Remember when Bill Clinton told his fellow Democrats that their emphasis on anti-gun laws had cost them big time?  Apparently his wife wasn’t listening.  Neither was Michael Bloomberg, who poured millions into Virginia in hopes of defeating pro-gun candidates.  That doesn’t seem to have turned out too well for him in this week’s results.


See our friend Miguel Gonzalez’ take on it, here.  And TTAG (The Truth About Guns) had this to say and this.


  1. I had the pleasure of voting in this election & of celebrating the victories since everyone I voted for won. Needless to say, I was very happy that the pro-gun Republicans retained control of both the State Senate & the House of Delegates because that has not always been the case.

    One change, that has gone unreported, surprised me. When I checked in at my polling place, I was given a paper ballot!!! And when I asked the poll workers why we were using paper ballots, they told me that the Virginia legislature had passed a law mandating them, which I was unaware of.

    This pleased me because for the past several years we have had to cast our votes using electronic voting machines, which I do not trust. Although they are purported to be reliable & secure, it has always seemed to me that it would be far easier to commit voter fraud electronically than any other way, especially by stuffing the ballot box or by simply switching the votes already cast to the candidates you want to win. I have read in the news about some votes in the past that were supposedly “miscounted” & credited to the wrong candidate in various races using these machines, but nothing that I know of was ever done about it until, perhaps, now.

    I also became suspicious of voter fraud in recent years when every close statewide race (for senator, governor, president, etc.) seemed to go to the Democrat candidate in a predictable pattern where the Republican would hold a substantial lead for most of the evening, then late at night votes would trickle in from the liberal counties in northern Virginia until the Democrat could claim a victory by a few hundred or a few thousand votes. Usually, there were no recounts. Although I’m not a conspiracy minded person, it has always seemed to me to be more than a coincidence that the Democrats started winning more often when the electronic voting machines were put into use. For that reason, I am very happy to be using a paper ballot, even though they are being counted electronically with scanners. Hopefully, this method will be more secure than the previous one & will make recounts, if there are any, more accurate.

    Whatever the cause was for the pro-gun Republican victories this time, I hope that these results will carry over to the 2016 Presidential election so that we will be able to elect a pro-gun President, as well as pro-gun candidates to all of the other offices on the ballot.

  2. So nice to hear good news for a change. Reminds me of how I felt when the media attacked Donald Trump, and he stood firm. Then, people supported Trump and he surged in the polls. Boy, was that refreshing. The last time I can remember someone standing up against the media, and winning, was Ronald Reagan.

  3. I’m waiting to see someone ask a candidate in a town hall meeting venue if they’ll give up Secret Service protection if stronger gun laws are passed. I don’t think that person will pass the interview screen.

  4. I saw a photo of Terry McAwful after the election results were in. He had the same look on his face as did my former senior Senator and Senate majority leader Tom Daschle after his defeat at the hands of his Republican challenger.

    Mark Twain writing in the voice of Huckleberry Finn put it perfectly:

    “He looked like a man who had just been shot in the back with a keg of nails.”

    Perhaps it just wishful thinking, but events like the Virginia election and how the Republican candidates smacked down the CNBC moderators (and the audience reaction) could portend good things to come.

    One does hope.

  5. I find the stance of the Democratic presidential candidates toward gun control interesting.

    The voters in the primaries (aka the “Base” voters) are likely to be the most fanatical with those for the Democratic Party leaning strongly to the Left and those for the Republican Party leaning strongly to the Right.

    Therefore, the temptation for any candidate is to “play to the base” and take positions that are either strongly left-wing or right-wing. Since Gun Control is a “darling” issue among the Democratic base, the temptation for a Democratic candidate is to come out strongly for Gun control.

    Of course, the reason that gun control remains a darling issue for the left is linked to their basic political philosophy. Those on the Left subconsciously believe that all humans are basically “good” or at least “born innocent” by their very nature. So, they adopt a worldview that incorporates the belief that humans can only do evil if they are nurtured in evil by external negative social forces. Commonly, the Left blames the world’s evil upon such social forces as poverty, ignorance, racism, class difference due to economic systems, drug abuse, etc. that are external to mankind himself.

    Violence between humans, either due to crime or warfare, represents one of the greatest challenges to the left-wing worldview. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that the left have a scapegoat “social force” to blame for such behavior. Blaming a material object for such behavior is especially attractive to the left since it (a) completely exonerates human beings of any responsibility for violence which fits “hand-in-glove” with the left-wing philosophy and (b) it gives the left a direct policy approach to addressing violence. Therefore, the left needs (and will always need) a scapegoat to blame for violence.

