Trunk Monkey
member
Okay I understand what you're saying but every single one of those candidates was quoted in reference to their stance on the NRA. So how do you discuss the candidates without discussing the NRA?
2020 Candidates VS. Gun Rights
- Thread starter SharpDog
- Start date
- Status
Okay I understand what you're saying but every single one of those candidates was quoted in reference to their stance on the NRA. So how do you discuss the candidates without discussing the NRA?
Trunk Monkey
member
Tommygunn
Member
Given what's being proposed by the Democrat candidate, "armageddon" is a ... purely subjective term. Bans on semiautos are bad, but it simply isn't going to stop there.
Congressman Eric Swalwell wants an actual CONFISCATION of assault weapons. He inferred the use of nukes on social media. And yes, he walked it back, and certainly no one is going to actually nuke Americans.
BUT MINDLESS EXCLAMATIONS LIKE THAT SHOW THE TRUE MINDSET OF THOSE WHO MAKE THEM.
Swalwell will be back for more, joined by Pelosi, Schumer, AOC, and all these other Democrat contenders.
This pretty much started in the early 1930s.
It is not going away.
Armageddon ..... one small bite at a time ....
AlexanderA
Member
Some would. The political reality is that this is impossible, on the federal level, for the foreseeable future.
I said personal feelings were outside the scope. We can still talk about why they are attacking the NRA. The NRA is almost radioactive these days and I'm just trying to keep this thread from getting locked before we can have a meaningful discussion. I know I have put a lot of constraint on the conversation, but unfortunately I have to.
Tommygunn
Member
AlexanderA
Member
Political clout comes from being a large voting group that can swing both ways. Politicians listen when they find themselves in a bidding war for votes. If a voting group (gun owners in this case) becomes an arm of a political party, it is taken for granted and has no clout. This is exactly what we're seeing with gun owners and Republicans.
AlexanderA
Member
Swalwell is an outlier in this. He's the only one who has made guns the centerpiece of his campaign. His polling is not even a blip in the Real Clear Politics averages. Nobody takes him seriously, except for the fearmongers on the pro-gun side.
Tommygunn
Member
I never said otherwise. The point is, the agenda. He's part of what drives it. Ignore Swalwell ..... fine.
BUT DON'T IGNORE PEOPLE LIKE HIM.
newfalguy101
Member
The actual fact is the Democrat party can NOT repeal the 2nd amendment, no matter how much they might want to.
In my opinion, there is more of an issue with state laws than with the feds....the feds cant get out of their own way long enough to accomplish, well....anything.
Trunk Monkey
member
TomJ
Contributing Member
I understand that they can't do so. My point is that they would if they could. The Republicans wouldn't. I have issues with the Republican party, so I'm not saying they don't have problems, however when it comes to our 2A rights I'm much more comfortable with them than the Dems. What's currently happening in Illinois, where the Dems have complete control speaks volumes to their intentions. While they can't do away with the 2A they're making gun ownership as expensive and difficult as possible, which is their attempt at an end around the 2A.
I don't regard that as a trivial matter at all.
Not sure if I'm allowed to respond given @Robert 's admonishment above. If given the green light I'd be happy to engage on it. It's always confused me why this forum only allows talking about anti-gun organizations that are affiliated with Democrats, but I fully recognize it's not my house.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I'm sorry but it's not about me getting to keep my guns or to be able to buy them in the future. It's not about abortion, healthcare, the economy or the environment. It's MUCH bigger than that. We are at war for the future of the American way of life. For the future these five idiots want is not the United States of America but a socialist utopia.....hellhole, where liberty and our Constitution as it stands today does not exist.
BSA1
member
Shotgun Joe has stated his position very clearly;
"I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,'" Biden said.
"You don't need an AR-15—it's harder to aim," he added, "it's harder to use, and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!"
Baloney.
You are trying awful hard to convince us that your party is not about severely restricting our gun rights and banning guns.
If the Democrats win the Presidency they only need three votes in the Senate to pass whatever gun control laws they want. (The V.P. votes in case of a tie). If they don't get those seats by flipping them there will be three RINOs (or more) that will.
