avatar


Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz. (AP Photo/Matt York)

It occurs to me that the best strategy for protecting gun rights in America is to “third rail” gun control. Make support for any more limits on the right to keep and bear arms electoral suicide. If you “touch” gun control, you can be assured of being zapped at the polls.

This was once the case…too long ago for most of us to remember. It could be made true again.

There is no logical reason for Democrats to advocate for gun control. It doesn’t create a great opportunity for spending taxpayer money except, of course, on prisons. Democrats should be much more interested in building a critical race theory indoctrination corps, thereby creating woke precinct captains throughout the nation.

Like all politicians, Democrat incumbents want to avoid viable challengers in their next primaries or general elections. And the Democrat leadership wants to avoid losing any races to the GOP. These are the only two things that really matter to them.

Rep. Steven Horsford
Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev. (House Television via AP)

All the People of the Gun have to do is to put resources in the places that impact these considerations. The path of least resistance is to knock Democrat incumbents out by supporting their Democrat challengers.

The key is to educate more voters in such a race, making gun gun control ineffective (or a liability). Let the challenger know that he can enjoy a new source of support if he will attack the incumbent on his futile gun control plank. Win or lose, doesn’t matter much. We will have taught Democrat incumbents that even their fellow Democrat challengers can ride the gun control rail to raise the incumbents’ cost of re-election. Permanently.

A Congressman must run for re-election every two years. You have to make a two-year investment in educating a targeted Dem about the danger of their gun control advocacy. Even if you fail to knock her out in one election, you’ll have a second opportunity just two years later. Continue the education process through the next two years and two years after that. You will have made her gun control support a constant thorn in her side. That will be a rail she won’t want to touch.

Rep. Conor Lamb
Rep. Conor Lamb, D-Pa. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

Why should this Democrat incumbent continue to risk her seat by campaigning and voting for gun control? Isn’t she a supporter of so many other issues that are near and dear to her constituents’ hearts that they will surely forgive her for being “soft” on gun control?

We can teach her to mouth the gun control platitudes, lamenting that, tragically, gun control has become the third-rail of politics. If she is to continue to do the Lord’s good work for her constituents, she has to tread lightly — i.e., not at all — on the issue of restricting gun rights.

That is, when the roll call for votes on a gun control bill is scheduled, she will be home in her district conferring with constituents.

Granted, there is a lot of solidarity with the Democrat Party’s gun control platform. But after being attacked in the primaries, no Dem candidate is going to lose her own reelection race while the party failed — once again — to push a gun control bill through to becoming law. Party leaders can mouth the anti-gun agenda talking points without really being serious about whipping its members to be there when it comes time to cast a vote.

Once this message is widely spread and begins to sink in with Democrats, the squishy RINOs will see the handwriting on the wall, too. Why would they want to draw gun rights supporters’ attention to their primary campaigns? There is no up-side to it.

Sen. Jon Tester
Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., (Leigh Vogel/Pool via AP)

Senate races are harder to attack. Nevertheless, a Senator we’d like to target runs state-wide in a state with 1+ Congressional districts. We find one or two such districts with targetable incumbents and primary them.

Win or lose, we will have written our message on the walls of the Dem Senator’s office. We will have raised the cost of his next campaign and the likelihood of him losing two, four, or six years down the road.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *