“A new Pew poll finds that support for the NRA has rapidly consolidated along party lines in recent years,” thetrace.org’s latest email blast claims, “tilting each side of the gun safety debate to a more extreme point of view. Just 13 percent of Republicans now think the NRA has too much influence, down significantly from 2000, when one in three Republicans thought the NRA held too much sway. By contrast, 68 percent of Democrats believe the NRA has too much influence, up from 57 percent 15 years ago.” I certainly don’t recall seeing any Democratic speakers at the last NRA convention. On one hand . . .
Democrats and Democratic Party supporters man the civilian disarmament industrial complex. The Democratic party platform includes gun control (“We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation”). To defend and extend Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, the NRA must oppose the Democratic Party’s power.
One the other hand, the more Americans who favor gun rights the safer those rights are. By aligning itself so closely with the Republican Party, the NRA is alienating possible support amongst Democrats. Is there anything they can do to “reach out across the aisle”? Maybe start by pulling away from the Republican establishment? Or should the NRA keep on keeping on until and unless Democrats come to their senses on gun control?
Not really. While the Republican/conservative base seems to be in open revolt against party “leaders” Dems seem to be sucking deep on that government koolaid without any signs of stopping or thinking. You can’t really change the mind of someone like that.
The big revolt on in the Dem camp is centering around Bernie Sanders who’s historical squishy on gun control. Anyone who makes Slate whine is fine in my book: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html
Vermont is pro gun and lily white which is another issue Bernie has to deAl with.
He’s come out in favor of fun control this time, though. Don’t trust him.
Then pro-gun Dems need to bend his ear and remind him of where he comes from.
>> Then pro-gun Dems need to bend his ear and remind him of where he comes from.
Yes. We’re working on it. The nice thing about Bernie is that he’s actually more likely to listen to his supporters.
How can you teach people who are this dumb? Being a gun owner and voting for the party of the NFA, GCA, Hughes Amendment, AWB is like a Jew voting for the Nazi Party.
What an ignorant ass you must be. Do you think gun rights are the only things in either the Dems or Rethugs campaigns? I carry daily and my wife carries daily, and we are both Democrats. Why? Because the Republicans are anti-women, anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-Muslim, or any other religion other than Southern Baptist. The Republicans are trying to kill off the poor, and trying to annihilate the middle class. They are all for giving our tax monies to corporations that take their profits offshore so that they never have to pay taxes themselves. These are some of the reasons we vote Democrat. As far as gun rights go, Second Amendment rights are getting better all over the country, for everyone, and I don’t see any dangers lurking about . Those idiots that are yelling “Obummer is a-comin’ fer ya guns!” are just a bunch of ignorant hillbillies sitting on the porch with their hound dogs, spitting tobacco juice.
Terrible bait. Wouldnotbite/10.
John J. Jones,
I agree with everything you say about the Republicans.
I thought the Democrats had given up on their gun owner control agenda a couple of years ago, but 2013 proved me wrong. Democrats view gun ownership as a deviant activity that needs to be eliminated — the same way that, say, Republicans view homosexuality — instead of a right to be protected and exercised.
And it’s not like the Democrats give a crap about consumers and workers and the middle class. Oh, they definitely talk a good game. But if the Republicans are the pimps of unlimited corporate power, the Democrats are whores.
+1. Too often knee-jerk reactions rather than thoughtful solutions. “War On Drugs” yet we’re spending billions on a criminal justice system that fails to deliver results.
How does that kool-aid taste? As Bugs Bunny would say, “what a maroon.”
@ John J. Jones – ** What an ignorant ass you must be. Do you think gun rights are the only things in either the DemoKKKlansman or Rethugs campaigns? DemoKKKrats are anti-women, anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-Muslim, or any other religion other than State-is-God. The DemoKKKrats are trying to create more poor, by trying to annihilate the middle class. They are all for giving our tax monies to corporations that take their profits offshore so that they never have to pay taxes themselves.
Fixed that for you, Scooter.
And if you honestly don’t see any dangers lurking about, then you are — for an incontrovertible fact — every bit as ignorant as you knowingly falsely claim that anybody else here is. You clearly don’t read this blog, and you clearly haven’t been keeping up with current events. Oh, and those “idiots” and “ignorant hillbillies” you hear yelling about Obama coming for our guns? They’re fucking right.
Fmr. President William J. Clinton does.
“And we should — then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them.”
“When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans …And so a lot of people say there’s too much personal freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it. That’s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we’re going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities.” – MTV’s “Enough is Enough!”, 22 March, 1994
“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to own firearms … that we unable to think about reality.” – USA Today, 11 March, 1993, pg. 2A
“If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.” – 12 August, 1993
“You know the one thing that’s wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.” – From his speech in Philadelphia PA City Hall Courtyard, 28 May, 1993
“There is no reason for anyone in this country – anyone except a police officer or military person – to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.” – While signing The Brady Bill, 1993
“The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people.” – MTV, 1993
“I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think – I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it’s the beginning. It’s not the end of the process by any means.” – 11 August, 1993
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D – CA) does.
“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” – Associated Press, 18 November, 1993.
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” – 60 Minutes on CBS, 5 February, 1995.
“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”
Senator Frank Launtenberg (D – NJ) did.
“We have other legislation that all of you are aware that I have been so active on, with my colleagues here, and that is to shut down the gun shows.”
He died in 2013.
Fmr. Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D – OH) did.
“No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.” – Constitution Subcommittee, 2 February, 1989
“I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.”
“What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned.”
He died in 2008.
Fmr. Representative Charles Pashayan (R – CA) does.
“All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty
that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.” – United Nations Small Arms Conference, 2001
Fmr. Senator H. John Chafee (R – RI) did.
“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” – Minneapolis Star Tribune pg. 31A, 15 June, 1992
“Mr. President, what is going on in this country? Does going to school mean exposure to handguns and to death? As you know, my position is we should ban all handguns, get rid of them, no manufacture, no sale, no importation, no transportation, no possession of a handgun. There are 66 million handguns in the United States of America today, with 2 million being added every year.” – 11 June, 1992
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?&n=Record&c=102
He died in 1999.
Then-Senator (now Vice President) Joe “Buckshot” Biden (D – DE) does.
“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” – Associated Press, 18 November, 1993
Representative Jan Schakowski (D – IL) does.
“I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….” – Recorded 25 June, 2000 by Matt Beauchamp
“We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it…We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.” – The Global Dispatch, 12 March, 2013.
http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/illinois-rep-jan-schakowsky-says-assault-rifle-ban-just-the-beginning-moment-of-opportunity-and-seeks-to-ban-handguns-70067/
http://youtu.be/BVz2lHODQvs – Interview by Jason Mattera
Fmr. Representative Major Owens (D – NY) did.
“We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Public Health and Safety Act of 1993 on behalf of myself and nine of my colleagues: Mel Reynolds, Bill Clay, Jerry Nadler, Eleanor Holmes Norton, John Lewis, Nydia Velazquez, Ron Dellums, Carrie Meek, and Alcee Hastings. This legislation, first introduced in the Senate by Senator John Chafee, would prohibit the transfer or possession of handguns and handgun ammunition, except in limited circumstances. It would go a long way toward protecting our citizens from violent crime.
The need for a ban on handguns cannot be overstated. Unlike rifles and shotguns, handguns are easily concealable. Consequently, they are the weapons of choice in most murders, accounting for the deaths of 25,000 Americans in 1991.
A 6-month grace period would be established during which time handguns could be turned in to any law enforcement agency with impunity and for reimbursement at the greater of $25 or the fair market value of the handgun . After the grace period’s expiration, handguns could be turned in voluntarily with impunity from criminal prosecution, but a civil fine of $500 would be imposed.
Exemptions from the handgun ban would be permitted for Federal, State, or local government agencies, including military and law enforcement; collectors of antique firearms; federally licensed handgun sporting clubs; federally licensed professional security guard services; and federally licensed dealers, importers, or manufacturers.
The Public Health and Safety Act of 1993 represents a moderate, middle-of-the-road approach to handgun control which deserves the support of all members of Congress who want to stop gun murders now.” – Congressional Record, 10 November, 1993
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?&n=Record&c=103
He died in 2013.
Representative Bobby Rush (D – IL) does.
“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.”
Fmr. Representative Craig Anthony Washington (D – TX) does.
“This is not all we will have in future Congresses, but this is a crack in the door. There are too many handguns in the hands of citizens. The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the Brady Bill.” – Mark-up hearing on The Brady Bill, 10 April, 1991
Fmr. Massachusetts State Governor and State House Representative Michael Dukakis (D) does.
“I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.”
Fmr. Representative Henry Waxman (D – CA) does.
“If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.”
Fmr. Representative William Lacy Clay, Sr. (D – MO) does.
“The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take…we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases.” – St. Louis Dispatch, 6 May, 1991
Senator Charles Ellis Schumer (D – NY) does.
“We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! … We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We’re going to beat guns into submission!” – NBC Nightly News, 30 November, 1993
Representative Shiela Jackson Lee (D – TX) does.
“I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns.”
Fmr. Representative Mel Reynolds (D – IL) does.
“If it were up to me, We’d ban them all.” – CNN Crossfire, 9 December, 1993
Fun Fact: Mel Reynolds resigned from Congress in 1995 after a conviction of statutory rape.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10770284
Fmr Representative Stehphen J Solars (D – NY) did.
“Mr. speaker, we must take swift and strong action if we are to rescue the next generation from the rising of tide armed violence. That is why today I am introducing the Handgun Control Act of 1992. This legislation would outlaw the possession, importation, transfer or manufacture of a handgun except for use by public agencies, individuals who can demonstrate to their local police chief that they need a gun because of threat to their life or the life of a family member, licensed guard services, licensed pistol clubs which keep the weapons securely on premises, licensed manufacturers and licensed gun dealers.” – 12 August, 1992
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?&n=Record&c=102
He died in 2010
Fmr. U.S. Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (D – NY) does.
“I’m personally all for taxing guns to pay for health care coverage.”
“The first step is to take weapons off the streets and to put more police on them. The Brady Bill, which my husband signed into law in 1995, imposes a 5-day waiting period for gun purchases, time enough for authorities to check out a buyer’s record and for the buyer to cool down about any conflict he might have intended the gun to resolve. Since it was enacted, more than 40,000 people with criminal records have been prevented from buying guns. The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act banned 19 types of military-style assault weapons whose only purpose is to kill people.”
Fun Fact: There is no evidence, empirical or otherwise, that suggests that the federal “Assault Weapons” Ban had any effect on crime whatsoever. It’s been suggested that the extremely low prosecution and conviction rates (0.05% and 0.017% respectively for 2010) of background check failures actually speaks to an extremely high (93%) false positive rate. SOURCE: Enforcing The Brady Act 2010.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
“If you own a gun… make sure it’s locked up and stored without the ammunition. In fact, make it stored where the ammunition is stored separately. We’ve made some progress in the last several years with the Brady Bill and some of the bans on assault weapons, but we have a lot of work to do.” – “Good Morning America”, ABC, 4 June, 1999
“We have to do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of children, and we need to stand firm on behalf of the sensible gun control legislation that passed the Senate and then was watered down in the House. It does not make sense for us at this point in our history to turn our backs on the reality that there are too many guns and too many children have access to those guns-and we have to act to prevent that.” – National Education Association in Orlando, 5 July 1999
“We will not make progress on a sensible gun control agenda unless the entire American public gets behind it. It is really important for each of you [kids] to make sure you stay away from guns. If you have guns in your home, tell your parents to keep them away from you and your friends and your little brothers and sisters.” – South Side Middle School Forum, Nassau County, 15 July, 1999
“I stand in support of this common-sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun. I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.” – CNN.com, 2 June, 2000
“We need to stand firm on behalf of sensible gun control legislation. We have to enact laws that will keep guns out of the hand of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced persons. Congress should have acted before our children started going back to school. I realize the NRA is a formidable political group; but I believe the American people are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.” – http://www.Hillary2000.org, “Gun Safety”, 9 Sepmtember, 2000
“A month after the Columbine shootings, Bill & I went to Littleton Colorado to visit with the families of victims & survivors. The Columbine tragedy was not the first, nor the last, episode involving gun violence at an American high school. But it ignited a call for more federal action to keep guns out of the hands of the violent, troubled and young–a lethal combination. Bill and I announced a proposal to raise the legal age of handgun ownership to 21, and limit purchases of handguns to one per month.” – Living History by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p. 503-504, 1 November, 2003
“He had been involuntarily committed as a threat to himself & others. And, yet, he could walk in and buy a gun.” While Seung-hui Cho did have a court-documented history of mental illness that should have made him a ‘prohibited person’ because he was found to present “an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness“ in a ruling dated 14 December, 2005, the judge did not check a box that would have declared Cho ”an imminent danger to others.“ Additionally, the judge declined to involuntarily commit Cho and instead sent him to out-patient counseling. – FactCheck, 2007 South Carolina Democratic Debate, 26 April, 2007
“I am against illegal guns, and illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country. I also am a political realist and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street, get them out of the hands of young people. I don’t want the federal government preempting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems. We need to have a registry that really works with good information about people who are felons, people who have been committed to mental institutions. We need to make sure that that information is in a timely manner, both collected and presented. We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers. This is something that I would like to see more of. We need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. I would also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again.” – 2008 Democratic Debate, Las Vegas, NV
Fun Fact: The death of police officers in the line of duty have been steadily going down along with violent crime rates since the 1990s, and so-called “assault weapons” – which do not even exist – account for less than 1% of all homicides and an equally small percentage of officer deaths.
