Sunday, February 8, 2026
Saturday, February 7, 2026
Do right by the Sublette antelope herd
Do right by the Sublette antelope herd: State should protect the full migration corridor, writes guest columnist Ben Elzay.
Friday, February 6, 2026
Thursday, February 5, 2026
Industry reps, hunters and others start review of world’s longest pronghorn migration
Industry reps, hunters and others start review of world’s longest pronghorn migration: As members get their bearings, it’s not yet decided how the state’s working group will devise recommended changes to a migration corridor that biologists have been trying to designate for seven years.
Wednesday, February 4, 2026
Tuesday, February 3, 2026
Lex Anteinternet: Friday, February 3, 1911. Dangers of nature.
Lex Anteinternet: Friday, February 3, 1911. Dangers of nature.: 253 ice fishermen, who had set up a "fishing village" on an ice floe in the Bjorko Sound in Finland, were killed when a gale swept...
Friday, February 3, 1911. Dangers of nature.
253 ice fishermen, who had set up a "fishing village" on an ice floe in the Bjorko Sound in Finland, were killed when a gale swept the settlement out into the Baltic Sea. On the same day, George Grey, brother of British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey, was killed by a lion while hunting in Africa.
Mexican revolutionary Abraham Gonzalez moved his office to the Caples building in El Paso, Texas.
California adopted the bear flag as its state flag.
California's flag is frankly weird. The state was only a republic very briefly, and grizzly bears were driven out of the state long, long ago.
Last edition:
Thursday, February 2, 1911. Fighting in Mexico.
Labels: 1910s, 1911, Antarctic, cavalry, Haiti, Honduras, Mexican Revolution, Mexico, Navy, Pascual Orozco, Royal Navy
The Agrarian's Lament: What have you done for me lately? Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 5.
The Agrarian's Lament: What have you done for me lately? Addressing polit...: An agricultural country which consumes its own food is a finer thing than an industrial country, which at best can only consume its own smok...
What have you done for me lately? Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 5.
An agricultural country which consumes its own food is a finer thing than an industrial country, which at best can only consume its own smoke.
Chesterton.
A long time ago I started a post on one of our companion blogs about agriculturalist and the Republican Party. I can't find it now, maybe I published it, or maybe I didn't.
As I"m in both worlds, the urban and the agricultural, I get exposed to the political views of both camps. The Trump administration has made this a really interesting, and horrifying, experience. By and large professionals detest Donald Trump and regard him as a charleton Farmers and ranchers are, however, amongst his most loyal base, even though there's no real reason for them to be such. Indeed, with the damage that Trump is doing to agriculture this will be a real test of whether farmers and ranchers simply reflexively vote Republican or stop doing son and wake up.
The Democratic Party, not the GOP, saved family farmers and ranchers in this country when the forces of the unabated Homestead ACt and the Great Depression were going to destroy them. They've seemingly resented being saved from those forces, however, as an impingement on their freedoms, and they've bristled at every government act since that time. Farmers and ranchers would rather sink in a cesspool of their own making than be told how to properly build one, basically.
We here, of course, aren't a pure agricultural blog. This is an Agrarian blog, and that's different. We are, quite frankly, much more radical.
"The land belongs to those who work it."
Zapata.
Agrarianism is an ethical perspective that privileges an agriculturally oriented political economy. At its most concise, agrarianism is “the idea that agriculture and those whose occupation involves agriculture are especially important and valuable elements of society
Bradley M. Jones, American Agrarianism.
Still, we can't help but notice that American agriculturalist, more than any other class of businessmen, have voted to screw themselves by voting for Donald Trump. They voted for tariff wars that leave their products marooned here in the US while foreign competitors take advantage of that fact. They've voted for a guy who thinks global warming is a fib (which many of them do as well) in spite of the plain evidence before their eyes, and the fact that this will destroy the livelihoods of the younger ones. They've voted to force economic conditions that will force them off the lands and their lands into the hands of the wealthy.
Indeed, on that last item, they've voted for people who share nothing in common with them whatsoever and would just as soon see them out of business, or simply don't care what happens to them.
