Top Navigation  
U.S. Flag waving
Office Hours Momday - Friday  8 am - 5 pm Pacific 1-800-835-2418
Facebook   YouTube   Twitter
 Home Page
 Current Issue
 Article Index
 Author Index
 Previous Issues

 Kindle Subscriptions
 Kindle Publications
 Back Issues
 Discount Books
 All Specials
 Classified Ad

 Web Site Ads
 Magazine Ads

 BHM Forum
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address

Forum / Chat
 Forum/Chat Info
 Lost Password
 Write For BHM

Link to BHM

Living Freedom by Claire Wolfe. Musings about personal freedom and finding it within ourselves.

Want to Comment on a blog post? Look for and click on the blue No Comments or # Comments at the end of each post.

Claire Wolfe

Gottlieb the traitor

Sunday, April 14th, 2013

He’s always been … well, I’d rather not say the words. Earlier this year he was willing to sell out Washington state gun owners. He failed at that.

But he’s just backed the sell-out Manchin-Toomey bill.

Oh yeah, look at all the “benefits” it’s going to give gun owners. It’s like putting warm “showers” in the concentration camps.

I am absolutely frosted and flabbergasted by political activists and lobbyists who don’t understand how government really works.

ADDED: ‘Nother loving appreciation of Gottlieb from Rivrdog.

And more. It appears Gottlieb’s not only misrepresenting both current and proposed law, but may have had his staffers help write the &^%$##@! bill.

Unspeakable. Un&^%$#ingspeakable.

33 Responses to “Gottlieb the traitor”

  1. topofthechain Says:

    So you’d rather not have the guy who partners with Alan Gura having a seat at the table?

  2. Joel Says:

    Deep breaths, Claire. Deeeeep breaths.

    TotC: Maybe she’d just rather have those people who bill themselves as the saviors of gun rights turn around and shaft us, just so they can get their fifteen minutes of feeling included in the process. I do not understand why some people can’t grasp the concept that there’s no such thing as a little bit raped.

  3. Old Printer Says:

    It’s not specifically what Gottlieb is compromising on that is important. It is the fact that he is legitimizing their unconstitutional power grab by dealing with them. That is what they are after. Rand called it the sanction of the victim. Alan Gottlieb is a worthless piece of shit. (Sorry Claire.)

  4. Kevin Wilmeth Says:

    Oh joy. We’s gettin’ Rugered all over agin!

    Deep breaths, for sure, but man, I sympathize.

    I think what kills me the most about the whole thing is this inexplicable faith that all we need to restrain the onslaught against human rights…is a law.

    In a sane world, that’s a damn Onion headline.

  5. Woody Says:

    I don’t understand why you are so shocked. Gottlieb has been a traitor to the cause for a _long_ time. Remember the Washington State ” Lock Up Your Safety Bill” that he supported?

    “I am absolutely frosted and flabbergasted by political activists and lobbyists who don’t understand how government really works.”

    He knows exactly how government works and has been playing it to his personal advantage for a long time. A close look into his background reveals that he is in the gun rights movement only for his personal gain. Lots of people from Washington and elsewhere seem to think he is the savior of gun rights, I’ve never understood why.

  6. Woody Says:

    I found this in the comments over at the PAGun Blog. (Thanks Andy B.) It’s from 1994. I’d be interested in knowing if anything in the article is not true.

  7. Bear Says:

    Back in February, I pointed out that no matter how his backing of the Washington state legislation turned out, he’d set the precedent of a “name” backing preemptively-prove-your-innocence. A precedent that _would_ be used against us on the national level. Gottlieb never denied that (yes, I was corresponding with him on the matter). I only missed the part where it would be Gottlieb himself screwing us over.

    Sadly, I’m seeing a lot of useful idiots who agree with the [censored, deleted, expurgated, bleep] [that’un, too] that begging — and paying! — for permission to exercise a human right is a good price for a “guarantee” that they won’t record those transactions… again. This time. Like they’ve done before.

    Even assuming this “compromise” passes as Gottlieb wrote it (his claim*)…

    If he gets his web-based “blind” BIDS, the server itself will write log files of every transaction, even if the database app does not. Then all it takes is one little amendment to a budget bill, slipped in during conference and never voted on, to “allow” recording transactions “to allow sellers to confirm that they properly conducted background checks, for their own protection”. And — well would you look at that! — we seem to have web server log file backups of previous transactions, so we can protect sellers from before the effective date of this new legislation; isn’t that nice of us?

    It’s a human freaking right. You don’t compromise away rights. You especially don’t compromise away rights for provisions the feds historically violate anyway.

