Category Archives: Politics

If it concerns your Second Amendment, or other policy driven content, you’ll be able to find it in our politics section

Anti-Gun Democrat Congressman Invokes Nuclear Option Against Resistors of Firearm Confiscation

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Whoa… If he didn’t mean it he shouldn’t have said it. Read about Swalwell’s “Armageddon Confiscation” threat HERE

swalwell

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Well, it’s just before Thanksgiving, and nothing gets you into the holiday spirit like a U.S. Congressman who raises the specter of unleashing a nuclear attack against fellow Americans to demonstrate just how darned committed he is to mass firearm confiscation.

For those who were looking for yet another reason to purchase modern semiautomatic firearms and extra magazines for yourselves and your loved ones this holiday sales season, we give you the comments of Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA).

Swalwell, you may recall, gained some headlines for himself earlier this year when he proposed banning various semiautomatic firearms, forcing current owners to surrender them to the government, and “go[ing] after” resisters.

Last week, he made it clear in a Twitter exchange that he meant what he said.

Responding to another Twitter user who commented that an attempt to repeal the Second Amendment and ban and seize guns would provoke a war, Swallwell stated: “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit.” He added, “I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”

When confronted with the obvious import of his words — that he was suggesting nuclear weapons could be used on American soil against resisters of firearm confiscation — Swalwell backpedaled and tried to reframe his comments.

“Don’t be so dramatic,” he tweeted. “No one is nuking anyone or threatening that. I’m telling you this is not the 18th Century. The argument that you would go to war with your government if an assault weapons ban was in place is ludicrous and inflames the gun debate. Which is what you want.”

Later, as backlash continued to mount, Swalwell changed his story again and claimed his reference to America’s nuclear arsenal was merely a “joke” and “sarcasm.”

So which Swalwell story are we supposed to believe?

If it’s the first one, there’s apparently no option that he would consider off the table for enforcing firearm confiscation. This includes destroying entire communities, killing untold numbers of innocent bystanders, rendering large areas of land uninhabitable, all to annihilate (and presumably make an example of) anyone who stood in the way of his plans.

If it’s the second one, he’s pointing out that the idea of resisting a federal firearm confiscation order is “ludicrous” because the 18th Century’s relative parity between the unorganized militia and the then-recognized government no longer exists, even if the nuclear option is off the table. Yet this also implies that he could foresee using sophisticated military technology other than nuclear weapons against resistors.

If we’re to believe the third story, we’re all just too stuffy and serious to recognize the obvious comedic intent the U.S. Congressman had when he referenced nuclear weapons in describing the futility of anyone resisting the government’s attempt to violate their fundamental constitutional rights. The historical basis of the Second Amendment, in other words, is but a joke to Eric Swalwell.

Whichever option you choose, it is incredible even by the low standards of modern political rhetoric that Swalwell would be the one accusing others of being “dramatic” and “inflam[ing] the gun debate. We just don’t see anything funny about politicians and reporters whose idea of a joke is threatening to bomb fellow Americans or slandering law-abiding Americans for exercising their constitutional rights.

And even if he didn’t mean what he actually said (always a possibility with anti-gun politicians), we can still give thanks that Eric Swalwell is not and almost certainly never will be trusted with the launch codes for America’s nuclear arsenal.

But it’s perhaps not surprising that he could be so cavalier about subjects many gun-owning Americans take very seriously. Despite the political left’s mantras of tolerance, diversity, and inclusion, many are proudly ignorant of and indifferent to the types of lives led by millions of ordinary Americans who happen not to inhabit America’s largest coastal cities.

Also weighing into Swalwell’s Twitter debacle this week was Nina Burleigh, Newsweek’s national politics correspondent and, according to her official Newsweek bio, “an award-winning journalist and the author of five books.”

With such impressive journalistic credentials covering U.S. politics, you would think that Ms. Burleigh would have at least caught on that AR-15s and similar guns are common and popular firearms in America, even if she didn’t know that they are in fact America’s most popular class of rifles.

But to think so would be overestimating Nina Burleigh.

