How do Pro-Gun Democrats Vote?

I Vote with Stupid Democrats
I Vote with Stupid Democrats

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- I met a few people who call themselves “Pro-Gun Democrats”. I’m not sure what that means anymore than I understand the meaning of a Progressive Socialist Republican. Pro-gun Democrats might like guns. They might own guns. They might shoot guns, yet I don’t see how they can be for gun owners and ownership when their party is for gun control and confiscation. How do pro-gun Democrats vote?

Values have a context and a hierarchy. Some things are more important than others. Maybe you have to vote for Democrats to fund abortions..but you also like to go shooting. Maybe you were a Democrat, but now you’re a political independent who looks at every candidate and weighs every issue. The Democrat Party might not be the organization you remember.

Rahm Emanuel pushed the Clinton lead Democrat party to adopt its anti-gun political position. That decision earned the Democrat party hundreds of millions of dollars from George Soros and other anti-gun billionaires. The official party position is, “If I had 51 votes, then Mister and Misses America, turn them all in.” I wish that were not the party line but it is today.

Lots of voters don’t like the Democrat anti-rights position against guns and gun owners. Democrat politicians know gun control is unpopular. Democrat politicians pose with shotguns and say they are pro-gun. They also take money from anti-gun advocates and then advocate for gun confiscation. They even say so when you read the fine print buried on their campaign websites. As one Democrat candidate was recorded whispering, “I can be for gun confiscation, but I can’t say that during the election.” Some Democrats brag about a pro-gun rating from the NRA even when the NRA says they have a bad rating. These Democrats want to look pro-rights even when they are against the rights of honest citizens to keep and bear arms.

So what does it mean to be a pro-gun Democrat? I understand that you could give money to the few Democrats who actually voted to end gun control and to end gun free zones. I hope you support the few Democrats who actually voted for Constitutional Carry in their states. I like that you support Democrats who are against gun control. So is the NRA. But then I run into a problem.

Pro-gun Democrats don’t have many options. They vote for a Democrat politician who wants to confiscate guns slowly rather than the one who wants to do it quickly? When can they actually vote for a pro-gun candidate?

In the last 20 years, putting the Democrat Party in political control has consistently led to greater restrictions on our rights to keep and bear arms. What do pro-gun Democrats do with the rest of the Democrat candidates who support gun control and confiscation? As a pro-gun Democrat, do you vote Republican and support Republican candidates in those races? Even voting Republican doesn't guarantee that the candidate will vote for our rights.

The choice isn't easy, particularly for a Democrat voter. Do you cast your ballot for the candidate who is the most pro-gun, or are you a Democrat who happens to own a gun? Please leave your answer below, because I’d love to know.


Slow Facts

About Rob Morse

The original article is here. Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily, and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob is an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.

  • 66 thoughts on “How do Pro-Gun Democrats Vote?

    1. What have the Republicans done for gun owners?
      Did the Hearing Protection Act even make it to the floor?
      National Concealed Carry Reciprocity?
      Anything?
      (Crickets)

      and the orange faced buffoon is ready to ban bump stocks for … reasons.

      I’d rather fight the Democrats on one issue than the Republicans on damn near everything else.
      Rob, I enjoy your podcast, but I can’t agree with you on this. I cannot be a single issue voter.
      Right now, the GOP is taking gun owners for granted, and on every other subject, being run by pseudo christian theocratic fascists.

      1. Must be a communist democrat or rino.It takes the 60 votes to get all that done. You know that ,why be so stupid .Think with your head instead your ass.If it was up to the communist There would be no guns or any of the rest of your freedoms

    2. I try to not vote based off of a single issue unless the person is the extreme opposite of me on a certain issue. I normally vote with the goal of keeping a balance so neither party has to much power over the other. If a Democrat is strongly for an AWB and it looks like Republicans will still have a majority I would likely vote for the democrat if there’s nothing else about them I don’t like. If it looks like Democrats will get the majority I would likely vote the other way.