“I will be a good partner, for cities like Philadelphia, as president. Because I will bring back the so-called COPS program, where we had 100,000 police on the street, which really helped drive down the crime rate and also helped create better community relations. I will also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We had it during the 1990s. It really was an aid to our police officers, who are now once again, because it has lapsed–the Republicans will not reinstate it–are being outgunned on our streets by these military-style weapons. I will also work to make sure that police departments get access to the federal information that will enable them to track illegal guns, because the numbers are astounding. Probably 80% of the guns used in gun crimes got there illegally. And under the Republicans, that information was kept from local law enforcement.” – Philidelphia primary debate, 16 April, 2008
Fun Fact: The police have unfettered access to machine guns and explosives. Under the Department of Defense’s 1033 program, even city morges get fully-automatic M4s, burst-fire M16s, and even grenade launchers. Whether or not they even want them, and many don’t, is irrelevant as there isn’t any echanism to refuse receipt of or return any of it. Contrast this with the 9MM and .380 ACP handguns that make up the vast majority of “crime” guns, according to BATFE E-Trace data. Said E-Trace is also never “kept secret” for law enforcement, either. Tracing a gun is also useless becaue 1.) it can’t and won’t tell you where it’s been, how it got there, and how long it was there and 2.) there is no difference between a so-called “crime” gun and general “trace data”. That data is also never purged. Once a gun is entered into the E-Trace system, it stays there forever.
A note on so-called “assault weapons”: they don’t exist. It’s a media buzz-word cointed by none other than the late Sarah Brady, former head of what was Handgun Control Inc.. It was and still is used exclusively by those who don’t know what they’re even talking about to confuse low-information voters. Like, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for instance.
“We’ve got to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime, and I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.” Citing a number of shootings that arose from minor arguments over loud music or texting, she drew a comparison: “That’s what happens in the countries I’ve visited where there is no rule of law and no self-control. That is something that we cannot just let go without paying attention.” – “Anywhere, Anytime Gun Culture”, Wall Street Journal, 6 May, 2014.
“I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation. We cannot let a minority of people—and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people—hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.” – “Hillary Clinton Equates Gun Control Opponents With Terrorists”, Reason.com, 18 June, 2014
http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/18/hillary-clinton-equates-gun-control-oppo
Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson (D) does.
“We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.”
Colorado State Senator (and Majority Leader) John Morse (D) does.
“People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed.”
New Jersey State Senators Loretta Weinberg, Sandra Cunningham, and Linda Greenstein all do.
“We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate… They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/open-mike-reveals-n-j-senators-contempt-for-gun-owners-confiscation-goal
Fmr. California State Senator Leland Yee (D) does.
“It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion.” – CBS San Francisco, 20 May, 2012, before he was arrested for, charged with, and plead guilty to: gun-trafficking, taking bribes, money laundering, and official corruption on 24 March, 2014.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/05/20/cbs-5-story-inspires-new-legislation-to-ban-bullet-button/
http://www.sfgate.com/file/757/757-complaint_affidavit_14-70421-nc.pdf
He has since plead guilty to all of those charges, and he is schedule to be sentenced ca. 21 October, 2015.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/07/02/gun-control-politician-pleads-guilty-to-gun-related-charges/
Fmr. United States Attorney General Eric B. Holder does.
“[We have to have] as part of the gun initiative, though, an informational campaign to really change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, D.C., and in particular our young people. They are saturated with guns in media and entertainment, [and] by the entertainment industry with violence, and I think too many of our young people, in particular our young men are fascinated with violence and in particular with guns. And what we need to do is change the way people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that’s not acceptable, that’s not hip, to carry a gun anymore.
In the way we changed out attitudes about cigarettes, y’know, when I was growing up people smoked all the time. I mean, both my parents did. But, over time we changed the way people thought about smoking, and so now why have people who cower outside of buildings and kinda’ smoke in private and don’t want to admit it. And I think that’s what we need to do with guns.
… One thing that I think is clear with young people, and with adults as well, is that we jut have to be repetitive about this. It’s not enough to simply have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday. We need to do this every day of the week, and really just brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” – C-SPAN2, 1995
Fmr. United States Attorney General Janet “Waco” Reno does.
“Gun registration is not enough.” – On ABC’s “Good Morning America”, 10 December, 1993
“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”
Fmr. U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark does.
“Denouncing defensive gun ownership as “anarchy, not order under law–a jungle where each relies on himself for survival,” and an insult to government, for “[a] state in which a citizen needs a gun to protect himself from crime has failed to perform its first purpose. “ – Crime In America, 107, 1970
Fmr. Director of the ATF John Magaw does.
“The truth is, [handguns] are used to assassinate people, to kill people, because they are very easily concealed, you can drop them in any pocket.” – When interviewed by ABC’s Day One correspondent John McKenzie.
Boston Police Commissioner William Evans does.
“Having long guns – rifles and shotguns – especially here in the city of Boston, I think we should have, as the local authority, some say in the matter. For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun. Nobody needs a rifle.” – Boston Public Radio, 23 July, 2013
Fmr. Chief of Police for Los Angeles, California Bernard Parks does.
“We would get rid of assault weapons. There would not be an assault weapon in the United States, whether it’s for show or someone having it in a collection.” – Reuters, 9 June, 2000
Fmr. New York City Police Commissioner Patrick V. Murphy did.
“We are beyond the stage of restrictive licensing and uniform laws. We are at the point in time and terror when nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people. Exemptions should be limited to the military, the police and those licensed for good and sufficient reasons.” – 7 December, 1970
“We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people. Exemptions should be limited to the military, the police, and those licensed for good and sufficient reasons. And I would look forward to the day when it would not be necessary for the policeman to carry a sidearm.” – Testimony before the National Association of Citizen Crime Commissions.
He died in 2011.
Fmr. Deputy Comm. of the Florida State Dept. of Health, Joyner Sims, does.
“The goal is an ultimate ban on all guns, but we also have to take [one] step at a time and go for limited access first.” – Chicago Tribune, 7 November, 1993
Fmr. San Jose Police Chief Joseph McNamara does.
“My experience as a street cop suggests that most merchants should not have guns. But I feel even stronger about the average person having them…most homeowners…simply have no need to own guns.”
East Palo Alto Police Detective Rod Tuason does.
“Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night. Should’ve pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement … 2 weeks off!!!”
He is currently being investigated for ethics violations.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/02/14/gun-rights-advocates-target-california-detective-following-facebook-posts/
Branford, Connecticut Police Officer Joseph Peterson does.
“I [would] give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun.” Those are his exact words to a long-time “friend” of his . . .
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/10/officer-reportedly-tells-citizen-i-give-my-left-n-to-bang-down-your-door-and-come-for-your-gun/
Connecticut Superior Court Judge Robert C. Brunetti does.
“No one in this country should have guns. I never return guns.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/connecticut-judge-declares-no-one-should-have-guns
Connecticut Superior Court Judge Edward Mullarkey does, too.
“Those who support the Second Amendment should be ashamed.”
http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/631a41bd-55f3-4b63-9644-c79617bd54d9
New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) does.
“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” – New York Times, 21 December, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=0
http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-york-gov-andrew-cuomo-on-gun-control-confiscation-could-be-an-option/
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel does.
“We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”
Fmr. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley does.
“If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns… “ – Federal Gun Legislation Press Conferenece in Washingto, D.C., 13 November, 1998
Fmr. Stockton, CA Mayor Barbara Fass does.
“I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semi-assault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step.”
Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Office of Government and Community Programs and the Community Violence Prevention Project at the Harvard School of Public Health, does.
“My own view on gun control is simple: I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”
Chester M. Pierce, Fmr. Harvard psychiatrist, does.
“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well by creating the international child of the future.” – Speaking as an “expert” in public education, 1973 International Education Seminar
Fmr. Chancellor of Boston University John Silber did.
“I don’t believe anybody has a right to own any kind of a firearm. I believe in order to obtain a permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn’t count!”
He died in 2012.
Sarah Brady, fmr. Chairman of Handgun Control Inc. (now The Brady Campaign) did.
“…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” – Hearst Newspapers, October 1997
“The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.” – 1 July, 1988
“We must get rid of all the guns.” – Speaking on behalf of HCI, with Sheriff Jay Printz (of Printz v. U.S. fame no less!), “The Phil Donahue Show”, September, 1994
“The only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes.” – “Keepig The Battle Alive”, Tampa Tribune, 21 October, 1993
She died in 2015.
James Brady, husband of Sarah Brady, did.
“For target shooting, that’s okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that’s why we have police departments.” – Parade Magazine, 26 June, 1994
He died in 2014.
Nelson T. “Pete” Shields, Sarah Brady’s predecessor at HCI, does.
“Our ultimate goal – total control of handguns in the United States – is going to take time…The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced…The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of handguns and all handgun ammunition –except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors– totally illegal.” – The New Yorker Magazine, 26 July, 1976, pg. 53F
Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center, does.
“Americans are ready to hate somebody, and it’s going to be the gun industry.” – Newsweek Magazine, 16 May, 1994
“The word ‘hate’ is a very carefully chosen word. There’s got to be a real sense of revulsion and disgust. People are looking for someone to blame, someone who’s the cause of their problems, and it should be the gun industry. These guys are the living embodiment of the slogan, ‘Guns don’t kill people-people kill people’. They’re complete mercenaries.” – The New American Magazine, 13 June, 1994
“A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls … and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.”
“We need to ratchet down the firepower in civilian hands. We need to get assault weapons off our streets and off the gun store shelves … We should ban handguns.” – “NRA’s “really big problem”: Why it’s dependent on a dwindling fringe”, Salon.com, 13 June, 2014.
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/13/nras_really_big_problem_why_its_dependent_on_a_dwindling_fringe/
Michael K. Beard, Fmr President of The Coalition To Stop Gun Violence, does.
“Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation.” – The Washington Times, 9 December, 1993
Shannon Watts, head of Moms Demand Action, does.
“I’ll be pretty clear on this. @MikeBloomberg and I want guns gone. Period. It doesn’t matter what it takes.” – From Twitter, 10 June, 2014
“Banning assault weapons. If you ban the assault weapons listed in the (Sen. Dianne) Feinstein bill, you would still have 2,000 firearms to choose from.”
The League of Women Voters of Illinois does.
“The League supports legislative controls to stop the proliferation of private ownership of handguns and their irresponsible use. The League advocates restricting access to semi-automatic assault type weapons.” – 2001 – 2003 Positions-in-Brief
http://www.lwvil.org/issuesandaction/documents/PositionsinBrief.pdf
Time Magazine does.
“As you probably know by now, Time’s editors, in the April 13 issue, took a strong position in support of an outright ban on handguns for private use.” – Letter to the NRA, 24 April, 1981
The New York Times does.
“The only way to discourage the gun culture is to remove the guns from the hands and shoulders of people who are not in the law enforcement business.” – Unsigned editorial, 24 September, 1975
The Washington Post does.
“No presidential candidate has yet come out for the most effective proposal to check the terror of gunfire: a ban on the general sale, manufacture and ownership of handguns as well as assault-style weapons.” – “Guns Along the Campaign Trail”, 19 July, 1999, pg. A18
“The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned…We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them.” – “Legal Guns Kill Too”, 5 November, 1999
The Star-Ledger Editorial Board does.
“So do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over “gun confiscation,” don’t expect it to make much difference.” – “What N.J. really needs is mandatory gun buybacks: Editorial”, 19 September, 2014
The L.A. Times does.
“Under our plan individuals could own sporting weapons only if they had submitted to a background check and passed a firearms safety course. Other special, closely monitored exceptions could be made, such as for serious collectors.” – “Taming the Gun Monster: The Guns Among Us” (Editorial), 10 December, 1993
“Recommending that federal law limit ordinary citizens to “ownership [only] of sporting and hunting weapons,” – “Taming the Gun Monster: How Far to Go” (Editorial), 22 October, 1996
The Philidelhpia Inquirer does.
“Wills has also written “Every civilized society must disarm its citizens against each other. Those who do not trust their own people become predators upon their own people. The sick thing is that haters of fellow Americans often think of themselves as patriots.” – “Or Worldwide Gun Control?”, 17 May, 1981
Michael Gartner, Fmr. President of NBC News, does.
“There is no reason for anyone in this country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.” – USA Today, “Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?”, 16 January, 1992
Charles Krauthammer, a nationally syndicated columnist, does.
“In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” – From “Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet.”, The Washington Post, 5 April, 1996
“I have no problem in principle with gun control. Congress enacted (and I supported) an assault weapons ban in 1994. The problem was: It didn’t work. (So concluded a University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the Justice Department.) The reason is simple. Unless you are prepared to confiscate all existing firearms, disarm the citizenry and repeal the Second Amendment, it’s almost impossible to craft a law that will be effective.” – From “The root of mass-murder.”, The Washington Post, 20 December, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-roots-of-mass-murder/2012/12/20/e4d99594-4ae3-11e2-b709-667035ff9029_story.html
Molly Ivan, another nationally syndicated columnist, does.
“Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog.” – 19 July, 1994
Gerald Ensely, of the Tallahassee Democrat, does.
“How is it that the supposed greatest nation on earth refuses to stop the unholy availability of guns? I’m not talking about gun control. I’m not talking about waiting periods and background checks. I’m talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I’m talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Gun freaks say if you take away their guns only outlaws will have guns. That’s a chance worth taking. Because if we ban guns, eventually the tide will turn. It might take 10 years or 20 years. Hell, it might take 50 years. But if we make it illegal to own a handgun, eventually there will be no handguns.
Those of us who think widespread handgun ownership is insane need to keep speaking up. We need to teach our children handguns are wrong. We need to support any measure that limits their availability — and work to repeal the Second Amendment. We need to keep marching forward until someday this nation becomes civilized enough to ban guns. One of the frequent refrains of gun freaks about President Obama is “He’s coming for our guns.” Obama never said such a thing. But I will:
We’re coming for your guns. And someday, we’ll take them.” – In “Stop the insanity: Ban guns”, 23 Bovember, 2014
http://www.tallahassee.com/story/opinion/columnists/ensley/2014/11/22/stop-insanity-ban-guns/19426029/
Garry Willis, “historian” and writer, does.
“Mutual protection should be the aim of citizens, not individual self-protection. Until we are willing to outlaw, the very existence or manufacture of civilian handguns we have no right to call ourselves citizens or consider our behavior even minimally civil.” – “John Lennon’s War”, Chicago Sun times, 12 December, 1980
“Professor” Dean Morris, Director of the Law Enforcement Assistance Association does.
“I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers…No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.”
J. Elliot Corbett, Secretary of the National Council for Responsible Firearms Policy, does.
“We are now supporting the President’s bill which provides stringent restrictions on rifles and shotguns. We shall also get behind the bill which provides for national registration and licensing. I personally believe handguns should be outlawed.” – 17 June, 1968
“Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed.” – Interviewed for the Washington Evening Star, 19 September, 1969
Rosie O’Donnell does.