As Swalwell attempted to reframe his initial tweet, Burleigh leapt to his defense with a tweet of her own aimed at the NRA’s Dana Loesch: “Almost every single person I’ve ever heard of with an AR-15 has been a mass murderer. Based on Twitter sample the rest of them are scarily paranoid. Get on the right side of history.”

And even if it’s possible that Burleigh herself doesn’t personally know a single one of the many, many millions of Americans who own and lawfully use AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles, you might think she would have at least read about some of them, again considering she works in the media.

For example, she might have read about Stephen Willeford, who used his AR-15 to end a mass shooting in a Texas church and to prevent the perpetrator from escaping.

There’s also Sarah Merkle, who as a 15-year-old testified against the then-pending ban in Maryland on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles. She explained that the AR-15 was the type of rifle she used as a member of the Maryland State Rifle Team and that her competitive accomplishments provided her with college scholarship opportunities she otherwise would not have had. She also explained that rifles of any type are used in only a very small percentage of firearm-related homicides in the U.S.

Also making the news as an AR-15 owner was U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who during the debate over the Democrats’ proposed “assault weapons” ban in 2013 noted that “I own an AR-15 and I have done nothing wrong by owning the gun.”

Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that Burleigh was also joking and that we just aren’t sophisticated to understand her rapier-like wit.

Call us party poopers, but we just don’t see anything funny about politicians and reporters whose idea of a joke is threatening to bomb fellow Americans or slandering law-abiding Americans for exercising their constitutional rights.

mushroom cloud

 

California: CA DOJ Issues Consumer Alert Regarding Use of Non-REAL IDs for Firearm Purchases

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Is this really necessary, or is it nothing more than another deterrent to citizens wishing to purchase a firearm? READ ABOUT IT

california

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Earlier this year in March, we provided information regarding the use of Non-REAL-IDs for firearm purchases.

On Tuesday, November 20, Attorney General Becerra issued a consumer alert regarding the Use of “Federal Limits Apply” Driver Licenses and IDs to purchase firearms.

This consumer alert advises: Firearm Dealers may require additional documentation to prove lawful residency in the United State in the event that a “federal limits apply” identification card or drivers license is being utilized for the acquisition of a firearm. This is due to recent law revisions and the advice of the California Department of Justice to Firearms Dealers to consider requiring the additional documentation. Be sure to check with your firearms dealer ahead of time to avoid any unforeseen problems this holiday season. A firearms dealer may request one of the following documents to establish lawful residency:

  • Valid, unexpired U.S. passport or passport card
  • Certified copy of U.S. birth certificate
  • U.S. Certificate or Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen
  • Valid, unexpired foreign passport with valid U.S. immigrant visa and approved Record of Arrival/Departure (I-94) form
  • Certified copy of birth certificate from a U.S. Territory
  • Certificate of Naturalization or U.S. Citizenship
  • Valid, unexpired Permanent Resident Card

Please continue to check the California Stand and Fight web page for updates on issues impacting your Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage in California.

Former ATF Agent Pulls Mask Off Giffords’s Plans for Federal AR-15 Registration

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

In an odd turn, just before Halloween one prominent gun control group briefly got out of costume: read all about what was underneath it… SEE MORE

giffords

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

When former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and husband Mark Kelly launched Americans for Responsible Solutions (now named Giffords) in early 2013, gun owners were assured that the group sought moderate “common-sense solutions” to gun violence. The group admonished NRA for not working to “to find the balance between our rights” and gun regulation. Giffords and Kelly explained, “we don’t want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home.”

This, of course, was all a marketing ploy. From its inception, Giffords has pushed the same warmed-over gun control policies as their less messaging-savvy peers.

To help their anti-gun allies better deceive the public, in 2016 Giffords put out a gun control messaging manual titled, “A Guide to Understanding and Engaging Americans on the Need for Stronger Gun Laws.” In a section labelled, “The Do’s and Don’ts of Talking About Gun Violence,” the guide made clear to gun control supporters that “Talk about creating a national gun registry, or banning or confiscating guns” was a definite “Don’t.” The group went on to falsely contend none of those measures “are policy priorities or have widespread support among gun violence prevention organizations.”

Not only is a national gun registry a priority for gun control advocates generally, as former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent and current Giffords Senior Policy Advisor David Chipman made clear to The Hill this week, it is an explicit policy priority for Giffords.

