U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Gun safety groups planning to spend millions to turn Texas blue this year are rolling out their first round of ads, which say COVID-19 isn’t the only public health crisis facing the state,” the Houston Chronicle reveals. “Everytown for Gun Safety, the Michael Bloomberg-backed group that plans to spend $8 million in Texas this year, is launching $250,000 in digital ads targeting Republicans…”
“The effort follows a successful bid last year to help Democrats win control of the Virginia statehouse,” the story notes. “But the group plans to spend three times what it spent in Virginia on Texas races.”
Of lesser impact, but nonetheless significant, “BradyPAC … plans to spend more than $500,000 on elections in the state, more than it’s spending anywhere in the nation by far.” And Giffords is using its media platform to push its “slate of gun safety champions in Texas.”
Disregard for a moment that none of these groups are qualified to promote true gun safety. That’s just a euphemism they’ve adopted to mask what they’re really about, citizen disarmament in stages. They learned that lesson back when the National Coalition to Ban Handguns decided that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence sounded less authoritarian and more palatable to the ignorant (and thus manipulable) masses, and the Brady Campaign to Stop Gun Violence reached pretty much the same conclusion to back away from Handgun Control, Inc.
That and they wanted to ban more than handguns.
What the gun-grab groups and the Democrats they’re fronting for are counting on is one of the same key factors that turned Virginia blue: Changing demographics. Now comfortable enough about that reality to brag about it, The New York Times practically crowed about what enabled the political polar shift:
“How Voters Turned Virginia From Deep Red to Solid Blue…Unlike three decades ago, the residents are often from other places, like India and Korea. And when they vote, it is often for Democrats.”
The same holds true for Texas. While the mix of newcomers differs somewhat, their political similarities are remolding the electorate with two main groups bringing about what Barack Obama pegged “a fundamental transformation.”
“Texas, for example, has been the most popular destination for outbound Californians for more than a decade, consistently averaging about 60,000 to 70,000 new Golden Staters per year,” The Atlantic reported in January. “But now the state is at an inflection point, between its history as a ruby-red conservative stronghold and its future as a more mixed state with blue metros and red rural areas. In this context, the next SoCal family that U-Hauls into North Texas isn’t just some nice couple with different taste in barbecue; instead, they’re potentially the demographic straw that breaks the GOP’s back.”
They fouled their nests and now they're coming for yours.
And there’s another factor, as the Public Religion Research Institute documents.
“Demographic Changes in Texas Could Transform the State in 2020,” PRRI observes. “Texas has the fastest-growing population in the U.S., and the influx is not increasing the state’s traditionally white, Christian, Republican population. In 2018, for every white person who arrived in Texas, nearly nine Hispanics relocated to the state.”
We know how most Californians vote and the enabling effect that has on citizen disarmament edicts just by looking at the state’s politics. We also know that a Latino population that became the majority turned the Golden State blue.
That’s a population that according to all observable realities as well as all credible polls is overwhelmingly Democrat and anti-gun. That means “amnesty” and a “pathway to citizenship” for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and legally, with CURRENT culturally suicidal policies) overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners, which is why they’re all pushing for it. And that means if unchecked, it will result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will then be able to pass whatever anti-gun edicts they want while confirming judges who will uphold those edicts and reverse gains made to date.
And yet in spite of this, national and state gun groups are virtually all silent on immigration, and assign “A” grades to politicians who may vote “right” on guns today, but whose “cheap labor” votes will end up undermining it all in the not-too-distant future. It’s the single greatest threat but they don’t even want to admit it because … why? They’ll be called racist and “progressives” won’t like them? That train left the station long ago. In the meantime, they’re enabling the accelerated remaking of the Founders’ Republic into a socialist alien nation.
Besides, it’s not racist to point to numbers compiled and publicized (and even bragged about) from diverse sources, nor to call it like it is.
“But I know plenty of Hispanics who love guns!” is a frequent comment I see offered in rebuttal. Me too. If 80% are anti-gun, that means 20% are not. It's demonstrable that there are immigrants who are superior defenders of the right to keep and bear arms than most gun owners I know, like the great right to arms champion Dr. Miguel Faria, a refugee from Castro’s Cuba who knows firsthand the dangers of where we are heading. That’s why my challenge specifically excludes anecdotes – we’re dealing with the effects of total numbers here.
I could make the same observation about Californians—I lived there for almost 30 years and had the honor to work closely with some of the most dedicated and hardest working RKBA warriors anywhere. They had to be—look at what they’re up against. But that doesn’t change the fact that most Californians will go out there and vote for Gavin Newsom and Nancy Pelosi and cheer the forced disarmament of their fellow citizens and neighbors.
Does observing that make someone “anti-Californian”?
Bottom line: Anyone who tells you gun owners should ignore immigration and exclusively focus on the “single-issue” is either ignorant, a liar, or both. Anyone who disagrees is free to take my challenge. No one has to date because they know they can’t – not without equivocating and trying to change the subject, which they know I’ll call them on.
So where does this leave us? Some call for outreach, and sure, by all means. But it’s a bit late with the way the culture is being terraformed and the national and state groups should have been doing that all this time. We also have to face the reality that resource-limited efforts they put forth are unlikely to result in any significant and timely attitude changes when pitted against generational cultural predispositions, 2A-hostile educational, political and media interests, and stepped-up marginalization/ostracism of “pro-gun” influencers by social media and search engine giants.
The other thing that’s way past due is for gun groups to recognize the single greatest threat to continued legal recognition of the right to keep and bear arms and so inform their members. If a politician can get an “A+” from NRA and an “F-” from Numbers USA, you’ll know the downstream risks he’s placing on gun owners are not being factored into his endorsement. It makes no political sense to hide that. It makes no sense to not mobilize membership and warn someone setting gun owners up for a later fall that he can’t have it both ways, that his conflicting priorities have not gone unnoticed, and that his long-term commitment to us will affect our ongoing commitment to him.
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. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.