Google+ Followers

Blog Catalog

Friday, September 16, 2016

2016: The Year Guns Took Over Election Campaigns

It really does seem as though this campaign year, 2016, has been the year guns, somehow, inexplicably, took over in our election campaigns. They've nothing whatever to do with the office the candidate is running for but there they are, the men, the boys and their guns.

This was the first one I was aware of locally, here in Missouri. Mr. Eric Greitens, former Navy Seal--he wants to make sure you know--goes out in the countryside and "blows things up real good."

As if that weren't enough, unfortunately, a candidate I'm for very recently--just this week, I believe--released this video.

I ask you, what does assembling an automatic weapon, especially one meant for the battlefield, have to do with running a government, a bureacracy efficiently, intelligently and at small a cost as possible?  The boys seem to have to have their guns and show them off.

Tell me we're not getting more stupid.

This seems to be further proof, further reason More Women Need to Lead the World.


Anonymous said...

Kander has just shown that he's not fit for office.

Mo Rage said...


In your opinion, anyway.

How would you say that's so?

Anonymous said...

In my opinion he's shown that he's just as qualified as Jack Black in "Mars Attacks" (see TKC). It's a stupid stunt that has nothing to do with the office he's seeking, in fact, in my opinion, it shows mental health issues & low intelligence, or do you think it actually speaks to the issues.

Mo Rage said...

With this one detour, this one diversion, I think he both addresses our issues and is at least as qualified as now Senator Blunt ever was and likely more so.

Sevesteen said...

I'll agree it is a stunt, and a bit tacky. However, what it shows to me (knowing nothing about him except this ad) is that he's likely to have enough understanding of guns to have an informed opinion. Almost all gun control advocates are willfully ignorant about guns, refusing to learn even the basics of what they are really proposing--not able to explain how a barrel shroud or adjustable stock makes a gun more likely to be abused, but more than willing to ban them.

Most hunting rifles are mechanically very close copies of the Mauser used by the Germans in WWI. How far back do we go before "meant for the battlefield" doesn't disqualify a gun from civilian use?

Why is so much gun control based on derogatory name calling instead of facts?