In response to a question about AR-15 rifles, Chipman responded, “What I support is treating them just like machineguns.”

Reiterating that America’s most popular rifle should be subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA), Chipman went on to state,

To me, if you want to have a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would be a picture and fingerprints on file. To me, I don’t mind doing it if I want to buy a gun.

Chipman and Giffords’s preferred policy is similar to that supported by gun confiscation advocate Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). In early 2013, Feinstein proposed legislation that would have subjected tens of millions of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms to NFA regulation and registration.

While a former federal bureaucrat might not mind navigating the convoluted federal bureaucracy in order to exercise a constitutional right, most should abhor the prior restraint of NFA regulations.

In order to acquire a machinegun, the transferee and transferor must submit a Form 4 Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm to the ATF. The form requires identifying information about the firearm and personal information about the applicant. The transferee must submit an identifying photograph along with two completed FBI Forms FD-258 fingerprint cards. This information is compiled in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, colloquially known as the NFA registry. The transferee must also pay a $200 tax.

The NFA procedure is also a prohibitive waiting period. The latest ATF data measured the wait time for completion of a Form 4 at seven months, or over 200 days. At certain points in 2016, waits stretched to about a year.

Chipman’s policy of treating AR-15s “just like machineguns” would also mean a ban on the civilian possession of newly-manufactured AR-15 rifles. In 1986, anti-gun members of Congress were successful in getting one piece of gun control into the vital Firearm Owners’ Protection Act. A late, and controversial, amendment from Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) placed a ban on the transfer and possession of machineguns manufactured after May 19, 1986. Treating AR-15s like machineguns would mean a permanent freeze on the total stock of AR-15s Americans could lawfully possess.

There are good reasons gun control advocates seek to obscure such radical goals.

An October Gallup poll showed that 57 percent of Americans oppose “a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns, known as assault rifles.” For the last seven years, every time Gallup has asked this question opposition to a ban has outweighed support.

Moreover, there is no evidence that further restricting commonly-owned semi-automatics would reduce violent crime. A pair of Department of Justice-funded studies of the 1994 Clinton semi-automatic ban could not determine that the ban reduced violent crime. The later of the two studies, from 2004, stated, “the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” In explaining why, the researchers wrote, “estimates consistently show that AWs [commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms] are used in a small fraction of gun crimes.” More recent research from the RAND Corporation determined, “Evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on total homicides and firearm homicides is inconclusive.”

History also shows that otherwise law-abiding gun owners are unlikely to comply with gun registration requirements. In the year and a half following implementation of the N.Y. SAFE Act in early 2014, 23,847 people registered 44,485 guns. Estimates of the number of firearms in the state subject to registration were 1-1.2 million. Gun control advocates didn’t have any better luck that year in Connecticut. Despite estimates that Nutmeg State residents owned several hundred thousand firearms and 2.4 million magazines subject to new registration requirements, owners registered a mere 50,016 firearms and 38,290 magazines.

Anti-gun advocates are well aware that the American people, through their elected representatives, have repeatedly rejected the severe gun control measures they support. Faced with this reality, gun control advocates have continually dressed up their fanatical goals in all manner of disguise. Constantly masquerading as moderate, for gun control supporters every day is like Halloween. As for anyone who falls for their ruse, it’s all tricks and no treats.

Republican Mayor Survives Recall Effort After Twitter-Checking David Hogg

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Waterville, Maine Mayor Nick Isgro stands up to social media attack from David Hogg. READ WHAT HAPPENED HERE

hogg

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Fortunes seem to rise and fall on Twitter with alarming regularity. But the platform may not be an equal opportunity soapbox, with some opinions reportedly getting more exposure than others and some speakers seemingly operating with greater impunity. That’s why it was refreshing this week to see the people of Waterville, Maine, stand behind their Republican mayor, Nick Isgro, after an effort was launched to recall him from office. Mayor Isgro’s supposed offense? Calling gun control activist David Hogg to task in a tweet.

The story began last March when Fox News personality Laura Ingraham tweeted about Hogg’s rejection by several California universities, adding perhaps to lessen the sting that that it was “totally predictable given acceptance rates.”

