Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

CNBC:

Another community group, Majority Action, is organizing retail investors to push big fund companies like BlackRock and Vanguard, Sturm Ruger’s biggest shareholders, to assert their voting power. The group organized about six weeks ago, seeing now as a crucial moment for changing the gun industry.

“We were looking at how you enable everyday investors to access the levers of power when it comes to holding companies accountable,” said James Rucker, its co-founder, who is on the board of directors of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But even before these recent demands, controversy was certain to erupt at Sturm Ruger’s meeting, scheduled to take place May 9 at a resort in Arizona thousands of miles from its Connecticut headquarters. The company has a factory in the area.

Wednesday’s vote will be the first test this year of a proposal by a faith-based shareholder group urging the nation’s gun industry to act after recent extreme examples of gun violence.

Specifically, that proposal, backed by the Northwest Coalition for Responsible Investment, asks gun makers like Sturm Ruger to prepare a report about the financial and reputational risks associated with their business. The coalition plans to introduce a similar proposal on the proxy of American Outdoor Brands, which typically holds its meetings in the fall.

Two major shareholder voting advisory firms, Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis, have thrown their support behind the coalition’s proposal, Sturm Ruger’s board, on the other hand, is advising shareholders to vote against it. “We believe that firearms safety is a laudable and appropriate goal,” it said in the proxy. “However, we also believe that adequate safety practices and procedures are available.”

BlackRock said in a note to clients in March that it is time to take action on gun violence, adding it could use its position as a large shareholder to vote against boards and management and back shareholder proposals management doesn’t like. But it won’t comment about how it plans to vote its 2.8 million shares next week.

Several companies connected to the gun industry have changed their policies in recent weeks in response to the upswell of protests after a shooting in a Florida high school in February left 17 people dead. Major retailers such as Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods put limits on gun sales, and banks like Citigroup said it would restrict gun sales by business partners.

Fund managers like BlackRock and State Street said they would start a dialogue with gun makers about what they are doing to promote safety. BlackRock has even rolled out new funds that specifically remove stocks of gun makers and sellers.

Amalgamated wants the gun maker to publicly endorse universal background checks, funding for government to to crack down on illegal distribution, and funding for government research into gun safety and public health. They also want a commitment to responsible distribution contracts, monitoring of distribution chains and investments in gun safety technology and commercialization.

Froman, 68, is a lawyer and long-time gun industry supporter. The Southern Poverty Law Center found her name in a 2014 member directory of a secretive ultra-conservative group called the Council for National Policy. Tax forms from 2015 and 2016 filed by that organization list her as treasurer.

The year she became president of the NRA, the gun lobby won a crucial legal battle in the form of a new law limiting liability claims against gun makers. That same year, a donor program for the NRA launched and, as reported by Bloomberg in 2012, took in nearly $15 million from gun-related companies.

Froman has pointed to Smith & Wesson’s decision in 2000 to voluntarily comply with certain gun safety measures as its downfall. Grassroots gun supporters forced the company into bankruptcy after it made that “deal with the devil,” she has said.

“The grass roots is a powerful force that the government can’t control and can’t fight,” she said in a speech in 2011 to a group that supports knife ownership. “Just look at what’s happened with the rise of the Tea Party movement. Most of the battles that NRA has won have been won by sheer political power.”

Oh, okay.  Things make a little more sense now.  The Southern Preposterous Lie Center is after her, and for very good reason.  She believes that S&W made a “deal with the devil.”  Because they did, and she’s right.  She stands in the way of forcing Ruger to make that same sort of deal, although to be quite honest, I think the other board members as well as 100% of Ruger employees see things the same way she does.

The article is lacking in detail just like all preceding articles on this – we still don’t learn the relative shareholding power of these gun controller forces within Ruger stock.  But it sure will be interesting to follow this through and see how well or poorly the controllers do with this effort.

Prior: Amalgamated Bank Pressures Ruger To Support Gun Control Measures

Greenville News:

A bill that would allow lawful gun owners to carry their firearms without a permit has been removed from the Senate Judiciary Committee’s meeting agenda, and the chairman is not saying when it may return.