    This scapegoat has not always been the availability of guns and other weapons. During the latter half of the 19th and early part of the 20th Centuries, the scapegoat (among American left-wingers) was alcohol and alcohol addiction. The left built a theory that alcohol caused a host of social problems including crime, violence and especially domestic violence. This cumulated in America’s experiment with prohibition.

    When prohibition proved to be a disastrous failure, this entire left-wing theory utterly collapsed. For years, the left scrambled for an alternate theory to shore up their belief system. The clung to narcotic addiction immediately after the failure of Prohibition. However, the “war on drugs” has not been a fruitful approach either. So, in the 1950’s – 60’s period, the left gradually built the theory that the availability of firearms is to blame for violence leading to the currently battle over gun control.

    Gun control is completely accepted by devoted left-wingers as the current cause of violence in America. It occupies the place formerly held by alcohol a century ago. Hence, its “darling” status among the left.

    Unless one is completely under the sway of left-wing bias, however, gun control is not such a darling issue. Hence, most Democratic candidates are unwilling to commit too much to the issue lest it cost them votes in the general election. For example, President Obama (although completely accepting guns as the scapegoat for violence personally) did not really push the issue until his second term. Candidate Sanders clearly is following the Obama model.

    However, Candidate Clinton seems to have made the political calculation that (a) she is never going to get any support from gun owners anyway and (b) it is worth it to appeal to the base and differentiate herself from Sanders. So, she has “thrown caution to the winds” and come out with a fanatical anti-gun position that is certain to endear her to left-wing base supporters.

    Whether her gamble will pay off, especially in the general election (assuming she makes it that far), is hard to say. She may be believing the media propaganda which says that, despite booming sales (forgive the pun) of firearms and ammunition, the gun-owning segment of the population is becoming a smaller and smaller minority. Therefore, it is safe to “throw them away” in a bid to engage the ideological left-wing base.

    As I said, time will tell if the Clinton gamble works. The results in Virginia suggests “maybe not”!

  6. Congratulations to the People of Virgina! May the newly elected serve the People well.

    The responses via comments here are most interesting, as per usual. These are certainly a major part of my enjoyment of this blog and I am sure to read the comments along with Mas’ posts. This is so whether I choose to add a comment myself or not.

    Thanks to all!

    TN_MAN –
    Not to single you out here, I do enjoy the viewpoint you’ve presented and do tend to concur; however, it was a Republican (Richard Nixon) who is generally credited with the creation of the “War on Drugs” thing. I believe this to be done as an attempt to distract America for his misdoings which eventually led to him becoming the first (and only as of this writing) American President to abscond from office. Either way – What people own and/or may choose to put into their bodies are each a civil/property rights issue.

    My thing is that anti-gun sentiments are utter B.S. and are not only totally insane, they represent the worst of the worst as the very idea punishes all with the misfortune to be subject to them for the rare and sinister actions of a few severely disturbed psychos. At least the latter is the excuse of such tyrants who perpetrate these nightmarish scenarios upon their people.

    A fine example of this is Canada, which just had a Federal election not long ago. There was a time when Canada had next to no anti-gun laws whatsoever. Law abiding Canadians could posses any sidearm, rifle (yes this includes the hilarity of a full-auto, too) shotgun or what have you and carry and use it for most any lawful purpose. There was very low crime.

    Next some clown espousing ideology not at all dissimilar to that described by TN_MAN here used a terrible event to take away all the positives and punish everyone. Subsequently things have only become worse as there is no pro-gun party and people are constantly fed anti-gun media that is, for the most part, entirely devoid of truth concerning Canadian firearms law.

    Things have become even worse yet still as this past election, there was no party that was pro gun in the least. Currently, the same guy mentioned above’s son is occupying the role his father did then.

    Canadians may have many privileges, yet have no rights whatsoever.

    People of America – Enjoy your choice upcoming and by all means, make the right one!

  7. To Spencer B:

    My use of the term “War on Drugs” was poor since it can be misinterpreted. I did not mean the specific “War on Drug” movement of the latter half of the 20th Century. I meant it in more general terms as the movement to ban and control narcotics which dates back (at least) to the Prohibition of Alcohol period of the early 20th Century.

    It should be noted that many of these failed left-wing efforts had some right-wing support. For example, the movement for the Prohibition of Alcohol had considerable support from the religious right who felt that drinking alcohol was a “sin”. So, by adding some right-wing support to the existing left-wing push, the left was able to build enough support to enact Prohibition and even amend the Constitution.

