Alexander Bolton has a column at The Hill where he explores the question of whether or not the ascendant, hard left, liberal wing of the Democrats has finally pushed their part to a tipping point in the run-up to the next presidential election and how that might affect some downticket races as well. The main area he focuses on is the anti-arms race going on among Democrats as they each try to one-up each other on who would ban the most guns the fastest. But given the consistent poll numbers we’ve seen on the subject of gun rights, are they alienating a significant section of the general election audience and putting unwanted pressure on their Senate candidates in critical states?
Glenn Reynolds says: Absolutely not. Double down, dudes!
I hope Reynolds is right in his sentiment and that this nuttiness is going to hurt Democrats. I tend to think he is, but it’s still unnerving to see fat cats like Michael Bloomberg and George Soros willing to throw millions of dollars down a rat hole to satisfy their perverse desire to harass law-abiding gun owners. These are people whose instincts are totalitarian and they have tons of money to further their quest to create a world of slaves under despotic rulers. I wonder how they can be so sure they will be in the ruling class in that dystopian future. Wealth can be ephemeral, especially in the dog-eat-dog world they’re trying to make, i’e, the sort of world that has existed for most of mankind’s history on this earth. In that Leviathan world life be the opposite of what Hobbes envisioned and will more resemble his vision of the state of nature, “Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”
Any new gun law sponsored by money from fat cats should apply to their security details. Alinsky’s RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”