“I think there should be a law — and I know this is extreme — that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns.” – Ottawa Sun, 29 April, 1999
“I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, sorry, you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” – The Rosie O’Donnell Show, 19 April, 1999.
The American Civil “Liberties” Union does.
“We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.” – National ACLU Policy #47, adopted by its Board of Directors in Semptember, 1976
The United Nations does.
“Tighten controls on the gun trade in the United States and other member nations.” – UN Disarmament Commission
Poughkeepsie, NY Mayor John Tkayik (R) knows the truth.
“I’m no longer a member of MAIG. Why? It did not take long to realize that MAIG’s agenda was much more than ridding felons of illegal guns; that under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens.”
He is currently running for New York State Senator, 41st District.
Sioux City, MO Mayor Bob Scott knows the truth, too.
“I was never an active member. They’re not just against illegal guns, they’re against all guns.”
So does Madeira Beach, FL Mayor Patricia Shontz.
“I am withdrawing because I believe the MAIG is attempting to erode all gun ownership, not just illegal guns. Additionally, I have learned that the MAIG may be working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership. It appears the MAIG has misrepresented itself to the Mayors of America and its citizens. This is gun control, not crime prevention.”
Nashua, NH Mayor Donnalee Lozeau knows.
“I simply cannot be part of an organization that chooses this course of action instead of cooperatively working with those that have proven over a lifetime of work their true intentions.”
Edgewood, KY Mayor John D. Link found out.
“Sometime ago, I attended a meeting with many city officials from throughout the United States. At this meeting there was a table with the title “Mayors Against Illegal Guns.” Not wanting illegal guns, I signed the form not knowing what kind of spin would ensue. As it turned out, I was against the 2nd amendment, etc. I have since been removed from the “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” movement. On our city website I have a letter to all stating my position. I’m not against the NRA, guns, or hunting, and never will be.”
Oldmans Township, NJ Mayor Harry Moore knows better now.
“It is simply unconscionable that this coalition, under your [Michael Bloomberg’s] leadership, would call for a repeal of the Shelby/Tiahrt amendment that helps to safeguard criminal investigations and the lives of law enforcement officers, witnesses, and others by restricting access to firearms trace data solely to law enforcement. How anyone, least of all a public official, could be willing to sacrifice such a law enforcement lifeline in order to gain an edge in suing an industry they have political differences with is repugnant to me. The fact that your campaign against this protective language consisted of overheated rhetoric, deception, and falsehoods is disturbing.”
I could go on literally for days and days, listing pages upon pages of people saying exactly how and why they’re coming for our guns. Not a single bit of it could ever be supported, defended, or refuted by them, either.
Hit the nail on the head. You don’t have to be a senseless redneck and citizen-hating superpatriot to own or at least respect firearms. Plenty of normal Americans own firearms and the Republicans are drawing from a base that is anything but normal.
When Bobbie Jindal says that your party is getting to be the party of the loons (or the stupid, or whatever that famous comment was) then you know that Republican insanity is pretty bad.
@god — And you don’t have to be a condescending dirtbag and citizen-hating Statist with a wholly unearned sense of moral and intellectual superiority, either, but you are. Plenty of normal Americans do own guns, and it’s the DemoKKKrats that are drawing from a base that is anything but normal.
When Malcolm-X warned everyone to stop voting for DemoKKKrats, then you know that DemoKKKratik insanity is every bit as bad as they like to pretend Republican insanity is — and this was many, many years ago.
Oh, wow, now who looks like an “ignorant ass”. Without the NRA, SAF and Republicans the only thing you’d be carrying is your dick. “we are both Democrats. Why?” Because you like feeding on the work of others then bashing them as if they didn’t do the work.
Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.
Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws while Republicans fought them.
Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery.
Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery.
Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision.
Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers.
Democrats fought against Republican’s anti-lynching laws.
Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.
Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s choice for vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching.
Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces.
Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson.
Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters were fighting.
Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox “brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.
Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.
Democrat President Bill Clinton’s mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration.
Democrats opposed:
The Emancipation Proclamation
The 13th Amendment
The 14th Amendment
The 15th Amendment
The Reconstruction Act of 1867
The Civil Rights of 1866
The Enforcement Act of 1870
The Forced Act of 1871
The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
The Civil Rights Act of 1875
The Freeman Bureau
The Civil Rights Act of 1957
The Civil Rights Act of 1960
The United State Civil Rights Commission
Republicans gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the following
legislation:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Voting Rights Act of 1965
The 1968 Civil Rights Acts
The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972
Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs
Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973
Voting Rights Act of Amendment of 1982
Civil Rights Act of 1983
Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988
The Republicans:
Republicans enacted civil rights laws in the 1950’s and 1960’s, over the objection of Democrats.
Republicans founded the HBCU’s (Historical Black College’s and Universities) and started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the Democrats.
Republicans pushed through much of the ground-breaking civil rights legislation in Congress.
Republicans fought slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote.
Republicans pushed through much of the groundbreaking civil rights legislation from the 1860s through the 1960s.
Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into the South to desegregate the schools.
Republican President Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, was the one who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s.
Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.
Republican and black American, A. Phillip Randolph, organized the 1963 March by Dr. King on Washington.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act Roll Call Vote: In the House, only 64 percent of the Democrats (153 yes, 91 no), but 80 percent of the Republicans (136 yes, 35 no), voted for it. In the Senate, while only 68 percent of the Democrats endorsed the bill (46 yes, 21 no), 82 percent of the Republicans voted to enact it (27 yes, 6 no).
Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican that introduced legislation to give African Americans the so-called 40 acres and a mule and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the bill.
During the Senate debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, it was revealed that members of the Democratic Party formed many terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to murder and intimidate African Americans voters. The Ku Klux Klan Act was a bill introduced by a Republican Congress to stop Klan Activities.
History reveals that Democrats lynched, burned, mutilated and murdered thousands of blacks and completely destroyed entire towns and communities occupied by middle class Blacks, including Rosewood, Florida, the Greenwood District in Tulsa Oklahoma, and Wilmington, North Carolina to name a few.
History reveals that it was Abolitionists and Republicans such as Henry L. Morehouse and General Oliver Howard that started many of the traditional Black colleges, while Democrats fought to keep them closed. Many of our traditional Black colleges are named after white Republicans.
After exclusively giving the Democrats their votes for the past 25 years, the average African American cannot point to one piece of civil rights legislation sponsored solely by the Democratic Party that was specifically designed to eradicate the unique problems that African Americans face today.
As of 2004, the Democrat Party had never elected a black man to the United States Senate, the Republicans had elected three.
You can go back to cheering in the streets for the nutball who shot at George Zimmerman in traffic now, with all the other idiot leftists.
As a gun owning liberal your opinion on gun rights literally doesn’t matter. At all.
Best case, you waste range time/ammo for the people actually supporting the hobby. Worst case, you fly off the handle and try to kill somebody for social justice or some muslims over a parking space. At the end of the day, you will still vote for the people who use the ‘racist’ police to kill the citizens who will not disarm. On top of that, you will bow to any calls for registration or confiscation.
Just sell your firearms now and donate the cash to MDA, or turn them in at the next police event. You’re wasting everyone’s time, including your own, claiming to support gun rights as a democrat. If the democrat party theme changes from “all gun owners are murderers,” maybe things can get better, but good luck with that.
Have a wonderful day.
I’m registered as a Democrat, but voting that way is another matter. Living in an an overwhelmingly Democratic area, my party affiliation gets me in to meetings where I’d otherwise be excluded. And I get to influence (while often holding my nose).
Am I a 5th Columnist for gun rights? Absolutely, but let’s just make this our little secret.
@CSNick: Wow. Just wow. What a leap of logic. From someone being a Democrat to “fly[ing] off the handle and try to kill somebody for social justice or some muslims over a parking space.” You sound just like the antis. Can’t trust the “wrong” people with guns.
Troll, perhaps?
Sir, you seem to be the ignorant ASS. Not all people sit on their porch and chant the government is coming after your guns. Our President with his smirky distasteful look has said. he is going to change everything, and use gun control. Everywhere we have the government control rules in place, is where we experience the most problems. THAT SIR IS A FACT. You cannot deny that. Well you can, but you are just being idiotic.
Also, any one who does not understand that the gun itself is not the problem is also in need of mental help.
In every mass shooting case, every single one, the shooter has been proven psychotic. PSYCHOTIC, just in case you missed that word. You your wife and sane people are not a problem.
However, these ranting,chanting professional politicians are indicating they do not just want gun sales curbed, and gun free zones they are screaming ” NO MORE GUNS ALLOWED IN THE UNITED STATES”
This is what upsets and well should the law abiding public.They don’t appear to me that they can tolerate any gun ownership at all. This is what they are preaching. They are not open to any compromise. Good law abiding responsible gun owners like you are open to reasonable laws. We and you I would assume, are not open to the unreasonable or impracticable rules that are unenforceable.
The mundane, stupid idea that a psychotic killer is going to stop and think ,”Hey I’ve got to register my guns, and or apply for a permit, therefore, I will not go out and kill anybody.” This type of belief is more insane than the insane killer. This type of gun control is what the Politicians are telling us. My God, they are nuts. It is my opinion that this type of rhetoric is very dangerous and is not accomplishing anything.
I have never heard any gun control advocate EVER say Hey NRA and members, what do you think if anything can be done to prevent mass murder by a psychotic that is directly related to the sale and ownership of guns?
I don’t think there is an answer that the government can dictate or control. If the prohibition of selling, owning, and or manufacturing of guns in this nation would stop this type of killing then give us a way to believe that.
I really think that people, not necessarily citizens, in this country who want guns can get them illegally. Just as the criminals and nuts buy them today. Normally criminals don’t apply for permission to buy guns. I would also doubt they bother to register them. You know at some point, we have to get real about things. Although, politicians do not believe in anything real or honest. Think about it. When is the last time you heard something a politician say something that you didn’t have to think, “now is that the truth or not?”
I’ve not believed anything a politician has said since Ronald Reagan.
Now, back down to earth. the gun control areas set up today by our government does not work PERIOD. So, what is next?
YOUR ALL FREEKING HIGH.
The problem is not just with our suck-A_ _ president and all of your stupid (D) head neighbors needing jobs, the problem is evident right here. We have met the enemy and there is no ‘we’ it it, it’s YOU.
Bernie Sanders is ~ ok??? HOLY SH_T YOU GOTTA BE FREEKIN KIDDING ME.
NO MORE EVIL BLUE HOUSE OF LIBERAL (D) CR_P!
This blog is TTAG – “The Truth About Guns” and there might not be enough in the ‘gun’ world going on day-to-day to give you these 4-5 new posts a day to comment on if we leave out the political crap. But most of the political crap is about what the EVIL BLUE HOUSE OF LIBERAL (D) BAGS are doing to take away your guns and what the (so far nearly worthless) Republicans have done to beat them back (they have a wet turd approach to things that fails to fool most of us into thinking that they too believe all the (D) B.S. is not just a foregone conclusion).
If we can just all agree to sh_t-can the 2nd Amendment, then we can move along to chucking the rest, and I’ll devote a little more of my personal attention to making you wish you had done otherwise.
They’ll never get all my guns, if only I can just remember which lake they’re in.
What needs to happen is that more guys like Jim Webb need to come out and tell it like it is. Too bad he’ll be ignored as he’s the only sane Democrat.
Gun ownership should be like free speech. There should be no disagreement between the parties about how precious it is, maybe then we can focus on the more important things, like going to Mars, or not letting Taurus make guns.
If Jim Webb had been your senator, you might think differently about his sanity. I’m glad he is gone but he was replaced by a senator that is even less sane.
“Gun ownership should be like free speech. There should be no disagreement between the parties about how precious it is, maybe then we can focus on the more important things, like going to Mars, or not letting Taurus make guns.”
Agreed, this should be a sacrosanct issue. The only people single-issue about gun control are transnational capitalists like Bush, plutocrats like Bloomberg and sheltered, gated community critters like Shannon Watts.
What’s the matter with Taurus? They are now an American corporation bringing jobs to the USA. I own three, the TCP 738, the PT111 G2, and a PT 840C. All are extremely accurate, have had few misfires, and that was the ammo, they all have lifetime warranties, and they are all $400-$600 cheaper than most of the European knockoffs. If it can save my butt in a self-defense situation at a far cheaper price than some pretty showoff piece, I’m all for it.
I think he is referring to the Taurus recall.
http://bearingarms.com/massive-taurus-safety-settlement-include-100000-pistols/
There is one thing, and one thing alone, that NRA can do to appeal to democrats: FOAD.
And what are you going to do when they decline your request to fuck-off or die, make them? How do you hope to make that happen? You think your measly ammo supply can effect your desired outcome for for every Democrat in this country? Maybe little less bravado and a little more answering the question asked, please?
Sure I know I won’t be able to deal with all the Demokrauts but I will get all I can….. hence the ammo stockpile…. but seriously democrats with guns don’t stay democrats they become independent or libertarian
All you need to know
Dnc = god hating, gun hating, baby slayers
Jeez, dude…pretty sure his point was that there really isn’t anything the NRA can do to appeal to democrats, not that he wanted them to FOAD.
If I’m wrong…my bad 🙂
I think you misunderstood Chip. He’s not saying HE wants the NRA to FOAD, he’s saying the Democrats want it to.
Maybe try a bit more (or less) coffee before reading/replying?
What would I, personally, do? Cheer NRA on, and send them more money.
I, personally, don’t hope to make NRA FOAD. I’m a member, and a fan. Perhaps you should ask your questions of the people who wish for NRA to FOAD? Because I’m not one such person.
This question makes absolutely no sense. What does my ammo supply have to do with democrats wishing NRA would FOAD?
Maybe a little more reading comprehension first?
You seem like one of those people who argue just to argue. I think I’ll just leave you to spin in your swivel-chair of wisdom to contemplate the next Civil War or something. Bye.
Notice, how when the election starts looming, POS(D)’s (we could call you “worthless” except you’re slightly more deleterious) come out of the woodwork to claim both parties are the same, and none are better than the other.