Its removal came as lawmakers and political candidates have debated what should be done to combat school shootings, and it came just days before a bill related to school safety receives a Senate hearing on Wednesday.

The bill’s sponsor and members of the committee questioned this week by The Greenville News said they were not aware of the bill’s removal.

Sen. Luke Rankin, a Horry County Republican and chairman of the committee, said the bill was pulled by him to “to give full attention” to an abortion bill that was debated and passed by his committee Tuesday.

He said he did not know when the gun bill might return to the agenda but said its absence was not due to the recent school shooting in Florida.

Asked why he did not know when it might return, he said, “It was not on the agenda today. That is the answer.”

The controversial bill had been debated briefly at the last meeting of the committee two weeks ago, but no action was taken.

The so-called “Constitutional carry” or “open-carry” bill, sponsored by Sen. Shane Martin, a Spartanburg County Republican, would not do away with concealed weapons permits for those who wanted to carry their guns to other states.

[ … ]

On Wednesday a Senate judiciary subcommittee will hear a bill by Rep. Sandy Senn, a Charleston Republican, that would create the crime of threatening, soliciting or conspiring to threaten to use a firearm to cause injury, death or damage at a school, college or university.

This is news from February that I had missed because I wasn’t watching closely enough.  State Senator Luke Rankin is dismissive and haughty because he doesn’t care about gun rights.

I’ve made it clear not only that gun control has its roots in wickedness, but gun control also to do with how a many bears his arms.  Forcing a man to conceal his weapons is an act of shaming him and making him behave like a criminal.

But, he claims, they can’t chew gum and walk at the same time.  They want to focus on an abortion bill.  Good.  We’ll see if anything comes of that.  Meanwhile, they have the time to debate a bill that makes it a crime to engage in “threatening, soliciting or conspiring to threaten to use a firearm to cause injury, death or damage at a school, college or university,” or in other words, make something that is already a crime, a crime.

I think Senator Rankin is a liar and weasel.  I think they can chew gum and walk at the same time, and I think he is being coy and dismissive in order to hide something.

What is he trying to hide?  What does he believe about gun owners and their manner of carry that he isn’t telling us because he is cowardly and doesn’t want us to know?

I also think it’s time to Larry Martin Mr. Rankin.  Mr. Rankin, you now have a target on your back.  You’re next, so look for something to do with your time other than be a state senator.

Market Watch:

Banks and credit-card companies are discussing ways to identify purchases of guns in their payment systems, a move that could be a prelude to restricting such transactions, according to people familiar with the talks.

The discussions are preliminary but could be deeply controversial. Gun-rights groups have long resisted any effort to monitor which Americans own guns; there are federal laws limiting the government’s use of electronic databases of gun sales.

The financial companies have explored creating a new credit-card code for firearms dealers, similar to how they code restaurants, or department stores, according to people familiar with the matter. Another idea would require merchants to share information about specific firearm products consumers are buying, some of the people said.

They’re driving us towards a cash-based exchange for firearms and ammunition.  It should be cash-based anyway, you say.  I understand the sentiment.  Without cash to back up credit cards, you lose the credit card.  Besides, that’s poor form.  A man always honors his obligations.

But there is more to it than that, and you know it.  Even if it’s a firearm that you hold on 90-day lawaway with the local gun shop, you seldom make all the payments in cash.  Even if you do, you seldom carry around enough cash to buy a firearm outright.  Most of the time, you float it with a credit card or ATM card until the next day, or the end of the month when you get paid.

Even if you don’t do that, many buyers do.  This will affect the financial health of everything from local gun shops to large firearms manufacturers.  I’ve warned about this before.  In addition to the advice I gave firearms manufacturers – remove all avenues of leverage, get out of debt, and cut ties with corporate America – there is much more than can be done.  Hornady is showing us the way and is an example of responsible corporate support of our rights and liberties (via TTAG).

Today, the State of New York did one of the most despicable acts ever perpetrated by any state by asking New York banks, financial institutions and insurance companies to stop doing business with the gun and ammo industry.

While it may not make a difference to New York, Hornady will not knowingly allow our ammunition to be sold to the State of NY or any NY agencies. Their actions are a blatant and disgusting abuse of office and we won’t be associated with a government that acts like that. They should be ashamed.

