugh, next they limit purchases to one per 30 days, more?, next they ban semiauto rifles for safety. It is a slippery slope that I no longer support with these people. Stand firm.

      1. In everything they say about “evil guns” substitute “holy book” [ Bible, Quran, Tora, whatever] and it can clearly be proven that much of the violence, misery and death for the past 2,500 years has been caused by “evil interprtations” of a holy book.

        Doesn’t even have to be a religious book. Mein Kampf or Karl Marx. Of course they were really religious since they were attacking religion or political structure with “religious fever.”

      2. Yup. This creature is a few watts short of being a lightbulb…. she seems to operate on the “I do what my Rice Krispies Tell Me to Do” mindset, and directs her spews to others of the same ilk.

        So, she’s shifting to Colorado to try and win a seat in the legislature? What would it take to begin a campaign against her in her newly invaded turf? And/or to field a good candidate who can take her down? Perhaps expose some of the blatant lies she repeats, and how she is funded by that BloomingIdiotBurg with the bad case of encephalitis… green encaphalitis, the idea that his head is bigger than it really should be because of all his money.

      3. ” they fundamentally believe it is the firearm that is bad”

        Unfortunately this is not true. Watts and her friends don’t give a damn about firearms, good or bad. They are interested in “people control” and this is just a way to achieve their goals. If it wasn’t guns, it would be something else. Firearms are a mere pretext for their desires to be the elite, the decision makers for the rest of us mere peasants. They may emotionally manipulate some weaker minded people/followers into believing guns are bad, but for themselves and the leadership in the anti-freedom/liberty movement it is just a tool to use.

    3. IT IS INTERESTING Clark country also had thousands of illegals voting Democratic because of the unions. I call it Californian infection.

          1. Nice try! Won’t work… but it was a nice try. Simply CALLING conservatives names (“brainless,” “imbeciles,” etc) does not make such accusations true… however, YOU making those accusations actually guarantees them to be absolutely false!

            Thanks for playing, anyway…

            1. I don’t agree with either one of you, HJoeUSooner, but Joe, I will point out that Jim S calling Californians “such mindless socialists” constitutes name-calling too. Both claims are unresponsive to the issues before us, don’t you agree?

      1. Living in Kommunist kontrolled Kalifornia I get to see everyday how kontroll freaks live and it is not pretty. If people think Kommunism is dead look no father than Kommunist kontrolled Kalifornia, home where the fruit pick some sheeple.

        1. You must think everybody in California is exactly the same. I suppose you believe that somewhere over the rainbow everybody is perfect.

          1. 🙂 I suppose ‘somewhere over the rainbow,’ everybody is indeed ‘perfect,’ but that seems irrelevant to the discussion before us. Samuel Stephens’ comment seems appropriate given the fact that the majority of the people in California elect their demonstrably Marxist government to office. What would be more effective, ‘Shooter,’ would be for you do address the issues rather than the individuals, don’tcha think? You can start by simply stating your issue or agenda or both.

      2. I must take exception to your comments. I am California born and bred, a lifetime resident and lifetime Democrat.
        I am also a lifetime firearms owner, of many different varieties, and have spent a great many wonderful weekends and camping trips in the desert, in the mountains, at the firing range with my beloved firearms. I have been an NRA member on and off throughout my lifetime. I have made a number of donations to the NRA. I have had an membership in the NAGR off and on over the last several years since I became aware of them and have made numerous contributions to them as well .
        I am also an ardent and vocal supporter of FULL Second Amendment rights . “Shall not be infringed upon” means no infringement. PERIOD.
        You conservatives need to learn to stop tarring and feathering every Democrat/liberal as an anti-gun wingnut . Some of us, like me, are very much pro-gun wing nuts.
        And you need to be honest with yourself: about the fact that there are a great many conservative/Republican anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, gun grabbing wingnuts working overtime on dismantling Second Amendment rights and proposing anti-gun laws as rapidly and rabidly as some of the left-wing wingnuts. This goes for conservative politicians and conservative voters alike.
        The problem I have is that just because a person as a Democrat or a so-called liberal does not automatically make them an anti-Second Amendment gun grabbing wingnut.
        The problem is not just Democrats/liberals that are grabbing our guns, Republicans/conservatives are doing it as well, and the battle will never be won as long as only one group of people is being demonized for the sins of people on both sides of the equation.

        1. Then Stupid; STOP being a democrap and voting for them; NONE of them favor gun rights and will ALWAYS vote against your second amendment rights. Pull your head out, flush you brain and learn the truth .

        2. You would have a hard time finding a true conservative who is anti – gun. Those would be what are labeled neo-Cons (like the “I was against the war but I supported the troops” idiots), and RINOs Republicans In Name Only. You say you’re a life long Democrat … sucks to be you. You get tarred with every sh*tty things that the Party of Socialism enacts. Are you a closet Socialist? If not then I would drop the Democratic Socialist People’s Party like a bad habit. You can be as pro – gun as you want, but as long as you vote for a Democrat your actions will never match your words.

        3. Maybe the next time you attempt a name change, you could call yourself Oxymoron. It would save the rest of us from reading your drivel.

        4. ALL of your self aggrandization is fully negated by your life-long support for the party that wants to disarm law-abiding citizens and deny them their Constitutionally guaranteed natural rights. If you really mean what you say, you would never, ever vote Democrat again.

          1. @ JDL – uhhhhhhhh you mean Constitutionally recognized, but God given don’t you? God given means there is no one higher up enough on the food chain to take them away. And Democrats all need to be put on some rat infested ship and set adrift. Don’t worry about the food angle – they tend to eat their own.