Hogg responded by tweeting a list of the top advertisers on Ingraham’s show, encouraging his own hundreds of thousands of Twitter followers to contact them and threaten a boycott if the advertisers did not pull their support for the show.

Many of the advertisers reportedly did just that, and Ingraham later apologized to Hogg for her comments. Hogg, not accustomed to being the bigger man, did not accept the apology and continued his attempt to ruin Ingraham’s career.

Fox, however, stood by Ingraham, and she weathered the type of tempest in a teapot that has destroyed the careers of other, usually right-leaning, media personalities. “We cannot and will not allow voices to be censored by agenda-driven intimidation efforts,” a Fox executive stated.

Mayor Isgro took note of this by retweeting a message that stated, “Fox News president backs Laura Ingraham despite advertiser boycott over Parkland controversy.” He also added some editorializing of his own: “Eat it, Hogg.”

This sparked the predictable backlash from Democrats already opposed to Isgro’s administration, as well as from supporters of David Hogg, who apparently believe that the teenage gun control activist should be able to dish out critical or biting commentary but not have to take it. Needless to say, the effort was buoyed by their supporters in the left-leaning media, who characterized the mayor as “attacking” a young survivor of gun violence.

Democrat Karen Heck, a former mayor of Waterville, took things a step further by launching a recall effort against Isgro in April

To put Mayor Isgo’s comments in context, it’s important to understand that David Hogg is well known for calling out the targets of his activism in the most insulting terms possible, while wielding a very tenuous view of the law and facts underlying gun control and political activism. This has, of course, earned him accolades and fawning media coverage from people and entities predisposed to his point of view but somewhat constrained in their own rhetoric by the requirements of their professions and general (though continually declining) norms of adult behavior.

Hogg, needless to say, is entitled to exercise his First Amendment rights.

And we’re entitled to point out that he just got stuffed in yet another attempt by Democrat activists to torpedo the life and career of a person who dared to give one of their own a taste (albeit significantly watered-down) of his own medicine.

It should be noted that Mayor Isgro did not escape from the situation totally unscathed. He did apparently lose his banking job in the fray.

Nevertheless the people of Waterville were not swayed by what Mayor Isgro characterized as an effort that “well-connected and wealthy political elites” started “with their friends in the media and dark money funded outsiders who do not live in our city … .” Waterville sided with their democratically elected mayor, rather than the selectively self-righteous, Internet-fueled mob.

Whether this augurs a decline in David Hogg’s ability to influence outcomes in the non-virtual world remains to be seen. But it certainly gives him something to chew on in the meantime.

NRA Applauds Senate Confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Good news for gun owners! READ IT ALL

kavanaugh

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The National Rifle Association is very pleased with the U.S. Senate’s confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as an associate justice on the United States Supreme Court.

“On behalf of our nearly six million members, the NRA congratulates Brett Kavanaugh on his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “Kavanaugh is an eminently qualified jurist who will interpret the Constitution as the framers intended. He respects our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”

In the 2016 elections, voters made clear that the Supreme Court was an issue of critical importance. President Donald Trump has once again delivered on his promise of appointing constitutionally sound justices to our nation’s highest court.

“The NRA would like to thank President Trump for fulfilling his campaign promise to nominate pro-Second Amendment justices to the Supreme Court. The selections of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh demonstrate President Trump’s unwavering support for our fundamental right to self-defense,” Cox continued.

The U.S. Senate confirmed Kavanaugh by a 50 to 48 vote. The NRA applauds all senators who voted in favor of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation and would especially like to thank Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) for their leadership in this effort.

Feinstein Distorted Facts About AR-15, NRA Says

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein claims that the AR-15 is not “in common use.” Really? READ MORE

feinstein ar15

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action called into question the California Democrat’s assertions about the weapon and said the rifle has gained popularity in recent years.

The group cited figures from the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The firearms industry trade group calculated that between 1996-2016 more than 16 million AR-15 and AK-pattern rifles have been available for sale in the U.S.