    * “I and our CCRKBA attorney lobbyist had a hand in influencing and writing parts of it.” (

  8. Bear Says:

    Aside: Does anyone know where Faux Snooze and other lamestream muddia outlets are getting the national reciprocal carry claim? It isn’t Manchin-Toomey amendment that I pulled off Toomey’s senate web site. Is thee another version floating around somewhere? If I’m going to fight this bill, I want to be sure I’m aiming at the language that really will be used against us; I need the right copy.

  9. Pre-press veteran Says:

    Bear, it would appear that different “recipes” of the Toomey-Manchin abomination are beginning to surface, as well as different amendments. That’s probably where this falls…

    and it conveniently supports the idea of “national registry/database”… does it not?


  10. IndividualAudienceMember Says:

    The why? I frequently think of this title when I ponder the ‘why’:

    The Fuzzy Logic Of Useful Idiots

  11. Old Printer Says:

    The final bill won’t be aired until one day before the vote. It’s reported to be 1500 pages. Sound familiar? Obamacare when finally voted in was less than 1000 pages, but with implementing regulations still being written it is now up to about 20,000 pages.
    So, let’s get this straight: the socialized medicine bill which ends up regulating 1/6 of the entire economy was enacted with 1000 pages, and the 2nd Amendment Nullification Act of 2013 will be 1500 pages.

  12. Bear Says:

    OP, I think you’re mixing up bills. Every variant of S.649 I’ve found so far runs 43-44 pages in PDF. The “immigration” bill is being widely touted as 1500 pages.

    I hope you’re mixing up bill, anyway.

  13. Matt, another Says:

    Would you rather have John McCain?

  14. Claire Says:

    “Would you rather have John McCain?”

    Would [anybody] rather have John McCain — than what? McCain is already on record as supporting more gun control (and this bill, specifically, I believe). So we’ve got both him and Gottlieb, working hand-in-hand to turn rights into privileges.

  15. Claire Says:

    Kevin Wilmeth — “Rugered all over again!” Ain’t that the truth? And well-said as usual.

    I liked your blog on this a lot.

    Seems Joel did, too: ;-)

  16. Claire Says:

    topofthechain wrote: “So you’d rather not have the guy who partners with Alan Gura having a seat at the table?”

    I’ve been thinking about this since I read it early this morning.

    The short answer is that if the “guy who partners with Alan Gura” tries to trade away a right for a handful of revocable privileges, then NO, he has absolutely no “place at the table” claiming to represent the views of gun owners.

    The slightly longer answer is that the phrase “place at the table” is virtually always used as a means of trading rights away. Do you really believe that making a Charles Schumer bill slightly more palatable, and therefore more likely to get votes, is a means of increasing freedom?

    It’s a sellout, pure and simple. And no talk of “compromise” changes that.

    Also — bottom line, Gottlieb has always been about Gottlieb, money, and the main chance. I’ve come to believe that any actual good he’s done for gun rights is nothing but a side effect to the overarching goal of building his personal reputation so he can rake in more bux.

  17. MamaLiberty Says:

    Just tore up ALL my memberships in so-called RKBA organizations. Nobody can speak for me…

  18. Jim B. Says:

    Does the guy actually own SOF? Isn’t there anybody that can actually “throw him out”?

  19. Pre-press veteran Says:

    Brownell’s new catalog, I noticed has both sizes of waterproof, vacumn sealed bags…

    in case I’m not the only one thinking it might be time for a little “insurance”.

  20. DDS Says:

    You can trust me! I’ll only put it in a little bit and you’ll still be a virgin! — Carlos Mencia

  21. Len Savage Says:

    Well Claire…

    What do you expect in a world where former ATF director Mike Sullivan is now running as a Tea Party Candidate for Kerry Senate seat in MA???

    Perhaps Gottlieb will campaign for him?

  22. Matt, another Says:

    John McCain would be an inprovement only in the fact that he is pretty transparent on rights violations he supports. one thing that must be remembered about McCain is that his adult life was spent in organizations that only pay lip service to basic rights. When you remember that, his usual actions of being on the wrong side of human rights is understandable.

    I agree with the no compromise stance for second amendment righs. I also find it ironic that we make our stand there when we’ve accepted minor infringement of the first, fourth, fifth and other amendments as a matter of course. Violating our civil rights is not a new routine from congress (any political party) with the second amendment it is just the same song, different verse.

  23. Claire Says:

    Len — You’re serious? OMG, you’re serious! I knew the Tea Party would be (and has been) quickly coopted. But a gun-banning security-state guy as a TP candidate? How very far we have fallen.

