Look back since the 2016 election

We had a rather pro-gun legislature and president elected, with a single party controlling the House and Senate for 2 years. Why was there no pro-gun legislation of significance passed?

Click to expand...

They must have remembered how Bush #2 was elected and re-elected without doing anything. After the AWB we gave them an (R) POTUS, House and Senate, then they just let it sunset, nothing proactive.

It’s no longer what they do to protect our rights but what ones they take.

Trump took away bumpstocks and Reagan shut down the registry. It’s not if your rights will be eroded but how long until they are gone.

They just mention that “they” want to take your guns to get you off the couch. They know your not going to vote for a (D) because everyone knows they don’t want you to have them.

They have been proactive on abortion and regressive on firearms. I take that as telling me my vote doesn’t count as much as one that might cross party lines. I personally think it’s a bad decision, then again if I had a nickel every time a politician made a bad decision, I’d be set. Put lots of them together and it just gets worse.

IBTL I have a feeling that gun owners got complacent, thinking they had it made, and didn't send letters, emails, and calls to their elected officials, reminding them what was expected of them.

I think it is more the fact that the Republicans have other issues they care more about than our gun rights. It seems like there has been something anti-abortion in the news every week yet very little for gun rights the whole time. They are most certainly better than the Democrats, but we aren't their first concern... or second.. or third.

There is a saying that “All politics are local.”

Gun owners are deeply divided on gun laws. Read the comments that are posted on THR and you will see there is support for restrictive gun laws and bans.

HPA and national CCW were never going to happen and didn't. The GOP has learned that it need only use the right rhetoric leading up to elections to get the votes of gun owners. Once those elections are over it can go ahead and do nothing, or be anti-gun like the current administration and many gun owners will continue to be die-hard supporters.

This legislative isn’t pro-gun at all. All politicians are anti-gun, full stop. But they will say anything to get ya vote.

I haven't seen any either Democratic or Republication.polls that name gun rights as a top concern for voters

Support of gun rights is a litmus test for me to vote for a candidate but not on my most important list of things they should be working on.

I cannot get twisted around the axle with bump stocks and thought from the first time I saw one in action that they were trouble for us.

We are supposed to be getting Conservative Judges appointed that should support gun rights and the 2nd. Amendment. I hope that is actually true.

jmorris said:

They must have remembered how Bush #2 was elected and re-elected without doing anything. After the AWB we gave them an (R) POTUS, House and Senate, then they just let it sunset, nothing proactive.

It’s no longer what they do to protect our rights but what ones they take.

Trump took away bumpstocks and Reagan shut down the registry. It’s not if your rights will be eroded but how long until they are gone.

They just mention that “they” want to take your guns to get you off the couch. They know your not going to vote for a (D) because everyone knows they don’t want you to have them.

They have been proactive on abortion and regressive on firearms. I take that as telling me my vote doesn’t count as much as one that might cross party lines. I personally think it’s a bad decision, then again if I had a nickel every time a politician made a bad decision, I’d be set. Put lots of them together and it just gets worse.

Click to expand...

To the point.

BSA1 said:

Gun owners are deeply divided on gun laws. Read the comments that are posted on THR and you will see there is support for restrictive gun laws and bans.

Click to expand...

Very true. The "as long as I have what I want / or what I think is appropriate, I'm ok" attitude.

Middletown said:

I cannot get twisted around the axle with bump stocks and thought from the first time I saw one in action that they were trouble for us.

Click to expand...

Another "canary in the coal mine," for gun rights. We keep letting them take guns/accessories away that meet their requirements then we should be scared. Bumpstocks were "only trouble for us," because there is now universal gun owner outrage over the banning of an accessory that meets the standards of the law set up.

Not trying to be hard on you @Middletown, I agree when bumpstocks and binary triggers came out, I said to myself, "this will be a contentious accessory," but how else do we carve out more freedoms? I get that we must push back on legislation, vote in pro-2A candidates, but at the same time we must fight the battle of innovation as well.

Not trying to be hard on you @Middletown, I agree when bumpstocks and binary triggers came out, I said to myself, "this will be a contentious accessory," but how else do we carve out more freedoms? I get that we must push back on legislation, vote in pro-2A candidates, but at the same time we must fight the battle of innovation as well.

Click to expand...

You're not being hard on me. I am far from a snowflake that melts at the first sign of heat. I did not support the banning of them but they have no appeal for me. The younger people I saw playing with them were having a blast.

I would support re-opening the Machine Guns Registry. This would create good manufacturing jobs but not going to happen with the Dem's in control of the house. I am smiling on the inside at the thought of their reaction if Republications tried to pass legislation that did this.

IlikeSA said:

Why was there no pro-gun legislation of significance passed?

Click to expand...

It's about lip service. The Republican party controlled the white house and both houses of congress from 2003-2007. They did a net nothing for US gunowners.

There is no such thing as a pro-gun politician, granted some may be less anti-gun than others but boiled down they all are anti-gun to a degree.

Another "canary in the coal mine," for gun rights. We keep letting them take guns/accessories away that meet their requirements then we should be scared. Bumpstocks were "only trouble for us,"...

Click to expand...

Yes, no new laws were enacted yet they became illegal. That, is trouble for us.

I guess, when I said everybody knows a Democrat’s want all guns gone but I concede there are a handful of gun owners that would still vote for Biden because he is a proponent of break open shotguns too...

BSA1: True. Let's get down to the nitty gritty.
The "FUDDs" only care about their specific hobby or hunting guns. Only a very narrow part of the Second Amendment matters to them. S***w everybody else, is their totally selfish view.

