12minutes into the latest debate

I like more and more the friendly face of the shooting community. Join us, don't prejudge us. It's a fun outdoor sport. Fun, safe hobby. Women and people from all backgrounds, there is no exclusion. Look at the one party trying to deny access to a right.

And, just in time, here are the "they can't do anything" apologists.

Surely sir, you are not referring to me.

Surely sir, you are not referring to me.

Click to expand...

No grimjaw, not you. I was commenting on a theme, and just so happened to post under you.

I'm not sure I really understand why any pro-2A individual would be looking for a "safe" choice among Democrat candidates. The Dem party itself has become a vehemently anti-gun political movement. The party's strength lies in the big cities (almost all Democrat dominated in the mayor and city council positions) and the African American community (this group is the one that suffers the most from gun violence, but over the last few generations has become the most dependent upon government, so they look to the government through gun control to keep them safe. The reality that it fails miserably to do so only seems to make the black community more committed to the Democrats for their promises of ridding the community of firearms).

If JFK were alive today, he would surely be a Republican. So if you want to preserve our 2A rights you have only one choice, supporting the Republican candidate.

And while I continue to try to get my anti-gun relatives and friends to open their minds to facts and logic, I do understand that for most this is a strictly emotionally driven issue. If you grow up in an environment where there are no guns in your home, no one you know owns or shoots guns, your schools and physicians and local leaders all tout the same anti-gun message of "guns bad, gun control good", facts make little difference. It is almost like a religious faith, i.e., if we could just make all guns illegal then violence and crime would disappear. Faith is not based upon facts, but by definition is an irrational belief.

A final note: if a candidate expressed that their ultimate goal was to take away all of your property, and then backpedaled and said they only want a small piece of it as a "common sense" solution to a problem, why would you even consider making this small concession? You know that they are only trying to move toward their true and ultimate goal, so why let them keep advancing the starting line? The same is true on gun control. We do know that the Democrats would like to have a total ban on the private ownership of firearms, followed by a confiscation process such as was used in Australia. When I hear a Democrat state that pro-gun people are the party of "no" because we won't agree to what are called common sense gun laws, or "gun safely" laws, etc. we need to ignore their pleas and hold firm. Think about other societies where the pro-gun people agreed to the "common sense" idea of gun registration, merely to keep guns out of the "wrong hands", but then followed later by actual confiscation. A vote for any Democrat is a vote for ultimate loss of all of our gun rights.

I'm not sure I really understand why any pro-2A individual would be looking for a "safe" choice among Democrat candidates.

Donald Trump.

I consider Trump unfit for the office of POTUS, regardless of his success in other fields or his position on the 2A. I'd rather have more of the Bush dynasty than Trump. I'd almost rather have Sanders than Trump. Yet here we are with Trump among the leading Republican candidates.

I don't want this thread to veer off topic, but that's why I pay a little more attention to Democrat candidate positions. It doesn't mean I'm ideologically supportive of the Democrat party platform.

lol, all this thread is, is off topic. You can't spend the post talking about specific Presidential candidates without being out of bounds for THR topics.

Working in a sporting goods store on the weekends I have seen a major change over the last 10 years in folks on the issue of guns, their general attitudes and political views.

When I first started at the store our clientele was pretty much 95% men that where big game hunters with a small percentage of them into federal gun related politics with most of the others only worried about fish and game regulations and our big sellers where the Ruger M77 rifles and the Ruger black hawks revolvers, well not any more.

From 2008 to 2012 general attitudes and political views towards guns moved into the AR and AK type rifles for both hunting and personal security and pretty much any polymer double stack pistols. Yes many folks bought ARs to get one because they thought they would get banned and would no longer be available.

During this time is when the shift in folk’s attitudes really got into politics and the 2A and with the decision of the Heller case people became more vocal at least where I live. The amount of female gun owners started to climb.

2012 until now folks are very political and not only voice their views but want to talk about them when they come into the shop. They read the articles in the news about guns and most of the articles now days seem to be anti gun and how some antis are pushing an Australia type buy back and then they read how the economy is doing so well yet most have a number of friends/family out of work or working two jobs to make the same money they did in just one a few years back so they are worried about who gets into office next.

