‘Poor Souls’ – Rebranding Bitter Clingers and Deplorables for the 2024 Election Cycle

Nancy Pelosi at the Oxford Union
Nancy Pelosi (courtesy Oxford Union)

Today’s gun control politicians are making it clear. It’s not just guns they despise. There are two other primary obstacles to civil disarmament that they loathe.

One is the Second Amendment itself. The other, well, it’s you – the gun owner.

It wasn’t that long ago when President Barack Obama lambasted gun owners who refused to roll over to his gun control agenda. Stumping for his first election to the White House, he told fundraisers at a San Francisco event of small town Pennsylvania voters that were left behind, especially by the political elites.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” President Obama said in 2008. Interestingly, it was former U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), later Secretary of State, who rebuked him.

“I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small-town America,” she said. “His remarks are elitist and out of touch.”

Of course, that was before she labeled half of America “a basket of deplorables” in 2016 when she was making her second run for the Oval Office.

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” former Secretary Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

Those were also a whole lot of gun owners who couldn’t buy into her gun control agenda – which included banning the Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR), the most popular-selling centerfire rifle in America.

‘Poor Souls’

Fast forward to 2024 and senior Democratic Members of Congress are repeating the same epithets. These were also same politicians who were the vanguard of President Obama’s, Secretary Clinton’s and President Joe Biden’s gun control agendas. Turns out, insulting and dismissing gun owners as “lesser” Americans is a popular attitude among Blue State elites.

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was rebuked as an “elite” at an Oxford Union debate on April 25 when she said that certain Americans are “poor souls who are looking for some answers.” Their biggest sin, according to the Speaker Emeritus, is not bowing to the orthodoxy of the gun control elite.

“These poor souls… are looking for some answers,” Rep. Pelosi said. “We’ve given them to them, but they’re blocked by some of their views on guns… they have the three Gs: Guns, Gays, and God.”

Rep. Pelosi didn’t think that was enough. She said, “cultural issues cloud some of their reception of an argument that really is in their interest.”

Did you catch that? Gun owners who reject a politically-driven gun control agenda aren’t thinking in their own self-interests. After all, every other gun control idea – especially the most recent overreaching of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to run roughshod on the separation of powers to write criminal law in the place of Congress – isn’t a bad idea in her mind. She believes President Biden’s big government abuse of the rulemaking process is good for voters. They’re just not bright enough to see it for themselves.

What makes it more insulting, Rep. Pelosi was making that argument at the Oxford Union, a debating society that’s held at Britian’s Oxford University. She trashed American voters on an overseas stage that pitches itself to hosting internationally prominent individuals across politics, academia and popular culture. That stage has hosted President Ronald Reagon, Mother Theresa and Albert Einstein. It has also hosted former Secretary of State and Climate Envoy John Kerry, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Stacey Abrams and deposed and murdered former Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi.

She Forgot “the People”

That’s rare air for a former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. She’s not alone in her ideas. Rep. Jerry Nadler (R-N.Y.) last week thought he was a tad smarter than the Founding Fathers, including James Madison, who wrote the Second Amendment, and the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Heller decision, that upheld the Second Amendment as a right belonging to the people, not the government.

“The Second Amendment reads – quote – ‘A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” Rep. Nadler said during a hearing last week. “It is clearly a right, the Founding Fathers, the Framers were opposed to standing armies. They thought that those were instruments of tyranny and that, militia what should be had and the Second Amendment was the guarantee – was framed as a guarantee that you could have a militia, a well-regulated militia, being safe in the security of a free state.

“That was the understanding for 200 years until the radical Supreme Court in the Heller decision upended 200 years of Constitutional interpretation and said that Second Amendment has nothing to do with militias,” he continued. “It’s a personal and basically unlimited right. The Supreme Court was wrong in that decision.”

Except, that’s not what the Second Amendment says. He cherry-picked the parts that support his big-government and gun control agendas. Madison – and the U.S. Supreme Court – must have collectively rolled their eyes at his continued ignorance to the Bill of Rights. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) wasn’t about to let him off the hook.