They don't want to spend any of Their precious political "capital" on preventing further restrictions on mag capacities or allowing unrestricted normal private sales etc to continue. A neighborhood buddy we see now and then is a retired US Army Lt.Col. His main news source is MSNBC (I don't understand at all--and I never discuss politics). After the Lakeland FL propaganda, he voiced....Echoed..... the common, mindless opinion "Why does anybody need an AR-15"? ***And he owned one*** (still does-a crappy ATI which barely functions out of the box).

The FUDDS basically enable that "other" main party to deceive the US public into believing that Any future restrictions would take a bite out of crime. The FUDDS also Ignore the fact that every major school mass shooting took place because the shooter was given a gun, or was able to grab/steal a gun by circumventing the laws. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of killers had been prescribed some very unique pharmaceuticals for their mental conditions.

I'm staying with the Republican vote. Go the other way and you'll be worse off. Lesser of two evils I guess.

President Trump would probably sign any pro gun/2nd Amendment legislation that came across his desk but he is probably not going to lead the effort to get it there. Senator Cornyn tried to get some legislation passed I think in 2017 that was probably a win for us in the long run,or at least that is what I remember thinking about it at the time. I don't think he was able to get it past the Senate Filibuster.

As long as those of us that support gun rights only have one option and that is to vote Republican we are probably not going to get anything major. I wish it was different but the reality is I am going to vote and I am not going to vote for any candidate that does not support the 2nd. Amendment. For National elections only having one option or not voting on that ballot is not good for America.

Ignition Override said:

The "FUDDs" only care about their specific hobby or hunting guns. Only a very narrow part of the Second Amendment matters to them. S***w everybody else, is their totally selfish view.

Click to expand...

"Fudd" is not an acronym. It refers to Elmer Fudd, the cartoon character hapless hunter who is always trying, and failing, to catch Bugs Bunny. The first name "Elmer" is said to have come from Elmer Keith.

"FUDD," as a acronym, refers to "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, and Despair." It's a disinformation strategy used in public relations and propaganda. It seems to me that FUDD is being used very effectively by the antigunners.

Walkalong said:

Surrounded by the usual; suspects of course, Joe, Nancy, Diane....

Click to expand...

Pelosi and Feinstein are plutocrats. (Just look at their individual net worths.) At their core, they're not really leftists. Gun control is an easy way for them to establish their bona fides with the Left of their party. Biden is the same way, but he's a little better at hiding his net worth.

P5 Guy said:

There is no such thing as a pro-gun politician, granted some may be less anti-gun than others but boiled down they all are anti-gun to a degree.

Click to expand...

This. As I stated in a thread recently, a local republican rep in our county was a frequent patron of my LGS and he bought all kinds of guns, ammo, gear, etc... and expressed his pro gun views and portrayed a solid advocate for gun rights and such but when it came to voting he was "for" the new gun control measures recently passed in VT. A state with very lil crime, violence, shootings, etc...

He has not shown his face in the shop since the vote took place. I think ones own beliefs are practically irrelevant when in politics. It seems to be about joining a clique and sharing an objective and proving yourself useful in these tasks for future accolades, promotion, money, etc...

People, especially politicians are willing to sacrifice alot more than their principles to move up the chain...

AlexanderA said:

"Fudd" is not an acronym. It refers to Elmer Fudd, the cartoon character hapless hunter who is always trying, and failing, to catch Bugs Bunny. The first name "Elmer" is said to have come from Elmer Keith

Click to expand...

Yeppers, that's right. I kinda doubt the first name "Elmer" in the Bugs/ Elmer cartoons came from Elmer Keith though. Elmer Fudd first appeared in cartoons in 1940 - long before very many people had ever heard of Elmer Keith.
We've been in kind of a "drought" for a few years as far as the rabbit population around here goes. But back when our Cocker Spaniel (Ruger) was young, we often called him "Elmer Fudd" because those "wascally wabbits" drove him nuts. He never did catch one.

IlikeSA said:

We had a rather pro-gun legislature and president elected, with a single party controlling the House and Senate for 2 years. Why was there no pro-gun legislation of significance passed?

In particular, the hearing protection act and the forced recognition of conceal carry permits. I am not wishing this thread to devolve into whether or not the forced recognition of CCW permits is good or bad, but why the federal government did not move on these issues, or others related to them.

Click to expand...

badkarmamib said:

IBTL I have a feeling that gun owners got complacent, thinking they had it made, and didn't send letters, emails, and calls to their elected officials, reminding them what was expected of them.

Click to expand...

Walkalong said:

Way too much of that here where I would expect less of that.

Remember, one of the anti's biggest tactics is divide and conquer. I see otherwise pro gun people vote for anti politicians because of other concerns and they just hope they don't do anything with guns they can't live with, just hoping the votes are not there, but remember, when we lose, it is always very close, like 1 or 2 votes.

Click to expand...

alsaqr said:

It's about lip service. The Republican party controlled the white house and both houses of congress from 2003-2007. They did a net nothing for US gunowners.

Click to expand...

You need a 60+ vote majority in the Senate to get anything through. I'm sure y'all know this, it's even harder if you have to make up for 2-3 fake conservatives:

And, you might wonder why there's a 60-vote rule in the Senate, when it just takes a straight majority in the House to pass a bill. The answer is that that's what the Founders intended. The Senate was designed to be the "cooling saucer," where the two parties were forced to work together. That 60-vote threshold ensures that in order to pass legislation, the majority party needs to get some buy-in from the minority.

Click to expand...

Why is a simple majority usually not enough to pass a bill in the Senate?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-is...ally-not-enough-to-pass-a-bill-in-the-senate/

So, instead of back-biting and wringing our hands, how about we all work together to get that majority ?