NRA went on to accuse Feinstein of distorting facts in what it described as the senator’s ongoing effort to limit Second Amendment gun rights: “Needless to say, there is nothing ‘reasonable’ or moderate about banning what is literally the most popular class of rifles in America.”

“I’m talking about your statement on ‘common use,’ she told Kavanaugh. “Assault weapons are not in common use.”

“Semi-automatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States,” Kavanaugh rebutted. “There are millions and millions. … That seemed to fit the [definition of] ‘common use’ and not being a dangerous and unusual weapon.”

Judge Kavanaugh: “Semi-automatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States. There are millions and millions. … That seemed to fit the [definition of] ‘common use.'”

Feinstein countered that the numbers of rifles in existence didn’t constitute “common use,” arguing that the term applies to how often the weapons are used.

“Common items are routinely said to be “in use” for a purpose whether or not that involves active manipulation of the item at any given time,” the NRA said.

Feinstein has been a fierce gun-control advocate since her days as on the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco. She was the first person to discover her colleague Harvey Milk on his office floor after he’d been fatally shot, according to the Los Angeles Times. A former supervisor, Dan White, also assassinated then-Mayor George Moscone on that day in November 1978.

Since then, Feinstein has advocated for tough gun reforms:

“I have been a woman on a mission to ban assault weapons,” the senator said, to applause, at a gathering of union members at the California Democratic Party convention this year. “This is not our America, and we need to change it,” she said.

That hasn’t stopped her from owning firearms. Two years before the assassinations, Feinstein was trained to use a .38 five-shot revolver and obtained a concealed-carry permit.

She attempted to reenact the Clinton-era assault weapons ban in the aftermath of several high-profile mass shootings, including the Oct. 1, 2017, shooting in Las Vegas that left 58 people dead and hundreds injured.

The NRA called it ban-revival effort a “125-page firearm prohibition fever dream [that] is perhaps the most far-reaching gun ban ever introduced in Congress.”

During the Kavanaugh hearing, Feinstein asserted that Kavanaugh’s reasoning for dissenting on the District of Columbia’s assault weapons ban was “far outside the mainstream of legal thought and it surpasses the views of [the late Justice Antonin] Scalia, who was obviously a pro-gun justice.

“If the Supreme Court were to adopt your reasoning,” she said to Kavanaugh, ” I fear the number of victims would continue to grow.”

Kavanaugh: “Semi-automatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States. There are millions and millions. … That seemed to fit the [definition of] ‘common use.'”

Here’s the full video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRmapqDakE&feature=youtu.be

 

Trump Says Close To Finalizing Ban On Bump Stocks

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

President Donald Trump: “We’re knocking out bump stocks…” READ MORE!

bump stock

SOURCE: Reuters

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday his administration is just a few weeks away from finalizing a regulation that would ban so-called bump stocks, devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns.

“We’re knocking out bump stocks,” Trump said at a White House news conference. “We’re in the final two or three weeks, and I’ll be able to write out bump stocks.”

A year ago in Las Vegas, gunman Stephen Paddock used bump stocks on 12 of his weapons in a mass shooting that killed 58 people and wounded hundreds.

Authorities said his ability to fire hundreds of rounds per minute over the course of 10 minutes from his perch in a 32nd-floor hotel suite was a major factor in the high casualty count.

While machine guns are outlawed in the United States, bump stocks are not.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in March the Justice Department was proposing a rule that would effectively ban the devices. In February, Trump had signed a memorandum directing the department to make the regulatory change.

The change required a public comment period before taking effect.

“We are now at the final stages of the procedure,” Trump said.

Conceal Carry Permits Surge to 18 Million, Democrats Rush To Get Them Too

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

A nation on edge has driven a surge in concealed carry gun licenses, but those getting them aren’t the usual suspects. READ ALL ABOUT IT

concealed gun

SOURCE: Washington Examiner

According to the United States Concealed Carry Association, which trains and insures those legally allowed to pack heat, there are now some 18 million with permits, up from 11 million four years ago.

Founder and President Tim Schmidt estimates that up to 40-percent of his 300,000 members are Democrats. What’s more, he said that of another three million who have sought information from his group, half are Democrat.

“A lot of new people are getting permits,” Schmidt said.