They want to understand the gun laws and how any changes being proposed are going to affect their right to own and use their firearms not only now but in the future. Now days I process about 35% of the 4473s using a concealed carry permit rather than the NICS and we are catering to 35 to 40% women looking for concealed carry guns and they are in the process of getting their concealed carry permit rather than the hunting crowd. They are following the debates like I have never seen before and have very strong views.

Still the top selling guns are AR15/10 for both hunting and personal security but the shift in hand guns are moving towards the smaller concealed carry guns vs the large double stack from a year or two ago but hand guns still out sell rifles 3 to 1.

Most of the new gun owners understand that at this point in time they could not take our guns but what they are concerned about is any policies put in place now then added to what the next president like a Hillary or a Sanders might get put in place could make it so say the President a couple terms from now could take them away from us and our kids or restrict it so badly it is pretty much a ban.

Yes some might consider this be a stretch, but is it?

If we as gun owners do not stay on top of the issue no matter what platform of gun we use like the hand gun, AR, AK, Bolt, Lever or pump or what we use it for like Hunting, target or personal defense we as a group need to keep spreading the word that firearms are used in a safe manner so much more than they are not and that even if you are not a one issue voter if you want to keep this right it needs to be near the a top or it could go away in the future.

Well all I learned was my AR is no longer just a military weapon (not that it was in the first place), it is now a "combat assault weapon"

R.W.Dale said:

And the democratic candidates are trying to outdo each other about who stands in opposition to 2a issues the most.

12minutes

The republicans may not always be our best allies but the days of supporting the Democratic Party on the auspicious that "your guy" isn't part of the problem are OVER. I've watched every election intently since coming of age in the late 90's and never can I recall the anti gun rhetoric being so PROUDLY flaunted.

Click to expand...

At least they leave no doubt as to their anti-2A position. Now they can't reasonably retract it when it becomes advantageous to suddenly become pro-2A.

I'm not sure I really understand why any pro-2A individual would be looking for a "safe" choice among Democrat candidates.

Click to expand...

Vote in the Primary for the safer opposition incase your party loses the general election.

As far as overturning the gun maker immunity law, not going to happen. Federal statutes are extremely hard to overturn. I'd wager that there are enough Southern and Western Democrats that would never vote for it, it wouldn't stand a chance.

"Combat Assault Weapon" is hilarious.

By the time Hillary could get an AWB implemented, the gun makers would probably sell 10million of them, so what have they accomplished?

I am not a one issue voter. HOWEVER, I see gun-rights is a "looking glass" into how a politician sees their role as a public servant.

Click to expand...

I'm a one issue voter, if you consider the US Constitution one issue.

The amount of respect that a person shows the 2nd Amendment is usually a good indicater of how much respect they have for the rest of the document.

The amount of respect that a person shows the 2nd Amendment is usually a good indicator of how much respect they have for the rest of the document.

Click to expand...

We certainly do say that a lot.

Because of our site's very tight scope of discussion, we are not going to debate the rest of the Constitution or any candidate's views on it here.

However, I would encourage everyone to look very hard at the political, legislative, executive, actions you've observed over the course of your lifetime and make absolutely sure that you actually BELIEVE this -- really really believe it to be true -- before you repeat it to anyone, going forward.

(And certainly before you use it as a gun-control debating point. Pretty easy to get embarrassed on a claim like that, by an opponent who knows what they're talking about.)

Tirod said:

Any panic will be uncalled for. But I believe the gun shooting public is settling down now and accepting the Dems word for things - they are openly and rabidly anti gun.



But what can they do about it? Nada. While some say that the potential is worse than ever, the reality is that restrictions on firearms have been dialed back more than ever.



Let's not forget a significant fact: this is all pre election campaign rhetoric. It's hot air. Meadow muffins. The current administration promised to close GTMO and pull us out of the Mid East, hasn't happened. Despite all the bluster, threats, and lecturing (OMG the endless lecturing, the man IS a Constitutional lecturer) what did we get? Empty jawboning. Hot air. Talk.



The latest Executive Suggestions aren't even orders. Fears of confiscation are being balanced by objective assessment - "they" can't even attempt to round up all the guns. It would take years. There are more guns in the hands of the people - and ammo - than the military. And the Government can't begin to finance buying them all back. There are 330 million guns - at current "buyback" prices of $100 each that's 33 BILLION dollars. Congress won't vote for it, we won't allow being taxed for the money.



Ask YOUR candidate why they not only want to give you only $100 for your gun but tax you $132 to do it. Please, get your cell phones out, hit the calculator app, and do the math. We either borrow the money from the Chinese to buy them back, or tax ourselves to do it.



Challenge them on the details - where's the money going to come from for National Confiscation? Really?



These debates are excellent for showing how little the candidates actually have thought thru the details of their pet anti gun schemes. If they want to spend $33 Billion to buy back guns - or whatever realistic amount you come up with - then what are they going to cut? And why? Not asking is missing an opportunity to point out how hollow and unthinking they are being.



As for taking our guns away, not even. Two recent incidents locally have highlighted it, in each case a suspect was hiding in a home and considered armed. After talking them out over a 24 hour period, the local PD then gave up trying to find where the guns might be hidden in the attic or crawlspace. It was remarked that it would take too much time and result in the house being dismantled to the point of being uninhabitable.



They can't tear down our homes to find every gun. It's impossible - what are "they" going to do, start at the corner and bulldoze each one, setting them on fire? There would STILL be guns hidden away.



It Ain't Going To Happen.



They are not omnipotent all powerful rulers with extra terrestrial powers and we need to concentrate on fixing more important issues. The anti gun rhetoric is a smoke screen to hide other items on their agenda.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter if you still had guns, they would be useless. When we get to the point of hiding them it's time to either use them or get rid of them.

Warp said:

lol, all this thread is, is off topic. You can't spend the post talking about specific Presidential candidates without being out of bounds for THR topics.

Click to expand...

Before you decide not to vote for someone who is not quite to your liking, consider the implications of not voting.

I am not going to violate THR rules and speak of any current presidential candidates. I will however share the story of how about three years or so ago, Virginia ended up with an anti-gun governor, lt. governor and attorney general. Some "feathers got ruffled" in the primaries, so all Virginians lost gun rights by a few not exercising their right to vote.

Former Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli upset many Republican voters here by “cutting in line” in the traditional Virginia Attorney General (AG) >> LT. Governor >> Governor “career path”. Many Republicans were not happy and did not vote at all; too many in my opinion. So, now we have anti-gun Democrats McAuliffe as governor and Mark Herring as AG by slim margins. It was just 167 votes out of millions cast in the governor’s race. A razor thin margin is better description. Both Virginia state houses are solidly Republican. So, he is on a “somewhat short leash” because of the stalemate.

Possibly emboldened by recent US presidential executive actions, AG Herring made a move to no longer recognize any state that did not have at least the same conceal carry requirements as Virginia. Unless a state had language specially listing a certain disqualification, that state was unilaterally off the list of states whose permits Virginia recognized. An example was a DUI. If a state did not say that their requirements carry excluded those with a DUI, then recognition was revoked. Another was domestic abuse. Even though a domestic abuse conviction may make one federally prohibited, if it was NOT specifically listed as a disqualification, then recognition was revoked.

There were about 25 states that Virginia unilaterally no longer recognizes for for conceal carry permits. About five or so “returned the favor”, by disallowing any state that does not have reciprocal agreements with them. The Virginia AG even ran a TV commercial saying "We are not letting wife beaters, drug abusers and drunks carry a gun in Virginia."

So we have a situation here, where many laws favorable to gun rights make it to the governor’s desk, only to be vetoed. No hope of any override because of the strong base of anti-gun influence in the more urban areas close to DC, Richmond and some of the smaller cities.

Think about what can happen at a federal level by not voting. Then... think about makeup of the Supreme Court.

chuck

Born in 1933 to 1938.
Four of the Supreme Court Justices may need replacing between 2017/2021.
I know who I do not want picking those replacements.

TimSr said:

I'm a one issue voter, if you consider the US Constitution one issue.

The amount of respect that a person shows the 2nd Amendment is usually a good indicater of how much respect they have for the rest of the document.

Click to expand...

Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms is the foundational right of Americans that dictates the terms for the rest of the rights U.S. citizens enjoy!

The Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founding Fathers only to allow us to combat ruffians, hunt rabbits and turkeys to our hearts’ content, or provide the shooting sports with its greatest public relations opportunity.

The principle on which our policy is based, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, recognizes that any government, at any level, can become oppressive of our rights. And we must be prepared to defend ourselves against its abuses. Above all, the Founders added the Second Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights.

steelerdude99 said:

Before you decide not to vote for someone who is not quite to your liking, consider the implications of not voting.

I am not going to violate THR rules and speak of any current presidential candidates. I will however share the story of how about three years or so ago, Virginia ended up with an anti-gun governor, lt. governor and attorney general. Some "feathers got ruffled" in the primaries, so all Virginians lost gun rights by a few not exercising their right to vote.

Former Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli upset many Republican voters here by “cutting in line” in the traditional Virginia Attorney General (AG) >> LT. Governor >> Governor “career path”. Many Republicans were not happy and did not vote at all; too many in my opinion. So, now we have anti-gun Democrats McAuliffe as governor and Mark Herring as AG by slim margins. It was just 167 votes out of millions cast in the governor’s race. A razor thin margin is better description. Both Virginia state houses are solidly Republican. So, he is on a “somewhat short leash” because of the stalemate.

Possibly emboldened by recent US presidential executive actions, AG Herring made a move to no longer recognize any state that did not have at least the same conceal carry requirements as Virginia. Unless a state had language specially listing a certain disqualification, that state was unilaterally off the list of states whose permits Virginia recognized. An example was a DUI. If a state did not say that their requirements carry excluded those with a DUI, then recognition was revoked. Another was domestic abuse. Even though a domestic abuse conviction may make one federally prohibited, if it was NOT specifically listed as a disqualification, then recognition was revoked.

There were about 25 states that Virginia unilaterally no longer recognizes for for conceal carry permits. About five or so “returned the favor”, by disallowing any state that does not have reciprocal agreements with them. The Virginia AG even ran a TV commercial saying "We are not letting wife beaters, drug abusers and drunks carry a gun in Virginia."

So we have a situation here, where many laws favorable to gun rights make it to the governor’s desk, only to be vetoed. No hope of any override because of the strong base of anti-gun influence in the more urban areas close to DC, Richmond and some of the smaller cities.

Think about what can happen at a federal level by not voting. Then... think about makeup of the Supreme Court.

chuck

Click to expand...

All I can add to that is -- yup!

.

If JFK were alive today, he would surely be a Republican.

Click to expand...

Surely not; not now, not in a hundred years.

JFK saw the US federal government primarily as a powerful tool to right all wrongs at home and abroad. This belief has been carried on in his name by LBJ, Bobby and Teddy and various children, nephews, nieces, and grandchildren. It's a form of benevolent paternalism that blossomed into "hope and change" and led us directly to where we are today.

For Ted Cruz to say in New England that Kennedy would be a "Cruz Republican" is just blatant political opportunism and totally laughable.

See this article from The American Conservative:

God help us. If our 35th president—fiscally profligate, contemptuous of civil liberties, and criminally reckless abroad—is a paragon of modern conservatism, conservatism is in even worse shape than I thought.

Click to expand...

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/kennedy-was-no-conservative/

Tinpig

How did we got to the topic of note voting and what does my post have to do with it?

Warp said:

How did we got to the topic of note voting and what does my post have to do with it?

Click to expand...

It's called "Thread Drift".

IMHO, any candidate who threatens our civil liberties has a fundamental misunderstanding about who are the servants and who are the masters, and is completely unfit for office.

JFK ran on tax cuts and fighting communism. Now we have a leading D candidate who is an open socialist and wants 90% tax rates. Tell me again how JFK has anything to do with today's D party?

Plan2Live and fellow pro-Sec. Amendment people:
But will people decide to buy what they really want or need months before the election, or be very complacent as so many were back in '08?

The other question is whether another Democrat in the White House in '16 initially will use most of his/her fresh support ("political capital") primarily on sweeping new anti-gun legislation? They would risk a Pres. veto override, without enough of a reliable majority in Congress, would they not? I don't know how much could be prohibited or changed by drastic Exec. Orders. Future Supreme Court nominees are a serious concern.

My astute gun buddies knew immed. after the '08 election that Obama would need to scrape together almost all of his support, because major new legislation ,"The Afford. Care Act", had already been planned and he could not waste much support on a secondary issue.

OilyPablo said:

We can do a lot. Start by becoming a one issue voter. Study the candidates and vote for the one with the best record and historical statements on guns.

Click to expand...

I have been a one issue voter. But it is not the second amendment issue. It is abortion. As a Christian I believe I will be judged on the last day for voting for any Democrat as long as they support the murder of unborn children. But almost without exception, the same people who are against guns are for the killing of the unborn. The godless have lost the ability of reason. I have to quit my rant now. As it is getting away from the gun issue.