They've voted, frankly, stupidly.
Well, nothing cures stupidly more than a giant dope slap from life, and they're getting one right now. The question is whether they'll vote in 2026 and 2028 to be bent over, or start to ask some questions.
We're going to post those questions here.
1. What connection does the candidate have with agriculture?
They might not have any and still be a good candidate, but if they're running around in a plaid shirt pretending to be a 19th Century man of the soil, they should be dropped.
They should also be dropped if they're like Scott Bessent, who pretends to be a soybean farmer when he's actually a major league investor. Indeed, big money is the enemy of agriculture and always has been.
I'd also note that refugees from agriculture should be suspect. The law is full of them, people who were sent off to law school by their farmer and rancher parents who believed, and in their heart of hearts still believe, that lawyers, doctors and dentist, indeed everyone in town, don't really work. All of these refugees live sad lives, but some of them spend time in their sad lives on political crusades that are sort of a cry out to their parents "please love me".
I know that sounds radical, but it's true.
2. What will they do to keep agricultural lands in family hands, and out of absentee landlord hands?
And the answer better not be a "well I'm concerned about that". The answer needs to be real.
From an agrarian prospective, no solution that isn't a massive trend reversing one makes for a satisfactory answer to this question. Ranches being bought up by the extremely wealthy are destroying the ability of regular people to even dare to hope to be in agriculture. This can be reversed, and it should be, but simply being "concerned" won't do it.
3. What is your view on public lands?
If the answer involves transferring them out of public hand, it indicates a love of money that's ultimately always destructive to agriculture in the end.
Indeed, in agricultural camps there remains an unabated lust for the public lands even though transferring them into private hands, whether directly or as a brief stop over in state hands, would utterly destroy nearly ever farm and ranch in local and family ownership . The change in value of the operations would be unsustainable, and things would be sold rapidly.
Public lands need to stay in public hands.
4. How do you make your money?
People think nothing of asking farmers "how many acres do you have" or ranchers "how many cattle do you have", both of which is the same as asking "how much money do you have".
Knowing how politicians make their money is a critical thing to know. No farmer or rancher, for example, has anything in common with how the Trump family makes money, and there's no reason to suppose that they view land as anything other than to be forced into developers hands and sold.
5. What is your position on global warming?
If its any variety of "global warming is a fib", they don't deserve a vote.
6. What is your position on a land ethnic?
If they don't know what that means, they don't deserve a vote.
7. What's on your dinner table, and who prepares it?
That may sound really odd, and we don't mean for it to be a judgment on what people eat. . . sort of. But all agriculturalist are producing food for the table. . . for the most part, if we ignore crops like cotton, or other agricultural derived textiles, of which there are a bunch, and if we ignore products like ethanol.
Anyhow, I'll be frank. If a guy is touring cattle country and gives an uneasy chuckle and says, "well, I don't eat much meat anymore" do you suppose he really cares about ranching? If you do, you need your head checked.
You probably really need it checked if the candidate doesn't every grill their own steak but has some sort of professional prepare their dinner every night. That would mean that they really have very little chance of grasping
8. What's your understanding of local agriculture?
That's a pretty broad question, but I'm defining agriculture very broadly here. Indeed, what I mean is the candidates understanding of the local use of nature, to include farming and ranching, but to also include hunting, fishing and commercial fishing.
Indeed, on the latter, only the commercial fishing industry seems to have politicians that really truly care what happens to them. How that happened isn't clear, but it does seem to be the case.
Otherwise, what most politicians seem to think is that farmers wear plaid flannel shirts. I see lots of them wondering around in photographs looking at corrals, or oil platforms, but I never see one actually do any work. . . of pretty much any kind. That is, I don't expect to see Chuck Gray flaking a calf, for example.
Last and prior editions:
Claiming the mantle of Christ in politics. Don't support liars and don't lie. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 4.
Claiming the mantle of Christ in politics. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 3.
Questions hunters, fishermen, and public lands users need to ask political candidates. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 2.
