2020 Candidates VS. Gun Rights

[AlexanderA]

1. Don't vote for those wanting to erode/destroy the 2A

In reality, that could boil down to voting for candidates that are less antigun than others. You're never going to find a race in which guns are the only issue. So it's never clear-cut. (Even Trump has made antigun statements and taken antigun measures.)

 

[SharpDog]

In reality, that could boil down to voting for candidates that are less antigun than others. You're never going to find a race in which guns are the only issue. So it's never clear-cut. (Even Trump has made antigun statements and taken antigun measures.)

Well, voting on the basis of other issues is a non-sequiter vs. the RKBA. Voting for an anti-2A candidate is still voting for an anti-2A candidate, no matter what your reason is.

If you're trying to sell the point that we should cooperate with those trying to block our RKBA in the hope they will come around to see our side,

count me out of that nonsense.

 

[psyopspec]

(Even Trump has made antigun statements and taken antigun measures.)

That kind of talk tends to get threads shut down here. The antigunners that can be discussed openly on this site are those with a D next to their names. Others tend to make the apologists come out of the woodwork.

 

[psyopspec]

we should cooperate with those trying to block our RKBA

No one is saying that. What some of us are arguing is that if your politics are tribal and your critical thinking is outsourced to a party, there's a danger that 2A support can only diminish if you're one of the people who lives in their own silo/echo chamber. If you're unwilling to talk to a neighbor, have a cup of coffee, or maybe even go the range all because cable news tells you they're bad people, then we've already lost.

 

[SharpDog]

Pete Buttigieg: Gun Control ‘Compatible with the Second Amendment’:

Buttigieg then listed gun controls he supports. Those include criminalizing private gun sales via universal background checks and implementing policies pushed by Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a gun control group of which Buttigieg is a member.

He also used the Obama-era moniker of “weapons of war” to describe certain commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and said, “There are some weapons that don’t belong in our neighborhoods in peacetime in America.” He suggested we already know that banning such firearms is compatible with the Second Amendment; that “we’ve already decided that somewhere between a sling shot and a nuclear weapon we can draw a line.”

Buttigieg has also voiced support for other gun controls. On April 20, 2019, Breitbart News reported that one of those additional controls is reinstating the Social Security gun ban.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...control-compatible-with-the-second-amendment/



Pete Buttigieg on Gun Reform, Universal Background Checks, and Banning AR-15s:

We had an assault weapons ban in this country in the '90s. I would like to see more research on the effect it had. I do think we need to draw a line. Look, compatible with the Second Amendment, there are some restrictions. Somewhere between a slingshot and a nuclear weapon, we’ve decided that the American people would draw a line. Whether, for example, an AR-15 is on this side or that side of the line, I’m skeptical that it belongs in our neighborhoods in peacetime, but let’s at least have a healthy national debate about what’s best for keeping our families, our homes, and our schools safe.

https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a27004368/pete-buttigieg-gun-control-second-amendment/

 

[SharpDog]

No one is saying that. What some of us are arguing is that if your politics are tribal and your critical thinking is outsourced to a party, there's a danger that 2A support can only diminish if you're one of the people who lives in their own silo/echo chamber. If you're unwilling to talk to a neighbor, have a cup of coffee, or maybe even go the range all because cable news tells you they're bad people, then we've already lost.

Happy to talk to Anyone. Not giving more power to those wanting to abolish our RKBA.

As I just posted above, I believe firearms education is the way to 'talk' to the folks. Voting is not.

 

[psyopspec]

Pete Buttigieg: Gun Control ‘Compatible with the Second Amendment’:



https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...control-compatible-with-the-second-amendment/



Pete Buttigieg on Gun Reform, Universal Background Checks, and Banning AR-15s:



https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a27004368/pete-buttigieg-gun-control-second-amendment/

Statists gonna state. Buttigieg, Trump, Pelosi, etc. This should surprise no one.

 

[Kaybee]

Jeb, I think you misunderstood me. I’m not talking about convincing Dems to vote Republican and Im not suggesting that republicans vote for Dems. I’m talking about cultivating the pro gun left. (As much as possible) The two parties have always gone back and forth in power every few years, so polarization of this issue is not good for gun rights.

Yes, there will always be some (most?) on the left who are anti gun. What, you think there aren’t conservatives out that would willing to enact gun laws if they were pressured by their constituents?

