Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill Caught Lying to Missouri Voters on Guns ~ VIDEO


Fairfax, VA – -(  It appears Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) forgot she represents the Show-Me State. Missouri’s nickname derives from its residents’ healthy skepticism – especially for politicians and their “frothy eloquence.” Rather than take someone’s word for something, Missourians would like to be shown.

Missouri voters across the political spectrum don’t like what they were shown this week. Hidden camera video from journalist James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas showing that McCaskill and her staff have misled Missourians on her support for severe gun controls and impeaching President Donald Trump.

In a candid interaction with McCaskill, a Project Veritas reporter posing as a campaign staffer asked the second-term senator about her position on guns, resulting in the following exchange.

McCaskill: Well if we elect enough Democrats we’ll get some gun safety stuff done. They won’t let us vote on it, we’ve got 60 votes for a number of measures that would help with gun safety, but McConnell won’t let ’em come to the floor.

Project Veritas: Like [banning] bump stocks, ARs and high capacity mags?

McCaskill: Universal background, all of that.

Project Veritas: So you would be on board with the bump stocks and high capacity mags.

McCaskill: Of Course! Of Course!

The senator’s strident support for gun control when speaking with campaign staff stands in stark contrast to her public messaging. For example, McCaskill’s scant treatment of the gun issue on her website is intentionally vague and plays up her purported support for the Second Amendment. It states,

As a child, Claire grew up around guns – her father loved to hunt – and she has said repeatedly that she supports the Second Amendment while also supporting common sense gun safety measures to keep our children safe.

Common sense? An analysis by Barack Obama’s Department of Justice determined that so-called “universal” background checks are ineffective absent more severe restrictions. Multiple federally-funded studies could not find that the 1994 ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms reduced gun violence, partly because these firearms “were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.” Moreover, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the landmark Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, made clear that the Second Amendment protects commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15.

When asked about the senator’s deceptive approach, McCaskill campaign staffers explained that such subterfuge is necessary for their candidate to get elected.

The undercover reporter asked McCaskill Campaign Deputy Regional Field Director Rob Mills why the candidate wasn’t more forthright about her anti-gun positions. Mills responded that it was because “she has a bunch of Republican voters.” Regarding McCaskill’s relationship with Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun front group Everytown for Gun Safety, Mills said,

But she doesn’t openly go out and support groups like ‘Mom’s Demand Action’ or just like other groups that are related to that. Because that could hurt, her ability to get elected. Because people like see that and they’re like well I don’t want to support her even though they stand for the same policies.

So. She’s worked out stuff with Mom’s Demand Action to make sure that she can support their goals without supporting the organization openly. And you know, Mom’s Demand Action does the exact same thing. Like a lot of our volunteers are actually from there [Mom’s Demand Action]. She’s really good about strategy and making sure she has a goal and can get there.

At other points in the video McCaskill staffers contend that their candidate would be supportive of a handgun ban and using impeachment to remove President Trump from office.

Claire McCaskill
Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill Caught Lying to Missouri Voters on Guns ~ VIDEO

It’s no surprise that the second-term senator would want to hide her views from voters, as they are wildly out of step with Missouri.

As a U.S. a senator (since 2007), McCaskill has repeatedly sought to limit the Right-to-Carry, voting against Right-to-Carry reciprocity legislation and a law that allows carry permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense in National Parks. With recognition that the Second Amendment protects an individual righto keep and bear arms in the balance, McCaskill voted to confirm Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan and voted against Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. In 2013, the Missouri senator sided with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on her legislation to ban commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and with Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) on his legislation to ban magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.

As McCaskill was busy advancing gun restrictions, the Missouri legislature was working to better respect gun rights. In 2003, Missouri became the 36th state to enact Right-to-Carry legislation when the legislature overrode Governor Bob Holden’s veto. During a failed gubernatorial campaign in 2004, McCaskill made clear that she would have vetoed the legislation as well. In 2007, the state repealed its onerous and redundant law that required a permit to purchase a handgun. In 2014, Missouri protected the rights of young adults by lowering the minimum age for acquiring a Right-to-Carry permit from 21 to 19. That same year, Missouri voters adopted an amendment to the state constitution that strengthened the document’s right to keep and bear arms provision. In 2016, the Missouri legislature enacted legislation recognizing the Right-to-Carry without a permit.

As for presidential politics, President Trump won Missouri’s electoral votes in a landslide in 2016 – besting McCaskill-endorsed Hillary Clinton with 56.4 percent of the vote to 37.9.

McCaskill’s effort to hide her anti-gun positions fits into a broader gun control misinformation campaign, whereby candidates and activists are encouraged to repeat moderate-sounding talking points while harboring plans for severe gun control.

In June, Democratic candidate for New York’s 21st congressional district Tedra Cobb was caught on camera telling supporters that she had been coached by an Everytown representative to hide the fact that she is in favor of a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. More recently, March for Our Lives Activist Emma Gonzalez told Vanity Fair, “We try our very darndest to get out the fact that we don’t want to take away guns and that we are pro second amendment.” Months earlier a more candid Gonzalez admitted her support for gun confiscation, calling for “[r]emoving the assault and semi-automatic weapons from our Civilian society…”

All U.S. voters would be well-served by adopting Missouri’s “Show-Me” ethos when it comes to politicians’ purported support for the Second Amendment. As seen with McCaskill, anti-gun politicians will use any underhanded tactic to meet their ends.

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit:

  • 9 thoughts on “Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill Caught Lying to Missouri Voters on Guns ~ VIDEO

    1. We can vote her out of office, she has out lived her usefulness, super pushed her finances that she will never have to worry about her income, and can look down on all of her little people that she took their money from with no regrets!!!!! I for one am going to the polls on election day with a main objective to vote her and the rest of the Demo-Rats out of Missouri!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. Michigan’s STABYOUNOW is just as bad. She states how she grew up with a hunting family and stands behind the 2nd Amendment but is really standing behind Shumer, Pelosi and the rest of the DEMOCRAPS and standing on top of the Amendment while trying to bury it. Her voting against Judge Kavanaugh was the last straw.

    3. This women is bad for Missouri and the country, she relies on the two big cities in Missouri for votes and some from the Universities where the professors have brain washed some of the students against republicans.

    4. Self Appointed Elitists and Authoritarians, no room for them in the Republic..

      The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale.
      Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.
      In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.

      Many of those in favor of oppressive firearms legislation are best classed as elitists. Elitists frequently identify with a peer group based on wealth, power, rank, social status, occupation, education, ethnic group, etc. and perceive themselves and their peers as inherently superior to and more responsible than the “common people”, thus more deserving of certain rights. Since elitists practically consider those outside their class or caste as members of another species, that most anti-elitist list of laws, the Bill of Rights is viewed by them as anathema. Naturally, the Second Amendment is their first target as it serves as the supporting structure for other nine amendments.

      Another type of individual who favors the restriction of private gun ownership is the authoritarian. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement. Those with authoritarian personalities function well in symbiosis with elitists occupying positions of power. Because authoritarians repress their desires for autonomy they harbor a deep resentment toward free and independent thinkers. Of course, authoritarians do not want firearms in the hands of the general population as this constitutes a major obstacle to fulfilling their pathological and obsessive desire to control people.

      It goes without saying that career criminals would like to see the public disarmed for obvious reasons. A well-armed population makes crimes such as assault, robbery, and burglary hazardous for the perpetrator and this is bad for “business.” Also, even non-violent or “white collar” criminals live in constant fear of retribution from the public that they financially bleed and would therefore prefer that the public be disarmed. Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be gathered by studying the Second Amendment voting records of those legislators who have been convicted of willful misconduct.

      Cowards are easily or excessively frightened by things and situations that are recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful. It therefore stands to reason that the mere thought of guns and the circumstances in which they are employed causes them abnormal amounts of stress. Rather than admit their weakness to themselves or others, some fearful types jump on the anti-gun bandwagon and purport moral superiority to those “barbaric” enough to employ lethal force against armed assailants by claiming various humanitarian and pragmatic motives for allowing evil to remain unchecked. Many of these individuals harbor an envy induced resentment toward anyone with the means, skill, and will to successfully stand up to criminal aggression.
      The desire to assert oneself exists in nearly everyone, wimps included, so cowards seek out tame enemies against whom they can ply their pitiful brand of machismo. Instead of the sociopaths who commit acts of wanton aggression with guns, guns themselves and responsible gun owners are the main targets of their attacks. After all, real criminals are dangerous, so cowards prefer doing battle with inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own and decent law-abiding people whose high level of integrity and self-discipline prevent them from physically lashing out against mere verbal assailants, however obnoxious they may be.

      Ideological chameleons follow the simple social strategy of avoiding controversy and confrontation by espousing the beliefs of the people in their immediate vicinity or advocating the philosophy of those who scream the loudest in a debate. Quite a few supposedly pro Second Amendment public officials have shown themselves to be ideological chameleons when they supported restrictions on the private possession of military style semiautomatic rifles following recent atrocities in which such firearms were employed. Like their reptilian namesake, people who merely blend in with the ambient philosophical foliage seem to have little insight into the moral and social ramifications of their actions. Political and/or economic gain along with avoidance of confrontation are their only goals.

      Security monopolists are those members and representatives of public and private security providing concerns who want the means of self-protection out of private hands so that they can command high fees for protecting the citizenry against the rising tide of crime. These profiteers stand to lose a great deal of capital if citizens can efficiently defend themselves. To the security monopolist, each criminal who enters and exits the revolving door of justice is a renewable source of revenue providing jobs for police, social workers, victim counsellors, judges, prison employees, security guards, burglar alarm installers, locksmiths, and others employed by the security monopolies or their satellite organizations. No wonder it is so common for an honest citizen to be more ruthlessly hounded by the authorities when he shoots a criminal in self-defense than a criminal who shoots honest citizens.

      Just as a limb will weaken and atrophy if not used, so will aspects of the mind fail to develop if nothing in one’s environment exists to challenge them. People who have led excessively sheltered lives tend to have a difficult time understanding certain cause and effect relationships and an even harder time appreciating just how cruel the world can be. These dysfunction ally unworldly types are truly perplexed at the very notion of firearms ownership regarding defense. To them, tyranny and crime are things that happen in other places far removed from their “civilized” universe. Also, they do not understand the value of private property and why some people would fight for theirs since they never had to work hard to acquire what they possess. While those suffering from dysfunctional unworldliness are most often people who have been born into considerable wealth, this condition is also common in members of the clergy, academicians, practioners of the arts, and others who have spent much of their lives cloistered in a safe and pampering environment. While many of these people may be quite talented and intelligent in some ways, their extreme naivety makes them easy prey for the tyrants who use them for the financial support and favorable advertisement of their regimes. The anti-gun movement is well represented and financed by the dysfunction ally unworldly.
      The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it behooves all vigilant lovers of liberty to know and be able to recognize the various types of arms prohibitionists and understand their differing but equally dangerous motives. Acquiring knowledge of one’s foes is the first step toward defeating them. We must never forget that a threat to private firearms ownership is a threat to all freedoms.
      The inalienable and fundamental right to keep and bear arms which is enumerated by (but predates) the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting, gun collecting, or target shooting. Its purpose is to ensure that every responsible American personally possesses the means to defend the Republic from all forms of tyranny, within and without. It is what permits the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights to be more than mere hollow phrases on a piece of paper. Its free exercise is the antithesis of serfdom and the only meaningful form of holocaust insurance known to man.
      We must never insult and degrade the spirits of our Founding Fathers by permitting the Second Amendment, the pillar of freedom, to be destroyed by the cold flame of legislative ink.

      They have broke their promised oath to the people of the United States of America…and to the Repubic for which it stands,one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all…

    Comments are closed.