I don’t know if it will make a difference or not, but I know what will make a difference.  It would be like trying to herd cats, but if the firearms and ammunition industry could finally avoid the temptation to whore after government contracts, not just FedGov but state, county and local governments too, when they take positions that run contrary to our liberties, it would effectively end this charade in a single day.

So let’s suppose that Daniel Defense, CMMG, BCI Defense, Knight’s Armament, Rock River Arms, FN, Springfield Armory, LaRue Tactical, Ruger, Barrett, Savage and all other firearms manufacturers, refused to sell to governments that took positions like the state of New York where officials were working with banks to effect gun control measures or encourage non-patronage of the firearms community by banks.  Let’s also suppose that ammunition manufacturers – Remington, Federal, Double-Tap, Magtech, Winchester, and others – joined them in refusing to sell ammunition to such entities.  Thus those entities could obtain neither firearms nor ammunition for government officials, including LEOs.

What do you think would be the outcome of such a large, dovetailed response of the community to this overreach and bigotry?  I suspect the bigotry would end overnight.  It would certainly end if they inquired if any of the products were to be used in security operations for Bank of America, Citibank, Amalgamated, Wells Fargo, and the other large operations, and also refused to sell to their security teams.

It’s possible to end this bigotry, it’s just a matter of will and strategy.  We know what to do, it’s a matter of doing it.  You can help by forwarding this article to every firearms and ammunition manufacturer who will listen.  The banks can back down from this war with firearms owners before it is too late and unpleasant things happen.

As for Hornady, I suspect they will benefit immensely from this decision.  If you are a firearms or ammunition manufacturer, straighten up and pay attention.  This is how you do it.  This is how you pay your dues and earn the trust and respect of the community.  The community rewards such trust and respect.

Jon Stokes writing at Politico:

I’m for Second Amendment rights. I am a Texan and an American patriot who hauls my family to church every Sunday in a diesel pickup truck, where I sit in the pew and listen to the Word with a 9mm pistol tucked inside the waistband of my fanciest jeans.

Isn’t this the part where the author inserts the inevitable “but”—as in, “I’m a firm Second Amendment advocate, but … ”? Well I’ve got no “buts” for you, because I don’t need them. I believe there is a way to increase both our individual gun rights and our collective safety, if we can only get gun controllers to quit bitterly clinging to outmoded feature bans and gun registries, and convince gun rights advocates that “liberty” isn’t just about “what’s in my gun safe” but also about being able to exercise one’s full spectrum of Second Amendment rights in every part of this great nation.

The idea is simple but powerful: a federally issued license for simple possession of all semi-automatic firearms. This license would allow us to carefully vet civilian access to semi-automatic weapons, while overriding state-specific weapon bans and eliminating some of the federal paperwork that ties specific firearms to specific owners.

I offer this idea not only because I actually want to live in a world where it, or something like it, is the law of the land, but also because I and my fellow gun nuts are worried that a storm is coming that will sweep away a substantial portion of our gun rights without really making the country safer in return. We’re not even five months into a midterm election year, and 2018 has seen a string of high-profile incidents that have darkened the public’s view of civilian gun ownership: February’s massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, followed by this month’s shootings at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California, and at a Waffle House in Nashville, Tennessee. In the aftermath of these killings, we’re hearing proposals for anti-gun measures that we thought were widely considered out of bounds in the gun control debate, like a ban on all semi-automatic firearms, a repeal of the Second Amendment, or even an outright ban on the private ownership of guns. Some of us think this will all blow over, as it always does. And maybe it will. But this time definitely feels different.

Our side faces a potent new enemy in the form of private-sector companies like REI, Delta Airlines, Citibank, YouTube and Reddit, which are taking an increasingly anti-gun stance. My fellow gun owners and I are now concerned not just with the potential erosion of our gun rights at the hands of our government, but also with the erosion of our ability to communicate and to educate about this topic in the online spaces that make up so much of modern civic life.

There is fear, despair and anger on both sides, and neither side wants to give an inch. We seem doomed to fight endlessly over the same handful of half-measures that neither side is happy with. A new approach—a federal gun license for semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15s used in the Parkland shooting and at the Nashville Waffle House—has the potential to make us all safer while offering a net increase in liberty for the country’s law-abiding gun owners.

