So I'm a hunter and believe in Second Amendment rights, but I also believe that assault weapons are not needed in the public population.Alphecca has transcribed part of an interview with weasel-worder extraordinaire Mitt Romney, who shows us why a vote for him is a vote for Jim Zumbo. You guys holding your nose on the new WarOnGuns poll (see left margin) who say you'd still vote for this lying creep who is only using you--are you sure you want to do that?
Think about it: The entire gun activist is up in arms and threatening boycotts over a stupid outdoors writer's ignorant remarks. They demanded his head, and it looks like, from Remington's standpoint at least, they got it.
Based on gun owner reaction, they wouldn't want any of the three leading GOP candidates to be retained as gun writers, but they'd accept them as president? Does that make sense?
So what am I saying, that I want to help Hillary?
Nope. I'm merely making a statement based on observable facts--and here's one more: Zumbo's ignorant diatribe resulted in thousands of furious comments on his blog, and countless angry emails to Outdoor Life, Remington, etc. Nice use of energy and outrage--but why don't we see enraged gun owners doing this to the chairman of the Republican party as well, now, while there's still a chance to affect the momentum?
Where is the LEADERSHIP from those who have the political reach (i.e., NRA) organizing a DEMAND to the Republican party that they field a candidate who understands the Second Amendment and will use his bully pulpit to proactively educate and evangelize to the voters about it? If someone wants to be a leader, don't you agree the Bill of Rights would be a good place to start leading?
Why is it we have the energy to storm the Bastille over a trivial hunting column, but when it comes time to applying it to something meaningful, we can't seem to mount an offensive?