Coordinated Anti-Gun Political Blitz Aims to ‘Scare’ Republicans

There's an obvious lesson here about giving gun-grabbers an inch. Why do so many Republicans appear incapable of learning it?

U.S.A. –( “Republicans need to be scared of our movement,” Connecticut Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy declares. “If they don’t see us being coordinated and they don’t see us having the ability to mobilize voters and donors, they’re not going to be that scared.”

If they’re scared, Murphy surmises, if they see Democrats have turned citizen disarmament into a politically-winning issue, more of them will turn their backs on gun owners and start voting with the gun-grabbers. Based on what we’ve seen happen in Florida, he’s got a point. And in Vermont. And elsewhere.

It’s an observable truth that no Democrat can actually be “pro-gun,” but the Republican alternative is becoming increasingly problematic. All those grand promises that were made by “staunch defenders of the Second Amendment” in order to get elected have turned out to be empty words with so many. And as for advancing gun owner interests, anybody see any movement on national concealed carry reciprocity or on hearing protection?

Murphy and his fellow gun-grabbers are, if nothing else, politically savvy. They’ve identified where they can apply some nudges to change the political landscape and spook faint-hearted Republicans to bolt and/or switch sides. They’ve allied themselves with prominent gun-grabbing politicians and groups, Hillary Clinton and Everytown as representative examples, to urge donors to target candidates they call “NR8,” National Rifle Association “A”-rated representatives in districts Clinton won.

Coordinating a 24-hour October 5 fundraising blitz “with a spike in gun-control ads this election cycle” is nothing short of political psychological warfare. And those behind it will crow like hell if they can pull it off, and use that to further erode resolve in remaining red districts.

“Bring it,” some gun owners will say. “We’re not going to vote our way out of this anyway.”

Serial compromises and betrayals that demotivate a growing number of constituents ought to be what really scares Republicans. How stupid do some need to be not to realize they can abandon all principles and act like Democrats, and at the end of the day they’ll still be attacked as fascists, Nazis, racists and haters? All they will have done is alienate their base.

Meanwhile, the enemy—that is, those who would see you disarmed, and destroyed if you resist—is organized, coordinated and well-financed. That’s what it will take to engage them on that ideological battlefield.

It’ll work that way in meatspace, too, where it won’t be anywhere near as easy and things will get really scary.

About David Codrea: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.

  • 17 thoughts on “Coordinated Anti-Gun Political Blitz Aims to ‘Scare’ Republicans

    1. Chris Murphy is a product of a state (Connecticut) that has been controlled by Democrats (Communists) for over 40 years. In that time, they reduced the state into one in the top 5 worst states and took it to the edge of bankruptcy. When he was in the state legislature, he hardly ever showed up for a vote and only showed when it was to diminish the freedoms and security of Connecticut residents. He finally found his weapon to disarm us by virtue of the sad Sandy Hook event. Even now the only time he is heard from is when he is attacking our freedoms. Especially our 2nd Amendment right. Murphy also falsely claims accomplishments that he had nothing to do with. Lastly, he is a card carrying Communist (see the documentary “The Enemies Within”), and his campaigns are funded by the American Socialist Party. He and the other Connecticut senator Richard “Stolen Valor” Blumenthal, are dangerous and evil. But in the end, it is the voters in Connecticut that must take their place in the gutter next to these political sewer rats.

    2. RJL, willy d, douglas k, country boy, and all others commenting on this, “reasons not to carry concealed”, and David’s article on Stick Boy(DH), l give you thanks and a full measure of respect. I come away educated and inspired.

      When l see Republicans caving in, flip-flopping, and taking money from gun-grabber groups, l wonder why l should reward them with my vote. Doesn’t mean l won’t give them that vote but more about the uneasy feeling l have doing it. Voting Democrat is unthinkable!

      Thanks to David Codrea, especially!!!

      1. Why? All these dem politicians have government/taxpayer paid for armed bodyguards that carry the same fully auto weapons that, We The People, are banned from owning. And they have the Secret Service at their disposal too…..and the dems know it.

        The DNC’s stance on gun ownership: Guns are for me, but not thee.

    3. It is great to try to get the Demo-Rats out of office, but the Republicans have to grow a big set of BALLS and a BACK-BONE to go with them, they also have to learn to fight to win not cave-in, the Demo-Rats have learned this and mastered it!!!!!!!!!!!!

    4. More simply put, Just know that Murphy will not show up to protect you if you are ever robbed or criminally assulted. Even the police can’t show up until AFTER your dead. Stay armed. Stay aware. Practice.

    5. “The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale.
      Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.
      In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.

      Many of those in favor of oppressive firearms legislation are best classed as elitists. Elitists frequently identify with a peer group based on wealth, power, rank, social status, occupation, education, ethnic group, etc. and perceive themselves and their peers as inherently superior to and more responsible than the “common people”, thus more deserving of certain rights. Since elitists practically consider those outside their class or caste as members of another species, that most anti-elitist list of laws, the Bill of Rights is viewed by them as anathema. Naturally, the Second Amendment is their first target as it serves as the supporting structure for other nine amendments.

      Another type of individual who favors the restriction of private gun ownership is the authoritarian. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement. Those with authoritarian personalities function well in symbiosis with elitists occupying positions of power. Because authoritarians repress their desires for autonomy they harbor a deep resentment toward free and independent thinkers. Of course, authoritarians do not want firearms in the hands of the general population as this constitutes a major obstacle to fulfilling their pathological and obsessive desire to control people.