[ … ]

If you weren’t a license holder, then simple possession of any semi-auto weapon would be a felony.

[ … ]

An initial set of licensing requirements would undoubtedly include having one’s fingerprints on file with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and a thorough background check that screens for things like domestic violence convictions and inclusion in the government’s terrorist watch list (assuming that list has been fixed by adding a way for innocent people to get their names removed). Gun controllers have long desired a national firearm licensing scheme that includes safe storage requirements and a demonstration of basic weapon proficiency; these things would be part of the negotiations. If they didn’t make the first cut, there would be a place to implement them should they gain popular support. Maybe gun controllers could offer the pro-gun side something it badly wants, like relaxing the federal restrictions on suppressors, in exchange for them.

Here’s the best part.  “Jon Stokes is a founder of Ars Technica and a former editor for Wired. He writes about guns and technology for TechCrunch, AllOutdoor.com, TheFireArmBlog.com and other publications.”

So it remains to be seen if he will ever write again for AllOutdoor or TFB, but Stokes has seriously and passionately embraced the dark side.  It may be no accident that he’s done it in Politico.

Only a dolt and simpleton believes things like what he is advocating being an advantage for personal safety.  Only some in the gun community will actually do this, and certainly not criminals.

Second, he apparently doesn’t believe in the predilection of mankind towards evil and wickedness, witness his sophomoric belief in the idea that a national registry will be given up by the progressives, and that we should later (after already succumbing to the wishes of the progressives) be at the mercy of ideas that “gain popular support.”  The Armenian genocide had popular support too.

Third, a fundamental error he makes runs contrary to the intent of the founders.  He advocates centralization of power, which is exactly what the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent (albeit imperfectly).  He we are again at his naïve belief in the inherent goodness of man, whereas Paul advocated a different viewpoint (Romans 3:23).

Fourth, when he considers the effect on public safety, Stokes ignores the biggest effect, which is mass shootings in gun-free nations at the hands of government actors, which in the twentieth century was near 170 million souls.  Jon’s math is all screwed up.

Finally, he actually appears to believe that his gun creds are stamped and sealed because he is a so-called “gun nut.”  He writes for TFB and AllOutdoor.  I too love to talk guns, love to work them, love to clean them, assemble and disassemble them, study barrels and twist rate, study reticle holdover subtensions and scope design, love to build and reverse the process, love to study ballistics, and on the list goes.  Rather like boys working on cars when you could rebuild carburetors with float and gasket kits, change the plugs and ignition wires, and set timing on the points all without the involvement of onboard computers or professional mechanics.

But that doesn’t mean anything more than I’m a gearhead.  Jon’s “gun nut” creds means nothing whatsoever to me, and it shouldn’t to you either if he intends to compromise the observation of our liberties to progressives on a naïve promise of good will.  The second amendment, as I’ve pointed out, is a covenant.  It is an agreement, not the source of our rights to be armed.  Loving mechanics and being a gearhead obviously doesn’t translate to loving liberty or being devoted to doing what it takes to preserve it.

The fountain of our rights and liberties isn’t the state.  It is the almighty Himself who issues forth such edicts, and because He has done so, let no man feel the freedom to whisk them away in panicked compromise because he fears loss.  There are worse things than losing, and worse things than death.  Losses are only temporal, and death isn’t the end.

My hope is that Jon Stokes never again writes another word for TFB, AllOutdoor or any other gun related publication.  To the gun community, Jon’s name must be Ichabod.  He is anathema.

Roll Call:

If Democrats control the House in 2019 they would quickly schedule floor action on gun violence prevention, protections for “Dreamers” and infrastructure, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday.

“When we win and we take over in January, some of the issues that will come up soon are the issues we are asking the speaker to take up now,” Pelosi said, naming those three issues.

Speaking during a town hall event with students at Georgetown University, the California Democrat several times used phrasing that suggests she’s not thinking about “if” Democrats retake the House but “when.“

She’s right, I’m certain, it’s not if but just a matter of when.  And they’re not even waiting until they have a democratic president.  They want it now.