You’re the face of the guy that every anti-gunner sees in his mind while deciding to vote for gun control, or not. The in your face, wearing cross bandoleers of .50 Cal ammo, with a Confederate flag on one bicep, and a Nazi flag on the other. I’ve been reafding a few of your posts and the only reason I remember them is that I think, this is the kind of person that really makes it hard to convince people that gun carriers are just ordinary Americans. You, and your kind, have done more to hurt gun rights than any other single cause.
You don’t know me.
No wonder you’re a democrat. You know absolutely nothing about me, and yet you’re admonishing some ridiculous caricature of me you’ve invented in your own mind.
I’m not “in your face” with anyone. I don’t own, much less wear, bandoleers or .50 cal ammo. I have no tattoos of any sort, and have never owned or flown a confederate flag. As for the Nazi BS: you left-wingers get to own them. National Socialists, and all.
You mad, bro?
And what, exactly, is my kind? And what, exactly, have I done? Please be specific, so that all of your projected bigotry shows itself for what it is.
Chip, you presume to know a lot, but you don’t know everything.
A 100% true statement, and one I’ve never attempted to refute. But what is its relevance here?
Sorry Chip, but I don’t see advocacy regarding fundamental rights as FOAD, especially when demographic shifts demand that 2A outreach expands rather than contract to a narrowing demographic. We need more Colion Noirs and Pink Pistols to push advocacy on all fronts and withing all groups, even the hated Democrats. It’s as simple as that.
Thanks. In addition to shooting events, our local Pink Pistols is gearing up to offer the NRA “Refuse To Be A Victim” class to be rolled out to neighborhood groups, women’s groups, seniors, etc., plus holding workshops such disassembly and cleaning, and fun events such as zombie shoots.
The idea is to encourage more to enjoy our sport and dispel negative stereotypes.
Our chapter is LGBT-friendly, but not a LGBT group.
You still seem to be missing my point. Nowhere did I suggest that NRA should not reach out across the aisle. My comment regarded the anticipated *reception* to that outreach.
I hope that anyone who completely writes-off the ideal of attracting Democrats understand that that long-term demographic shifts favor Democrats.
We’re going to have to wedge off enough pro-gun Democrats to staunch anti legislation or more big cities and states will creep toward the anti camp.
The corporate masters on the Democratic plantation will work hard to keep people bamboozled, so we got our work cut out for us.
Your point is cogent, but it’s not going to happen. The modern Democratic Party is effectively controlled by radical leftist totalitarians. Statism:right to keep and bear arms::Rosie O’Donnell:erections.
Well Ben, you’re entitled to your own beliefs . . . .
Most white Republicans are in rural or small town America, a swiftly vanishing demographic. Large cities, and the surrounding areas, are just getting larger because that is where commerce, and the jobs are. The Hispanic population is the fastest growing in the country, and it won’t slow anytime soon. Blacks are becoming a larger portion also. The only demographic shrinking is rural whites. Most people in large cities tend to vote Democrat, as do most blacks and Hispanics. Many women now tend to vote Democratic since the Republicans have renewed their anti-woman stance. That leaves only a few white hillbillies, with their wives, who will be voting for the right. Given their choices between the Klown Trump, Ben Carson, and Jeb Bush I don’t see anyone from the GOP in the White House any time soon. Congress has done nothing since the voters put the Tea Party in. They were supposed to shake things up, but succeeded in only dividing Republicans even more, so some of those seats will be going back to the left.
I agree with the content of your assessment. A lot of Republicans have already decided the 2A is a partisan wedge issue, which is only convenient as long as they hold a demographic grip on larger southern states and can effectively use 2A a wedge issue among exurban and rural whites. I don’t think it is a strictly partisan issue and that support for gun-control among Democrats–particularly among Latinos and blacks–is very soft and rife for conversion. Some compartmentalization will be necessary to make this happen and that some POTG will have to refrain from 2nd civil-war rhetoric long enough to get the message across.
John J. Jones,
Once again, I agree with most of your analysis, except “Republicans have renewed their anti-woman stance“. It wasn’t the Republicans in the Colorado State Senate who told a rape victim to fuck off and die to her face.
“We Support A Woman’s Right To Choose ™, Unless We Disagree With Her Choice. This message brought to you by the Democrat Party“.
Republicans don’t hate women. They just hate anybody who isn’t rich.
Kool-Aid drinker, The long term demographics that the democrats keep promising to end conservative voters is meant to dissuade conservatives from voting. They have been saying the same thing since 1980. You do realize that if the same percentage of white men that voted in 2010 and 2014 for republicans Obama loses in 2012 correct? Obama won because conservatives failed to show. Secondly ideas matter. As more women, minorities and others gain more success in the economic free market it is quite likely that they will notice how much they actually pay in taxes. Most of their education comes from the indoctrination that now is called “college.” Getting into the real world wakes people up to the facts of life. You act as if everyone here is a bunch of “hillbillies” and uneducated “white guys.” Your understanding displays ignorance of this site, the thousands of educated and successful professionals that read this site and thirdly your posts display ignorance of believers in the freedom of mankind. You act as though what you say is guaranteed to come to fruition. History often reminds us that the unexpected is the only thing to be expected.
@John J. Jones — Blacks haven’t been a larger percentage of the population that they are now since the 1960s, and that’s not about to change, either. You can thank Margaret Sanger’s eugenics program for that. The only reason why Hispanics are a growing population at all is because of illegal immigration, which is something that the DemoKKKrats aren’t at all interested in stopping or even slowing down because it will only bolster their voter base if and when amnesty is ever passed. They are not now, have never been, and shall never be anything other than pawns to them. Full stop, end of story. Period. Most people in large cities tend to vote DemoKKKrat because they’ve been successfully fooled into actually believing that only the coercive force of the State can bring about solutions to societal problems. In all reality, nothing can possibly be further from the truth, and then they wonder why their lives aren’t getting any better even after they’ve been voting so hard for more of the same for a half century. And the definition of insanity is what, again? Women tend to vote DemoKKKrat because they’ve been fooled in exactly the same way, and exactly for the same reasons. Given the choices between a criminal-in-waiting like KKKlinton who has exactly zero discernible accomplishents to her name regardless of the office she’d been elected to in her entire political career, not to ention being a lying hypocrite just in general in anyway, and the rest of the complete non-starters like Sanders who wants to finish taxing us into the ground for which we’ll still have less than absolutely nothing to show for, it’s doubtful we’ll be seeing a DemoKKKrat in the White House any time soon. Congress has done nothing since voters rightly took corntrol of it from the DemoKKKrats. You expect Sanders to shake things up? He’ll do more damage to the DemoKKKratik Party than you like to pretend the Tea Party ever actually did to the GOP — and that’s saying something.
@whatever — A lot of DemoKKKrats have already made it a partisan wedge issue as well, which is actually only convenient for them until their constituents finally begin to realize what a crock it is and always was. They can effectively wedge it between wealthy, lilly white suburbanites and poor blacks against wealthy and poor rural blue collar whites alike. Historians like Clayton E. Cramer and David Kopel have written a copious number of papers covering this amongst the racist roots of gun control — and gun control supporters. Recent polls show that your assessment of the spongy consistency of the support for gun control, particularly among blacks and especially black women, is correct. It’s fallen by as much as 25% among that demographic in the last five years, as we’ve been predicting for a while now. Civil War 2 rhetoric isn’t nearly as rampant as one thinks, it’s just been selectively targeted and magnified over a thousand-fold by leftists and FUDDs that are equally apt to use it as a wedge issue.
@Excedrine
No one has time or the energy to read an overwhelming wall of cut-and-paste rant on a web board. Please learn to make your expressions more concise. If that isn’t possible, please use links.
Not sure this is true. I suspect that parties, like organisms, adapt to changing environments.
@whatever
“I hope that anyone who completely writes-off the ideal of attracting Democrats understand that that long-term demographic shifts favor Democrats. ”
-You are betting that people will just give away their children’s future, and willingly incorporate their country into a socialist third world. Gun sales are proof that some see our society as under attack by foreign and domestic enemies.
-Our rulers don’t seem to understand just how tired their white subjects are with this experiment. They don’t understand that white people aren’t out to get minorities; they are just exhausted with them. They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, and the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity. The elites explain everything with “racism,” and refuse to believe that white frustration could soon reach the boiling point.
Look, I know lots of hard-core partisan Republicans see themselves in an existential battle against the islamo-communist forces of godless evil, but I don’t buy that narrative, and no amount of grandstanding and paranoid ranting on your part is going to make me buy such a simplistic, black-and-white narrative.
I consider these black-and-white, us-versus-them narratives fodder for sheep and these kind of rantings don’t impress me, I just fell pity as long as the likes of Bush and Trump support the same “common-sense gun control” and pro-police state polices that Clinton does.
The fact is that support for gun control is soft inside the Democratic caucus and few voters are impressed by single-issue wedges, so I kindly request that you secure your hot dog containment device when I’m attempting to persuade people on this side of the aisle that freedom matters and the Clinton Class aren’t the end-all and be-all of the party.
The reason they boil it down to black-vs-white is that nuance and context is harder to digest and don’t make good sound bites.
“…hard-core partisan Republicans…”
The GOP officially supports right to keep and bear arms, and therefore are the pragmatic choice if one supports gun rights. But I think you’ll find that many people who recognize what has happened to the DNC will recognize much of the same rot in the establishment GOP. The DNC vs. GOP dichotomy matters far less than the Progressive vs. American dichotomy.
@Grindstone:
Of course the world isn’t black and white. People may be allies on one issue, opponents on others. And often both sides of an issue can have solid points. However, there are some polar opposite, mutually exclusive belief systems. Individualism (broadly speaking, Americanism) and collectivist authoritarianism (modern leftism) are fundamentally incompatible.
Each and every Republican support each and every official position of the Republican Party. /s
“You are betting that people will just give away their children’s future, and willingly incorporate their country into a socialist third world.”
Isn’t that pretty much what America has been doing for the last fifty years or so?
Yes, but it actually goes back at least to the early 1900’s, arguably the late 1800’s. But certainly as far back as Woodrow Wilson.
Ben, you do know most of Woodrow Wilson’s fellow travelers–pro-segregation Southern Democrats–flipped over to the Republican party, right? I know some people keep trying to re-write history, but that’s the simple truth. You better keep working on tackling authoritarians, statists and grabbers in your own crew before you have another Bush telling you you can’t buy an AR.
@whatever: The GOP isn’t my crew, but you are correct that the GOP has far too many statists in the ranks.
@whatever – You do know that the “Great Party Switch” is a myth, right? I know people buy into rewritten history because they don’t know any better, but, that’s the simple truth. You better take your own advice and handle your own crew before you have some DemoKKKratik scumbag actually send people to your door to physically take your AR from you.
And don’t even bother telling me “it can’t happen here.” It can. It has. It IS. It will. Deal with it.
You whine about minorities complaints of racial bias is unfounded, while making derogatory statements about minorities, effectively validating the complaints. How tone-deaf can you get?
Like environments, there are two types of 2A supporters: those who believe in 2A as a universal right that transcends politics and those who believe that 2A as part of a existentialist cultural war under the banner of partisan politics. They view anyone who doesn’t vote exactly the way they vote as an enemy a traitor and worthy of hanging. I don’t take the second group seriously any more than I take people who view all human development as evil.
He’s complaining about complaints he considers unfounded.
What we have is a vicious cycle of “minorities think they are oppressed so they complain” -> “majority gets tired of hearing the minorities complain, so they get angry with the minorities” -> “minorities notice the anger and…they think they are oppressed so they complain”, round and round and round. I’m not going to pretend to guess where it started, and it probably differs by case anyway, but it doesn’t help when one side reflexively assumes the other side’s actions are *invariably* due to innate racism OR due to bad culture OR whatever. Some whites really are just sick of the complaining, and the counter-productive lashing out (burning your own neighborhood down before even knowing (or caring) whether the cop-on-resident shooting was justified being one example).
Or another way to look at it: Walk around with a chip on your shoulder, people will notice, and behave in exactly the way that you will feel justifies your walking around with a chip on your shoulder. That applies to both sides.
Morgan Freeman thought the best way to end racial strife in this country was to stop talking about it. Blacks should realize that not every surly white guy behind the counter at the store is being surly to them because they are black–but maybe because he didn’t get laid last night or his boss just chewed him out for doing exactly what the boss told him to do or something like that. AND VICE VERSA. Reflexively assuming every single slight is due to racism is doing no one any favors.
You know who also walks around with a chip on their shoulder? People who refuse to believe that systematic discrimination actually exists and have a psychic meltdown whenever the topic is brought up. I swear to God they throw out the race card faster and with higher velocity than the BLM crowd ever could.
It’s funny when suburban white guys talk about minorities like they have a clue.
It’s not uncommon in Silicon Valley tech for whites to be minorities. We work together, live in comparable communities, and often recreate together with other races and cultures. I feel much more in common with non-white co-worksers than say white blue-collar employees. The bonding is along shared interests and socioeconomic status than race.
“long-term demographic shifts favor Democrats.”
Secure the border
Deport the illegals
End Birthright ciztenship
Cap immigration at 200,000 per year and limit it to skilled or wealth persons…
That shift becomes a non issue…
“But Hispanics will vote the dems of we did not give them “free stuff”” They will not vote for us any ways. We avoid it by not passing Amnesty that way they can not vote, if they cant vote they can not vote against us. Its not the hard to understand guys.
Henry, have you counted the number of fully-documented and legal Latinos in the population? Have you also looked at birth rates? Are you so sure those band-aids are going to work?
None of these will help you. Millennials are much more likely to be either liberal or libertarian than anything resembling the social conservative GOP core that the party has been betting on for the past two decades. And this is regardless of their race and national origin.
Actually it favors Libertarians.
And really, we’ve seen this stuff before. Remember when the Republicans thought the Democrat party was dead? I do. These things go in cycles.
When some party is declared “dead”, it’s usually for a good reason, though. Sure, they may come back, but they won’t come back in the same shape.
That said, I don’t think that position on gun control would change in the upcoming inevitable GOP reboot. It’s one thing that does unite conservatives and libertarians, so even as the latter gain more clout, this particular plank won’t be affected.
The NRA can try to attract all the Dems it wants to, but until those particular would-be converts are a large enough force within their own political party to remove gun-control as a central tenant of the Democratic National Platform, the Democratic Party and the NRA will continue to be sworn enemies – whether pro-gun Dems like it or not.
