It’s no surprise to us but Gun Owners of California’s late founder is still making the Left’s blood pressure rise. And boy, does this make us smile.
Long after he retired from the California State Senate, H.L. “Bill” Richardson continued to be a media favorite as the guy who would pull-no-punches and colorfully tell it like it is, whether it was about the 2nd Amendment, freedom or his love of America. And were he still with us today, we know damn well he’d stand proudly with the “domestic terrorists” – also known as concerned parents – who have had the courage to recently stand up to the jack-booted thuggery of our government and educational bureaucracy.
To see his name elevated by an East Coast Leftist as one of the chief architects of this current political movement thrills us at GOC to our core:
“One blueprint that conservative activists have adopted comes from the book “Confrontational Politics” by the late H.L Richardson, a former California state senator and gun-rights activist.” – Joseph D. Bastrimovich
True. The popular “Confrontational Politics” does provide a blueprint on how to engage effectively with the Left, and yes, it has been adopted by smart activists over the past 30 years.
But then the fiction is rolled out:
“They’ve [activists] brought scrutiny upon themselves for aggressive tactics, which include being deliberately disruptive, shouting down school board members and even threatening violence toward those they see as enemies. These have become commonly used tactics for other conservative groups.”
Aggressive tactics? Deliberately disruptive? Threatening violence? At this point, I’d ask if the guy had even read the book, but realistically it doesn’t matter because he proves the book’s point that “Dogs bark, jackasses bray, snakes wiggle and liberals lie, it’s their nature to do so.” Let’s leave it at that.
Throughout Richardson’s career and beyond, he called the Left out at every opportunity. Why? Because letting them march ahead without a challenge is a sign of weakness – and the Left knows most resistance on the right is exactly that…weak. That’s why learning how to effectively confront is key. To the average citizen, confrontation is not perceived as a tactic, a method of achieving a given end. However, to the Leftist, it is. To quote from the book, “they view confrontation as a verbal game, a form of semantic warfare to achieve a specific end, a strategy of bluff and bluster, a tactic used to accomplish a political goal, a technique to put an opponent on the defensive.”
The bottom line is that confrontation makes many people uncomfortable because it invokes negative emotions and is perceived as “unsociable behavior.” This actually makes the average American vulnerable, and often the victim of their own decency.
Liberals attribute our civility as weakness and deem our opposition to their agenda as desperate. They think we are buffoons, simpletons, adhering to ideas that are no longer relevant. Thus, understanding their verbal strategies is the first step in being able to combat them – and make no mistake about it – combat them we must. To do otherwise is to abdicate not only the field of American politics, but our homes, families and businesses as well.
For every individual who challenges their local school board or battles unconstitutional gun laws in front of an over-reaching city council – becoming proficient in confrontation is a wise tool to have in your belt. Nothing annoys a Leftist more than an effective conservative.
There’s simply no need to avoid conflict – especially if done well and with control. There’s no need to be nasty. Use perseverance and professionalism. To be effective, positive confrontation requires a positive attitude.
There are teachable moments every step of the way as we battle the evils of the world. We must learn to build alliances and collect residuals in any and all confrontations with the Left – even when facing temporary setbacks or losses. From each conflict something can and must be gained – experience, friendships, political skills, fundraising files, and an evaluation of talent. Understanding how this works will prevent any wilting from the hot pressure of politics. Besides, the Left getting their panties in a bunch because parents are justifiably getting loud these days just demonstrates what a bunch of whiny, insecure adolescents they are.
In closing, GOC sends a big THANK YOU to Joseph D. Bastrimovich of National Park New Jersey, not for his defamatory remarks (read them HERE) about concerned parents, but for providing a brand new forum for GOC to highlight the value of Confrontational Politics (to his credit, Bastrimovich did link to a superb article on Richardson’s passing.) But to see what all the fuss is about, you can secure your own copy of Confrontational Politics at the GOC store HERE.
GOC is encouraged by a newly energized electorate and is pleased to announce that we will be re-launching our Confrontational Politics workshops. For more information, contact us at (916) 984-1400 or email at [email protected]
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- California banned the use of traditional ammunition statewide in 2019, but anti-hunting activists continue to blame traditional ammunition made with lead components for the deaths of the scavengers.