Of his prospects, he added, “Half of them align themselves with the Democrats. So this whole concept of wanting to defend yourself doesn’t go straight down Republican or conservative lines. I think everyone wants to defend themselves. We have all sorts of folks who say they are Democrats but want to carry a gun.”

He said that when USCCA sends out emails critical of Democrats, his phones light up with members who stress that they are gun advocates and Democrats.

“It’s less about politics, I think, than freedom,” said Schmidt.

NRA Wins Lawsuit in Washington State, Prevents I-1639 From Appearing on Ballot

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

The National Rifle Association recently filed a lawsuit challenging the Washington Secretary of State’s decision to certify the significantly flawed and inaccurate petition sheets for Initiative 1639. AND WON! READ MORE

1639 no

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On August 17 the Thurston County Superior Court ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association and ordered a writ of mandamus to prevent I-1639 from appearing on the ballot. The judge agreed the signature sheets did not comply with state law — the font size was too small to be readable and didn’t include strikethroughs.

“The National Rifle Association is glad to see the court today recognized how negligent, if not worse, gun control advocates were in their signature-gathering for this ill-advised ballot initiative,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “We got involved because I-1639 tramples on the rights of Washington state voters, and because the way these anti-gun activists went about pushing their agenda was egregious. We applaud this decision, and will remain vigilant in protecting the constitutional freedoms of all Americans.”

Among other things, I-1639;

Creates a gun registry for any transfers of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles;

Introduces a 10-business day waiting period on the purchase of semi-automatic rifles;

Imposes criminal liability on otherwise law-abiding gun owners who fail to store their firearms to state standards;

Increases the age limit to possess or purchase semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21;

Mandates training prior to purchase;

And authorizes a $25 fee to be assessed to semiautomatic rifle purchasers.

The initiative proponents will likely appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court and we will continue to advocate on behalf of our law-abiding members in the Evergreen state.

Educational Institutions: No NRA Members Need Apply

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

“Being an actual, admitted communist … is less harmful to one’s career prospects than being an NRA member.” Whoa. READ THE WHOLE STORY

no nra

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Like most people, we understand that educational institutions and staff tend to lean left. The degree and intensity of the bend varies across universities, but a leftward orientation is actually expected today.

We’re aware that some — perhaps even many — academics look upon the NRA and gun owners with disdain. We always hoped this didn’t extend to the individual level, that the disdain was limited to the aggregate, and that personal interactions could be open-minded or — gasp! — even cordial.

The thought that academics would consider NRA members the bottom of the proverbial barrel never occurred to us. We never imagined that more college professors would be comfortable with an avowed communist than with an NRA member. It sounds like a joke, like an appeal to extremes to call attention to the absurd, but that’s precisely what a new study has discovered. A sociology professor at the University of North Texas found that political biases in academia peak with NRA members.

Professor George Yancey wanted to investigate possible hiring discrimination in higher education. He asked professors across the country how their support for a job applicant would change if they knew the applicant was a member of certain groups. Of all the groups Yancey tested, “NRA membership was ranked as the most likely to hurt an aspiring professor’s chances of getting hired.”

NRA membership was more damaging than being a Republican, a Libertarian, a vegetarian, a member of the ACLU, or a member of the Green Party. NRA membership is considered more damaging than being a communist.

Overall, more than two in five professors say a person’s membership in the NRA would “‘damage’ an applicant’s chances of getting hired.” Yancey suspects that, “academics envision individuals in the NRA as being on the far right.” Yancey also found that “meat hunters, evangelicals, and fundamentalists also are less likely to be hired.”

Imagine that. Being an actual, admitted communist — who proudly acknowledges being as far left as left can go — is less harmful to one’s career prospects than being an NRA member.

We’ve heard about high school teachers kicking students out of class for wearing NRA shirts. We’ve heard politicians disparage this association and its membership. But to hear that college professors would rather work with a communist than an NRA member is just sad. We found two takeaways from this: first, an inability to explain one’s adherence to a political and economic ideology with an absolute perfect failure rate probably doesn’t matter in academia and, two, academia is somehow even more out of touch with America than any of us thought.

Remember that the next time “academics” release a “study” on “gun violence.”