    The left can do nothing by itself since left-wing bias never infects the majority of the population. To enact left-wing programs, the left always has to “sell” a segment of the right-leaning population on the value of their ideas. Only if they get “buy-in” from the right can the left move to implement their agenda. They “sold” prohibition to the American pubic which awakened to the truth only after prohibition failed.

    Today, the left (with their allies in the media) are on a similar campaign to “sell” gun control to America. So far, however, the rest of the American People are not “buying” it. As the old saying goes: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!”

  8. All of this is well and good, but local anti-gun groups are still active and on the move.
    In Lyons, IL along with Riverdale and Lincolnwood ( All suburbs of Chicago) a lawsuit has been in the works by a coalition of antigun activists. The only gun shop in Lyons ,IL ( Midwest Sporting Goods) has capitulated and agreed to:
    1: Keep an electronic record of all gun buyers that have had guns traced to them that were involved in a crime. Although they were the original buyer they could well be the first person to own the gun but five owners later before it was used in a crime or the firearm could have been stolen. They would be blacklisted from ever purchasing a firearm in that shop again.
    2. Keep a list of people that have tried to illegally purchase a firearm and to notify the police. Perhaps the person did not know that you needed an FOID card to purchase?
    3. Report to the police any person who tries to purchase more than 1 firearm in 12 months time.
    4. The shop will be subject to 2 police inspections a year in addition to the BATF inspections.
    5. Lighting and Cameras will be required to sufficiently light the premises exterior and cameras also placed at point of purchase.
    6. The shop must also do a complete inventory at regular intervals and report to the police any discrepancies within 48 hours.
    Sheriff Tom Dart said that this is a good step in the right direction and can’t tell us how excited he is by this ordinance.
    The Midwest Sporting Goods store was dropped from the lawsuit.

  9. Fezzywig – your comparison above has to be the ONLY one you can make, Trump/Reagan. Trump’s blowhard style should never be mistaken for the strength of character that Ronald Reagan had. Further, in this voter’s opinion, all Donald Trump has accomplished is to confuse the electorate to the point that Hillary is a virtual shoo-in. Also, IMHO, this was the plan from the start. Always look at someone’s actions instead of listening to their words. Trump has contributed, again and again – to those whose views (and ACTIONS) would do and have done – us great harm. Donald Trump has never been, is not now – and never will be – an honorable man.

  10. Gun Control is just a vehicle to gain more power it has nothing to to do with crime prevention. When brought up you have to call them on the fact. How many dollars is controlling security in Chicago worth?

  11. Don -Pa.,

    I must admit that I don’t know a whole lot about Donald Trump. I know he is a business winner, but a marriage loser. I know he has been in the public eye since the 1970s. I reckon he must not be too bad, because anyone who can be under the public spotlight over three decades can’t be too awful.

    I am concerned about Donald’s political position flip-flopping. Could it be that he really didn’t know much about politics in the past? Is he really a liberal who is going to throw the election to Hillary the way Ross Perot stole 19% of the votes from George Bush the Elder in 1992?

    One thing I do know about Donald is that he cannot afford to offend a politician, lest his business suffer. A friend of mine who understands economics says that businesses contribute to both the Democrat and Republican parties. That way, they have friends who will not try to shut them down no matter who wins the election. Consider that Donald has always lived and worked in the NY/NJ area. He needs to make friends with the politicians here. However, Steve Forbes comes to mind. He lives and works in NJ and yet does not seem to compromise his values.

    I hope you are wrong about Donald Trump. If not, we have a year before the election, and hopefully someone will expose him. You are definitely wise to be cautious.

  12. Actually, Fezziewig, if anything, I UNDERstated how bad Trump is. Since marriage/fidelity/spirituality/morals (think Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush here)don’t seem to mean anything anymore, I won’t discuss Trump’s reality show life story. Stick to business, Don. OK – this is a guy who had his entire fortune handed to him by his Dad. If that wouldn’t have happened, we would have never heard of Donald Trump. He then proceeded to manage his empire so well that he only had to declare bankruptcy four times. You think this guy is going to do better with bigger money? OUR money?

    Donald Trump has only ever had one priority in life: HIS fame and HIS fortune. He does not give a rats-a** about any OTHER American’s future or security. Remember: actions, not words here. He has consistently shown that he will change whatever he needs to change to promote HIS ego and better HIS station in life – not yours, not mine. If ours DO get better, it is just a byproduct. Our only hope is his buffoonery starts to get even more stale than it already is – and America finally starts to smell the coffee – before it’s too late.

Comments are closed.