Mike Stake, a wildlife biologist with the Ventana Wildlife Society in California, told KCBX that of the 13 deaths of California condors in 2020, nine were attributed to lead poisoning. Anti-hunting activists have long blamed traditional ammunition for the condor deaths. They theorize that these scavengers would feed on animal carcasses or even gut piles left behind by hunters ingesting lead fragments from hunters’ ammunition as the source of lead poisoning.
That caused California lawmakers to pass a law in 2013 that began a phased traditional ammunition ban for all hunting in California. The ban was fully implemented statewide by July 1, 2019.
For two years, no hunters have been allowed to use anything but more expensive alternative ammunition. California’s Department of Fish and Wildlife reported 98.89% hunter compliance with the regulation. If hunters aren’t using traditional ammunition, how do anti-hunting activists still blame traditional ammunition for lead poisoning in California condors?
Are Hunters to Blame?
Ventana Wildlife Society didn’t study why condors are still getting sick from lead, despite it being banned for hunting. Instead, they speculate. Without proof, Stake told KCBX that hunters must be skirting the rules since ammunition is in high demand these days.
“But the law does permit the sale and purchase of lead ammunition because it’s still legal to use in target ranges where wildlife is not the target,” KCBX reported. That’s right. They are now saying condors must be consuming lead from hunters who break the law, even though California authorities say this isn’t the case, or condors are eating lead out of the berms and fields of gun ranges.
That’s a stretch unsupported by any science, but not one that anti-hunting and anti-gun activists haven’t already made. The original data upon which California based the law to ban traditional ammunition for hunting is suspect. Hunt for Truth Association pored over the reports submitted to California lawmakers and found those reports were deeply biased. The condor population did crash, but it wasn’t due to hunters using traditional ammunition.
A combination of habitat destruction and “use of DDT, other organochlorine pesticides, and certain rodenticides throughout the remaining condor habitat in Central and Southern California had serious and significant impacts on condor populations.”
The group’s research looked directly at data regarding condor consumption of lead. It found that it wasn’t as easy as singling out lead fragments from animal carcasses leftover by hunters.
Questioning Data
“While some researchers maintain that lead ammunition from gut piles or game carrion left in the field by hunters is the primary source of lead exposure to condors, there is compelling evidence of alternative sources of lead in the environment,” Hunt for Truth reported. “Such alternative sources of lead include paint chips from old buildings, legacy leaded gasoline in soils, mining wastes, old insecticides, and micro trash.”
Two condors that were studied were actually observed eating paint chips from a fire lookout tower. Those condors were later observed regurgitating those paint fragments to feed their chicks.
“Rarely, if ever, has an actual projectile fragment been found in the digestive tract of a California condor,” the report continued. “However, objects that were thought to be projectile fragments were subsequently found to be pieces of gravel or a ‘woody’ substance, not from ammunition.”
Hunt for Truth didn’t pull punches on questioning the studies.
“Hunt for Truth has discovered that many of these researchers ‘cherry-picked’ this information, deleting it and often refusing to present the underlying information to scientific peer review, policymakers, and the public at large. This activity by the researchers calls their very claims and conclusions into serious question,” the group stated in the report. Information about condor deaths was intentionally suppressed by the Obama-era U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and not provided to California legislators when they were considering expanding the ban statewide because it did not support the narrative that hunters were to blame.
Still, falsely blaming hunters for using traditional ammunition two years after the ban was in effect even after California authorities conclude hunters are complying isn’t just bad form. It’s bad science. Making unsubstantiated claims based on hearsay is antithetical to setting science-based policies.
California hunters stopped using traditional ammunition two years ago. If condors are still getting sick from poisoning, it’s not because carcasses have been lying in the wild for over two years. Something else is going on and it’s time anti-hunting activists come clean on their agenda.
About The National Shooting Sports Foundation
NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org
I wrote about the due process dangers and the lack of a mental health focus inherent in these red flag laws yesterday, so I won’t re-litigate those arguments here. I do find it interesting, however, that even in California these laws apparently aren’t that popular, and haven’t even been used in many counties. Wintemute and his colleagues chalk that up to a lack of information about red flag laws among law enforcement agencies and the general public, but I think they’re unfairly discounting the idea that in many counties, there’s not a lot of support for red flag gun confiscations.
