I covered Cory Booker’s town tall where he answered a question about gun violence with the NRA blood libel.

It was Kristin Gillibrand’s turn to have a town hall with CNN, and decided to go with the same NRA blood libel talking point.

Clearly this is now part of the 2020 Democrat script.

Every statement that poured out of her mendacious lie hole was factually incorrect.  But you knew that.

The NRA doesn’t sell guns and it’s not financed by the gun industry.

Gun manufactures don’t want to sell guns to terrorist or criminals.  It is a disgusting smear of good, patriotic Americans who work in the industry.

I can’t imagine that there are several hundred people working in a factory only a few miles from my house that want the guns that they  make to fall into the hands of criminals and terrorists, to be used to kill innocent people, just so that they can make a buck.

But say that people in the gun industry were really that soulless, the liability of that minority of sales versus the revenue isn’t worth it as the PLCAA doesn’t protect a company from criminal acts.  Knowingly selling a gun to a terrorist is just bad for business.

Gillibrand wants to get elected.  She wants power.  She knows that gun violence scares people.

So she is going to demonize and dehumanize tens of thousands of patriotic Americans working in the gun industry and some six million NRA members, scapegoating them for violence that is not their fault to get votes.

She is accusing a minority of a few million Americans as people who want to contribute to the deaths of innocents for profit and self satisfaction.

This is the blood libel.

It make sense that the same party that has so ready adopted antisemitism has made the blood libel part of their 2020 platform.

As the 2020 primary campaign moves forward and every Democrat has the opportunity to invoke the NRA blood libel, you know the rhetoric will only get worse as candidate take more and more extreme positions to set them selves apart from the pack.

I’m just curious who will be the first Democrat to propose a final solution to the NRA question, as that is where this kind of language leads.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

7 thoughts on “It’s Gillibrand’s turn to spread the NRA Blood Libel”
  1. If the Dems declare the NRA as a terrorist organization as a first step, say, then no member can have a job with the US government, and no member can have a security clearance.

    I suspect the impact, especially the clearance revocations, would have a rather large negative effect on defense related R&D and manufacturing. Especially if they made it so as to include not only current but former members.

    But I wouldn’t expect the Dems to care much about that, any more than they care about the people their other policies hurt.

  2. This woman is a moron, albeit one with access to the bully pulpit:

    “On Monday night, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a candidate for president in 2020, seemed not to understand the concept of tactical nuclear weapons. She warned against developing nuclear weapons that are “tactile,” warning such weapons are dangerous.

    “There is no such thing as a “tactile nuclear weapon.” Gillibrand meant to attack tactical nuclear weapons, which are designed for use on the battlefield with friendly forces in the proximity. Such weapons are intended to limit the destructive power of a nuclear missile, so nuclear weapons could be used with precision. This makes these weapons less dangerous.”

    (Source PJMedia)

  3. As with most Dems any lie is ok if it gets you what you want. I would write more but I have to go to the local nra gun store and buy a used fully semi auto machine gun from a terrorist salesperson.

  4. Yes “gun violence” scares some people…. usually its the hand ringing pussy hat wearin stupid liberals. We the People are quietly buyin guns and ammo and makin criminals scared.
    The more these asshats whine and bitch and blame the NRA the more people they PISS OFF get ALL your gun ownin friends to vote for Trump!!

    1. Anybody can sue. The real question is whether you can win the suit.
      The answer is almost certainly “no”, because of the “public persona” precedent which requires proof of “actual malice” to win. (Robert Redford did a movie on that, come to think of it).
      Also, it seems that the new idea is that any publicity makes you a “public persona” which means that this limit would always apply. That’s the theory used to shield CNN for responsibility for destroying the reputation of a teenager.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.