Perfect.
The fracture of a great bolder can begin with a small fissure. I see two promising fissures.
First, Blacks are beginning to wake-up to the idea of self-defense. Thanks to the leadership of a few people, notably the Chief of Detroit’s Police and Milwaukee County’s sheriff. Blacks are fully aware that the gun murder problem is essentially a Black-on-Black problem. They are also aware that they are victimized by Black assailants who rob and assault them. They need not tell-tales-outside-of-school to be self-aware of their own vulnerability. They don’t need anyone to tell them about police response times. As they arm-up they will widen the fissure of the Democrats’ Anti-gun platform.
Second, women are beginning to wake-up to the idea of self-defense. Statistically, non-Black women don’t suffer the same victimization rates as Blacks; nevertheless, they are concerned about their own safety and that of their children. Word gets around in the “old-girl network”; as one women buys a gun or gets a CWP she tells 2 friends and we know where the story leads.
We are seeing growth rates in CWPs issued to Blacks and women in the double-digits. At a 10% growth rate, the number of Blacks and Women with CWPs doubles in 7 years. At a 15% growth rate it doubles in 4.7 years (per the rule of 70). The campaign to resuscitate the Right-to-Carry took 30 years. In another 30 years the rate of growth in gun ownership for self-defense from these two groups could completely fragment the Democrat base’s appetite for gun-control.
If the Democrats want to repeal the 2A they need to be in a really big hurry. If they don’t succeed soon it may be too late for them.
I AM one of them thar liberals with guns, and I’ve been preaching diplomacy and now more forceful tactics to get the truth to the hoplophobes. I pains me every time I see myself lumped in with the “libtards” and rabid MDA types. Today I wrote about hardcore grassroots efforts to organize an overwhelming legislator-contact strategy that has historically been effective when applied. Well received so far. Try considering a diplomatic approach; it works in business – why not consider this a business challenge?
The NRA has compromised for years. The Communists………er uh, Democrats should already be NRA members. It was the compromising NRA that backed the 1968 Gun Control Act and the Brady bill.
Right now the Dems should be bowing at Cornyn’s feet for attempting to fasten the next link in our chain of regulatory serfdom.
But they wont. They’ll never be satisfied until their utopia of government as God is achieved. The only thing they understand, respect and worship is the power of the state.
I say to hell with them all.
So how does the NRA make itself more appealing to liberal anti-gun Democrats? Sorry, but I just don’t see it happening anytime soon. The NRA can not even hope to talk to Sen. Chuck Schumer, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Sen Feinstein, little Mikey Bloomberg, etc. And they are the power brokers in the democratic party.
But if we can appeal to less liberal, more middle of the road Democrats isn’t it possible that eventually they’ll remove that plank from their platform?
“Is there anything they can do to “reach out across the aisle”? Maybe start by pulling away from the Republican establishment?”
The Republican establishment is – by no means – any friend of the 2A. If anything, PotG ought to withdraw support from the Republican establishment that is NOT doing anything apart from paying lip-service to the 2A. Our only support to the GOP ought to be to support 2A-supporters who will – generally – be Republicans.
It makes sense to be nonpartisan. Few, if any, Democrat legislators will stand-up and support the 2A. Yet, some Democrats will stand-aside; i.e., not vote or not be present when it comes time to vote on anti-gun legislation. PotG ought to seriously consider voting for a Democrat who will stand-aside rather than vote for the Republican who has stabbed us in the back.
Individual voters decide who will win a given legislative seat and what legislation the winner will support or ignore. Ultimately, its far more important to neutralize the gun issue among liberal and Democrat voters. When a Democrat legislator realizes that he won’t win an election based on taking a gun-control stance then he simply disappears from the legislative attack on the 2A. That is all that is necessary for 2A supportive legislators to prevail.
Very few gun-controllers are passionate; most are merely sympathetic to the gun-control issue. Far more gun-rights voters are passionate. Therefore, we win by:
– attracting every voter possible to the merits of self-defense;
– defusing the gun-issue for every non-gun-owning voter.
“The Republican establishment is – by no means – any friend of the 2A. If anything, PotG ought to withdraw support from the Republican establishment that is NOT doing anything apart from paying lip-service to the 2A. Our only support to the GOP ought to be to support 2A-supporters who will – generally – be Republicans.”
People keep forgetting anti-gun, big city Republicans exist. They’re laying-low for now but they will happily engineer another grab if partisans play dumb and vote them in without vetting.
“. . . anti-gun, big city Republicans exist.” Are these [establishment] Republicans really anti-gun? Or, are they more or less indifferent to guns and are trading their votes for other votes?
I can see why a Democrat could genuinely be anti-gun. When you have a Utopia to build you expect to break some eggs. You don’t want the chicks inside shooting at you when you crack their shells.
I don’t think the establishment GOP crowd is building any Utopia; I think they are simply available for sale to the highest bidder. They have a lot of contributors demanding pork and they have to bring-home the bacon. That takes trading their own votes for other votes. If someone else needs an AWB-bill to pass they will figure out whether they can vote for it; or, see to it that they have something else to do when the bill comes up for a vote. So, the AWB bill gets passed and some military contract gets included in a Defense Department bill later in that session.
If I’m correct – i.e., that a Republican pro-2A vote – is available for sale, then there is nothing ideological about it. There is only one thing that will influence such a Republican legislator: deny his re-election. We have to threaten him in the primary; and if unsuccessful, vote for his Democrat opponent in the General. If we can threaten to take his seat – and therefore his seniority – his heart and mind will follow.
If a freshman or sophomore legislator can tell his leadership that he must vote and must vote pro-2A to keep his seat then his leadership can’t “whip” him into compliance with the Democrat agenda to pass Anti-gun legislation.
Over the July 4th weekend this year, I met a cool cat name Jim, a Vietnam Veteran, who blew me away telling me he was a Democrat!…. I had NO idea there was such a People, a Dem. who loves his guns!???
I told him, He had better stop voting Democratic IF he wanted to keep his guns, he looked at me like I had 3 heads. LOL
Big shock, but everyone is single-issue pro-gun voters. Making gun-control a partisan issue only helps Bloomberg and the Clinton Class. If he can’t warm to the likes of Ted Cruz then maybe he could consider Bernie Sanders.
Look, Whatever – I actually agree with a lot of what you’re saying… And maybe a year or so ago a lot of commenters on TTAG would have thought so too… It’s been a bit since I’ve been eviscerated online so I might as well:
In the last few months, after seeing the comment-cloud’s reaction to the gay marriage decision, and after that some other partistan/political issues, it seems to me that TTAG has swerved hard hard ideological right (on non-gun issues) to appease their “viewers” (readers).
Coming here and seeing commentary about abortion and gay wedding cakes has made this into less of a gun blog, and more of yet another run of the mill right wing political ideology blog. And that’s a shame.
It’s the same old trope of the “package deal” “you can’t be this unless you’re also that” / “you’re either with us on everything or you’re against us” ideologues. I’m guessing that this gets more revenue and growth which, for sure, a site’s got a prerogative to do, but I’m not so sure it’s great for the 2A advocacy situation.
I’ve described myself as a “socially liberal pro-2a” person, but you’ll see, for the most part, swagger-filled comments of “HAH! DOESNT EXIST!” when it comes to that… “No atheists own guns”, etc, and pretty much the commentary has become a river of chairborne rangers screaming “God damn the gayfaigs, mooz-lims, durt worshippers n’ foreign’rs, God Bless Texas! NO F***OTS, NO WHIMPS, NO WHINERS! I EAT NAILS AND KILLED A MAN JUST TO WATCH HIM DIE!” in the last little while. Some commentary has echoed eerily close to claptrap from Stormfront.
I’m still unequivocally pro-2A, however as a gay non-religious brownish person the message I’ve gotten lately at TTAG specifically is GTFO. At least “below the article”, and a little bit above, too, with some non-gun controversy-baiting (and I’m presuming, view/click baiting) writing. So I’m continuing to read for updates but trying really hard not to comment. So I’ve taken (most) of my missives elsewhere, where young (and even not so young people) who are on the fence may be willing to learn that guns aren’t the spooky thing that certain political bodies have stigmatized them into being.
The future of gun ownership and the 2A isn’t strictly with camo-wearing OFWGs with a fetish for flaming skulls who make jokes about shooting guys who wear hipster glasses. But it seems that’s where the revenue is, so your argument is likely falling on deaf ears here, for the moment.
Again, I think it’s a shame, because I think TTAG really was broadening the tent up until very recently. And I think the “WE DON’T NEED EM, KILL ‘EM ALL, FOAD” attitude is … not helping anyone’s cause at all, but serves as some kind of embiggening back-patting. (Talk about “feelings”, seems like a lot of people in the comments here get really uptight “in the feels” if you don’t match their demographic, archetype, phenotype and stereotype.)
Echo chambers NEVER serve to help the cause. Echo chambers signal that outward growth has stopped.
I’m trying to see if I have the count right; we’re at “ALL gays, ALL muslims, ALL atheists” at this point being “the enemy”, unequivocally… I’m guessing in the next few months more “ALL” categories will slide in until the only possible way you can be a “real” or “true” 2A supporter is if you look like one guy named Jed; and everyone else is a socialist pinko reptilian.
I’m sticking around to see if there’s a shift back to a more inclusive attitude (even though that may be ‘for p***ies’); yeah, it actually IS good for everyone if the hipster vegan dude with fancy pants is on board with the 2A issues, even if you can’t stand being in the same room as him due to his *other* ideals.
I’m really tired of this assertion that “If you don’t agree with me on this other, non-gun related stuff, you need to FOAD because we don’t need you.” – This is how otherwise-allies get alienated, and this is how the wrong people get voted in and the wrong laws get passed. Educate the “other side” about what’s really what, at least those who at first are willing to listen (and they are out there) and you end up having the “other side” being held accountable on this issue. Other battles are for other battlefields.
And. Yes. It IS possible. I’ve seen it repeatedly with my own eyes and with myself. Be inclusive about the, well, truth about guns and gun ownership, and people will investigate your way of thinking; even if at first they’re instinctually repelled due to what they’ve been told. And once they find out a truth, it’s very hard to “unbelieve” that and go back.
Sure there are some minds you can’t change. But, hell, I’d take getting *some* on board, rather than making sure they’re staunchly against us just because they’ve been solidly alienated when they so much as *tried* to understand our point of view.
I’m right there with you, Michelle. I only de-lurked to keep this post from becoming another session of The Two Minutes Hate where nothing that advances the 2A issue is actually posted. Thanks for your hard work and keep fighting the good fight!
Understand that TTAG comments are what TTAG readers make them; they do not necessarily represent the political views of the others of the blog.
And yes, the audience here is fairly far to the right on average. This is not really surprising, because the editorial position on stuff that has to do with guns is generally about rather absolutist reading of 2A, and that is far more common among more extreme right-wingers than it is among moderates, much less lefties. So you basically get your Tea Party crowd, and then of course any other issue is going to show that partisan bias in the comments.
Michelle, very well put. I don’t see what we get out of bashing a fellow 2A supporter because of some other issue. I may agree with you on a few other issues and disagree on everything else. And yet, if we are both supporters of the 2A I’ll join ranks with you on that issue; perhaps I’ll try to persuade you to my viewpoint on some other issue where we disagree.
It seems to me that when a person supports the 2A then that person is apt to be well-grounded on the principle that sovereignty vests in the the body of the people themselves. That the power-to-govern can’t be found outside of the individuals who compose the constituency of a nation. The delegated power to govern can’t be entrusted to any government that would disarm the sovereignty. Down that path lies genocide, or more generally, democide.
This 2A cornerstone is a pretty strong foundation upon which to rally. Perhaps we will agree to a greater or lesser extent on policy matters such as taxation or whether to go to war. Such policy agreements can be resolved through the process of a republican form-of-government.
To forego the 2A is to delegate irrevocable power to a tyranny.
Why are you surprised? I have yet to meet a Democrat (and oddly most of my friends & family are Democrats) that couldn’t be shown to be voting against their own self-interests. They vote for intent, not for outcome – for feels and not facts.
Case in point: I spent a long and patient evening with a friend talking about minimum wage and how it actually harmed more people than it purported to help – helping only those right at the min-wage line, who are actually few in number. For a second I saw a light of realization go on, as if he understood my point, and then he said to me, “well, even if it only helps a few, then its the right thing to do.” *facepalm*
Right on!
They already do appeal to many. Unfortunately, just like moderate Muslims are afraid to take a stand against the loonies in their ranks, gun toting Dem’s are just as afraid of the crazies in their ranks too. So in the closet they stay, we win enough to not require them to take action.
There are plenty of vocal pro-gun Dems, but the media is not the least bit interested in covering them.
Sad but true. Pro gun civil rights democrats have been excommunicated.
I wouldn’t say so much “excommunicated” as “muzzled.” The last thing the media wants is to admit that it is possible to support issues on the left and care about the natural right of self-defense.
No, we’re not “afraid”, it’s just that you can’t reason with the unreasonable. I can’t wholesale shift all of my ideologies to match that of a 70 year old white male Southerner, so I’m kind of SOL.
I worked to make the recalls happen here, and am really upset that the Colorado 2AA is MIA, and we’re back to RMGO and Dudley who couldn’t give two poops about actual gun rights, so long as his ego is sated.
So no, I won’t support an anti, but I also can’t support crazies on the other side. You do understand, that if I went to a meeting or townhall with one of these candidates, even though I’m mostly “on their side” with a lot of issues, if I were to try to correct them on firearm issues, they’d just call me a republican plant and throw me out.
So it’s not about fear. But if it becomes worthless to expend energy against those who you can’t change, but those working for widespread pro-gun issues won’t take you onboard because you don’t “check every box” on *other* non-gun issues, that becomes a complete non-starter too.
There are few politicians who will actually listen to their voters, from either party and on any level. It should be noted, though, that Sanders seem to be more likely to be the kind that listens. As a pro-gun leftie, that’s where I’d stake our bets, and try to reach out to him and see if his gun policy (which right now is very vague – he doesn’t have anything definitive in his official platform, so it’s basically compiled from various things he said in interviews etc) is reasonable, and not the usual “common sense gun control, like banning all semi-autos” stuff.
