Democrats want no guns at all, but lack the courage to say so

Status
Not open for further replies.
Its a liberal leaning newspaper, so I doubt he is pro 2a. but it is refreshing to hear from someone you disagree with, but isn't covering their argument is a bunch of lies and platitudes.
 
The antis lied about it for decades because they knew if they told the truth they would get nowhere, but in the last couple of decades they have have let it slip a few times as they thought they had enough traction to actually tell the truth and still get what they want.
Like Diane Feinstein; ".... Mr and Mrs America turn them all in..."
 
Tim Kaine uses that LIE, that he's pro 2nd Amendment but then he goes on and on an on with how anyone who has more than one gun is crazy, etc etc etc.
We're one election away from an AWB in Virginia. Depending on the details, I may, in my old age, have to move back to Texas. But how long before the tide turns in Texas, too?

Wouldn't it be odd if Virginia ends up allowing machine guns, but outlawing AW's?

It's getting to the point where politicians in Virginia don't even have to give lip service to the 2nd Amendment. Northam (the newly-elected current governor) ran on an extreme anti-gun platform (AWB, 10-round mag limit, one-gun-a-month purchase limit). And he actually garnered votes because of it!
 
Last edited:
The author of the article is S.E. Cupp, she's a pro-gun Conservative political commentator.

Good catch! I was wondering if anyone was going to recognize who she was. I thought it was interesting the paper printed her column and I loved her approach to the subject.
 
The article isn't pro-gun but neither is it anti-gun. The author points out the flaws in the currently popular gun control proposals. She criticizes their supporters for their ignorance or duplicitousness while praising the principled stand of defenders of gun rights. The article could have been improved by questioning how well a nationwide ban on the private ownership of all firearms would work. Two questions that come to mind are:
  • How effective would a ban be in reducing the number of firearms in the wrong hands? Compliance would be highest among law abiding citizens, who aren't a threat anyway, and lowest among criminals, especially gang bangers who are the most dangerous. If firearms became truly rare, how many would be replaced by smuggling from overseas and illicit manufacturing?
  • To what extent would criminals, terrorists and the mentally ill replace firearms with other weapons? It's impossible to defend yourself against a bomb and difficult to defend against arson or a motor vehicle. Defense against contact weapons (e.g. knives, clubs, fists and feet) favors the young and the strong and disfavors the old and the weak.
 
Check out this website of what is really going on in one of the most anti-guns states in the US. Oh yea Baby, gun control really works. Works against the law abiding citizens that want protection from these animals. Do you really think they care about gun laws, regulations or just laugh in the face of laws. Do you think these Chicagoan's love the Police, law and order. Oh, this major part of the Liberal party want gun control, but yet cannot even clean up their own carnage in their own city or neighborhoods. I say let them go for it and shoot themselves up as they wish.
BLM will protest, riot, loot, burn down business's, disrupt political speeches, advocate killing Police, disrespect the flag, our troops that have lost lives, and just spit in the face of America. Yet, no country in the world gives them more.
And the previous Governor of Virginia gave pardons to thousands of these Prison animals right before the election to help try and win the vote for the Corrupt Hillary. Virginia is under attack. Our cities, are being run over, the liberal left is destroying our schools, rewriting history to suit their needs, our monuments being destroyed, our Heritage being spit on. They WILL EVENTUALLY CROSS THE LINE.

https://heyjackass.com/
 
It is true that there is variety among the individual constituents of any political party. But the issue at hand is the party line and who gets the endorsements and nominations. Joe Blow down the street might be a hunter and shooter, as well as a registered Democrat. But the party line is one of disarmament. The candidates who are nominated to positions that matter are in favor of disarmament. Dog catcher? Doesn't matter that much. Presidency, Senate and House matter. What is the opinion of candidates who get those nominations? Disarmament. Governors are a bit more mixed, but mostly for disarmament.

The Republican party is bi-polar on the issue. Not many outright antagonistic toward the 2A, but a whole lot of lukewarm. Some are pro 2A.

So while we often refer to the Democratic platform as being not in our interests, we can't ignore the willingness of quite a few Republicans to compromise and sell out for political gain.

I, too, find myself dissatisfied with both parties. They still bear the hallmarks left on them by the global infatuation with socialism and fascism at the beginning of the 20th century.
 
All roads lead to Rome. In this case, the UN, and the global Marxist ideology it rides. The total abolition of small arms in the hands of civilian hands is the goal. It says so in their own papers. Small arms are seen as a threat to "the power monopoly of the state".

So a litmus test for politicians should be their stand on the ideology that is the underpinning of the UN, and nationalism - nation states with their own absolute sovereignty. Not whether they are Democrat or Republican.

Democrats by and large are right behind a Marxist global state. Fewer Republicans are in that category, but some are closet supporters. Their personal belief in, and the support of, the 2nd Amendment is inextricably tied to this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top