Ammo For Sale

« « Gun Porn | Home | Life in the future » »

One would think

NRA-ILA:

It would be nice to think that with a pro-gun president and pro-gun majorities in Congress, statehouses, and governors mansions across the country, the battle to secure the Second Amendment is won. But as long as decent, law-abiding gun owners are blamed for the acts of deranged murderers, the battle can never end.

Instead, no action for the pro rights side. But Chuck Grassley wants to ban bump stocks. And Trump’s pentagon pick says it’s insane you can buy the most popular sporting rifle in America.

6 Responses to “One would think”

  1. Paul Koning Says:

    Republican majority and Republican president, yes. But it doesn’t follow that the majority or the president are “pro gun”.
    While it’s obvious that Democrats are anti-gun as a matter of principle and no sane gun owner would ever vote for any Democrat, the converse does not hold. Some Republicans are pro gun. A very few act properly on principle; some more act properly because they figure they have to in order to get re-elected. But a bunch of them don’t want civilians with guns, and have no interest at all in supporting a pro gun agenda. The only different with Democrats is that these republicans aren’t so blatant about it.

  2. Jonathan Says:

    But, but, but, the NRA told me that Trumpster Fire was the last defense against the ebil “gun control” horde!

  3. Paul Koning Says:

    True after a fashion. As I said, the Republicans will do the right thing part of the time, as opposed to their opponents who aim to the the wrong thing all the time.

  4. JTC Says:

    “Trump’s pentagon pick”

    Actually “nominee for assistant secretary of defense for health affairs.”

    Not really a position DT would have likely had a personal hand in is it?

    Pretty typical attitude for most medical types, but injecting that bias and then saying it’s “not his area of responsibility or expertise” pretty much says he doesn’t want the job anyway.

    Careful you don’t pick up the nasty msm method of using misleading, partial or half truths as a lead…aka fake news.

  5. Paul Koning Says:

    He’s the chief executive, the nominee would be in his chain of command. That makes him accountable, whether he personally interviewed the fool or not.
    As for medical people who apply pseudo-medical arguments to subjects they have no knowledge of, there is a term for them: “quack”. Unfortunately there are a lot of them in the government; the CDC is notorious for this.

  6. JTC Says:

    Paul K, agreement with all of that but the statement regarding a lower-level functionary was made in such a way as to imply personal choice and approval and intentionally cast aspersions on a prez who has not done or said one single thing against the rights and interests of 2A proponents…as DT himself might say, “very unfair!”.