Sanders claims to have voted against more gun control laws due to his constituency. Fair enough. But that says little to how he will view it on the national level, and even then, still comes off as a, I support the 2a, but….
If a Bloomberg funded anti-civil rights propaganda outlet like thetrace says 68 percent of demonrats have a dim view of the NRA, then it must be true. In addition, all 5 million NRA members must be republicrats. Aargle, bargle, moorble whoosh.
Single issue voters who support the right to keep and bear arms are not slaves to our two party, or one party with two branches, system. Aspiring statist politicians who run on a gun control platform are going to get slaughtered in the 2016 elections.
A lot of them got slaughtered in the last midterm, but the plutocrats money don’t sleep. Pro-gun Dems should confront Bernie Sanders and force him to maintain his anti position through the primaries and the gener. It sure beats having the debate dictated solely by Clinton and her bestie Bloomberg.
I mean Bernie’s pro-gun position, which is better described as anit-anit-gun.
I don’t like his lip-service to an AWB lately. I wish he’d realize that the people who are hot for a new AWB aren’t going to vote for him anyways, and those who aren’t, might, if he’d make an affirmative statement about “”assault weapons”” not being a real problem our country faces.
Write to him about it! Explain that you share a lot of positions with him, but that as far as guns go, AWB is ridiculous, and not just because it goes counter to 2A, but because it plain doesn’t work. Explain how the definition of “assault weapon” itself is based on pointless feature differentiation. Reference this presentation:
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
int19h: Ok, good go — you inspired me to do that right now, so I will.. Funny, I use http://www.assaultweapon.info to educate a lot of antis I meet and know… Just never figured a politician would bother. Granted it’ll likely be received by a staffer, but there’s certainly a chance he’ll end up seeing that presentation.
For starters they could stop inviting nut-cases like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin to speak at the national annual meeting. Replace them with pro-gun Democrats.
Even pro-gun moderates would do.
They have lobbyists, they have check books. A few contributions in the right places with larger ones going to those who actually act pro 2a in the face of leadership. That’s how Washington works, no surprise, they are all at least for rent. Expediency is the name of the game. Politicians stand by their honor the same way prostitutes stand by their virtue.
I think a lot of you missed the point, which is a good one. Support for gun rights actually splits more along urban vs non-urban populations, than party lines. There’s no way to appeal to anti-gun Liberals and Democrats. But, within the nation, there are many whose values are mostly Liberal, but are fervently pro-gun. We all need to acknowledge them and the NRA, in particular, should reach out to them.
+1. And proselytize to urban areas too. Hunters rarely get credit for environmental advocacy for example. We allow ourselves to be branded as psychopaths. Seems like a charm offensive is warranted.
Half Of The United States Lives In These Counties
Walter Hickey and Joe Weisenthal
Sep. 4, 2013, 5:48 PM
Using Census data, we’ve figured out that half of the United States population is clustered in just the 146 biggest counties out of over 3000.
Here’s the map, with said counties shaded in. Below the map is the list of all the counties, so you can see if you live in one of them.
go to the article at http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9 to see the map
This is absolutely true. And those city centers tend to dictate rules for the rest of the countryside. Lately it’s been a whole lot of “Well, you agree with me on guns, but you don’t agree with everything The Donald says? Then you aren’t REALLY an American!”
I wager to say that this isn’t helping matters.
““We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation”
If that is the Democrat’s platform on gun ownership, then I would have to say they are already in line with the NRA.
Negotiating Rights Away- Is not a concept that only democrats are indoctrinated with.
It is no longer DvsR, but it is statist vs. Americans.
Not everyone who “isn’t conservative” agrees with the entirety of the DNC’s platform statement.
This would say that the entirety of the country boils down to two rigid party platform statements. Red armband or blue armband? Bullshit, no armband.
+1. Nice to see your comments
Pro gun civil rights democrats will have to work within their own party to change things. Outsiders are not going to force a change. You have your work cut out for you . It took black people about 170 years to effect change in the democrat party.
+1 Chris. More local action.
It’s also going to take more people who aren’t the cultivated political class, running for office. And losing, probably, for a while. But they’ve got to run.
And that can be a sacrifice for some, since to many, those with the most nuanced and sensible ideas loathe the concept of becoming a politician.
They should get more involved in states like NY or NJ. Start in more conservative areas, maybe try to sponsor events or classes for kids or parent / kid combo. Something light, like target shooting with .22LR rifles (or maybe even air rifles to start, whatever works). Try to get schools to offer a class along those lines, with a ton of safety training. Success won’t come overnight, but eventually non-gunners (and maybe anti-gunners too) would feel more comfortable with guns in their communities.
But, of course, the NRA took the easy route and pretty much abandoned the blue states, which is something I don’t get. They have plenty of money, but they won’t spend / invest it in places that could use it the most. Yet they have no problem asking for donations from folks stuck behind enemy lines.
Yeah I get it, it’s always risky spending money on gun-related projects in blue states. But without the risk, there won’t be any rewards. The only voices heard will be those of rabid anti-gun commie Dems running for office, spreading fear, lies and paranoia. So thanks NRA for not offering any alternative to that sort of thinking in the blue states.
CA, NJ, and NY are lost causes. Why keep sending wave after wave in, when they keep getting mowed down?
That’s right, let’s not do anything. That way, the ‘lost cause’ states will get even worse, and when ‘blue’ people move about the country, they’ll vote for more anti-gun legislation because when they were growing up the only experience they had with guns was complete nonsense propagated by career leftist politicians who never had to worry about any opposition from the biggest players in the gun rights community. NRA could sponsor classes or events for kids and parents, provide the equipment and ammo (since most ‘blue’ folks don’t own any) and promote safety training at the same time. Like I said, this won’t win anybody overnight, but it would be a start. A small one, but a start. And the NRA could certainly afford it. But yeah, your approach is much better, I’m just an idiot for not seeing it before.
Hey dipshit, spending a million dollars isn’t going to change the minds of Democrats in the lost cause blue states, WTF don’t you understand about that? SMH
@Jamie in North Dakota
A million dollars with an insulting tone and a defeatist attitude *certainly* wouldn’t work.
Interesting Winston Churchill bio on Netflix. Many agree that England’s fate would have mirrored France since England was a “lost cause” – including American Ambassador Joe Kennedy who wrote them off.
Peruta, Tracy Firearms, and other CA litigation looks promising.
Well I will say you’re more optimistic about Peruta than I am then, but I’m still holding out hope…
“Peruta, Tracy Firearms, and other CA litigation looks promising.”
Don’t hold your breath.
The 2A heavy-hitters in the legal field currently believe Associate Justice Kennedy can’t be trusted to vote in our favor.
The Heller and McDonald rulings are in no way whatsoever etched in stone. Don’t underestimate the left’s visceral, raw hated for the 2A.
The *only* way we keep or rights is for SCOTUS to maintain a majority of conservative justices.
Something to consider: A plague will be very effective spreading in a large city… 🙂
And you’ll keep saying that until Texas is the only state that isn’t a “lost cause”.
I guess it just makes you feel good to say that they’re “lost causes”,
In 2013, support for banning “high cap” magazines was 70 to 26 for in NJ (according to Quinnipiac), but in 2014, just a year later, 49 percent supported Christie’s veto of the reduction of the 15 limit down to 10, with only 42% against the veto.
That does not seem like a lost cause to me. A tough fight yes, but a lost cause, no.
Ask the Democrat NRA to help out financially in those infested blue states, oh that’s right no such thing frickin’ exists because your GD political party is anti-gun and hates the right wing NRA!
First, I think pouting and name-calling is not a good response to any proposition. Second, the NRA giving up in anti-states and abandoning the millions of gun owners living in suburban and rural areas of those states is an insult to the dues they pay. Many of those members may lose hope and drop their memberships, lowering national support. Third, legal advocacy is necessary to prevent precedents for being established that affect you in North Dakota. Finally attacking the antis home base ties down resources that they can use in other states.
CA, NJ, MD, NYC and DC are all lost causes in the same sense that most of the slave States were deeply committed to the institution of slavery. It is unrealistic to imagine that the gun-owners in these States will dig themselves out of their hole by themselves. It is equally unrealistic to imagine that these States can’t harm the 2A by keeping them in isolation, gun-hostility intact.
The major effort we can make here is to use our political power in the 40 Right-to-Carry States to assert that right under a Federal National Reciprocity law. That is a fairly realistic goal insofar as we PotG do have that power at the State and Congressional-District level. It is up to us to assert that right by compelling our Senators and Congressmen to get this job done.
It is hard to imagine how the remaining 5 – 10 NO-Right-to-Carry States could long endure with out-of-Staters carrying within their jurisdictions. Perhaps other measures from a Federal level will be required – and what those might be won’t become apparent until several years after National Reciprocity is achieved.
No, the NRA isn’t weak so it doesn’t need to “appeal” to anyone. It needs to stay strong and earn the fear and respect of Democrats through victory after victory.
Bullseye NRA brother, stand and fight!!!
Nothing will change so long as we have a two-party system.
The Democratic Party, as a whole, is virulently anti-gun. Some Democratic voters might be pro-gun. But their party and their candidates are not. Unless they become single-issue voters, and thus begin voting Republican, these Democrats who like guns won’t help us at all.
It doesn’t matter how many Democrats agree with us on the gun issue, as long as they are willing to vote for Democratic candidates.
It’s been increasingly difficult for a number of us who exhibit any sort of moderate position to, in good conscience, vote at all.
Some will “hold their nose and vote” for the party they align the most with. Others will take a tactic in voting for the issues that currently matter in the races where it matters. Others will abstain, and yet others will vote third party and unknowingly enable the party they least want to enable.
The binary party system is a mess. It’s not as simple as “switching from mac to PC”. For some, the only option is to sit out the elections and do local work to try to change the selection we have in the first place.
“The Democratic Party, as a whole, is virulently anti-gun. Some Democratic voters might be pro-gun. But their party and their candidates are not. Unless they become single-issue voters, and thus begin voting Republican, these Democrats who like guns won’t help us at all.”
There are pro-gun Democrats hold office, so your statement is not accurate.
BOOM!!! That’s as easy to understand as it gets but the Dems on here will still be dumbfounded by the common sense of it all.
Look, why not encourage open carry oathkeepers/volunteers to go to red state abortion clinics to help escort those needing services and sway away rabid pro-lifers? I think those kind of things would help console feelings.
Or, your could consider the possibility that the pro life crowd have a legitimate point, aren’t interested in telling women what they can’t do with their bodies, and in fact are not doing so.
To most folks, what you suggest would constitute using firearms to aid in ending innocent lives instead of defending them, and science lends quite a bit of support to that view.
“Or, your could consider the possibility that the pro life crowd have a legitimate point, aren’t interested in telling women what they can’t do with their bodies, and in fact are not doing so.”
I’m pretty sure telling a woman when she can and can’t carry a zygote–when fertility clinics dump them by the millions–is telling a woman what to do with her body.
It is not.
What fertility clinics do with a zygote has no importance in determining whether or not somethign is or is not part of a woman’s body. That’s my point, and all I’m asking is that you consider it’s merit instead of writing it off with snark.
Once an egg is fertilized, biology tells us that it is the start of a human organism. It starts metabolizing nutrients from its environment and growing, that means it is alive by definition. It’s genome is human, that means it is human by definition.
It’s genome, while human, does not match that of the mother (ok, tell you what i’ll abandon the biased terms and say “host” or “woman”). That differentiates it from any other part of the hosts body. Also simply being inside the woman’s body is insufficient on it’s own to declare it to be part of her body. We would not consider a metal rod to repair severe bone damage to be part of her body nor and IUD or even a tumor that has grown from one of her own cells. Simply being inside her body is insufficient. Conversely, everything else that we would consider to be part of her body is both inside her and shares her same genetic code, so I contend that both are necessary for something to be part of her body, at least as part of a discussion with any rigor on the merits of one point of view or another. That is why I say it is not part of the woman’s body, but instead a new, living human being.
I also contend that it being a living human being in it’s own right and not being part of someone else’s body is sufficient that its right to survive supersedes the hosts right to not be burdened with it.
So after fertilization occurs, from zygote to birth, the thing in dispute is:
1.) Human, as defined by its genetics.
2.) Differential from its host, also by its genetics.
3.) Alive, by any scientific definition of life.
Is there one of those that you dispute? If not, how is it not a human life that deserves to live, even if the pregnant woman does not want it? We would not tolerate a mother of a child to end the child’s life out of convenience and I am submitting to you that the moment of birth is not a significant demarcation point upon which this policy should hinge.
It appears that controlling reproduction, and not 2A is your single issue vote changer. Well, then going to have to agree to disagree. Sorry.
Reaching out to Democrats is like “reaching out” to a starving lion. You’re going to get your arm bitten off for no appreciable gain. Until liberal voters realize that their party is basically fascism-light any appeal to them is a waste of time as no Democrat will ever run on a pro-gun platform.
How do you reach out to Democrats who support infringement of a Constitutionally enumerated right that explicitly says, “shall NOT be infringed” — keeping in mind that they support blanket infringements without any probable cause to suspect a crime will happen?
Suppose Democrats had a party platform requiring women to submit to on-the-spot body cavity searches anywhere, any time (regardless of the gender of the search agent and with no probable cause necessary) as a “reasonable” effort to stop terrorism. Should we reach out to them? Should we engage in a conversation to discuss the venues where women must comply because government has a compelling interest in “public safety”?
What we should be doing is educating the voting public. Politicians are monsters if they support blanket infringements of our rights when we have neither attacked nor harmed anyone.
“How do you reach out to Democrats who support infringement of a Constitutionally enumerated right that explicitly says, “shall NOT be infringed” — keeping in mind that they support blanket infringements without any probable cause to suspect a crime will happen?”
I suppose same way we expect Republicans to support the 3rd 4th, and 5th Amendments when “Law and Order” Republicans compromise and infringe them to utter meaninglessness. Both sides want to trim parts of the Constitution to suit their whims but citizens who are members of these respective parties are ultimately responsible for holding them to account.
Don’t forget the 7th Amendment, because the wealthy and the corporations find it inconvenient.
