Monday, August 18, 2014

The Latest Hysterical Paranoia by the Gun Rights Fanatics - Sponsored by Glenn Beck's The Blaze

 Alaska Senate Candidate Finds Link with Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants and Gun Control
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller speaks during a debate Sunday, Aug. 10, 2014, in Anchorage, Alaska. (AP Photo/Mark Thiessen)

The Blaze

U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller linked amnesty for illegal immigrants with more gun control.

The Alaska Republican said granting legal status to a large number of illegal immigrants would lead to more Democratic voters, who would in turn enact more gun restrictions and promote more anti-gun judges.

“If 20 million illegals vote, you can kiss the Second Amendment goodbye,” a recent Miller campaign mailer says.

During a Republican debate, Miller also made the correlation between the two issues, the Alaska Dispatch News reported.

“There’s a clear correlation, and the clear correlation is this: If you end up granting amnesty to those who don’t value gun rights, who have not been raised in an environment where the Second Amendment is cherished—is considered to be a God-given right—the reality is over a generation or two, the likelihood is very strong that the Second Amendment will not be here,” Miller said.


  1. So what's the "hysterical paranoia" part? The assessment that newly legalized former illegal immigrants would overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, and "progressive" Democrats, to boot? Or that said Democrats would use their newfound political hegemony to advance the "gun control" agenda?

    If you don't dispute either of those assessments (and I wonder how you would try), how is it "hysterical paranoia" to state that wholesale legalization of millions of illegal immigrants would lead--and fairly quickly--to dramatically more restrictive gun laws?

    1. You're absolutely right. I take this opportunity to once again admit unequivocally that I was wrong. It was beyond hyperbole, to use the phrase "hysterical paranoia."

      Now, since you've so adeptly caught me out in this error, does this mean you agree that the gun rights movement is doomed.

    2. Now, since you've so adeptly caught me out in this error, does this mean you agree that the gun rights movement is doomed.

      Um . . . no. The "immigration reform" so lustfully sought by "progressives" has not even happened yet, and won't necessarily happen any time soon. If it does, it's certainly a threat to gun rights politics, and we might have to print our 30-round magazines.

      "Doomed"? Not while our hands are neither cold nor dead.

    3. By the way, although amnesty--the creation of tens of millions of overwhelmingly "progressive" Democrat voters--would be a home run for the Democrats (and gun ban zealots), there's another strategy (which would combine well with the amnesty approach) that I'm surprised is not really being pursued.

      If I were a Democrat strategist, I would push for a bill repealing the 435 seat limit on the House of Representatives (that's been the law since around 1911, although the House briefly expanded to 437 in 1959, with the new states of Alaska and Hawaii each getting one Rep. until the 1960 census determined how to reapportion the statutorily specified 435). The Constitutional limit on the size of the House is one Rep. per 30,000 people. With a population of around 310 million, that limit would allow a House of over 10,000 Reps. That would obviously be impractical, but still, even adding just a couple hundred new Reps., which would be apportioned to the largest (in population), most "progressive" states, would make Democrat control of the House pretty close to inevitable.

      And sure, Republicans would fight such a move for that very reason, but it still surprises me that Democrats don't show any indication of even considering taking a shot at it.