            1. Never mind what ‘Grim’ says below; he’s obviously convinced he is a higher authority than He who inspired our founding fathers to create the first nation on Earth to establish private individual rights as superior to the arbitrary whim of wannabe kings and princes and neighborhood political officers and warlords. Those who deny the Hand of God in the affairs of man will never have the strength, the perseverance, or the courage to defend our nation to the death if necessary.

            2. Grim is just gil under an assumed name consider the source and ignore it. He can change his name but the stupid still comes out.

            3. I mean exactly that. What is more natural than God’s gift of life? But mentioning God by name instead of by deed will just distract a liberal off on a tangent and you lose any chance of them seeing your point.

            4. Grim, you really, physically cannot be THAT damnably rock-stupid.

              We do not attribute the 2nd Amendment to God, at least not equivalent to His personal delivery of the etched-in-stone Ten Commandments. We attribute the right to self-defense to God, since it is His intentional design… but the 2nd Amendment is merely our Founding Fathers’ way of ensuring that neither the government nor idiotic, hoplophobic anti-gunners can legally interfere with THAT natural right. That (huge) difference is indeed reality, although you Liberals will never understand it.

            5. You religionists justify your existence and rights to your god, since you cannot concieve of standing on your own two feet. “Those who deny the hand of God…” are stronger than those who rely on a third, make believe, party for their strength and convictions and are contrary to true conservative values. You are no different than Islam, Hindus or others with blind faith, despite the facts that prove otherwise. Get a set and stand tall.

            6. No but indeed If Founding Father were truly Christian they never would have allowed freedom of religion into the U.S. Constitution.

        5. You can spew whatever you want, how many guns you have, what organizations you belong too, etc…etc…, but it amounts to NOTHING when you VOTE for the elitist politicians who seek to nullify the 2A. That is the problem, so take your self righteousness somewhere else because I don’t give a s4$&!

        6. I’m sorry, but you are an idiot. Democrats, by a very large majority, are extremely antigun. Period. You vote for them and you get what you deserve. Game, set, match. Kalifornia is a lost cause and the majority of us want it to vanish into the sea.

      3. Hotels in Las Vegas depend on on cheap labor for laundry and service. The Gaming Commission probably monitors casino labor, so Mexican women and men are cooking food, washing dishes, and laundry.

      4. Perhaps someone should challenge the election results on that basis, overturning it, and demanding the voter rolls be cleaned up to prevent a repeat?

    4. Regarding the vote in Las Vegas for gun control; the large number of illegal aliens working and probably voting in the election is a factor not mentioned.

    5. Its always the same – the Hoplophobes come up with their tired assed old arguments about “common sense” gun laws. The problem is that they fail (Epically!) to understand that human nature will never change. Criminals will never obey laws, crime will continue, victims will continue to get shot, and those Hoplophobes would have us give up our means of self defense. Shannon Watts and her ilk should just shut their collective pie holes and let folks live as they ought to … free to choose what ever type of defense they wish. They need to all go back to their fantasy worlds that they have in their basements, take massive doses of Thorazine and chill out for the rest of time.

      “Blessed be the Lord my rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers to battle.” – Ps. 144

      1. ALL the anti gun nuts need to go back to fantasy island where they can find that utopia they want so bad. They will never find that utopia because of the gangs and the others that want to destroy everything. Yeah that watts needs to get that pinhead of hers out of bloombugs rear end.

          1. “pro-gun changes” to Chicago??????

            First, there haven’t been any PRO-gun changes in Chicago. Despite any “lip-service” by local democrats, the ability and likelihood of average Chicago citizens to 1) obtain firearms, 2) keep firearms in the home, or 3) obtain a license to carry firearms in public… remains – for ALL practical purposes – zero! Any exceptions (which are exceedingly rare) are statistically-irrelevant anomalies when compared to overall numbers.

            Second, those “changes” (even if they were ever to be actually installed) – the ones that you lyingly refer to as pro-gun – ONLY increase the difficulty that responsible citizens face in attempting to defend themselves. Actual criminal behavior – victimizing law-abiding citizens – (including specifically holding criminals responsible for their individual illegal behavior) is not addressed at all.

            Third, NO laws (no changes to statutes, no repeal of existing law) will ever, under any circumstances, END crime. No Liberal will ever understand the fact that moral behavior cannot be legislated (positively or negatively)… never has been, is not now, and never will be. Laws have NO prohibitive effect on behavior… legislation merely prescribes levels of punishment for getting caught breaking socially-acceptable rules. But that is all laws accomplish, at least here in the real world.

            1. So folks like you complain about deaths then complain people can’t get enough guns. How do you know any innocent people are the victim of crime or it’s just gang members mostly killing other gang members? No law-abiding person would want to live a such a high-crime area.

            2. Chicago had a chance for representative government but the IRS put Al Capone in prison. But seriously the Democrat/Daley-Emanuel Machine and often runs the state because Cook County claims half the state’s population.
              BUT Illinois was forced to pass “shall issue concealed carry” by order of the 7th Circuit. The State controls this and it is administered by the State Police.
              There are now 1/4 million Illinois residents licensed to carry.
              Chicago does ban laser sights on handguns and rifles. I guess they watched too many Hollywood movies about lasers.
              Chicago has run all the FFLs out of the City but AFAIK the courts have ruled they can’t do that. Regardless, a Chicago resident can travel 30 minutes west or south and buy pretty much what ever they want.
              The State still won’t accept applications from non-residents for a non-resident license unless you are a resident of one of four states. That is in court.
              If Congress passes HR 38 with the Massie amendment any U.S. Citizen with a state issue license can carry concealed.
              Of course the criminals carry concealed w/o a license, they have nothing to lose.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *