Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by CoRoMo, Dec 13, 2016.
The NRA's impact in this election was twofold: first, as we all know, the NRA endorsed Trump early on.
But of far greater effect was Hillary's stance that the NRA was "the enemy." This was a great miscalculation on her part, because instead of the NRA being a narrow industry-sponsored group, in reality it's a grass-roots organization with millions of members. By declaring the NRA to be "the enemy," Hillary made enemies of all those millions of members. And they voted accordingly. (Many in the Rust Belt had voted for Obama in the last two elections. That was before Obama came out as strongly antigun after Sandy Hook.)
You're certainly not going to read it from the MSM, but it's not too hard to figure out. Clinton lost these three key states by the following margins:
Now if half the people in that margin had voted the other way the state would have gone to Clinton.
These are states where schools close down on opening day of deer season. I'm pretty darn sure that there were at least 5,807 guys in Michigan who didn't appreciate having the NRA labeled as "the enemy", were appalled at the notion of Hillary filling Supreme Court vacancies and didn't relish the prospect of being labelled as a "terrorist" so the government could keep them from buying guns.
The last movie I saw in a theater was "John Carter of Mars".
Most movies today seem to have been made by mentally retarded ferrets for an audience of brain damaged skinks.
Virtually all of the movies I've seen in the last five years or so have been on TCM.
That actually sounds interesting.
You know, leathercrafting. Gun leather. Yea. That's it. That's the ticket.
In other news...
75th or 79th Worst Movie Opening Weekend? Fantastic!
I grew up in WI. The schools didn't close down for hunting season and WI was just about the last state to pass CCLs. People voted against Clinton for lots of reasons, many had to do with the perception of her as a DC insider who wouldn't fix what's wrong with our government.
This wasn't a one issue election, which is why I asked how someone can claim that one issue was the reason the relatively firearms neutral people of WI are claimed to have voted primarily around that one issue.
http://freebeacon.com/culture/gun-control-thriller-miss-sloane-one-worst-opening-weekends-ever/ published by the Washington Free Beacon show the Brady Campaign isn't taking this as a defeat. They succeeded in getting their message on the big screen and are actively consulting with TV producers on other programs. We can't be complacent, we must recognize that the anti-gun crowd are just like the Borg in the Star Trek Next Generation series. Their mission statement is; "resistance is futile, you must assimilate". They will never stop. We might slow them down but they will never stop.
As natman pointed out, when an election is this close, a tiny fraction of pissed-off people can decide it. And from all indications, gun people in Wisconsin are not a tiny fraction.
The other side of the coin is that the antigun message did not excite the Democratic core voters in the inner cities, who did not turn out in the expected numbers. That leaves the suburban "soccer moms," who were thought to be strongly antigun, but apparently weren't.
The antigun movement is going to have to do some serious retrenching and rethinking in the light of this election. They thought they were going to waltz to victory with Hillary, and then open the floodgates to all sorts of antigun executive actions and legislation. Their plans have been set back for at least a decade, and already we can see that they are regrouping at the state and local level. This is actually a development of earthshaking proportions.
While I agree that targeting guns so particularly was a political mistake, I think it is extremely simplistic to declare that Clinton lost due to one issue in any particular state. There simply is no data to support that assertion, and you could just as easily make a Catholic/abortion argument. I'm sure someone already has.
Which is why we shouldn't relax after this temporary election victory. They are always scheming ways to spread their misleading (or straight-up false) propaganda- we must always be striving to show in our everyday lives that gun owners are safe, law-abiding citizens, and that the RKBA is critical in ensuring the Constitution (and all Amendments) are preserved.
I'll bet it will be released on video about a month before the Oscars, if not before the the Golden Globes. If Chastain wins an award (chances are good, because she is good), there will be a lot of interest in the video and it will get shown in a lot of households. And make money.
I sure voted against her because of her anti gun agenda.
You're a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or the Hollywood Foreign Press Association?
VERY good post and spot on as hell.
This looks like a Micheal Moore movie and I will bet that the liberals were so sure that Hillary was a shoe in = they jumped into this movie with both feet and 20 MILLION dollars.
Hope their feet get ground to a pulp,AND they can kiss the 20 Million Goodbye
The only hope to make a buck from this silly movie is,take it to all the colleges that are full of snowflakes .
They will lap this up.
Mark Wahlberg actually made a statement recently that ALL Hollywood was wrong and they need to back off of politics as they do not have a clue as to what real American love and want..
Hollywood should be taxed on every movie that depicts firearms use in any unsafe manner. The actors who portray the use of firearms in movies should also have rules. They should be required to complete the NRA basic firearms safety training course.
You know, that raises several interesting points. Hollywood is responsible for a lot of things, good and bad, having to do with guns. For example, when a particular gun appears in a movie, its value on the collector market tends to go up. Conversely, guns that have never appeared in movies, although they may be historically important, tend to stagnate in value.
Some of the most antigun actors (Matt Damon or Angelina Jolie, for example) have appeared in movies where their gun use was central.
Gun use in the movies generally does not set a good example in terms of safety or responsibility. And, it tends to perpetuate stereotypes. For example, in the movies, silencers make guns whisper-quiet. (See: Where Eagles Dare, McQ, and Three Days of the Condor.) This popular misconception of silencers has helped to keep them in the NFA, whereas with a more realistic assessment, they might have been taken off the NFA years ago.
The Hollywood community shows monumental hypocrisy when it comes to guns. It generally opposes guns, politically, but it profits from them and promotes an unhealthy mystique regarding them. Since everybody knows that the use of guns in movies sells movie tickets, the studio executives and actors should at least have the decency to shut up about them.
What other rights do you want to tax aside from the 1st Amendment?
Yep, I had no clue that was its plot/true purpose. It didn't look interesting, anyway, but now I'm extra glad I didn't unknowingly support it with my $$$.
That's funny! I don't get HBO ... lucky me
And to try to better sell the movie they had to find an attractive acrtess to play the part.
Know what a real life "Miss Sloan" looks like?
View attachment 226667
Actually, to keep it a related post, better days are ahead for rightful gun owners.
Not because of who is President but because of the people who will not allow those who want to take away their Constitutional Rights from them.
Separate names with a comma.