“Apologies to Ranking Member Nadler if this isn’t what he stated but I think he might have left out some key words when he read the Second Amendment, and I’ll read it here,” Rep. Massie explained. “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And I’m not sure if I heard him say ‘the people.’ Which applies to all of the people as we well know, and I yield back.”

It’s insulting to American citizens when Members of Congress intentionally leave “the people” out of the rights they are endowed with by their Creator. It’s insulting to voters when elite politicians disregard them as “bitter clingers,” “deplorables” or “poor souls” who can’t be trusted to think, act and vote for themselves. Worse than that, it is breaking faith with the very “people” these elites are elected to represent and protect their rights from an overreaching government.

Those poor souls – the more than 100-plus million gun owning homes in America – and the industry that provides the means for exercising their Second Amendment rights know that no one is buying the gun control they’re selling.


Mark Oliva is Managing Director of Public Affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. 

16 Responses

  1. If you guys haven’t read it, or seen it, check out Winston Marshall (formerly of Mumford & Sons band) debating at this event. Spoiler alert: he wiped the floor with Pelosi and the elitist Left.

    An interesting tidbit: He said populism was anti-elite. Democrats tried to claim the populist title for themselves. Then they gave up in 2016 and proceeded to give populism a negative connotation.

    “If anything, Obama argued that he was the populist. If anything, Obama argued that Bernie was the populist,” he said. “Something curious happens. If you watch Obama’s speeches after that point [in 2016], more and more recently, he uses the word ‘populist’ interchangeably with ‘strong man,’ ‘authoritarian.’ The word changes meaning. It becomes a negative, a pejorative, a slur.”

    Props for the photo used. It looks like everyone there is miserable, including her husband haha.

      1. Geoff,

        No rational person could have watched that debate and come away thinking ANYTHING other than “Wow, I knew Nancy was stupid, out of touch, and a hopeless, grifting, power-mad elitist, but that Winston Marshall guy just CRUSHED her, logically, rhetorically, and in terms of eloquence. She flat got her ASS kicked!!!” And that is objectively true. And, yet . . . at the conclusion of the debate, the Oxford Union voted that Nancy had won the debate. Which I guess proves that British “elite” college students are every bit as Leftist/fascist, out-of-touch, ignorant, and illogical as their brethren at Harvard, Penn, Columbia, Yale, etc.

        These are supposedly our “future leaders”. We are SO screwed!!!!

  2. Given that Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution lays out the responsibilities and duties of Congress (Government), and it includes:
    * To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
    * To raise and support Armies
    * To provide and maintain a Navy
    * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

    There would be no need for the 2A if it was about ensuring that a militia could keep and bear arms, as the Government was already “granted” that authority and responsibility. Therefore, it cannot be about the militia keeping and bearing arms.

    And, of course, then there is the whole “the Right of The People” portion, and not “the Right of the Militia”…

    1. “* To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”

      Where’s my .gov-provided rifle and sealed ‘battle-packs’ of ammo I was promised?

      1. You’re not wrong, and I would agree, but the 1792 Militia Acts (and follow on acts) basically squashed that…

    2. 300BlackOut,

      And that EXACT language is what our idiot friend, MajorLiar, claims supports the legality and constitutionality of “universal federal gun control”. Of course, when I called him on it, he ran away, like the little b*tch that he is.

      1. Tends to do that when confronted by well articulated facts that cannot be twisted in meaning. Honestly though I don’t think the Miner of 3+ years ago really posts anymore. Lately he and a few others have the feel of a paid for troll farm pushing a narrative.

        1. I wondered that myself. There has been at least one regular troll there for years. He changes his name and tries to gain trust. Then he ends up outing himself so I call him out. Rinse and repeat. He pretended to be a Christian at least one time.

          He could have noticed Miner missing, and decided to use that name for more overt narrative spreading.

          1. You mean Vlad/al hail/probably dacian? I know from other places that a lot of the troll farms are a mix of India, Israel, and Ukraine depending on the topic but they do seem to be toned down lately on the old site.

          2. Vlad had a very unique ‘style’, he hasn’t been around in years (thank God)…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *