
We’ve seen a fair number of strange reactions from Republicans and other conservatives to last week’s terror attack in San Bernardino, California–with the story combining the two disparate narratives of international terrorism and gun control in ways that conservatives can’t easily square up.
Unless you’re Tom Tancredo! In which case it’s easy-peasy to chart a way forward. A lunatic way, we admit, but…
In San Bernardino, the police arrived in 4 minutes of the first shots, and still 14 people were slaughtered. Next time it could be 140 or 400.
In San Bernardino, the assassins were two “self-radicalized” Islamist jihadists, one of them an American-born Muslim of Pakistani immigrant parents. The mastermind of the Paris attack of last month was not a refugee, he was a French citizen born to Moroccan immigrants. The female half of that pair of assassins had been “vetted” by two federal agencies and awarded a visa.
It’s time to wake up and smell the ashes of self-delusion.
In response to radical Islam’s declaration of war on America, Barack Obama plays golf and Hillary Clinton wants to have a “national conversation” about gun confiscation. Let’s hope she continues with such vapid stupidities, as it will be a fitting final chapter to her political biography.
If President Obama or any president ever attempts gun confiscation in America, there should be and will be a second civil war. An America disarmed is an America in subjugation.
Okie dokie! So what’s the solution, we’re afraid to ask?
To show we are serious about empowering 100 million citizens for self-defense, we should seriously consider subsidizing the purchase of firearms by low-income citizens. Terrorists and criminals already know how to obtain guns, so why not help the defenseless? If we can afford food stamps and housing subsidies, why not gun stamps to help urban citizens survive the next Islamist assault? [Pols emphasis]

That’s right, folks–former Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo, who ran for President in 2008 and received widespread support from Colorado Republicans for his gubernatorial campaigns in 2010 and 2014, thinks we would subsidize the purchase of guns for low-income Americans. Like food stamps–except for guns!
Really, what could go wrong?
Now obviously, we distribute food stamps to needy Americans to keep them alive. You could imagine “gun stamps” being distributed for a nominally similar purpose, as long as you can overlook the fact that guns also help people die in addition to sometimes helping them live. As opposed to food, which generally only helps with the living part.
Then again, if you buy the poor guns and some of them die, you’d give out fewer food stamps.
So really, what could go wrong?
Bottom line: there are moments when you’d swear you were tricked into reading The Onion or some other satirical fake news site. In those moments, make sure it’s not Breitbart.com, and make sure the author isn’t Tom Tancredo.
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Comments