The citizens of the USA are in conflict with the extremes of both parties that have significant anti-personal liberty factions. The control of sexuality with a self-proclaimed divine mandate vs. control of firearms to reduce gun violence without an appreciation of the need for self-defense and defense against tyranny.
Both sides are wrong in their world views. Neither set of zealots will appreciate the other's defense of personal choice and liberty. Both sides use emotional arguments not backed by research or logic. Each side will proclaim that their tyranny on these issues of personal liberty is so important that you cannot consider the other in your voting choice.
Thus, both sides of this divide are full of crap. Don't control sexuality. If you don't like it, don't do it. If you don't want a gun, don't get one. If you think your opinion is divinely, naturally, constitutionally correct such that you can infringe on personal liberty, you are not helping if you cannot take the other's viewpoint and realize for the good of the country, these social battles are just being used by elites to hoodwink you to keeping the monied in power while you fret. Accept personal liberty decisions as paramount and stop trying to be a tyrant of your own little tribal cause.
Keep Pence in control of the crotches of America and Schumer in control of the contents your holsters and rifle racks. No thank you.
Unfortunately, few will realize that this is the situation and will just rant on social media and the deadlock continues. BUT SEND A CHECK!
Both sides are wrong in their world views. Neither set of zealots will appreciate the other's defense of personal choice and liberty. Both sides use emotional arguments not backed by research or logic. Each side will proclaim that their tyranny on these issues of personal liberty is so important that you cannot consider the other in your voting choice.
Thus, both sides of this divide are full of crap. Don't control sexuality. If you don't like it, don't do it. If you don't want a gun, don't get one. If you think your opinion is divinely, naturally, constitutionally correct such that you can infringe on personal liberty, you are not helping if you cannot take the other's viewpoint and realize for the good of the country, these social battles are just being used by elites to hoodwink you to keeping the monied in power while you fret. Accept personal liberty decisions as paramount and stop trying to be a tyrant of your own little tribal cause.
Keep Pence in control of the crotches of America and Schumer in control of the contents your holsters and rifle racks. No thank you.
Unfortunately, few will realize that this is the situation and will just rant on social media and the deadlock continues. BUT SEND A CHECK!
AlexanderA
Member
No, they would need 60 votes to quash the inevitable filibuster. No way they would get 60 votes, given that even the Democratic caucus is not united on this.
TomJ
Contributing Member
In their own words... The extent to which they lie to promote their agenda is amazing.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...oo-easy-to-buy-machine-guns-online-in-the-us/
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...oo-easy-to-buy-machine-guns-online-in-the-us/
BSA1
member
So your position is none of the Democrat candidates are really anti-gun and are just playing to the media and low information voters. You also state that a Democrat controlled Congress and Democrat President will not enact any anti-gun laws.
So you are claiming that Kalama Harris is making a empty promise when she says she will take executive action if Congress does not take serious action on gun control within her first 100 days in office?
Oh the filibuster. I guess you missed McConnell using the "nuclear option" to end previous debates.
Like I said you are trying awful hard...
p.s. Banning the commercial sale of semi-auto firearms is a big deal to me also.
Last edited:
LiveLife
Member
When should you take the threat of mountain lion against your chickens?
If you are serious about keeping your chickens, correct answer is at the earliest warning sign of seeing tracks around your property.
So, when should we take threats of gun ban seriously?
It's been many decades and anti-gun/2A crowd has gotten worse and worse to the point of going public with gun ban agenda and 2020 Democrat presidential candidates are making threats!!!
We cannot waste anymore time and we must take action now or rest of country will end up like CA and NY.
What's the point of arguing about what color to paint the chicken coop when mountain lion will take all of your chickens?
Vote wisely in 2020.
Talking about NRA is like talking about color of chicken coop when you are threatened to lose your chickens. Get your priorities straight folks!!!
If you cannot see this simple ananology, you got issues.
- When you see mountain lion paw prints around your property?
- When you see mountain lion walking around your property?
- When you see mountain lion walking around the chicken coop?
- When you see chicken in mountain lion's mouth?
- After all of your chickens are taken by mountain lion?
If you are serious about keeping your chickens, correct answer is at the earliest warning sign of seeing tracks around your property.
So, when should we take threats of gun ban seriously?
It's been many decades and anti-gun/2A crowd has gotten worse and worse to the point of going public with gun ban agenda and 2020 Democrat presidential candidates are making threats!!!
We cannot waste anymore time and we must take action now or rest of country will end up like CA and NY.
What's the point of arguing about what color to paint the chicken coop when mountain lion will take all of your chickens?
Vote wisely in 2020.
Talking about NRA is like talking about color of chicken coop when you are threatened to lose your chickens. Get your priorities straight folks!!!
If you cannot see this simple ananology, you got issues.
Last edited:
Are we circling back to one issue politics again? That's a waste of breath. We get that some support the 2nd Amend. over everything else. One could easily say do want the rest of the country to end up like Louisiana or Alabama? Get my point?
If that's where this thread is going, it's repetitive and time for a close. Fighting the socialist wave is going to shut this also. If we want to discuss the gun politics of certain candidates, factually, we can continue. Sorry, if I took us off course, but the one issue mantra is getting so old and virtue signaling is getting so old.
If that's where this thread is going, it's repetitive and time for a close. Fighting the socialist wave is going to shut this also. If we want to discuss the gun politics of certain candidates, factually, we can continue. Sorry, if I took us off course, but the one issue mantra is getting so old and virtue signaling is getting so old.
LiveLife
Member
With SCOTUS appointments at stake and many gun right/2A cases looming, gun rights/2A became my highest priority for 2020.
Of course, many others don't hold the same opinion as me.
But by God, I am going to DO SOMETHING in 2020 and that is vote for the presidential candidate who will best address the SCOTUS issue.
Of course, many others don't hold the same opinion as me.
But by God, I am going to DO SOMETHING in 2020 and that is vote for the presidential candidate who will best address the SCOTUS issue.
AlexanderA
Member
The degree to which the Democratic candidates are antigun is not important. What's important is the degree to which the Democratic base is antigun. The candidates are politicians, and they will respond to what they perceive the base wants. Right now, the antigun message appears to be resonating among Democratic primary voters. It's not among the top issues, but it's resonating. That calculus will change as we get closer to the general election.
I'm not saying that the Democrats will not enact gun laws. I am saying that the Democrats cannot enact gun laws, given the makeup of the Senate.
I studied Kamala Harris' 3-point gun program. It's a big nothingburger. She would halt imports of AR-15's. So what? Hardly any AR-15's are imported. The rest of her program basically restates current law. The idea that people selling more than 5 guns a year would have to get FFL's might actually be a good thing, because it might mean that kitchen table FFL's would once again be available without regard to things like local zoning ordinances. That alone has the potential of blowing open the whole industry. (She obviously hasn't thought through the implications, opting instead for the cheap sound bite.)
That applies only to judicial nominations. Assuming that the Democrats can flip at least 4 seats in the Senate (because Doug Jones in Alabama is almost sure to lose re-election) -- which in itself is a very tall order -- they would have to hold their caucus together to abolish the filibuster for ordinary legislation. We already know that Bernie Sanders is against this change. So are several other Democrats such as Joe Manchin. Without abolishing the filibuster, it would take 60 votes to enact gun legislation. It isn't going to happen.
It would be to me too, but as I said, this is just a talking point. What's significant about this is that it shows that the candidates (except Swalwell) don't dare talk about confiscation, even to a Democratic audience. They learned the lesson from Hillary Clinton's mistake of mentioning Australian-style turn-ins.
Last edited:
mgmorden
Member
Preaching to the choir here. I doubt any of our membership were thinking of voting the other way
.Unfortunately it's not a military conquest or a tug of war. We can't "vote harder" than the other side. If there's more of them vs us (at least at the polls) then we simply can't vote our way out of it. That's why the bill of rights was supposed to be there to protect against stuff like this but they seem to be willing to ignore it wholesale at this point.
- Status
