Hope... n' stuff

Some liberal yuppie wrote a blog entry in my comments.

And he is right.

We do need more prominent liberals to come to our side. When both side of the aisle uncontroversially adopt pro 2nd Amendment polices it cements their legitimization. President Eisenhower accepting FDR New Deal stuff is what legitimized that crap sandwich (sadly). Obama doubling down on Afghanistan and taking credit for the Iraq surge is what will legitimize the wars. (See Krauthammer.)

But those issues of contention are beyond the scope of this blog.

We are looking for a Great Left Hope to legitimize the 2nd Amendment among the Liberal section of Politicus Americanus. That person may be Obama, too.

How?!!! How could that be! Obama is Joyce Foundation! Most anti-gun president EVAH! All true. But so far, he won’t touch anti-gun stuff with a 10 foot pole. Well… 9 foot, at least. If, and this is a big if, he ends out his presidency with not one anti-gun measure given any serious contention, or, in fact, strangled in it’s cradle by the administration, AND, he signs a few more pieces of legislation that happen to have a pro-gun owner/user rights amendment buried in it… He doesn’t even have to acknowledge the amendment… IF he ends his term without touching guns, then who can follow him with an anti-gun platform? Future Dem Pres (or other office) candidate to a staff member: “If Obama never touched firearms restrictions, the MOST anti gun president EVER, then what chance do I have to pick up that hot potatoe? No, not touching it. It’s a loser issue for us and we should try to angle off the GOP by not agitating the pro-civil-rights 2A folks.”

It’s not a positive step. But the implication is huge. Then, in the relatively near future, left and right candidates will fight over who is MORE pro-gun user right, and by what degree. Then it won’t even be noticed, as everyone will be pro firearms rights.

Then left and right can argue over taxes, defense spending, no-knock warrants/intrusions, and immigration from then on, and I’ll join in. Never guns. And that will be a good day. And it could be close.

It would be fun to just talk gun-guns on this blog and not have to worry about the security of the Second Amendment. I’m certainly not shifting to arguing immigration here.


~~~~~~~

Now Tam HATES a part of this. The whole Krauthammer bit I linked to above, where a new party comes in and accepts a big portion of what they railed against to get into their new Power digs, complete with gavel. And you know what? I'm right there with her. She's 100% correct. I'd rather the system not work this way. I'd rather not keep rolling toward a cliff by a financially untenable, and freedom quashing, system first put in place by Bismark in the 1860s. I do whatever I can, within that system, to change that system. But it's sweeping against the tide at times. But Krauthammer's insight DOES reflect reality. And if firearm related civil rights advocacy, by all parties, ends up being a new political 3rd rail because of that flawed system, well... that small part of it is a good thing. And useful for other things, after.

Take guns off the table first (sic) then we can concentrate on the other crap-sammich liberty infringements. And, like the Tattooed Yuppie implies, we'll find allies on lots of stuff all across the political spectrum. Hopefully enough.