What do you think will happen if the democratic house hands Mr. Donald “Ban the bump stocks take the guns first” Trump a spending bill with gun control attached to it?  For the answer, consider what he did when a republican congress did that very thing with CDC spending for “gun studies,” support for a bump stock ban and Fix-NICS.

It was just two weeks ago I wrote this.

Suppose that Ruger needs to spend $500,000 buying to tooling to replace old and worn tooling machinery, or to retool a line to fabricate a new product.  Suppose that none of the banks will do business with Ruger.  How does Ruger pay for the tooling machinery?  They can’t go through the bank.  They can’t hand cash to the machinery manufacturer – their accountant would reject it as making them look like they’re doing business with Iran.  No bank in their right mind will allow a company to deposit $500,000 cash without knowing where it came from.

This could all happen to Ruger without a new law being passed, since CEOs can do what they want, and corporations are in the main controlled by progressives and lawyers.

Apparently it’s worse than that.  From USA Today:

Amalgamated Bank, a New York-bank with $48 billion in institutional investment assets that emphasizes socially responsible practices, sent a letter Thursday to Sturm, Ruger & Company’s board, demanding that it adopt six reforms or it would not support the re-election of one of the gun maker’s board members, Sandra Froman, who is also an NRA board member.

The bank claims that Froman’s and the company’s “close relationship” to the NRA pose a conflict of interest that “may inhibit objective assessment and management risks Sturm, Ruger faces.”

[ … ]

In a letter to Sturm, Ruger’s board, Amalgamated’s CEO Keith Mestrich pressed the gun maker to commit to steps that address risks to its business and stock performance, which Mestrich claims has posted returns trailing the broad S&P 500 stock index over the past five years.

On the policy front, for example, the bank called on the gun manufacturer to publicly endorse mandatory background checks for all gun purchases and support the full funding of the federal agency that enforces gun laws.

Amalgamated’s top executive also wants Sturm, Ruger to take steps to monitor gun sellers to make sure guns don’t fall into the wrong hands and to emphasize “product safety innovation.”

All six reforms are recommended by Everytown for Gun Safety, a non-profit group focused on curbing gun violence.

Get the NRA board member off the Ruger board.  But that’s not all.  Read carefully.  The bank wants Ruger to support so-called “smart guns.”  If Ruger did this it would be the end of the business.  They know it, and surely the bank knows it.  They couldn’t shutter their doors fast enough to prevent looters from stealing what’s left because they couldn’t pay anyone to be at the plants.

This is a poorly written article because the author doesn’t explain exactly what leverage Amalgamated Bank has over Ruger, but presumably Ruger does their business with this bank.

If that’s so, this is what I warned about.  Without capitulating to the gun controllers, gun manufacturers will be drummed out of business because they can’t exchange capital for expansions, retooling, or even the logistical chain or payroll.  We have to do business with banks if you’re part of a corporation.  There is no other choice.

We’re in a civil war.  Realize where you are and what’s happening.  While most of America watches TV sitcoms and wears idiotic football jerseys, be about your business procuring what you need.  And that, quickly.

If you’re a gun manufacturer, you need to remove all avenues of leverage, get out of debt, and cut ties with corporate America.  They hate you.

Politico:

Major banks are cutting off business with the gun industry, roiling Republicans who want to respect the financial decisions of private institutions while still showing their unyielding support of the Second Amendment.

Some Republicans, enraged at moves by Citigroup and Bank of America to distance themselves from some retailers and gun manufacturers, have called on government agencies to cancel contracts with the banks and defer deregulation proposals that would benefit them. But other Republicans want to keep their hands off, saying lenders are free to decide who they do business with.

It’s a conundrum that puts the free-market principles at odds with gun rights, and Republicans across the board are genuinely split over how to react to moves by some of the biggest financial institutions in the country.

“I’m not writing a law that says you can’t do it — I just think it’s dumb and it’s dangerous waters,” Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) said. “I have a pretty high bar before I’m going to go in and tell the private sector what they should and shouldn’t be doing.”