Labels: 2026 Election, 2028 Election, Commentary, Democratic Party, Politics, Questions for politicians, Republican Party, Trailing threadLabels: 2026 Election, 2028 Election, Camping, Climate Change, fishing, hunting, Politics, Public Lands, Questions for politicians, Right Wing Politics and Politicians, The Land Ethic, This is why we can't have nice things
Addressing politicians in desperate times. A series.
Monday, February 2, 2026
Churches of the West: Claiming the mantle of Christ in politics. Don't support liars and don't lie. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 4.
Churches of the West: Claiming the mantle of Christ in politics. Don't s...: Χαῖρε Μαρία κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ Κύριος μετά σοῦ, Ἐυλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξὶ, καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σοῦ Ἰησούς. Ἁγία Μαρία, μῆτερ...
Claiming the mantle of Christ in politics. Don't support liars and don't lie. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 4.
Χαῖρε Μαρία κεχαριτωμένη,
ὁ Κύριος μετά σοῦ,
Ἐυλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξὶ,
καὶ εὐλογημένος ὁ καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας σοῦ Ἰησούς.
Ἁγία Μαρία, μῆτερ θεοῦ,
προσεύχου [πρέσβευε] ὑπέρ ἡμῶν τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν,
νῦν καὶ ἐν τῇ ὥρᾳ τοῦ θανάτου ἡμῶν.
Ἀμήν
So, a big one that we didn't include yesterday, as it deserves its own post. This may be the most significant post of this thread.
Don't lie and don's support liars.
Everyone has heard the old joke, “How do you know a politician is lying?” The answer. Because their mouth is moving." That stretches the point, but there's some truth behind the joke, as there is with any good joke.
Indeed, we've become so used to politicians lying that we basically expect it. The current era, however has brought lying, as well as truth telling, into a new weird surreal era.
Lying is a sin. It's been debated since early times if it's always a sin, or if there are circumstances in which it may be allowed, limited though those be. If it's every allowable, it's in situations like war, where after all, killing is allowed. Most of us lie, but it's almost always sinful.
In Catholic theological thought, lying can be a mortal sin. It's generally accepted that most lies are not in that category. So, "yes, dear, I love gravy burgers" is not a mortal sin. But lies can definitely be mortally sinful. Lying over a grave matter is mortally sinful, if the other conditions for mortal sin are met.
Donald Trump, whom some deluded Christians refer to as a "Godly Man", lies routinely and brazenly, and this has brought lying into the forefront, even as he's shocked people, rightfully, by following through on some of his promises, but not all, that were assumed to be lies or at least exaggerations. He's advanced lies about who won the 2020 election, and many of his followers have advanced those lies as well. Some people, of course, believe the lies and advance what they assume to be the truth, but some of that is being wilfully ignorant that they are lies.
Of course here, as always, I'm coming at this from a Catholic prospective. I do not accept the thesis that some do that lies can be utilized to advanced something we regard as a greater good. Some hold the opposite view and I'm fairly convinced that some Christian Nationalist politicians hold the opposite view. I frankly wonder, for example, if Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, hold the opposite view. Johnson claims to be a devout Christian and if he doesn't hold the opposite view, based on the lies he spouts, he must despair of his own salvation quite frequently, unless he hold the completely erroneous "once saved always saved" view some Evangelical Christians hold, or if he's a Calvinist that figures that double predestination has the fate of everyone all determined anyhow, which is also a theologically anemic position.
A very tiny minority of Christians hold such views, however. For the rest of us, it's incumbent not to reward lying, and not to advance lies. It's dangerous and destructive to everyone. It should not be tolerated by anyone. And in this era, and for the proceeding several, it's destroying everything.
Last and prior editions:
Claiming the mantle of Christ in politics. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 3.
Questions hunters, fishermen, and public lands users need to ask political candidates. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 2.
Labels: 2026 Election, 2028 Election, Commentary, Democratic Party, Politics, Questions for politicians, Republican Party, Trailing threadLabels: 2026 Election, 2028 Election, Camping, Climate Change, fishing, hunting, Politics, Public Lands, Questions for politicians, Right Wing Politics and Politicians, The Land Ethic, This is why we can't have nice things
Addressing politicians in desperate times. A series.
State weighs damage Seminoe ‘pumped water’ project might cause popular Miracle Mile trout fishery
State weighs damage Seminoe ‘pumped water’ project might cause popular Miracle Mile trout fishery: Department of Environmental Quality says it is crafting a plan to prevent "further degradation from human activity."
Saturday, January 31, 2026
Thursday, January 29, 2026
Questions hunters, fishermen, and public lands users need to ask political candidates. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 2.
But these are not ordinary times in Wyoming, or anywhere else.
Most real outdoorsmen, and by that I mean the sort of outdoorsmen who have the world out look that those who post here do, not guys with excess cash who are petty princes like Eric Trump, would rather be hunting or fishing, or reading about hunting and fishing, than thinking about politics. But just like duck hunter (seriously) Leon Trotsky once stated; “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you,” and that applies to politics as well as war.
Trotsky. Bad man, but he was a hunter and fisherman.
You might not be interested in politics, but politics is very interested in you.
And frankly, given the assault on everything hunters, fishermen, and the users of public lands hold dear, you don't really have the luxury, and that is what it is, of ignoring politics.
Nor do you have the luxury of ignoring your politicians.
Donald Trump was embarrassing his first term in office, but in his second unrestrained term in office, he and the Republican Party have been a disaster for outdoorsmen, nature, and the environment. Last year there was a diehard effort by Deseret Mike Lee to basically sell off massive parts of the public domain. That effort was supported by all three of Wyoming's Congressional delegation in spite of massive public opposition to it. This year a Freedom Caucus member, Rep. Wasserburger, is trying the same thing in the state with state lands. None of this should be any surprise as Freedom Caucuser Bob Ide, who campaigned on less government, more freedom, but who is a big landlord depending on the government to protect his property rights, sponsored an effort to grab the public lands the legislative session before that.
When put right to it, the Freedom Caucus hates government ownership of anything, and by extension, just flat out isn't really very concerned about the collective good on anything at all. They're an alien carpetbagging force in the country, but the sort of dimwitted views they have on nature and land are being expressed all across the country. Hunters, fishermen, farmers, ranchers, campers, hikers and other users of the land who had reflexively voted for one party or another based on some belief on what those parties held can absolutely no longer afford to do that.
Part of this is because politicians just flat out lie. People who naively thought that Donald Trump was a supporter of the Second Amendment, and therefore supported "gun rights" are finding out right now that he never believed any of that. Why would he? He's an old, fat, wealthy, New Yorker. It's not like you saw him at the range, now is it?
But chances are, you haven't seen California Chuck Gray there either, have you?
So, some questions that you, dear feral reader, really need to ask your politicians.
1. Do you have a hunting or fishing license right now, and if you do, can you pull it out of your wallet so we can see it?
It used to be standard in Wyoming and Colorado, and I bet other Western states, to see a politician dragged out in front of a camera for an advertising campaign wearing brand new hunting clothing and carrying a shotgun (interestingly, never a rifle). It was a little fraud that we all participated in. We knew that the politicians would probably wet his pants if he had to fire the gun, but we took that as a symbol of support.
Don't.
Find out if they really share your values. Do they hunt, or fish? What's the proof?
And if they answer yes, find out what that means. Does it mean the politician goes sage grouse hunting every year or does it mean that he waddles on to a pheasant farm once a year to shoot some POW pheasants? Worse yet, does it mean that he went on a catered "hunt" in Texas with fat cats.
How often does he go, where does he go, does he use public land to hunt?
Same thing with fishing.
If he doesn't do either, and regularly, don't vote for him easily. Chances are he cares as much about hunting as Elon Musk does about marital fidelity.
2. Do you use public land for anything, and if so, what?
Nearly every feral person worth his salt uses public land. Does your Pol? And I mean for anything. Hunting, fishing, camping, running cattle, photography, running nude through the daisies. Anything.
And ask for proof.
If that proof is a photograph of a cleanly shaved pol with brand new clothing, it's proof he doesn't use it, or that she doesn't use it.
And if the answer is the typical "I love Yellowstone National Park", be very careful National Parks are great, but a lot of them aren't really very wild until you get off the beaten path. Going on an auto tour of Yellowstone and seeing all the geysers is great, but that's not proof of much. And quite a few of the "I support public lands" political class limits that support to parks. Everything is fair game for development in their view.
3. Do you shoot?
I don't expect every outdoor users to be a shooter, although in the West, if you are a user of wildlands and don't have a gun, you are a complete and utter fool. Having said that, I'll be frank that I have known fishermen who had one gun, probably a revolver, that they carried in some places. They probably went years between shooting it. I don't regard owning a gun as a precursor to all feral uses of land, particularly by people who don't hunt, but who do fish, or camp, or hike (but if you do any of these things, please get a handgun and learn how to use it).
A lot of people in the West vote for pols based solely on "I support the Second Amendment type statements". Lots of people allowed themselves to be duped into voting for Donald Trump that way, although we never believed his claims to be a Second Amendment supporter. We're sorry that we were so right. Anyhow, ask them if they have a gun and if they shoot.
No matter what they really believe, they're going to say yes.
I'll note I've seen this question asked just once, and when I did the female candidate, a native Wyomingite with a rural background, went on to qualify that she was just familiar with .22s. Okay, that's an honest answer.
She was, I'd note, a Democrat.
You do need to follow up on the question.
Right now, if you asked this question of Chuck Gray or John Barrasso, they'd both undoubtedly say yes. I don't know if either of them owns a firearm, but my guess is that if they do they own it in the way of people who have bought or been given a handgun that's gone in a drawer, and that's where it stays. Ask for proof. What do they own, where do they shoot, how often, and are there photos. And not photos from a gun show, like Reid Rasner posted the other day.
Take them to the range and have them shoot a box of .375 H&H. If they run to the SUV crying, they're out.
If they can't back this stuff up, I'd assume they really don't care about the Second Amendment. There are people who don't shoot at all who do care about the Second Amendment, but they're are rare as people who are interested in stock cars but don't follow NASCAR (this would describe me). Not too many.
4. Do they believe in man made climate change?
This gets to the land ethic. Educated people, and most politicians, are educated who say no really don't give a rats ass about the planet or they're engaging in diehard self delusion. They're comfortable with everything being destroyed as long as they're dead before it happens or they just can't face the hard task of addressing, correcting, and reversing it. They're not worth voting for.
Aldo Leopold.
5. Do they have a land ethic?
I've known a lot of people who have a very strong land ethic. Absolutely none of them didn't make use of wilderness in some ways.
That's a big clue.
Anyhow, more than anything else, do they have a land ethic? That is;
A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.
Aldo Leopold.
Do they support that?
A huge pile of Western politicians really don't. Some, however, who would surprise you do. This is a hard question to really explore, because an existential question isn't necessarily easy to question on. In a collegiate debate, you'd just state the proposition and ask if they agreed, or didn't and follow up with examples. That may be the best way to do it.
Nobody should vote for a politician who doesn't support the Land Ethic.
Last edition:
Addressing politicians in desperate times. A series.
Wyoming public land housing project spurs debate over land use
Wyoming public land housing project spurs debate over land use: As Jackson annexes a small parcel of national forest, the novel public-private partnership raises questions about building employee housing on public lands.
With one Laramie race, deep snow and strong winds are the point
With one Laramie race, deep snow and strong winds are the point: Small, free, mountain race draws masochists looking for community in mutual suffering, says outdoor writer Christine Peterson.
Wednesday, January 28, 2026
Tuesday, January 27, 2026
How a Secret Greenland Military Base Hastened the Collapse of an Arctic World
How a Secret Greenland Military Base Hastened the Collapse of an Arctic World: In 1951, Jean Malaurie was dogsledding along northwestern Greenland when he saw a city under construction. It had not been there three months earlier.
Nuclear waste, state land use top Wyoming Legislature’s energy agenda
Nuclear waste, state land use top Wyoming Legislature’s energy agenda: Recent controversies over sprawling energy development have triggered a slate of bills to empower voters and communities in state-level energy ambitions.
Monday, January 26, 2026
Lex Anteinternet: The Trump Administration decides the Second Amendment ain't that much.
Lex Anteinternet: The Trump Administration decides the Second Amendm...: One of my predictions is that we're going to see a violent couple of years. The other is that within a year and a half the editorial pag...
The Trump Administration decides the Second Amendment ain't that much.
Yeoman, January 6, 2025.
Alex Pretti, who was shot down by the Border Patrol, with Border Patrol shooting ten rounds.1
I'm seeing one of my predictions about the Second Trump Administration coming true.
Everyone should have seen it.
Of the many people I know who voted for Donald Trump, there were three groups of what I'd call "single issue" voters who voted for him on the solid belief that he shared their views on one single issue, and that overrode everything else. There are: 1) opponents of abortion2 , 2) opponents of gun control, 3) opponents of wars overseas ("forever wars").3
Trumps betrayed you, if you are in one of these categories, on all three.
The betrayal on gun control is simply epic.
A few days ago the Border Patrol gunned down Alex Pretti. They actually shot ten shots. People will defend the Border Patrol on this, but it's indefensible. He was carrying a handgun legally, and it had been removed from him before he was killed.4
For decades the NRA insisted that Americans, and indeed everyone everywhere, had an absolute right to carry a firearm anywhere and campaigned for the right to carry, concealed and unconcealed, everywhere.5 Pretti had availed himself of that right. He was going absolutely nothing illegal at the time he was gunned down.
The Administration's reaction has been to make every left wing gun control argument you've ever heard.
I don't know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.
Kash Patel. Well, Kash, don't come to Wyoming then. There aren't any, and I mean any, largescale demonstrations were people aren't carrying, concealed and unconcealed. Shoot, I saw a guy with a M1 Garand and fixed bayonet a couple of years ago.
Patel tried to claim that Pretti was breaking the law by carrying a sidearm at a protest, apparently ignoring that this guy became a hero for something like that:
Minneapolis police officials, at any rate, quickly disabused that notion, noting in the press and on Face the Nation that this simply isn't true. Pretti wasn't breaking the law.
That same comment was made House Majority Leader Steve Scalise who was flat out confronted by Margaret Brennan on the same topic on Face the Nation. Scalise stumpbed all over himself and said he was for the Second Amendment had had sponsored a concealed carry law down in Louisiana, but that if you are carrying a gun while breaking the law it's a felony, and Pretti was breaking the law.
Pretti wasn't breaking the law, but it does give you a pretty good idea of what the former Republican Party, now the Fascist Party, thinks of the 1st Amendment as well as the 2nd.
The ever nervous Scott Bessent had to appear on Meet the Press.
KARL: He was an ICU use who worked for the VA and there's no evidence he brandished the gun whatsoever
BESSENT: But he brought a gun
KARL: I mean, we do have a Second Amendment
BESSENT: I've been to a protest -- guess what? I didn't bring a gun. I brought a billboard
The always nervous Scott Bessent.6
Bessent has been to a protest? Was it a super megabucks soybean protest?
Same thing here. Now bringing a gun to a protest marks you for death.
Kristi Noem, whose thugs committed the killing, really went after Pretti, calling him a domestic terrorist. That is now the official line for any of these protestors, they're terrorists. Neom sated:
I don't know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.
Noem falsely accused Pretti of brandishing the weapon.
Stephen Miller called Pretti "an assassin" and accused him of trying to murder Federal agents.
J. D. Vance repeated that lie, and Gregory Bovino more or less did. Only Trump, who was initially claimed to have said something falsely, apparently hasn't.
Ironically, it was the press and the police that were defending Second Amendment rights to carry the past couple of days. You shouldn't bring a gun to a protest. Pretti's handgun, which is a fairly typical 9mm SIG, was a "military weapon" (it is, but just about any semi automatic handgun could be), he had "multiple magazines".
And finally, we have the Dear Leader himself:
I don’t like any shooting. I don’t like it. But I don’t like it when somebody goes into a protest and he’s got a very powerful, fully loaded gun with two magazines loaded up with bullets also. That doesn’t play good either.
Donald Trump.7
Basically, the Administration's position is that if you are carrying a handgun, the Federal Government can gun you down.
All things right out of the left wing gun control handbook.
The very thing, I"d note, that the NRA warned us about, in regard to the Federal Government, with the irony being it comes right from the man they backed.
Not that any of this should be a surprise. I've never felt for a moment that Trump had any actually affinity for firearms or was a member of "gun culture".8 He's a salesman, and he sold gun owners a line of bull.
Now they know better. But it will be too late.
The things is, however, the accomplishments on the Second Amendment have been made. They can be taken away. Therefore, a real "fool me once" thing is at play here. A lot of gun owners are going to keep backing Trump as they'll refuse to think on this.
And that's why support for Trump will prove to be too late. W.E.B. Dubois declared that "only a fool never changes his mind". How many gun owners will choose to be fools?
Footnotes:
1. The large number of shots suggest that the Border Patrol falls into the keep shooting category of policing, which many large city police do as well.
I'm not a fan of magazine capacity laws, but I"m at the point where I don't think most policemen of any type should carry a firearm at all, and that when they do, it's time to go back to .38 revolvers. They're simply less likely to kill people if they are med in that fashion
2. A lot of people who find this to be a deep moral issue, and I do see it that way, voted for Trump on the false belief that they had no other choice. There were other choices.
Now Trump is urging his supporters to soften their opposition to abortion. Mitch McConnel gets credit for the conservative judiciary that Trump put in place, which issued the Dodds decision, but there would be no real strong reason to feel that Trump cares much about the issue himself.
Trump's own sexual history is immoral, and usually multiple partners indicates a casual attitude towards abortion. There's nothing to indicate that any of Trump's tarts had one, but he has shifted his position, and its still shifting, over the years.
3. Trump really likes to brand himself as a peace president but there are no wars that the US was involved in when he took office that we are now out of, the only real lingering one being the war in Syria. He's started a new conflict in Venezuela, conducted a largescale mixed result raid in Iran, and appears to about to hit Iran again.
4. Pretti's parents said that they knew he had a permit, but didn't know him to actually carry. I'm in the same category.
My reaction is probably a lot like a lot of people in Pretty's category. I'm going to start carrying.
5. A spokesman from the NRA initially defended the shooting, slightly, and then the organization, waking up to the fact that it's about to be dumped by its members (it's already in financial trouble) backtracked and came out supporting carrying, but in a very muted fashion.
6. Bessent is another figure who doesn't square with what MAGA claims its view of the world is. He's an open homosexual in a homosexual union, something that MAGAs declare as abhorrent and which they repeatedly sneered at Biden's Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and his Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre for. It's been interesting that Buttigieg and Jean-Pierre were condemned for the very same thing that Bessent does at home, the point being that like a lot of members of fascist movements, MAGA adherents will suspend all of their supposedly deeply held beliefs to follow the leader.
7. The two magazine thing is a real left wing talking point.
Use of the terms "very powerful" and "bullets" in place of cartridges almost always demonstrates firearms ignorance. 9mm pistols are not "very powerful". Quite the contrary. That's why some police forces simply blaze away with them, and why soldiers are taught to shoot an opponent more than once. The 9mm should be a good police round for that very reason as its unlikely to kill anyone with a single shot.
8. I'll have to get into gun culture, which I use as a positive expression, not a negative one, elsewhere, but I've never trusted anyone in the Second Amendment movement who wasn't an active member of a shooting sport, if even only a collector. While Eric Trump is a hunter, Donald Trump's only outside interest seems to be the incredibly boring sport of golf. If you can shoot, you wouldn't send much time on the golf course.
Wayne LaPierre, the former head of the NRA, struck me that way also, but I don't really know much about him. Chuck Gray in Wyoming strikes me that way also, although I could of course be wrong.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)