Two prominent Democrats running for president were once very pro gun.
Bernie Sanders, despite what you may dislike about other things, was from Vermont which has a great gun culture. He voted pro gun.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...dent-voted-against-gun-control-for-plcaa.html

Kristin Gilabrand once represented rural New York State and was also openly Pro Gun. Now she has an F but she once held an A earring by the NRA.
https://www.newsday.com/news/nation...nd-says-she-keeps-2-rifles-under-bed-1.887707

Of course, they flip flopped hard now to anti 2a. Why? Public sentiment. I personally believe public sentiment is being swayed in part by very well funded anti gun groups that misrepresent gun issues to people that are uninformed about firearms.

If gun rights activists put all their chips on red they are going to lose hard when blue gets their turn. There should be more reaching out, directly to citizens on both parties.

I’m independent. But I could never throw a vote against gun rights. Beyond that, I think it is bad for gun rights for the two halves of this country to be polarized on the issue. I think it’s bad for the United States that the two halves to call each other baskets of deplorable or cancer.

You are dreaming. The Blue rise of voters in my area will not come close to voting for anything other than Democrat and they are one of the biggest anti 2nd amendment rights advocates out there. Kamala Harris is from California, and campaigning headquarters, in Baltimore. She will be going after all the Blue Urban voters who will go all the way with her. My former Red State is now Blue. And being eaten way every day by the Rise of Blue voters. Nothing but a growing cancer. Destroying everything in their path.and they will succeed in taking away firearm rights. Disgusting.

 

[SharpDog]

Jeb, I think you misunderstood me. I’m not talking about convincing Dems to vote Republican and Im not suggesting that republicans vote for Dems. I’m talking about cultivating the pro gun left. (As much as possible) The two parties have always gone back and forth in power every few years, so polarization of this issue is not good for gun rights.

Yes, there will always be some (most?) on the left who are anti gun. What, you think there aren’t conservatives out that would willing to enact gun laws if they were pressured by their constituents?

Two prominent Democrats running for president were once very pro gun.
Bernie Sanders, despite what you may dislike about other things, was from Vermont which has a great gun culture. He voted pro gun.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...dent-voted-against-gun-control-for-plcaa.html

Kristin Gilabrand once represented rural New York State and was also openly Pro Gun. Now she has an F but she once held an A earring by the NRA.
https://www.newsday.com/news/nation...nd-says-she-keeps-2-rifles-under-bed-1.887707

Of course, they flip flopped hard now to anti 2a. Why? Public sentiment.

If gun rights activists put all their chips on red they are going to lose hard when blue gets their turn. There should be more reaching out, directly to citizens on both parties.

I’m independent. But I could never throw a vote against gun rights. Beyond that, I think it is bad for gun rights for the two halves of this country to be polarized on the issue. I think it’s bad for the United States that the two halves to call each other baskets of deplorable or cancer.

Actually I didn't post Bernie because I could not find a definitive, recent stance on 2A.

 

[Kaybee]

I brought up those examples, not because I think they deserve your vote, but merely as examples of how politicians in either party can be swayed on issues by their constituents.

I don’t have an answer, but I wish pro 2a groups were thinking more about how to sway blue voters (at least the ones that can) on 2a issues, which would undermine the alliance of gun control groups and Dem politicians. That is all. There is none of that.

I’m not even proposing it as a complete answer, but it is an important part.

 

[psyopspec]

I brought up those examples, not because I think they deserve your vote, but merely as examples of how politicians in either party can be swayed on issues by their constituents.

I don’t have an answer, but I wish pro 2a groups were thinking more about how to sway blue voters (at least the ones that can) on 2a issues, which would undermine the alliance of gun control groups and Dem politicians. That is all. There is none of that.

I’m not even proposing it as a complete answer, but it is an important part.

Agreed, this is part of what I look for, and will open my wallet for, when I'm looking to support a cause I care about.