      It goes without saying that career criminals would like to see the public disarmed for obvious reasons. A well-armed population makes crimes such as assault, robbery, and burglary hazardous for the perpetrator and this is bad for “business.” Also, even non-violent or “white collar” criminals live in constant fear of retribution from the public that they financially bleed and would therefore prefer that the public be disarmed. Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be gathered by studying the Second Amendment voting records of those legislators who have been convicted of willful misconduct.

      Cowards are easily or excessively frightened by things and situations that are recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful. It therefore stands to reason that the mere thought of guns and the circumstances in which they are employed causes them abnormal amounts of stress. Rather than admit their weakness to themselves or others, some fearful types jump on the anti-gun bandwagon and purport moral superiority to those “barbaric” enough to employ lethal force against armed assailants by claiming various humanitarian and pragmatic motives for allowing evil to remain unchecked. Many of these individuals harbor an envy induced resentment toward anyone with the means, skill, and will to successfully stand up to criminal aggression.
      The desire to assert oneself exists in nearly everyone, wimps included, so cowards seek out tame enemies against whom they can ply their pitiful brand of machismo. Instead of the sociopaths who commit acts of wanton aggression with guns, guns themselves and responsible gun owners are the main targets of their attacks. After all, real criminals are dangerous, so cowards prefer doing battle with inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own and decent law-abiding people whose high level of integrity and self-discipline prevent them from physically lashing out against mere verbal assailants, however obnoxious they may be.

      Ideological chameleons follow the simple social strategy of avoiding controversy and confrontation by espousing the beliefs of the people in their immediate vicinity or advocating the philosophy of those who scream the loudest in a debate. Quite a few supposedly pro Second Amendment public officials have shown themselves to be ideological chameleons when they supported restrictions on the private possession of military style semiautomatic rifles following recent atrocities in which such firearms were employed. Like their reptilian namesake, people who merely blend in with the ambient philosophical foliage seem to have little insight into the moral and social ramifications of their actions. Political and/or economic gain along with avoidance of confrontation are their only goals.

      Security monopolists are those members and representatives of public and private security providing concerns who want the means of self-protection out of private hands so that they can command high fees for protecting the citizenry against the rising tide of crime. These profiteers stand to lose a great deal of capital if citizens can efficiently defend themselves. To the security monopolist, each criminal who enters and exits the revolving door of justice is a renewable source of revenue providing jobs for police, social workers, victim counsellors, judges, prison employees, security guards, burglar alarm installers, locksmiths, and others employed by the security monopolies or their satellite organizations. No wonder it is so common for an honest citizen to be more ruthlessly hounded by the authorities when he shoots a criminal in self-defense than a criminal who shoots honest citizens.

      Just as a limb will weaken and atrophy if not used, so will aspects of the mind fail to develop if nothing in one’s environment exists to challenge them. People who have led excessively sheltered lives tend to have a difficult time understanding certain cause and effect relationships and an even harder time appreciating just how cruel the world can be. These dysfunction ally unworldly types are truly perplexed at the very notion of firearms ownership regarding defense. To them, tyranny and crime are things that happen in other places far removed from their “civilized” universe. Also, they do not understand the value of private property and why some people would fight for theirs since they never had to work hard to acquire what they possess. While those suffering from dysfunctional unworldliness are most often people who have been born into considerable wealth, this condition is also common in members of the clergy, academicians, practioners of the arts, and others who have spent much of their lives cloistered in a safe and pampering environment. While many of these people may be quite talented and intelligent in some ways, their extreme naivety makes them easy prey for the tyrants who use them for the financial support and favorable advertisement of their regimes. The anti-gun movement is well represented and financed by the dysfunction ally unworldly.
      The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it behooves all vigilant lovers of liberty to know and be able to recognize the various types of arms prohibitionists and understand their differing but equally dangerous motives. Acquiring knowledge of one’s foes is the first step toward defeating them. We must never forget that a threat to private firearms ownership is a threat to all freedoms.
      The inalienable and fundamental right to keep and bear arms which is enumerated by (but predates) the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting, gun collecting, or target shooting. Its purpose is to ensure that every responsible American personally possesses the means to defend the Republic from all forms of tyranny, within and without. It is what permits the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights to be more than mere hollow phrases on a piece of paper. Its free exercise is the antithesis of serfdom and the only meaningful form of holocaust insurance known to man.
      We must never insult and degrade the spirits of our Founding Fathers by permitting the Second Amendment, the pillar of freedom, to be destroyed by the cold flame of legislative ink”.

    6. If you want something done about the violence, you need to vote out the communist democrats like Murphy. He would sell your freedoms down the road. You need to vote in primaries to get rinos out next time. I think a few went this time around. You should never give a inch on your freedoms,cause the communist will try to take ten miles.Just look at the Supreme Court hearing bullshit.If you watched that an still vote for communist democrats,you really don’t belong in America.

      1. It’s not just about violence, but that is a large component of their screed. Their primary goal is to disarm citizens so that they may impose their dictates with impunity.

        “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” – Vladimir Lenin …

        Negotiating with a liberal is incremental surrender.

      2. @ D Kuykendall, your last sentence makes a world of sense. The way Judge K. and his family was worked over is unbelievable and inhumane.There is absolutely no reason for that to happen to anyone. Someone actually sent these democrats to D.C. to destroy our country and if it does happen they will live in poverty and be subjects of the elite. They don’t deserve to part of our government and maybe not even a third world country. They have no value for people or their lives.

    Leave a Comment 17 Comments