    3. I have to ask, what’s so great about the alternative? The Republicans have had control of both houses of Congress and the White House for going on two years. How’s that Hearing Protection Act coming along? Universal concealed carry reciprocity? When 2020 rolls around, are you going to vote for the guy who happily availed himself of one of the few carry permits the NYPD hands out but equally happily threw bumpstocks under the bus when it was politically expedient (hey, no skin off his nose)?
      Fact is, if you vote Republican because your main issue is gun rights, at least at the federal level, you’re not getting anything for your vote either. So you may as well forget about gun rights as an issue and vote for other issues, like jobs with wages you can actually live on, working public schools, roads you can drive on, not seeing your friends and relatives handed into the tender care of a privatized prison system that exists to make money off them, etc.

      1. Lots of shit still requires 60 votes,so don’t start flapping jaws on why this an that isn’t done. You know damn well why some shit don’t get done.That is why gop needs 60 in senate then more stuff will get done.Trump has done more in less than two years than Obama could even think about doing wrong.He has done more than Bush or any other presidents.There is a lot of shit the fake news won’t talk about.

        1. Heh, It never even got to the Senate, because Repubs didn’t vote for it in the House.

          So far, Obama actually beats Trump on how much he did for gun rights, because he did *something*: enabled carry in national parks, and on Amtrak.

          Trump and Republicans did literally nothing on guns. They didn’t even try. Not a single bill went up for vote.

          Why would they though? They need you to go and vote for them every 2 years, so they’re going to promise you everything and then stonewall, so that they can promise you everything again and again and again.

      2. The Republican have NOT HAD a work majority but if the Red Wave comes through and the SEnate gets a 61 vote gun owner then all that will happen.
        But Chuckie Schumer can block Senate action on anything. NY is not about to kick him out of office, but maybe the Kavanaugh confirmation will wake a few voters up.

    4. The simple reason why we vote Democrat is because there are more issues than just guns, and Republicans tend to be wrong on practically every one of them – or at least more wrong than the Dems. And lately, it’s not even wrong, more like, “are you fuсking nuts?!”.

      And so, we go to people who are generally capable of thinking rationally, and try to convince them to think rationally on this one issue where they do not. Not having much luck with that, I’ll admit. But it still beats the Republican asylum.

      1. Bingo. Guns are a big issue for me, but the balance of all the other issues on the plate outweigh it and made me a Democrat. As soon as the GOP drops its opposition to human rights, prosecuting corruption, science, and sane economics, I’ll vote for a Republican Congressman again (I did in 2016, but not this year).

        1. @int19t, If you think that any of the other unnamed issues that you vaguely imply could possible outweigh the loss of a Constitutionally enshrined Civil Right, then you weigh the balance wrong. Oh, and Kal, do you not know that American Civil Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are broader and more clearly spelled out than the so called U.N. declaration of human rights. Our Bill of Rights are, also, less susceptible to minimization that the UN’s. So why would one trade ours in for theirs?

      2. There are no democrats like 60 years ago.All you have now is pure communist period.They have nothing worth voting for

    5. Well if you view both parties fundamentals I would classify myself as a Democrat. But as well all know those fundamentals each party was built on doesn’t mean squat now. I am very much pro-gun Democrat or independent if you prefer, I never vote based on party alone that’s just stupid. I currently own guns with plans to purchase a few more, thank god I don’t live in California.

      It’s hard to find the right candidate for gun rights issues because you never know if what they say or publish is actually the truth or sweet talk. If I care enough about a particular candidate I like I’ll just research their stance and more importantly their voting record in gun control legislation. I check out their competition and compare records then pick which one is better to me. I’m a Democrat, I love guns but it’s near impossible to vote for any candidate you like especially based on gun control so do some research and pick the one person you like most or can tolerate the best. Never seen the perfect candidate in my short lifetime.

    6. Based on the one I know: Straight ticket Republican except in the primaries. Of course said guy openly says he’s registered as a Democrat only so they waste money sending him mail (given how fancy the printing on some of the stuff he’s gotten is, it may not be that insignificant an amount of cash).

    7. Pro-gun Democrat? Pro-life abortionist.

      Christian Scientist.

      Militant pacifist.