 

[WiTom]

It is very easy to explain away, that the gun issue is just part of what you use, to comprise a mindset, of how you are voting, in the future, but that has not been the case, in multiple history events, of the past. If you don't believe me, please pick up your history books, and reread the past. Do you think WWII would have even been in the history books, without Hitler passing the 1938 registration and disarming law, of the general public? He promised it was for the safety of the masses, and yet, what is different now? Is anyone promising safety, in return for gun registration, or outright banning, of first, certain types, of guns, and if so, does it then stop there? Did Stalin use anything like that? Or how about the past, in China, or maybe North Korean, or Cuba, or even Mexico? Every restriction, or ban, on guns to the general public, is the next step closer to all the other issues( govt. healthcare, govt. pensions, govt. control of businesses) just falling into place. If you don't agree, please use past history, or someplace it is working, to argue. It only took less than 6 years, from the time Venezuela's govt. took away the general masses guns, to fall into complete collapse. Every vote, on this slippery slope in this country, is important , only because of the 2nd Amendment, and it is the only thing stopping implement of every other issue, on the books. You don't agree, prove it with history, and how every other socialist experiment has played out. Every vote, is the crossroad, to the end, as we know it. Sounds awful, right, but history doesn't lie, and it always repeats, itself.

 

[psyopspec]

Do you think WWII would have even been in the history books, without Hitler passing the 1938 registration and disarming law, of the general public?

Yes, most probably it would have still be in the history books. The course of the war may not have changed, or it may have changed in ways minor or (less likely) major, but it still likely would have been recorded history.

He promised it was for the safety of the masses, and yet, what is different now?

Many things are different in America in 2019 than they were in Germany in the 1930s. To attempt to scrape the surface of those differences would far exceed the scope of a post on this forum.

You don't agree, prove it with history, and how every other socialist experiment has played out.

Hitler and the movement he led was fascist and not socialist -- opposite political ideologies in many ways. As for how socialist experiments have played out -- the Scandinavian country's socialism doesn't seem to have run parallel exactly like fascist Germany and communist Russia, to raise an example off the top of my head. What are you saying the parallels are, specifically?

 

[paulsj]

You forgot to mention Venezuela. What happened there had nothing to do with lack of gun ownership by general population. That country serves as great examle of what happens when government does not allow international corporations and international banking institutions to make money.

 

[GRIZ22]

Like him or hate him Trump is the best candidate out there as fat as protecting your gun rights.

Don't fall for any bs from any Democrat. They all want to take away your guns. Some faster than others.

Also remember the 2A isn't the only issue. Give me a guy who's rated a B by the NRA but is for lower taxes, smaller government, and less government interference in my daily life and I'll vote for him or her.

You need to understand the DNC "allows" many Democrats to make believe they're pro-gun but pull the party line on other issues.

Don't be fooled.

 

[Kaybee]

I don’t think one person here suggested that as it stands, it’s not better for gun rights to have a Republicans in office, esp when you think about Supreme Court Judges. You should vote for who is currently supporting the 2a, and continue to remind Republican leaders what is expected of them, lest they waver.

But you’ll never convince me, ever, that it’s totally impossible to win over some people in Blue states to the necessity of firearms, and that it is not important to try. Sometimes you only have to flip one seat to make a difference.

 

[Kaybee]

Actually I think Trump is a good example, because I feel that Trump does not have any conviction about the 2A at all. But he does know that he would be out the door without gun owners, and that’s good.

 

[P5 Guy]

You need to understand the DNC "allows" many Democrats to make believe they're pro-gun but pull the party line on other issues.

Don't be fooled.

Maybe some politicians are less anti-gun than others, but all of them are anti-gun in degrees. DO NOT trust a one.

 

[AlexanderA]

Like him or hate him Trump is the best candidate out there as far as protecting your gun rights.

No, because he has hastened the polarization and party realignment that in the end will be bad for gun rights. For example, Trump's personality and policies are what have caused middle-of-the-road suburban women to flee en masse to the Democrats. Now, it's true that by the same token, blue-collar men have migrated to the Republicans, but this is not as significant due to the political geography of the country. Net effect is a huge political loss.

And that's not even mentioning the short-term things that Trump has done to hurt gun rights, such as the bump-stock ban and the endorsement of red flag laws. These will live on in their effects long after he's out of office.

Rhetoric aside, and judging them strictly by what they actually did, Trump has been worse for gun rights than Obama was.

 

[theotherwaldo]

I know a lot of Democrat gun owners.
By and large, they are not against owning guns.
They are against YOU owning guns if you are not like them.

 

[Robert]

Since we are not talking about specific candidates and their position on gun control and have instead wandered into general politics, like we always do, I'm shutting this one down. It was worth a shot...