    I expect Gottlieb will not only campaign for him but will bend over and spread his … um, never mind.

    Matt, another — “I also find it ironic that we make our stand there when we’ve accepted minor infringement of the first, fourth, fifth and other amendments as a matter of course.” Not sure who this “we” is that you’re referring to. But as to drawing a hard line at Amendment Two, we all know the very good reason that has to be.

  24. Kevin Wilmeth Says:

    Hee. You said “TP candidate”, and I’ll bet it wasn’t even on purpose.

  25. Matt, another Says:

    I was using the generic “we,” which I will accept as being a generalization. In my local community many of the gun owners that I converse with are very upset about the pending changes in federal gun laws with good reason. At the same time, they are not bothered by having rights violated on a daily basis by DHS/ICE/CBP or by TSA when traveling. They don’t mind roving DUI check points that operate “legally” but in defiance of 4th and 5th amendments. Having internet traffic and email filtered and monitored, no big deal. Several are church goers and don’t comprehend that having the federal govt give them permission to be a religious organization (501C) violates the first amenedment. It seems to me that very few people understand the concept that the amendments that make the bill of rights are interconnected and mutually supportive. The term often used to describe them is single issue voters. The few that I know that are gun owners and not single issue voters are willing to compromise on the 2nd amendment unfortunately.

  26. Bear Says:

    Matt, another, Perhaps you should associate with a better class of people. Most of the gun owners I converse with on a regular basis object about strongly to DHS as they do victim disarmament. Some rant, some refuse to fly, evn turning down paying work that would require commercial flights.

    Internet monitoring gets less attention, I think because many don’t really know how the Internet works. After a brief explanation, most get as pissed over snooping as the rest.

    “We” (the generic-around-here-sort) get called “single issue voters”, but that’s because once we speak out about the “we” get pigeonholed by politicians so they can ignore “us”.

  27. J. Eric Andreasen Says:

    Years ago I concluded that Alan Gottlieb would take us here. He is the archetype of the ‘Court Jew’ who forgets that Mordechai & Maimonides are the very rare exceptions, as were their patrons.

    As to his revolting nativist cant, I wonder how many of his ‘landsmen’ from Crown Heights, Boro Bark, or Williamsburg (who often speak little English, or do so poorly) he now holds the door to the ‘showers’ for.

    Filth like Feinstein & Schumer at least are honest in their intentions. Gottlieb will sell you tickets to the recuperative spa and resorts in Terezin & Birkenau. Just a short train ride away. Pack your bags! Remember pack only 200 kilos per person.

  28. Elias Alias Says:

    Claire, why don’t you tell us how you really feel about this?


    General Elias

  29. Matt, another Says:

    Don’t worry bear, my friends are of the lowly sort that don’t vote or tell the govt what they do or do not own.

  30. MamaLiberty Says:

    From David Codrea:
    Because all the negotiations and deal-making and compromises notwithstanding, ultimately, the Second Amendment means what serious people with guns say it does, and since some of us will not back down nor cede another inch, we’ll just have to see how hard those who would force us to bend to their will have the arrogance to push. That’s the singular miscalculation those otherwise brilliant players on “our side,” who think things can all be settled with a roll call, the autographing of a piece of paper or the banging of a gavel haven’t factored into their equations.

    We will not disarm. And we are everywhere.

  31. Claire Says:

    MamaLiberty — Great minds. I saw that brilliant Codrea piece a few minutes ago and was about to blog it.

  32. Paul Bonneau Says:

    That Codrea article is excellent and balanced. Really lays the whole thing out.

    A while back when that earlier lynch mob was going after Gottlieb, I was reluctant to go along because there seemed to be a lot of heat and no light in the arguments. I thought he should have the benefit of the doubt (I don’t know a lot about him). Now I’m thinking I might have been wrong. I’m guessing all the goodies he brought into the bill will be eliminated, and his only function will have been to provide cover.

    I guess we can look at the bright side – that at least NRA are not in there helping the Toomey bill. Yet…

    I saw that video of Gottlieb in Portland. It struck me that he had some pretty naive ideas about how government works. But he’s smart and he’s been around a long time, so how could he be naive? Maybe he’s not an anarchist, and he still at base believes the government religion.

    This stuff only matters if the American empire is going into a long decline like the Roman empire did. If instead there is a huge crash, as I anticipate, it won’t matter what the laws are. Any who attempt to enforce pissant gun laws won’t last very long.

  33. Joe Doakes Says:

    Gottlieb is smart.

    I’d vouch for the man any day. Any time.

Copyright © 1998 - Present by Backwoods Home Magazine. All Rights Reserved.