@whatever — Both sides trim all of the exact same parts of the Constitution, and compromise and infringe them unto utter uselessness, when it suits them — regardless of the Amendment number. It’s interesting that you include Amendment 3, because the only quasi-violation of it since at least the Civil War happened in the DemoKKKrat stronghold of Clark County, Nevada — City of Henderson, specifically.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm
There are physically just as many “Law and Order” DemoKKKrats and they all march in perfect lock-step together.
You cannot bend when discussing Rights. Rights are not privileges and this simple but powerful understanding must continue to be a point of education. No one questions this when we discuss censorship at the library or our ability to speak in public.
“…reasonable regulation”, you mean we don’t have this now? We have piles of laws which end at the gallows, what more regulation are we talking here? We actually have unreasonable regulation given we are discussing a Right.
Being non-GOP doesn’t mean you have to be anti-2A. This manner of thinking is outright brainwashing. The anti-2A Right groups can’t expect continued respect when they argue from a point of ignorance.
“You cannot bend when discussing Rights.” This is the crux of the question, isn’t it? What could it mean to have “reasonable” or “common sense” cruel and unusual punishment? What could these terms mean with respect to the freedoms of speech or of the press?
When we look at a right we have to see it in terms of the “penumbras and emanations” of the Constitution that mutually interact and support one another. Does a law “infringe” upon the right under examination?
To illustrate, the 2A says nothing whatsoever about permitting or prohibiting a national registry of arms. Indeed, it was commonplace to require militia men to muster armed to ensure that they met their obligation to arm themselves as prescribed by law; in effect, a kind-of registration. Nevertheless, we all see quite clearly that any system of registration of all arms would serve the purpose of confiscation and it is precisely that which is prohibited by the 2A. And so, it is “common sense” to “reason” that any form of registration sufficient to support confiscation is a threat to infringe upon the right.
We could apply similar reasoning about a carry-permit law. The rationale would vary somewhat from that of a gun-registry. Some might argue that if OC without a permit is lawful than CC might require a Shall-Issue permit and still be Constitutional. What ought to be absolutely clear – in any case – that prohibiting both OC and CC to all but a few rich men and their body-/property-guards is an Unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms.
It is each provision of each bill/law that must pass muster under the Constitution. “[S]all not be infringed” sets a pretty high bar where very few existing laws could withstand scrutiny.
There’s two easy ways that the NRA can appeal to those outside of the extreme religious right. 1) Ditch the religious crap – no more prayers at meetings or emails about Jeebus. 2) Stop being blatant shills for the Republican party (we all remember how they lied about Romney’s anti-gun record just because he was a Republican). The Romney bit caused me to end my membership and never again trust the NRA.
Didn’t you hear? That whole “establishment of religion” thingamajig just meant that nobody can tell you what KIND of Christian to be. Legislating the bedroom based on the Old Testament is still A-OK.
+100 to Detroitman. The NRA (and all of us POTG) should do more outreach to bring newbies to guns for fun, self defense, etc. Focus on a positive safe experience. Avoid controversy on other political issues and religion. Stay focused.
I’ve never been to a NRA meeting, but I haven’t received an email that mentioned Jesus from them. I must be missing out or something.
Regardless, people who complain about Jesus being mentioned always remind me of vocal critics of open carry. It seems like both critics don’t like it when an individual is open about what they believe in.
As an organization, the NRA should stay on message. If it isn’t about gun rights, they shouldn’t talk about it or comment on it. They should support pro gun candidates, but they should try to avoid partisanship as much as possible. They should be careful to avoid alienating liberal gun owners and try instead to bring them into the fold. That means choosing their words thoughtfully when criticizing liberal politicians who support gun control.
An even better way is for the membership to expose new people to the shooting sports. This is the best antidote for many of the old tropes that the antis use against guns and gun owners. There is no better influence than a personal friend or family member who takes the time to teach somebody how to shoot safely and enjoyably. A fun day at the range with somebody you know makes it a lot harder to believe that all gun owners are a bunch of racist uneducated rednecks who are compensating for something.
What about issues that tangentially affect gun rights? Like diluting the electorate with foreign born people who have never enjoyed individual liberties like those enshrined in our Constitution, and have no idea that anyone else has either? If the Ds set out to make citizens of 20 million people that do not share our values, and are a virtual lock to vote for candidates who oppose gun rights, is that not a gun rights issue?
Funny, our range officer is from Tijuana, and one of the first things he did when he got his green card was buy a gun. (Which yes, is legal.)
Many Mexicans are Catholic and lean conservative, and even if they are anti-gun, won’t abandon those ideals since they override the gun issue, for them.
Or the large numbers of Chinese and Vietnamese first-time shooters at our free community day events. Fortunate to have a number of Indian participant too. Having native speakers and women in the club helps maintain a safe and welcoming environment.
The majority of Catholics lean politically left. They may disagree with certain specific policies that Progressives hold, but most elections have Catholics voting for more Statist Democrat voters, unlike nondenominational or Protestant voters. Which is why Pelosi claims to be both a Catholic and hard left Progressive.
By your definition, everything becomes a “gun rights issue”. If your sole goal is to get more votes to elect pro-gun politicians to enact pro-gun laws, then it follows that NRA should also oppose female suffrage, for example (as men tend to be pro-gun) and disenfranchisement of existing minorities (as they’re mostly anti-gun).
No, these aren’t related to gun rights. Everything in the world is connected, but as far as being single-issue goes, it’s about legislative, executive and judicial actions that pertain directly to RKBA, and nothing else.
” Like diluting the electorate with foreign born people who have never enjoyed individual liberties like those enshrined in our Constitution, and have no idea that anyone else has either?”
A lot of those foreign-born people fled from places where they *wish* they could have a firearm to defend themselves and now carry to protect their businesses. I do support border enforcement and slowing visas, but don’t like this un-American xenophobia.
You were saying…http://nbclatino.com/2013/03/12/poll-regardless-of-political-party-latino-voters-support-gun-control-laws/
“Like diluting the electorate with foreign born people who have never enjoyed individual liberties like those enshrined in our Constitution,”
Isn’t that the heritage of most Americans? My family immigrated here to escape Mussolini. They’ve owned firearms ever since!
Meh-reaching out will never work-and I will never vote for any dumbocrat…it’s hard enough voting repub when I trust so few. The donald is NOT one of the “trustees”…
Welp, that’s your opinion . . . .
I agree with you on The Donald. I like his immigration stance but he’s lived in a slave state for too long. This is going to be a rough election.
Uh, oh, the word “Democrat” appears in the article…
Blah blah part of problem blah blah D after your name blah blah problem is part-of-you blah blah mother owes us an abortion…
[pp 349-378, TERMS, J.M. Nobody R., 2012]
Ha! Beat you to it, Joe R.!
Has anyone actually found this dude’s manifesto in print yet? It’d be useful toilet reading.
Hmm, I read that the National-Socialist party once attracted some Jews to their platform in the 1920’s, so I guess it is conceivable that some gun owners vote Democrat.
No, some gun owners just don’t agree with *Every. Single. Thing.* that you assert. You really feel that it’s nearly inconceivable that some gun owners may not comport with all of your ideals on social/religious/sex/finance issues with no variance whatsoever?
Just because we don’t agree with everything the Democrats do, doesn’t mean we can just simply become Republicans and everything that entails.
You voted for anti-gun scum like Obama and his anti-gun Dem party pals that makes you anti-gun for helping put him in power. Or is that to complicated for you to follow?
You seem to have a rage issue tonight, Jamie.
And you have absolutely no clue who I voted for, didn’t vote for, and when. So kindly shut the hell up in acting like you do know.
Not everyone pulls the “lever next to the letter”.
I see you’re convinced that there are only two types of people in the world, Red R’s that agree with you lock stock and barrel, and Blue D’s that are diametrically opposed to you on every issue.
As I mentioned earlier, voting for a mix of candidates where certain candidates will do more good on certain issues is a strategy, more than “pulling a lever for elephants and Jesus alone”.
Or abstaining from certain elections because there is no “lesser evil”, just complementary evils.
But keep on thinking that the world is divided into “people who think exactly like you, and people who think absolutely nothing like you”. That’ll win this fight, for sure.
What’d be something that’d be easy to follow, Jamie; “Everyone who’s exactly like me moves to Texas, and we bomb the rest of the country” ?
Or maybe we should just anoint you King of America, hm?
BTW what was that stupid shite about “stopping Taurus from making guns”? Pretty sure the Brazilian conglomerate will continue to manufacture,my next gun will be one and I don’t care if humans ever set foot on Mars…
Plenty of blue dog Democrats and others that support gun rights. Ditto for Libertarians.
More important question: What can *we* do at a local level?
In my area, the NRA and Republican party has relatively little presence. Gun clubs, ranges, and conservative groups seem to wield much more clout.
How can you support gun rights when you vote in anti-gun politicians(Democrats)? Sorry sir but you can’t have it both ways.
Jamie,
Interesting that you know how I voted (or didn’t). I suspect most of us hold our noses when we vote – have yet to find a candidate that perfectly aligns with my views. But I do engage. Attend candidate forums, make modest political contributions, and attempt to sway opinions.
Sometimes progress is measured in small steps rather than a big bang.
He apparently knows how I voted, too.
Basically, if you’re not with him on every issue whatsoever, you’ve got pictures of Dianne Feinstein up in your bedroom.
It’s kinda funny, pretty much everyone here that he’s attacking and calling a “dipshit” is a staunch 2A supporter. Apparently anyone who’s trying to get gun control walked back is a “dipshit” too.
That sounds pretty pro gun control to me.
His statement that you can’t have it “both” ways is pretty telling, too. Two and only two parties, two and only two schools of thought, and nothing else – all day long. You’re either with the home or away team, I suppose.
So I’m guessing it’s got nothing to do with guns, but just that anyone could dare to think differently than he does on any single issue that’s sending him into a seething rage.
Some people care more about the team sports than the issues.
Hilarious. I voted for a Democrat that had a stronger pro-gun track record (and an A+ NRA rating) over a Republican who voted against pro-gun bills.
Invite people to go shooting. All types of people. Grassroots support is our strength.
“By aligning itself so closely with the Republican Party, the NRA is alienating possible support amongst Democrats.”
That is a completely backwards statement. It’s much more useful to say:
By aligning itself so closely with anti-liberty socialists, the Democratic Party is alienating possible support amongst gun owners.
It’s not our job as Americans to snuggle up to political parties and their platforms. Rather, it’s the job of the parties to represent the views of the people or face extinction.
So what about the people who feel caught in the middle and can’t align with either party completely? I don’t know how many times I’ve heard “stop sitting on the fence and commit.”
Since when are we supposed to represent parties, versus, as you said, the other way around?
We’re not real people/don’t vote/aren’t conservative enough and are therefore libruls. Yet somehow “swing” states still determine big elections…? The GOP is doubledown on the far-right while tossing non-social conservatives to the side. Which will show. The only way Democrats are going to lose the Presidential election is if H’s scandals break her stranglehold on the D’s.
“So what about the people who feel caught in the middle and can’t align with either party completely”
We’re what’s known as “screwed”. (again)
Those of us who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal (meaning most every “issue” really isn’t the government’s business in the first place),
who support a strong military but do not support their indiscriminate use,
who demand respect for the ENTIRE constitution and not just segments of it….
we have no representation at all.
Curtis, that was a good one!! So you’re saying the current political parties depend on support from the people to survive? What a quaint notion.
“Support from the people” is another word for votes.
Yes.
While neither of our major parties is in imminent peril, individual candidates representing those parties are thrown out in every election cycle. And sometimes there are recall elections (Colorado) whereby politicians whose strings were pulled by their party bosses lost their jobs after ignoring their constituents.
The NRA should appeal to EVERYONE. Not just Republicans. Not just Democrats. ALL people.
Most Democrats are too stupid to join with the NRA, and most NRA members are too smart to join with the Democrats.
So most NRA members are smart enough to only vote for Romney? I have more respect for their intelligence than that.
If you voted for Obama then blame yourself for the disaster the last seven years has been. Just saying.
I’m still waiting for “small government” Republicans to own up to W and that disaster.
@Grindstone
Many of the current Republican small government critics of W’s (and consequentially, also the Democrat party big government policies because they had control of Congress at least half the time when Bush was in office) were not elected to Federal government positions during his time.
But let’s face it, the Democrats want to increase government spending, while the Republican establishment is hellbent on maintaining it, instead of bringing it down.
That was actually my biggest issue with Bush, he was light on vetoes, particularly spending ones.
Booyeahhh Ralph!!!
The Democratic party has been completely taken over by socialists and outright commies. Many in the Democrat base are in denial about this. They are useful idiots. There can be no compromise, and no negotiation with communists. They are a plague on humanity.
For the record I think that the Republicans are just as corrupt as the Democrats. It’s just that at this time the Ds are far more dangerous to individual liberty and the free people who enjoy it (and we enjoy it even as we acknowledge and accept the risks and responsibilities that come with that freedom).
I’m OK with that assessment so long as the next assertion isn’t “anyone who isn’t a republican is a democrat”…
All these comments and no one has noticed that it’s a paintball gun on the T-Shirt? They didn’t even bother to Photoshop the CO2 endcap out of the picture.
I think they can do it the way the democrats work it: Make gun rights an “inner city” issue. People can’t rely on police, so they have to protect themselves from all those racists that are coming after them in the ghetto. Then on the other hand, make it a “women’s health” issue. best defense against domestic violence, etc…
+1 Brilliant.
+1
That would be great, except that the hardcore bunch that is in control of the Democratic party doesn’t care nearly as much about the “gun” part as they do the “control” part. These people will not hear a rational argument in favor of gun rights because they NEED everyone to be beholden to the state for everything. They’re commies and can’t be reasoned with.
Then you have the majority of the D voting base that tends to “feel” about an issue instead of “think” about it. They feel that by some miracle combination of new laws they can create a utopia, and they are not prepared to hear anyone who says the world is a harsh place and everyone needs to be prepared to look out for themselves.
The t-shirt in the picture should say “Totin’ and tokin’ liberal“.
“So how does the NRA make itself more appealing to liberal anti-gun Democrats?” Therein lies your mistake! Quit trying to appeal to “anti-gun Democrats” and just appeal to Democrats, many who own guns. There are far more issues between Demos and Repubs than just guns rights, and many cross over party lines on issues, but when you put us in an “us-them” scenario then they vote against you.
I’m sick of the whole two-party monopoly. I wish there was a palatable independent choice. My in-laws are gun-toting Democrats, which is interesting. Personally, I don’t give a rat’s patootie which party a candidate is affiliated with – as long as they jive with most of my convictions.
Why would the NRA have to do anything more to sway Democrat gun owners to join their ranks? The NRA is a one trick pony, and that’s a good thing. It cares not about your social or fiscal leanings. If you own a gun, they are protecting your right to continue to do so. A liberal gun owner that stands against the NRA is just a liberal.
1. Stop using “liberal” as an insult.
2. Stop making NRA events into Republican campaign events, and inviting speakers who will talk about all kinds of things that are dear to extreme right. Talk about guns, period.
3. Stop bringing up political issues that don’t pertain directly to guns. No, immigration is not a gun control issue. Neither is the IRS scandal. Neither is foreign policy & national security.
4. Stop automatically assuming that your members are right-wingers. Getting an NRA membership basically amounts to subscribing to loads of right-wing spam along the lines of “impeach Obama TODAY!”. If I wanted that kind of stuff, I’d go join GOP.
5. Stop with the panic-baiting. No, we are not in the middle of the largest crime wave in history – in fact, violent crime rates are at historical lows. Carrying a firearm for self-defense is prudent as a matter of personal security, but we don’t actually live in Mogadishu.
6. Stop attacking other constitutional freedoms for the sake of securing yours. The moment LaPierre opened his mouth to blame “violent video games” for Newtown was the moment when I stopped listening. I don’t expect NRA to defend 1A (that’s what ACLU is there for), but they do have an obligation to respect it insofar as not contributing to anti-free-speech sentiment.
TL;DR: get back to being truly single-issue, and stop being unabashedly partisan.
In the meantime, I’ll stick with SAF.
This.
The problem is how everyone has to package politics into bundles; Pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-gay, etc over here. And anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-equal rights, etc over there. The thing they both have in common? Both support more government power to enforce their viewpoints. At least Democrats don’t try to hide behind a “small government” flag.
After reading all the comments and conducting additional research, I wrote a 1000 word comment. Realizing this would be more in depth than what is appropriate, I wrote a revised summation to the question posited: “No.”
The NRA should keep doing what they are doing, maybe on a larger scale.
I wished we had an NRA for the entire Bill of Rights. The ACLU is a conflicted organization and not up to the task. Either you are for the entire Bill of Rights or your not. The ACLU seems to think the Bill of Rights only contains the 1st Amendment.
The Democratic Party is for gun control and the center of the party has moved so far to the extreme left that they are anti-Bill of Rights.
There was a time two decades or more ago when the Republicans were for restricting freedom of speech and other individual rights and the Democrats strongly opposed them. Now it is the Republicans that strongly support the Bill of Rights and the Democrats that try to subvert it.
I think the Tea Party has a lot to do with the GOP being in strong support of the Bill of Rights. Without the Tea Party, the GOP would just be the mouthpiece for big business and wouldn’t give a rats backside about individual rights or the average citizen.
>> The ACLU seems to think the Bill of Rights only contains the 1st Amendment.
And the 4th. And the 5th. And they’ve stepped up for the 2nd where they see the violation of 14th (e.g. when it’s shall-issue for citizens, but no-issue for non citizens).
There’s no specific reason why a civil rights organization has to be specifically about the Bill of Rights, either. The Bill of Rights is not a complete enumeration of civil rights, and people disagree as to what other things should be on the list, and some also disagree that some things on the list are civil rights (like, well, 2A). Insofar as ACLU does not campaign against 2A (which they do not), their no-intervention position is not really a problem – they can deal with 1A/4A/5A violations, which are depressingly common, and NRA and other gun rights orgs can deal with 2A; and they can partner whenever the issues actually intersect. That’s in the ideal world where NRA is non-partisan, though. And to get an idea of what this means, look at ACLU defending the civil rights of KKK and American Nazi Party when it came to freedom of speech.
NRA deals with the 2nd. ACLU deals with the rest. Win-win as I see it.
If you make inroad with African Americans, you make inroads with the Democrats. Providing black youth with Scouts-type instruction in the safe and legal use of firearms would be a good investment.
Don’t elect me to Congress, I’ll make a deal with the devil. I’ll give you your more useless background checks, if you give me more places to carry in return. And by places to carry, I’m looking at you New Jersey, California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and New York City ;). Don’t worry, it’s already written into the Constitution, Section IV, Article I, full faith and credit, we just have to turn it on. Win-Win.
This was the deal that SAF tried to push through the Congress, but failed.
I wonder if Sanders would be interested in picking it up. For all his idealistic talk, his track record as a senator shows that he knows how to compromise and forge deals. UBC could be easily spun as a major political win to placate the anti-gun crowd, while full carry reciprocity would make a very real difference for the rest of us.
A better question would be…’can the NRA do anything to appeal to Individual Liberty and Constitution supporters?
Since they have assumed the actual mantle of being the ‘Govt’s Approved Gun-Privilege Organization’, the answer is obvious, to any thinking man.
Try as we might, the NRA will always be the bad guy to a lot of liberals. So I say: use that. Make a very public donation to Hillary. It doesn’t have to be much. But I think it would blur the lines and disenfranchise some of their base.
It worked RF-clicks aplenty. When SHTF I think that guns may make a difference-at least temporarily. And anyone who thinks the party of barry soetoro and the hildebeast are your friends is by definition INSANE(or just has a really short attention span LOL)…written from the gun paradise of CookCo.,IL(dumboland).
WOW +100000000 Excedrine! (you got no reply)…interestingly with examples of what we have in Illinois too. Which is why I will NEVER vote dumbocrat-btw you need to be a writer for TTAG’s…
This is why I do not — cannot in good conscience — vote RepuliKKKratik or DempubliKKKlan. (See what I did there?)
Neither party is even one iota interested in you, your rights, or your safety in any facet of your life. NEITHER party. To assume so can only be taken as naive at best, and dangerously delusional at its worst.
They are both every bit as guilty of every single solitary little thing that they knowingly falsely accuse the other party of, and in different ways that their constituents are blissfully unaware of or are consciously blind to.
The sooner we break the one-party-masquerading-as-“two”-parties stranglehold, the better — and that starts with simply not voting for them.
I take back the compliment-I’m in my 60’s and I can assure you I am NOT naive. I am way too cynical for my own good and consider 3rd party loons as being hopelessly out of touch with reality-but I guess maybe you have a shack hidden away in some western state…I’m not a repub either. Both parties suck-but repubs aren’t actively trying to take my guns-or making treaties with the terrorist state of Iran or forcing me to believe two dudes have a real marriage.
Not even Republicans — “establishment” or not — are fond friends of PoTG. It was Republican FUDDs as much as Statist Regressives that brought us all of the gun control laws we’re saddled with today. Those “3rd party loons” are about the only ones that are in touch with reality enough to realize that “holding your nose” and “picking the lesser of two evils” is absolutely horseshit and always was, and that it’s not an option if we are to survive as a nation. It is precisely that kind of thinking that even got us into this sad state of affairs in the first place.
I substantially agree with your premises but disagree with your prescription.
By the “parties” you are essentially referring to each party’s leadership; and, particularly so, whichever party is in control of one or the other chamber. The seniority system concentrates disproportionate power in the leadership of each party and especially the leaders of the controlling parties.
The Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate makes the policy for his chamber and has the “whip” ensure that the junior members vote in accordance with that policy. The Speaker/Leader is not a king-of-all-he-surveys; but, the leadership team as a whole IS a king-and-his-court.
The key is breaking this seniority system and its concentration of power in the leadership. That can’t be done by NOT voting at all. If it is to be done then it must be done by voting in a more effective way; and, by the way, in supporting candidates in other districts in a more effective way.
For simplicity, I’ll assume here that the Democrat party is hopeless but the GOP might be disciplined.
We voters must tell the GOP in our respective districts (and therefore nationally) that we will primary their RINO incumbents. We may lose the primary but in so doing we will drain the incumbent’s resources so he is weaker in the general election. Then, we will vote for the RINO’s Democrat opponent notwithstanding that the Democrat is WORSE than the RINO.
Outside our home districts we will financially contribute to like efforts in other districts and other States.
An effective rebellion – as I’ve described – need only succeed in a few races to tip the balance of power from the Republicans to the Democrats in each chamber. The threat of such a loss of the majority is HUGE. Almost all the power in each chamber runs to the majority party; lose the majority and you lose the power.
To keep up the strategy is to further erode the GOP’s ability to recover it’s majority in that chamber. E.g., if after one election the Republicans have only 49 Senate seats they lost the majority; but, they might recover it in 2 years. If in the next election they lose another seat or two they are now 2 or 3 seats away from regaining the majority; and so forth. Once the minority party is down to 40 or 35 percent of its seats they are no longer a force that must be bargained with by the majority party.
Making sure that we whittle-away at as many RINOs as possible is a necessary but NOT a SUFFICIENT strategy for success. That could get us to, e.g., 55 GOP Senators of whom 25 are staunch conservatives and libertarians who are freshmen and sophomores but leaving 30 juniors and seniors in the leadership. Those 30 senators with seniority will choose the leadership; and, it’s the leadership that makes policy. It is NECESSARY to also to break the back of the seniority system. That too can be done.
We need to hit on the pool of freshmen and sophomores to pledge NOT to vote for any “senior” for Majority Leader. If they defy this pledge then we will primary them in the next election and vote for their Democrat opponent if they are re-nominated. Assuming we can make our threat “appear” to be real, the 25 freshmen and sophomore can tell their leadership that they must choose only a “junior” to run for Majority Leader; no “senior” can get their votes. The 25 freshmen and sophomores only need to get a few other “juniors” to defect from the leadership to break the “seniors” concentration of power in the leadership.
I am a democrat, I am an American of Mexican origin, and I believe passionately in the ubiquitous right of the Second Amendment. “Shall not be infringed”, should be as obvious as the phrase, “Freedom of Speech”, “Right to Free Assembly”, or “Freedom of Religion”. That my party has failed me on a number of issues since I started voting 18 years ago has forced me to change my stances from the usual party line time and again.
I think if the NRA can make me feel as welcome as only 2 of the gun stores in my city that only care about the color of my money instead of insular and xenophobic preconceptions about the color of my skin, then they are guaranteed my membership and I will do all I can to get my father and brother, both ex-Marines to join as well.
I visit this site along with TFB daily because the state of the industry interests me. But, I have faced resistence to my interest in firearms locally from nearly every gun store in my city, with the exception of 2. If the NRA wants MY membership than show me that the Second Amendment truly is about ALL of us and not SOME of us, Americans.
The NRA already does — and with open arms no less — welcome people of all creeds, colors, origins, genders, orientations, faiths, and walks of life. Blame the dying legacy lamestream so-called “news” media for knowingly and erroneously painting it as some kind of OFWG club. While it is true that most of the membership is white, but probably no more so than the general population. It is specifically because of the vicious bile and ridicule of its detractors that either deters minorities from joining or making their membership of it known. The sub-Human filth at rags like Slate, Salon, and The Daily Kos even go so far as throw all manner of nasty racial and sexist epithets at its minority and female spokes people. At all of its members in general, really. Don’t let a few ignorant loudmouths who don’t represent in any way the face or the spirit of the NRA cloud your perceptions.
Personally, its their politics that bother me, but that’s another story.
Join us at the San Jose Municipal Range. $7/hour v. $20 elsewhere, staffed by experienced friendly volunteers. Spanish, English, Vietnamese and Chinese spoken among volunteers. No vending or ammo sales – bring your own. See http://www.scvrc.com/10th_street.htm for range hours and directions. Plenty of free parking and nice people.
No membership is required during public hours.
“If the NRA wants MY membership than show me that the Second Amendment truly is about ALL of us and not SOME of us, Americans.”
Perfect.
The only hope for America is for its citizens to vote and choose party based on their beliefs, rather than picking their beliefs based on their party. Because of the latter, I can find few Democrats winning nominations that are reasonable on gun rights and I can find few Republicans winning nominations that are reasonable on the First or Fourth Amendments or climate change,
We once had strong 2A candidates, but we voted or gerrymandered them out of office. We once had Republicans who paid attention to the science of climate change, but now they get primaried.
If party brand continues to define each and every position, I fear gun rights are doomed. Demographic changes favor Dems in the medium and long term. It is fine to say that Second Amendment is all I need, but the Constitution has been amended before; it has also been reinterpreted many times. We have had a majority Republican-president-nominated Supreme Court for decades, but even with that, its support for the 2A has been tentative at best.
So, we need to bring Democrats into the fold. There is nothing philosophically inconsistent about believing that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will warm the planet and believing in gun rights. There is nothing philosophically inconsistent about believing that universal basic health care is a good thing and believing in gun rights.
Psychology and sociology research has shown that most people want to belong to groups that make them feel welcome. Requiring individuals to adopt every Republican-brand position to feel welcome in this forum or other gun forums will drive away all but the most highly motivated gun owners.
We can start by recognizing that neither the mainstream Democratic nor Republican brand positions on issues are philosophically consistent. Both have been adopted through complex forces, and it sometimes seems that the only reason one party favors a particular position is that the other party opposes it.
I propose we be better than that. No more stereotyping people as libtards or Fascists because they disagree with us on one or two issues. We can disagree where we disagree, make passionate but reasoned arguments for our own positions, but cut out the name-calling and stereotyping. And perhaps we should even listen a little.
Perhaps I am naive, but I believe that reasoned debate on the issues themselves (not party) and an openness to self-correction is the one path to preserving freedom.
Well, ALL polls and studies are BS. ALL of them show what the people conducting them want them to show. Every. Last. One of them.
But I for one wouldn’t mind if the NRA backed off the Jesus, NASCAR and country music just a bit to broaden their (our) appeal.
I have no problem supporting a Democratic candidate for Congress if he committed to supporting for Majority Leader the candidate who opposed gun control.
The trouble is that even Democrats who personally oppose gun control still vote for a Majority Leader who would push for gun control.
It’s not enough that the candidate himself would vote against the gun control bill. I don’t want the bill even to come to the floor.
Donate money. Duh! it’s not like the scum have some kind of principles, after all.
Comments are closed.