Oh bullshit.  You’ve written plenty of laws that trace the exchange of capital forcing people to utilize banks.  You’ve written onerous taxation laws that require us to know where every penny goes, you’ve written laws that fund the federal reserve, and you’ve bailed out the banks to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Don’t come crying to me about the free market.  That “high bar” you talked about wasn’t so high when you were trying to take the people’s money, so now when those very banks you’ve bailed out and made systemic to our financial system won’t work with firearms manufacturers, now you pull the “free market” card?  Now you do?

What a putz.  You’re a liar and a crapweasel.

Via Uncle, via Joe, and then ultimately to someone with the pseudonym Stonekettle on Twitter (have you noticed how these “we’re coming to take your guns and there’s nothing you can do about it” guys always leave out their real names?):

If we elect a new congress and we pass laws making gun ownership illegal for people like you, and the government comes to take your guns, what will you do?

What will you do? Be specific.

He goes back and forth with a few Molon Labe folks and still presses for details.  Again and again and again.

But here’s the deal, Stonekettle.  I know what you’re doing.  You want people to make threats and then you’ll turn them in to the FBI.  Or you want people to give the details of their plans, and you’ll turn it all over to the FedGov.  You’re just a FedGov troll, and not a very good one at that.

You don’t get to know my tactics, techniques and procedures, or anything about my plans.  You have to make your plans for me in ignorance.

But I do have a question for you, and if you can answer it, I’ll consider throwing you a bone.  Here is the question.

If we elect a new congress and we pass laws making gun ownership illegal for people like me, when anyone comes to take my guns, what will you do?

What will you do? Be specific.

Will you be a coward, sitting to the side and watching as others do your work?  Will you participate?  What will your tactics, techniques and procedures be?

I’m waiting.  Be specific.

Yeto Coolers has cut ties with the NRA Foundation, not that I care all that much.

NRA-ILA quoted NRA past president and USF executive director Marion Hammer saying, “Suddenly, without prior notice, YETI has declined to do business with The NRA Foundation saying they no longer wish to be an NRA vendor, and refused to say why.  They will only say they will no longer sell products to The NRA Foundation.”

It’s everywhere, from banks to corporations to homes among hand-wringing parents.

Two weeks after we learn this new parenting life skill in this oh-so-new century of ours, my husband Patrick is on the phone with a mom arranging a sleepover for Rosena. I hear him fumble his way through the gun question. From his responses, I assume the mom is acknowledging that they do have guns. Then there’s the sort of long, awkward silence that seems part and parcel of such conversations before Patrick finally says, “Well, okay, thanks for being so honest. I appreciate that.”

He hangs up and looks at me. “They do keep guns for hunting and protection, but they’re locked up and out of sight,” he tells me. “The mom says that the kids have never tried to get at the guns, but she understands the dangers.” (He had heard in her voice apology, embarrassment, and worry that the guns might mean no sleepover.)

I grimaced in a way that said: I don’t think Rosena should go, and he responded that he thought she should. The two of them then had a long conversation about what she should do and say if she sees a gun. She slept over and had a great time. A lesson in navigating difference, trusting our kid, and phew—no guns made an appearance. And now we know more about our neighbors and our community.

If you didn’t think you were in a [currently] low grade civil war or if you thought that the way to increase your capital with the population is go slink into the shadows, make sure your weapons are hidden, and negotiate and compromise, you’re nothing more than sheep for the slaughter.

I once openly carried because I hate concealed carry, and anyone who tells you that he can make concealed carry as comfortable as open carry is fabulating.  I still hate concealed carry, but now I open carry for a different reason.  I open carry “For the peace, good and dignity of the country and the welfare of its people.”  You’re part of a civil war.  You can act like it or just go ahead and give up now and save your folks the hassle.

David Codrea:

That Gorsuch is weak-kneed on “immigration” abuses raises serious questions of direct concern to gun owners (the fraudulent “single issue” excuse-making notwithstanding).

Just so that we understand why this is important for gun rights, you cannot see gun rights as disconnected from the world view that supports and frames such liberties.  I’ve dealt with this in detail before.

“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”

One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished.  South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology.  Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build.  This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.

That’s why latinos favor gun control by a whopping 60% – 70%.  Flooding the country with Latinos means defenestration of your liberties.  That’s one main reason the progressives want it so badly.