The speaker is Ally Sammarco, a D.C.-based Democratic political consultant who pretends to be a firm, ARS Media LLC. You get an early clue about Sammarco’s ethical orientation by the fact that the ARS media website keeps referring to the company as “we” but when you click on “Who we are” you get just one name, hers. Lawyers are subject to discipline if they do this, but political consultants, obviously, don’t have to be ethical, since their job is recommending lies.
Her presumably self-written description of what she does is working “with clients on messaging to Democrats and swing voters, using creative social and digital media strategies.” You know, like posting misleading, Big Brotheresque videos on TikTok and Twitter, then responding to legitimate criticism with snark like, “Literally the replies on this show how many Republican men actually think that they could actually take out a shooter with an AR-15 with zero training.” Literally! Is this just dishonest deflection when she knows she’s mouthing pro-totalitarian propaganda, or is Ally really that stupid? It doesn’t make any difference really: this woman makes her living getting paid to advise Democrats. Ponder that for a nonce. What does this tell us?
As I noted to Ally, “It will keep you safe” is the standard aspiring totalitarian rationalization for the government infringing on any individual rights, from the First Amendment, to Due Process, to the right to a fair trial. In one of his more prescient quotes, Benjamin Franklin wrote: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Today’s Left is charging full-speed against that core American principle, betting that the average voter is too ignorant, too stupid, and too terrified to realize what progressives and Democrats want to do to them until it is too late.
I question the trustworthiness and ethics of anyone who is willing to be associated with a group that prizes people like Sammarco (if I were like her, her party and her clients, see, I would advocate censoring Ally or worse because, after all, her very existence makes Bill of Rights-respecting American less safe.)
Lest you think this is partisan post, it’s not. Many years ago, during W’s administration, I was invited to an exploratory lunch with a Republican political consultant. He was so repulsive I barely got through the meal without barfing. He kept referring to Colin Powell as “Colin Cancer” (Har! Get it?) and oozed with hatred and enmity toward anyone to the left of Joe McCarthy. He also displayed this is such a sneering, arrogant way that I briefly considered moving to Bora-Bora.
These creatures, on both sides of the political divide, are ethics villains and ethics corrupters.
_________________
Pointer: NottheBee
Ethics Alarms 
I’ve long blamed “Political Science” departments in college for the professionalization of politics. I always wondered what the heck political science even is. I’ve come to believe it’s the science of winning elections. I’m guessing the advent of “political consultants” is a pretty recent phenomenon, probably the ’70s? They are a blight upon the country. As are pollsters. Think of the corruptness of a candidate hiring someone to answer the question, “What do I have to tell people to get elected.”
My major was Government. To its credit, Harvard has no “Political Science” department.
A more benign moniker, but I suspect they spawn the same thugs. To twist the lottery tag line, “You can’t play if you don’t win.”
The college does, but the department doesn’t, or at least didn’t. It really was constructed to study government itself, theory and practice.
Videos like this are supposed to be rational, and the voice of reason. The fact that she’s completely wrong makes no never mind to her and her gun-fearing ilk.
The AR-15 is most commonly sold as a 5.56, what would be known more widely as a .223. The most common handguns are also semiautomatic, but are a larger caliber, the 9mm. So, both guns operate exactly the same, but the handgun packs more punch. For close range, handguns are more accurate, and therefore, more deadly, larger caliber or not. Rifles are more effective long range, but that’s not exactly our “bowling alley” scenario.
So she knows nothing about the topic she’s so confidently discussing, and then when others call her out, they’re nothing more than white Republican men defending their manhood. People like her are just as ridiculous as the screaming lady, or those who see racism in every action.
I thought about explaining all this to her directly, but didn’t. It wouldn’t make any difference. She not concerned about giving correct information, she’s concerned about influencing the masses to think like good Democrats.
Yeah, but I think you should go ahead anyway, just to annoy her. And you never know, some idiot who follows her might have an epiphany.
I’m fascinated by this issue: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12707881/israel-gaza-democrats-alan-dershowitz.html
Will Jews really abandon the Democratic Party? The professor seems to think so. I just don’t see Democratic voters ever abandoning the party, no matter how hideous it becomes. Here’s the money quote:
“Yes, centrist Jews have an alternative: they can become centrist Republicans. But that, too, will not be easy, since the Republican party is moving to the right on issues deeply concerning to many Jews – issues such as abortion rights, gay rights, climate control, gun control and the Supreme Court.”
I think the lefty orthodoxy the professor reverts to will keep Jews voting Democratic. (I’m surprised he didn’t throw in a “Trump’s existential threat to democracy!”) I think Israel will get thrown under the bus. What’s more important? Jews being killed for being Jewish or reproductive rights, gay rights, controlling the climate, disarming the populace and getting control of the judicial branch? It’s not even a close call. Sorry Jews. You’re rich enough to take care of yourselves.
Not being willing to follow the increasingly extreme Left is not ‘moving right.” Someone explain relativity to Dersh.
Hah. Man, is that ever the case. I think that fallacy arises from the Bolsheviks calling anyone who didn’t agree with them “reactionaries.”
While true that a 9×19 pistol projectile is twice the mass and diameter of a 5.56×45, the riffle round travels at three times the velocity.
Going back to high school physics… Force is mass multiplied, but you square velocity.
This means the rifle delivers three times more force.
A rifle does have more velocity. But for most shooters committed to a mass shooting, a rifle in close quarters is a “spray and pray” tool. Statistically, handguns are used more often, and have a higher death count in a mass shooting. The reason is an untrained person using a rifle is not likely to be able to aim as well, nor recover quickly and accurately from recoil.
The mass shooting in Maine is the exception. That shooter WAS well trained, and knew exactly how to use the firearm he had. He did maximum damage, but a well trained pistol carrier could have shot him in the head and stopped the whole show.
She mentions his bullet proof vest. They’re not bullet proof, bullet resistant is more accurate. A few shots to the torso from a 9mm might not go through the vest, but it would hurt like heck, and might even have slowed the shooter down enough to be eliminated.
Very true. I never considered *untrained* perpitrators who would very likely be holding their weapon away from their shoulder in fear of it, causing it to smack them uncomfortably and likely in the face.
Pistols are also more deadly for a whole host of additional reasons, but “more punch” is not one of them.
Regardless Ally Summarco is deft if she’s not aware of what Elisjsha Dicken, Jack Wilson, Jeanne Assamb Dan McKown and many others have done facing spree shooters toting long guns with pistols.
Fair enough. I should have used “more bang for the buck” rather than more punch. I’d rather have a pistol in close quarters. Many states don’t allow deer hunting with the 5.56 because it’s not powerful enough.
Bless her heart, she thinks they don’t have training.
Well, the mass shooter usually doesn’t have the training. The concealed carry folks, on the other hand, usually will.
Bullet proof vests, eh? She probably thinks that the armor on a tank makes them invulnerable to infantry. Well, to be fair, judging from their initial efforts apparently so did the Russians. Idiots.
An updated version of the Martin Niemoller quote:
First, they came for the socialists when they gave up their guns, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists when they gave up their guns, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews who voted to elect those who would take their guns, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for us—and there was no one left to speak for us; we did not need it because we had plenty of ammo and plenty of guns and they paid the price. We have a second amendment so the mob will think twice about trying to lead us to slaughter.