      Low-fat nutritionist.

      Ethical circumcision provider.

      Vaccine-preventable disease.

      Fresh pasteurized. Organic hydroponics.

    8. You left one reason out. Some older Democrats may remember and have voted for John F. Kennedy who was a life member of the NRA and who in the April 1959 issue of “Guns” magazine gave a strong support to the second amendment and continue to vote Democrat because of family history. Sadly, those days are long gone when the Democrats were somewhat logical and rational. The entire party has been “weaponized” so to speak by the radical communists that have infiltrated it during and after the Vietnam war.

      1. Kennedy Democrat party is nothing like today’s Democrat party. The political spectrum has been moved vastly far left including the Republican party. Even today’s Republican party is far left of where Kennedy’s Democrat party was. our country has been over run. Today it is not a situation of “enemy in the wire”. Today, the enemy sits in the Command Post. Our Founding Father already would have been finished shooting….a second time.

    9. I wonder if Democrats would put up with similar restrictions on Free Speech? (I use that as most would be OK with having to register to go to church).

      How about that? A “universal background check” if you wanted to speak out in public, or appear in a public rally, or even post on line? After all, it is just “common sense” that you don’t want some looney tunes abusing free speech. Plus by doing the “free speech background check” we could see if there are any open warrants, check to see if someone is a citizen, or here illegally, check to see if there is unpaid child support, or perhaps they have skipped out on a credit card bill. Then after the background check, we charge them for a license to execute their Constitutional right. I’m liking this already. Maybe make people demonstrate that they will use speech responsibly by taking a “free speech” test. Maybe send in SWAT teams to anyone who is wearing an ANTIFA Guy Faulks mask’s home. After all, they could be doing something dangerous behind those closed doors.

      You know…treat the 1st Amendment just like they treat the 2nd.

      Oh, how I can hear the howling now! “You cannot abridge my RIGHT to free speech.”

      So stop and think about it. Why do we allow that for the 2A?

      1. JDC, they have been attaching free speech and due process. Look at college campuses and antifa among others. Their elite base is against the entire Constitution.

        1. Agreed. It is sort of like the Illegals who use our own Constitution against us. Here illegally, but entitled to all the Constitutional guarantees.

          The left wants free speech, but only if they agree with it, everybody else “shut up.” That HI Dem Senator actually said that during the Kavanaugh hearings…that men should just shut the heck up.

          I think you got my sarcasm…they want to infringe on our freedoms, but want no infringement on theirs.

    10. With all this talk about gun control and confiscation of guns just look at Europe. Most all of Europe has tight gun control. Many can’t even have a shotgun to hunt with. Now take the time to count the horrible incidents that have happened there. Paris, Brussels several other incidents involving vehicles. Do we really want to be disarmed? I think not. I have a theory why we haven’t yet been attacked as Europe has been. We have too many guns for them to use those tactics here. If you really believe in our freedoms vote republican in November. Just remember this, our love of guns kept the Japs from attacking mainland USA, they were convinced by Admiral Yamamoto to instead attack the Hawaiian bases. This is a stone fact, look it up. Just sayin’.

      1. Gun control is not about safety in America. It’s about controlling Americans: period. It’s far more sinister than most are willing to conceptualize it. It’s about the subjectification of American citizens. Groups like the Globalist Federalists want to create borderless global unification to prevent war and famine throughout the world: it’s a utopian model that will never come to pass. It’s a pipe dream. The international banks are also behind gun control, and many anti-Second judges are active members of Globalist Federalist organizations. At one point in time the majority of Globalist Federalists settled in California, so you can understand why they are a cesspool for unconstitutionalism in California courts. Look at the social tensions, economic impact, and lack of rule of constitutional law in the courts in the region. We actually know who all of the globalist judges are. It’s my belief that any judge who knowingly violates and undermines the US Constitution should be disbarred and prosecuted. There needs to be a judicial/political oversight group under the POTUS part of the DOD, that has the ability to investigate and enforce the US Constitution. Who knows maybe such a group exists? 😉

        1. Core, I am a firm believer in the constitution and the bill of rights. I even agree with parts of what you state. However I do not like your idea of establishing a Gestapo-like organization to oversee political think.

    11. It’s a constant give and take. I’m realistic about the actual chances for the successful implementation of an overreaching gun control measure during an election year when we have a republican controlled congress for example. Many Democrats talk more about gun control at those times, and most republicans dig their feet in and ultimately make it impossible. It tells us a lot about both sides, namely which of each is pro 2a or anti 2a simply out of political expedience.
      We are all held hostage by a handful of distractions parading as key platform issues. Abortion, gun control, religion, racism, immigration, and defense issues should not be the polarizing all or nothing issues many insist them to be.
      Politicians words are controlled by these party committees, corporate ties, and financial backers of various types however, not all of them are keen on following those party dictates once they’re in office, and I am certainly not prepared to allow my vote to be so completely manipulated. “Freedoms” should be more accurately described as personal freedoms. We want to protect our right to bear arms, not pass a mandate requiring others to own firearms. This is why I can’t often support republican candidates. They too often promote the implementation of their “freedom” to effectively deny the freedom of others. I support the freedom of religion, but that means freedom from the religion. We have a right to OUR religion, but not to dictate society’s “values”, receive exemptions at work or in our business practices, nor do we have a right to insist on religious influence in schools. Those are clear cases of substituting one American’s freedom for another’s. That’s not freedom for all. The same applies to abortion, and many of the other “key issues”. We do not have the the freedom to deny other Americans their freedoms. That is why the liberal gun control agenda has left me isolated from Democrats, but I am not able to support republicans just because we share views on one such issue. I once called myself a libertarian, but the meaning of that term has been thoroughly muddied recently, by those who gather under its banner.
      I’ll just continue to vote for personal freedoms in a system stacked against them, and built to deny one such freedom as a cost to support another.

    12. Taxed Enough Already, a question or answer. The Boston Tea Party prompted King George to send about 10,000 British soldiers to occupy Boston. The City of Boston’s population increased 40% and the British soldiers were assigned to the homes of each resident.
      Not only did the British sleep and eat, the services a soldier needs were provided by the home owners. Laundry, cooking, were demanded.
      The people of the Boston area were trapped with one escape. The British had required the people to serve in the King’s Militia to defend against the French and the Indians. So the people formed their own private militia that the King and his Generals did not know about. They called themselves Minutemen.
      In 1775 the Minutemen and their spies learned that the British Army was going to take the short march to Concord and Lexington to confiscate the arms, which included muskets, gun powder, swords and even flints, to prevent further resistance to the King’s orders.
      The Minutemen met the British Army along the roads to protect the arms the people would need to resist the King. The war was on April 19, 1775.
      A year later the people wrote The Declaration of Independence, listing the grievances that caused the rebellion. The reason and need for “Arms” was included as a right and a duty of citizenship as a final resort when politics failed to preserve rights and freedom.
      It took until 1787 for the people to get around to creating the United States of America with a new Constitution.
      Not everybody was satisfied with the new Constitution, in particular Patrick Henry. Henry said that the protections of the people’s rights was inadequate because the militia was in control of the Congress since the Congress would appoint officers and provide arms for the militia. Henry pointed out that if Congress or the President became tyrannical the check and balance of a militia on tyrants would not work if the right to keep and bear arms was ultimately the governments.
      A Bill of Rights was demanded and the Congress set to work writing a Bill of Rights which included most of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence.
      Soldiers could not be housed in private homes and the people were in control of the arms that might be needed to prevent a tyrant from destroying the country.
      So the Second Amendment says that the people get to keep militarily useful arms, ammunition and such items in order to preserve freedom and the Constitution.
      Beginning around 1930 government began restricting the rights of the people to have military type arms.
      It sounded good, reduce crime which had increased and become organized providing alcohol and augmented by Ford motor cars.
      Beginning in the 1960s Arms that were not “sporting” were attacked. The AR 15 and similar arms are not “modern sporting rifles” because they are Militia Standard Rifles. The exact type of arm the 1939 MILLER Court said were protected. If “sporting arms” are the only reason to have a rifle and they ban hunting what will you do?
      Are politicians trying to prevent crime or enable a tyrant to fundamentally change America?
      The People think the Constitution protects their Rights.
      Government sees the Constitution as an Obstacle to be Overcome.

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ? [well yes, therefore]
      “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      1. Very good response, Jim.
        Causes me to wonder how many pro gun folks (and anti gun folks) really understood the basis for the 2 Amendment to the US Constitution.
        Again, “Good Job.” Education is always the key to understanding.

        1. Thank you.

          History is not a few stand alone events, it is a chain that begins, proceeds and reaches a conclusion.
          1492 Columbus sailed, 1968 Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon.
          We all know a series of little things and even a few big things happened in between those dates.

          1. @Jim Macklin, You would be surprised how much history has been forgotten. Some believe that since we celebrate our independence on July 4th, and that we declared our independence in 1776, they do not realize that the struggle actually started years before then and did not end until Britain sign a peace agreement until 1783. The British never accepted defeat and went on with their attempt to encroach on American soil, from Canada, on South into the Ohio Valley. Most of our own citizens have forgotten the War of 1812 when the British again invaded U.S. soil and burned the Capital and the White House. If it had not been for Andrew Jackson, the British would taken control of the City of New Orleans and it’s deep water ports and entrance to the Mississippi River which would have voided the Louisiana Purchase from France. Most of the battle of New Orleans was fought by militias, each man fighting with his own firearm against largest and most well armed army and navy in the world at the time.

            1. Education is a wonderful and essential part of a free republic. But “they” have been systematically making history a subject about the sexual attitudes of the Founders.
              American History maybe the most exciting story, until it is taught in Jr and Sr. high school by a monotone teachers who wants students to recite dates without any understanding of why that date is important, what came before and what followed.
              If I was a history teacher I’d ask my class “What is the most important date in United States history?”
              The answer is simple, tomorrow. What are we going to allow? If you want a date, November 6, 2018 because that will determiner whether the USA is a Republic, or a dictatorship or a mob ruled country.

      2. A MSR is not a militia suitable; because, post Korean War the battlefield is dominated by select fire weapons. In a firefight what is most effective is suppressive fire. Also, the ATF has stated that MSR’s aren’t military useful weapons.
        P.S. Miller in returned the case to the lower court to answer the question, Is a NFA Short Barreled Shotgun a suitable weapon for an individual soldier? The same question could be asked about NFA select fire rifles. However, Scalia’s opinion in Heller implies that the Miller question would not be answered in the affirmative for select fire rifles or SBR’s.

        1. I say it certainly is a rifle that meets the needs of The People as a Militia Standard Rifle.
          It fires the same ammunition as the military supplies and has billions of rounds.
          The magazine is the same which makes re-supply easy.
          Aimed semi-auto fire is very effective. True, the `68 and 86 GCA should be repealed and full auto arms should be avaialble but at 30 cents a shot, few people will develop the skill and experience to handle full auto.
          Calling it a modern sporting rifle is just a a weak attempt to call a rifle a BB gun.

    13. I always agreed with the dems on most issues. However, i’m very pro-gun, and if a politician wants to shred the protections clearly laid out by the 2A, they can’t be trusted to do anything else right.
      Fortunately, the average republican of today is roughly where the democrats were 20 years ago. It makes my vote easier to decide.
      If you could pull my ballots over the last 20 years, you could quite literally watch my votes slowly switch form “left” to “right” year by year as the parties have adjusted stances.

    14. All Dems I know are either completely anti-gun or are the
      “I own guns and I hunt, but” people. They do not understand the 2nd and don’t care. I have had so many stupid conversations I should record them. They all, down to the last one think that government should do and control everything.

    15. Fifty years ago there were plenty of democrats who believed in the second amendment and the right to own and use firearms however the democrat party has changed with their platform and beliefs, all in part to the liberal teachers and professors in the country and the main stream media’s liberal democrat support.

      1. @Missouri Born, I remember growing up in the 1950’s and 1960’s, I was surprised to learn that the communist and socialist parties protested the U.S. role in W.W.II. Now, the democrats have turned into the alternative parties that cannot be recognized today. Everything seems to have been turned upside down.

    16. Somebody sure has your ear about Democrats and gun control. Mainstream Democrats aren’t
      interested in confiscating guns. They are interested in background checks for all and restrictions on people who are a danger to themselves and others. The NRA could step up and do something to support gun safety and education. There are a lot of the people who ride the rail on gun control but find the NRA abrasive and negative. Some pro-active projects could get the rail riders to be more positive.
      The parent of Sandy Hook victims got a lot of attention advocating for gun control but it mostly noise that didn’t last long. They then turned to a more resonable plan that really addresses school shooting. They developed a program to educate students and teachers about preventing shootings. In 85% of school shooting one or more individuals had enough information to prevent a shooting. What if the NRA had put forth this kind of educational program or helped fund a program like that? People listen to positive solutions.

      1. Just read your post @RON. If mainstream Democrats are not interested in confiscating guns, why do they keep electing idiots who ARE IN FAVOR of confiscating our firearms??? I think wat you are trying to say is that the NRA and other pro-gun organizations are not helping with the conversation to stop the “leaders” you and other “mainstream Democrats” keep electing to speak for you. As a mainstream Republican who has chosen to follow President Trump, warts and all, I find your comments duplicitous and insincere. Get rid of Schumer, Waters, Pelosi, Coons, Clinton, Obama, Holder and all the other anti-2A jerks and then we will see what happens to the conversation. By continuing to vote in these Far Left idiots, you, the mainstream Democrat, are the problem just as much as are your leaders. Don’t blame us and the NRA for your Leftist BS. Your party is full of anti-gun and anti-Constitutional and anti-2A sentiments.

        1. @NL, Ron, the low level propagandist, is engaged in typical DNC half truths. He is only expressing what they want in the near term, but leaving unsaid their long term goals. Ron thinks that half the truth is the truth … temporarily.

      2. Ron, the NRA is about safety and education, that is what they do. You never hear about it, because that would not help the DNC and their confiscation plans. The MSM and DNC have spewed so much propaganda against the NRA that most discount them totally when they could do more than any other org. to keep children safer.
        Have you ever been to the NRA website?
        And sorry, they will not condone laws that step on peoples rights.

      3. You obviously don’t know anything about the NRA. You say the NRA should step up and do something about gun safety and education. The NRA’s main mission and a great deal of the money they spend is just on those very issues of safety and education. The NRA has taken a realistic approach to prevent school shooting by making hardening the school and having a armed presence at the school. You are not going to stop somebody with more laws and no gun signs on the door. If a person is willing to kill what does he care about a anti-gun law?

        What Sandy Hook advocates are doing is nothing more then window dressing. Your correct that in many cases there was somebody that could have reported someone who was going to be a school shooter, but that is not going to prevent a school shooting using your statistic 15% of the times and most of Anti-gun Sandy Hook groups effort and money is being spent more gun control and bans.

        The Democratic Party meaning of gun safety and education is more control and eventually confiscation. I have seen their version of education as practiced by Democratic Party members who are teachers telling their students how owning a gun is bad and that anybody owning a gun should be reported to the police. The Democratic Party candidates use to pretend to be pro-gun, but know the party has gone so far left that many candidates today are proudly shouting their anti-gun stance from the roof tops. What these Democratic Socialist want is to ditch the constitution and basically install a dictatorship. I know there are Democrats out there who say that’s not what they are for, but look at what they say they want. First of all look at their Sanctuary Cities they are openly protecting criminals denying their citizens even their right to protect themselves from these criminals. They don’t want a border and in they have prevented even their police from enforcing the laws to deport and even jail illegals who are criminals. This shows the party doesn’t care about American Citizens because they view American Citizens as unreliable voters for their party. Hence, they are hoping by bringing all these illegals and giving them protection from our laws and putting them on the government welfare programs they will have a more reliable voting block. This has been the Democratic Parties new strategy to control this country.

      4. See if this rings a bell with some of you older folks.When I was in school,in hunting season there was always a shotgun or 22 in back window in school parking lot.As matter of fact there could be several at times.Nothing was said an nothing happened.Most all the country boys had knifes on their side or in their pockets.Nothing was said an nothing happened.So what could have changed in 40 an change years? It’s called liberal democrat communist simple. They took God out of the schools,no pledge of allegiance,no respect for nothing. Kids these days have no respect for their parents,which some of them are not worth respecting.There are no democrats anymore, they are full fledged communist

      5. Ron,
        Look around sir, at this point there approx 21,000 gun laws and restrictions. There were plenty of sensable (and not so) laws that are on the books to have stoped the Florida school and Texas church shooting 40 x’s over, they are not enforced. The left is not interested in solving a problem, they just want the guns. This has been the demise of every free nation since beginning of time, disarm the populous. The reason to study history is solely not to make the same mistakes. Disprove either of these and I’ll follow you. The problem is you can’t because these are not arguments, these are In disputable facts.

        As for your comments in the NRA, and them not being interested in safety, that is their basis. They have trained more individuals and police than any other civilian organization. They have had a child safety program for at least the last 35 to 40 years, I know of. But because they are the NRA most liberal schools will not allow them in. Look up the Eddie Eagle NRA program. See if you see a hint of pro gun propaganda in the program. It is pure child safety but the Left does not care they just don’t want an NRA solution to anything.

        Go ahead, unless you are afraid of the findings, do some honest research!

      6. @Ron, Your words sound as they come right from the liberal universities of this Nation who teach their students to hate the NRA. Since it’s founding, the NRA has raised money to teach firearm safety education. People who support private citizens right to own firearms for their own personal use, know full well the NRA has lobbied long and hard to defend the 2nd Amendment, to educate the population about the need for them to vote for it’s support. The reason why the NRA seems so abrasive and negative to you is because it does not fit the narrative of the liberal left’s view of how the world should see gun control. Your view of gun control and regulation is just another soft attempt to dismantle the 2nd Amendment. Your reference to Sandy Hook is an emotional reminder that we have been guilty of sending our children into unprotected environments and that unstable people can get their hands on firearms when they should not be able to. Every gun free zone, every attempt at developing a mechanism for gun control will not keep everyone safe. It is the liberal craze to take control of every part of our lives that makes us unsafe.

      7. Background checks simply do not work. There are too many ways for criminals to bypass them. In Chicago (which has until recently had complete prohibition of gun sales for decades) the recover 24 illegal guns every day. Not one of those was involved in a background check.

        Very few gun owners support “Universal Background Checks” because they know that the only way to accomplish this is to implement full national registration of firearms. Any other scheme will continue to support background check free firearms acquisition by criminals. Even if fully implemented, criminals will still acquire firearms through illegal transactions and thefts, increasing crime.

        The fact is that every gun registration scheme has only one goal, and that is complete confiscation of firearms from civilian hands.

        The best path for Democrats is to acknowledge that the world is full of people that would violently attack others in spite of their progressive support programs, and that they should support the right of self defense with the most effective tools available and in common usage. Every one of the Democrat anti gun owner schemes has always failed in every jurisdiction it was enacted in.

      8. Ron,
        “Background checks for all.” Oh, you mean a universal gun registration…step #1 used by every nation who confiscated guns…Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia to start.

        Think about how many abuses the government has committed recently. Listening in on American phone calls, when the law specifically prohibits CONUS surveillance without a warrant. Obtaining a warrant using political party bought and paid for information to spy on an opponent. Pushing illegal guns to Mexico resulting in the deaths of Mexicans and a US border patrol agent. Need I go on?

        So, you wish to convince me that any universal list of all guns in the US won’t be misused? What happens when the list is leaked and George Soros sends his “Code Pink” goons after specific gun owners? Can you live with paid protesters like the ones who went after Senator Flake or other Senators in your face 24×7 because you are a gun owner? “LOOK at ME, RON, Don’t look away…I’m a VICTIM of GUN violence. You own guns you disrespect me and my sisters who are gun violence VICTIMS!!!!!”

        Sound familiar?

        Others have already addressed your NRA comments so I won’t. Universal background checks are dumb. The govt already has too much information on its citizens.

      9. Ron. It is obvious you don’t know a thing about the NRA. If you had a speck of knowledge about the NRA you would know that gun safety and education are foremost in their doctrine. Espcially as they relate to children. Why would they pursue any other objective? To do so would, in a sense, undermine their purposes/reasons for existing.
        May I suggest you check out the NRA Eddie Eagle Program. Name one, just one educational program any of Soros groups holds to that measure up to Eddie Eagle! I’m listening and I can only hear crickets…….
        As President Lincoln so well stated “A house divided against it self can not stand.”

      10. In pretty much every state where shall-issue carry permits are a thing, having an NRA-certified instructor teach you the ins-and-outs of gun safety satisfies the educational requirement to get your permit.

        Your issue is that you are conflating the NRA with the NRA-ILA. The NRA-ILA is the “mouth” of the organization. The plain old NRA is the gun safety and education division and has been as such for well over a century.

        Unfortunately education doesn’t get much airtime, so most people think the NRA is Uncle Wayne, Ted Nugent, and Dana Loesch.

        So yeah, the NRA supports gun safety and education. As a matter of fact, they are the ones who documented and collected all the best practices for firearms handling. Most firearms ranges will not let you work in the range bays itself unless you are NRA-certified.

    17. I know several pro-gun democrats. They are actually very good and well-intentioned people who just happen not to agree 100% with the politics of the right in terms of economy and social welfare, but still hold dear the right to keep and bear arms.

      America is the land of freedom, and that includes political freedom. Pro-gun democrats more often than not fail to realize that the party they vote has a very anti-liberty agenda, but they are not ill-intentioned. And I think dialogue, and not division, is the key to reroute their vote towards more rational positions, in a way that could potentially force the democrats themselves as a party to rethink their line.

      1. @PT, I think that you have described a potentiality, but not real people. You think that you will not be caught by constructing the “moderate democrat” hypothetical. The democrat national-socialist committee drove out their moderates long ago. They even drove out such liberal-light politicians as Joe Liberman, which evidences the dnc’s intolerance. The dnc has no “… very good and well-intentioned people who just happen not to agree 100% with the politics of the right in terms of economy and social welfare, but still hold dear the right to keep and bear arms.”

      2. @Pierangelo Tendas; I agree with you completely. I think we often miss an opportunity to engage and possibly enlighten many on the left because we feel so threatened. Yes, the threat is real and yes we need to defend our 2A rights without cease but I often read vociferous responses to what seem to me to be a genuine interest in dialogue. Personally, I get to experience that the other way around. I am a minister in a fairly liberal denomination. I am also a 2A advocate that carries daily and has a robust security program for our church so I know what it feels like to attempt to engage in a dialogue with folk who just won’t do so. I know for example that when the left says they would like to make sure people who shouldn’t have guns don’t get them, what they are experiencing is a visceral reaction that isn’t far from the way we also feel about the same issue .The problem there is, they haven’t thought it through any further than that. When I ask them if they think every person in the country should have a mental health screening and if so who should to it, they recoil. As we talk about it, they begin to see the issue in a new light but it is difficult getting people with diverse opinions to truly listen to one another now days and it doesn’t seem to be getting better. Some of us will keep trying though, thanks for reminding us it’s worth the effort because the alternatives aren’t good.

      3. Perangelo Tendas.
        As I just said in respnse to Ron’s post, ‘President Lincoln summed it up well’ when he said “A house divided against it self can not stand “

      4. As do I. However, I consider them “confused”. To me, the Second Amendment is important enough to sideline pretty much every other issue. Why?

        Because for whatever reason, it’s ten times harder to claw back gun rights than anything else. If there were a mystical 2A-absolutist who liked universal healthcare running for office, I’d vote for him. And I don’t like universal healthcare. I can count on him to vote for guns down the line, and maybe we can have a discussion about healthcare later and reach a fair compromise. With 2A, there can be no compromise. We have done too much of that already.

    Leave a Comment 66 Comments

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