Attacking Governor Provokes GOP Spin Blog to Oppose Pro-Gun Legislation

Pat does love his buttons.
Pat does love his buttons.

In today’s demonstration of the shameless hypocrisy, the GOP spin blog complains about the South Dakota Gun Owners launching a pre-emptive strike against Governor Dennis Daugaard. “The SDGO and the people who run it have never been about passing legislation, as much as attacking people,” gripes Pat Powers, whose stock in blogging-trade has been attacking people.

Powers spotlights SDGO’s out-of-state funders, yet Powers has never scolded his sponsor John Thune for his war chest filled mostly (89%!) with out-of-state money. Powers has no problem taking out-of-state money from the Koch Brothers to fund his blog. (Pssst! SD Gun Owners! Tell your daddy PAC to buy an ad on Pat’s blog, and I’ll bet his complaints about you magically disappear!)

Most importantly, Powers shows that for SDGOP climbers, personality outweighs policy. Gun rights are central to Republican campaigning, but when advocates critique the boss, the propaganda machine shows how bread is buttered.

The fact that proponents are saying mean things about the Governor is the least of the reasons to oppose whatever gun-nut legislation is coming. In an alternate universe where South Dakota Republicans care more about practical policy than personality, Powers would point out that concealed-carry permit holders have killed at least 921 Americans in non-self-defense shootings since 2007. He’d note that toddlers shoot and kill more Americans than Islamic terrorists do. He’d admit that guns offer more risk and little compensatory utility.

But hey, if challenging the Republican Governor is what it takes to get Powers to oppose useless, grandstanding gun legislation, don’t let me get in the way.

8 Responses to Attacking Governor Provokes GOP Spin Blog to Oppose Pro-Gun Legislation

  1. Porter Lansing

    I see Colorado’s resident whacko gun-huggers have broken through the border wall and gone up to your Great White North. Only the name has changed to hide from their reputation.

  2. Don Coyote

    So according to the VPC “study” if a concealed weapons permit holder commits suicide, his/her death is counted as a concealed weapon holder death even though one has nothing to do with the other. Obviously these folks have never heard of correlation not necessarily implying causation.

    On another note, while the Ft Lauderdale shooter may have had a concealed weapon permit (Alaska does allow permitless concealed carry), Florida does not allow concealed carry in an airport terminal nor is open carry allowed. The shooter would have been in violation of both laws. Small comfort.

  3. Bob Newland

    Y’know, just looking at Phat Phough’s smug chubby vapid face makes me angry.

  4. Porter Lansing

    I heard he’s a white God at the all you can eat Chinese buffet. 大白肚皮

  5. Done: “if a concealed weapons permit holder commits suicide, his/her death is counted as a concealed weapon holder death even though one has nothing to do with the other.”

    How can you say one doesn’t have anything to do with the other when the actual metric they are measuring is the number of (human) deaths by the hand of a concealed weapon permit holder?

    A suicide fits this criteria perfectly does it not? A suicide has EVERYTHING to do with the number of deaths from permit holders.

    The point is, there is a powerful gun lobby that likes to tell us concealed weapon permits make us safer and that those obtaining these permits are somehow more qualified to carry a weapon even though in most states obtaining the permit requires zero training.

    These numbers clearly show us that there are still a lot of deaths at the hands of those with concealed carry permits. It may not be even a fraction of all gun crime, but it does show that just because someone has a permit does not somehow mean they are more qualified to own or use a firearm. It sort of makes a mockery of the permit process doesn’t it?

    Full disclosure – I have a concealed weapons permit. I think it took about five minutes out of my day to fill out the form downtown, and cost something like $10. They mailed me my permit a few weeks later. The entire process was somewhat of a joke.

  6. barry freed

    Here is what comes of ignorance and prejudices. Ignorance and prejudice helped murder a woman at the Rapid City convenience store Tuesday night. The owners, believing their ignorance and prejudice trump the 2nd Amendment, not only forbid employees to carry, employees have to sign an employment agreement making themselves liable to civil action if they do carry a gun, violating their Rights a second time. They must sign away their Right of self defense, and the right to defend themselves in Court. Of course, you will never see the owners there, unarmed after midnight, they know how dangerous it is as they post a lone, defenseless woman on the graveyard shift. I hope her family finds the meanest, hungriest lawyer and sues for violating her Constitutional Rights in Federal Court, after the wrongful death suit in State Court.

    “Clerk is Unarmed” is posted on the doors.

    This places kicks the Police out, if they are armed.

    Craig, I suppose a process would be a joke, if having the whole process in the first place, was an unconstitutional joke; as it would also be with a Speech Permit.

  7. Forbidding employees from carrying guns at work is neither ignorance nor prejudice. It is a rational decision, based on rational calculation of risk and benefit, as well as a business/property owner exercising his right to control what takes place on his property and the activities his employees engage in while on the clock. It is no different from banning employees from carrying or using their cell phones while on the clock, behind the counter or behind the wheel. If you can’t go for eight hours without fondling your phone or your bang-bang, get a different job.

    The policy did not help murder a woman. The murderers bear full responsibility for that murder.

  8. There is also a horrid liability issue for business owners who allow their employees the fictional, (2nd Amendment Right) to self defense outside the sanctity of ones domicile. We should not buy into this flimsy notion that the 2nd Amendment and the privilege of permitted concealed carry translate into some hair brained idea that individual citizens are guaranteed a right to self defense. That notion went out the door with dueling.