In order to conduct their “research,” Wintemute and his colleagues conducted “semi-structured interviews” with ” 27 key informants, including judges, law enforcement officers, city and district attorneys, policy experts, and firearm violence researchers” to talk about how well (or not) red flag petitions are being implemented. No number crunching involved here, just subjective interviews with folks, the vast majority of whom have undoubtably already come to the conclusion that red flag laws are valuable and needed “gun safety” tools. In fact, the study authors admit as much:
Potential key informants were selected due to their experience with or demonstrated knowledge of GVROs (e.g., through published reports). They were identified through professional relationships with the authors, activity in the gun violence prevention community, public records indicating involvement in the service or disposition of GVROs, and by recommendation from other informants.
Was there a single stakeholder interviewed who has a knowledge of “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” but who thinks they’re a bad idea? Given the fact that (according to Wintemute) only 14 of California’s 58 counties had enforced a red flag gun seizure order between 2016 and 2020, it shouldn’t have been difficult to find a sheriff or D.A. with an opinion contrary to those writing the report. It sounds to me like these “researchers” simply weren’t interested in hearing another point of view. And why would they, if they already knew that the gist of the report was going to be “red flag laws are good, but here’s how they could be better”?
So the state-funded “research” center came to the completely unsurprising conclusion that more state funds are needed to improve how Gun Violence Restraining Orders are implemented. Any problems with the law (including the fact that in 50% of cases handled by one police officer, individuals refused to give up their guns) can be addressed by throwing money at it. Or rather, any problems that the gun control lobby and their political allies are willing to acknowledge can have more tax dollars thrown at it. Inherent defects like a lack of counsel for those who can’t afford to hire an attorney or a low legal standard for a finding of dangerousness, on the other hand, can be brushed aside and ignored completely.
If this sounds more like propaganda than research, I’m with you. Unfortunately, we can expect this same gun control advocacy disguised as objective science to soon be coming from our federal government, not just anti-gun academics in California, thanks to the CDC’s newfound interest in researching “gun violence.” Millions of dollars have already been appropriated to various academics around the country who’ll soon be issuing reports of their own that either lavish praise on gun control laws already in place in some states or warn of the dire consequences of not imposing those restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. It’s far more junk than science, and unfortunately its our tax dollars (well, more like our grandchildren’s tax dollars at this point, given how much we’re borrowing) that’s paying for it.
Current List of Anti-Gun Businesses You Should Avoid Giving Your Money
USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Do you watch movies at AMC Theaters? Was the film produced by Bad Robot?
Do you eat at Chipotle, Shake Shack, Panera, Burger King, or Subway, or have a meal delivered by Door Dash?
Do you wear clothes from Levi Strauss, the Gap, or Gucci?
Do you watch CNN, MTV, NBC, HBO, MSNBC, or Showtime?
Do you browse Tinder, Yelp, eBay, or Pinterest on a Microsoft computer with Comcast internet?
Do you shop at Costco?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, you have financially supported companies that want to strip us of our God-given constitutional rights.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms maintains a list of anti-gun businesses, which is also known as the “Don’t feed them” list. To be added to the list, a company and/or their decision-makers have either instituted an anti-gun corporate policy or lobbied lawmakers to draft or support anti-gun legislation. In other words, they had to take action – anti-gun action – against the Second Amendment. None of the firms made the list by accident.
“We’re not calling for a boycott of these companies,” CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said last year when four more firms were added to the list. “But we are providing this information to American gun owners so they can make informed decisions about where to spend their hard-earned money without unknowingly supporting efforts to erode an important constitutional right.”
One of the beauties of the American Free-Market system is that it allows business leaders to run their company in any manner they choose, and the marketplace will then decide whether their decisions were prudent or ill-conceived.
Like Mr. Gottlieb, I don’t support boycotts as they’re a favored tactic of the gun prohibitionists. Nowadays, they seem ready to scream “BOYCOTT!” for even the most minor of reasons or for no reason at all. Still, I work hard for my money, so I would rather patronize a business that supports my constitutional rights – all of my constitutional rights. Therefore, I use the list to screen out those firms that don’t support me. That’s not a boycott. It’s being an informed consumer.
Some of the businesses won’t be missed. I’ve never needed a $1,350 Gucci man-purse, especially after they donated $500,000 to March for Our Lives. I don’t watch CNN or MSLSD, browse Tinder, eat at Burger King or subscribe to HBO, especially since the Sopranos ended.
Costco, on the other hand, will be difficult. I hope someone talks some sense into their CEO, Craig Jelinek. This gun owner already misses his great deals.
This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.
About Lee Williams
Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.
