Gun Writer Feeling Backlash after Choosing Hillary and ‘Immigration’ over RKBA
“He was a contributor to American Rifleman. He is not a current contributor,” Chip Lohman, the Deputy Executive Director of NRA Publications, said about freelance writer Jorge Amselle. He was responding to an inquiry about Amselle’s status after the gun community learned he was supporting Hilary Clinton for president, and viewed “immigration” as an issue of more personal concern than the right to keep and bear arms.
How the story developed over the past few days has been documented since breaking over the weekend, including how some professional trainers and writers have leapt to Amselle’s defense, reserving their hostility for the messenger. That’s comparably unimportant. What every activist gun owner should understand is why Amselle’s position – and the position of all supporting Hillary’s amnesty / pathway to citizenship – would, if actualized, spell the death of legal recognition of the Second Amendment.
“Hillary will introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship within her first 100 days in office,” Clinton’s campaign website promises. That means they’ll be eligible to vote.
And how will they vote? We have two very strong indicators.
First, we have credible reports from a variety of sources:
- PewHispanic.org: “82% of foreign-born Hispanics think controlling gun ownership is more important than protecting gun ownership rights…”
- NewsTaco: “For Latinos gun control is common sense.”
- NBC News: “On Gun Control, A GOP Disconnect With Latino Voters.”
- DCClothesline: “Most Hispanics favor gun control, a Democrat-controlled Congress, and Hillary as president.”
- Talking Points Memo: “Huge Majority of Latinos Back Stricter Gun Laws.”
- Latino Decisions: “Latino voters favor gun restrictions.”
- The Washington Times: “Hispanics already in Democratic corner for 2016.”
Second, we have the real-world experience of places like California, where we get a pretty good idea of how demographics correlate with overwhelming Democrat majorities and resultant gun laws.
Democrat affinity for immigration, both legal and illegal, becomes obvious when you look at the numbers, as Pew research did in its“Political Party Affiliation among Hispanics” poll. Whether you look at all, at registered voters, at native born, foreign born, unauthorized, legal permanent residents or foreign-born US citizens, that affiliation is overwhelmingly Democrat. Refuting those who would have us believe eventual assimilation will create more political homogeneity, the lop-sidedness continues as time goes on. Only 10 percent identify as Republicans after “20 years or more.”
And no, of course I’m not implying that an “R” automatically makes you a friendly. There are plenty willing to sell us out over cheap labor for their patrons. They were the ones who tried and failed to torpedo Hillary’s opponent, with some still effectively (or overtly) working to elect her.
Hillary is the key here. So I have a challenge for Mr. Amselle and for those “pro-gunners” supporting him who are inclined to let personal loyalties overshadow everything else:
- Can you produce credible data – not opinion, not anecdotes – something that can be independently validated, that “amnesty” and a “pathway to citizenship” for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country illegally (and legally, with CURRENT culturally suicidal policies) WILL NOT overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners?
- Can you show us your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will then be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts?
- And can you demonstrate how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts and reverse gains made to date?
If you can’t, and if you still think that shouldn’t be a deal-breaker for who you support, you’re part of the problem and arguably more dangerous to gun owners who trust you than any Democrat.
Contrary to how those asking such questions will be portrayed as a way to chill the discussion, it’s not racist and it’s not xenophobic — it’s merely making certain that U.S. policy on immigration comports with a primary function of Constitutional government, that the laws “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” You’ll note the same people playing that card aren’t accusing Mexico of racism for its “common sense” laws.