The Reload on the Presidential Election...no surprises

Status
Not open for further replies.

hso

Member.
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
68,443
Location
0 hrs east of TN
We all know VP Harris is an Anti. Whether she'll be able to actually do more than President Biden to disarm the American public or face the same repeated failures her administration has faced is anybody's guess (I guess she'll lay low making a lot of smoke and noise until she has both the House and Senate in her camp in hopes of having a second term to push irrational policies down our throats).

We also know that no one thinks many people will be changing their minds by the time of the election on who they agree with on firearms policy.


Analysis: The 2024 Fight Over Guns Has Stagnated [Member Exclusive]
By Stephen Gutowski


The presidential campaign’s debate over gun policy and the emphasis (or lack thereof) on it is unlikely to change from this point through November.


Over the past month, we’ve seen a high-profile mass shooting and a second assassination attempt against Donald Trump. We’ve also seen Kamala Harris give an extended interview on gun policy. Yet, there hasn’t been any movement on guns from either candidate, and Americans haven’t moved the issue up their priority list.


The race has stagnated and, barring an extreme event, will probably stay right where it is on guns.


That’s driven by a seeming lack of voter interest. All of the polls to ask about guns since the Apalachee High School shooting in Winder, Georgia, and the debate have born this out. Voters in the latest ABC News and Ipsos poll trusted Harris over Trump on guns, while those in the latest Fox News poll favored Trump. But both showed Americans view guns as a mid-tier issue at best.


That remained true in multiple other post-debate polls. A Yahoo News and YouGov poll found just five percent viewed guns as their top issue, putting it sixth out of nine issues. Another poll from the Angus Reid Institute found that 19 percent said guns were an issue they cared most about, also making it sixth out of 11 issues.


Then there’s the candidates themselves. They’ve given no indication they plan to adjust their approach to guns.


Another would-be assassin threatened Trump. Thankfully, this one didn’t get as far as the last. But it still presented further motivation for him to change his mind on guns, and he hasn’t.


While there was reason to think Trump could moderate on gun control after being shot himself, and there’s still reason to believe the assassination attempts could fuel a push down the line, he’s stuck with his previous approach. Now, that approach has mostly consisted of de-emphasizing gun-rights policy promises and emphasizing he’s doubtful of gun owners’ commitment to voting. But he has also repeatedly attacked Harris on her previous support for a mandatory buyback of AR-15s and similar firearms.


For her part, Harris has also stuck to her positions. At least the ones she adopted after taking over the top of the Democratic ticket. She’s now advocating for universal background checks, “red flag” laws, and a ban on the sale of “assault weapons.”


To get there, she had to walk back her 2019 support for that mandatory buyback Trump has keyed in on. She’s also refused to talk about her previous support for the handgun ban the Supreme Court overturned in 2008’s Heller decision and her certification of handgun microstamping requirement while she was California Attorney General. She’s also yet to personally address her newly-resurfaced 2007 comments warning lawful San Francisco gun owners she’d send law enforcement into their homes to check they are storing their guns safely, though a campaign spokesman told Fox News a federal court upheld the law she was discussing.


Perhaps the most telling part of her relatively lengthy discussion of gun policy with the National Association of Black Journalists was what she didn’t say. Despite being asked specifically about handguns and repeatedly pressed by NPR’s Tonya Mosley for specific policy details, she didn’t return to any of the further left positions on handguns she’d previously held. Instead, she stuck with calling for an assault weapons ban and universal background checks before making a diversion into mental health funding and community violence interruption programs.


Although, part of what she did say was telling. She began her answer on guns with the same tactic she has used every time she’s discussed the issue since the debate: emphasizing that she and her running mate are gun owners. She even used that line again during a fundraising event with Oprah, going so far as to say anyone who breaks into her house is getting shot before pivoting back to those same three gun policies she’s been running on.


Just as Trump has settled into a strategy of shaming gun owners into voting while telling them Harris will take their guns, Harris has decided to tell everyone who’ll listen that she’s a gun owner who just wants universal background checks, red flag laws, and an assault weapons ban. Meanwhile, voters writ large seem more interested in growing the economy, bringing down inflation, and protecting democracy, among other things.


Their attention could turn back to guns as a top issue over the next couple of weeks. However, given the events we just went through didn’t move the needle, it would likely take a huge story to move the candidates and voters alike.


That doesn’t mean guns don’t matter in the election, though. They could even be decisive.


Polling indicates 2024 will probably be as close as the last two elections. Harris has gained a bit in post-debate polling, but averages have Trump within a few points nationally and even closer in the swing states. Gun policy may not be a top priority for the majority of voters, but the vast majority of voters still think it’s an important issue overall.


Additionally, despite Trump’s recent take, gun owners have a strong record of turning out to vote on gun issues–which is why gun control policies tend to significantly underperform polling when put directly to voters in ballot initiatives.
 
Congress doesn't seem too interested in getting mired in any of the three listed pet issues in the article above. The last time a national AWB was a moderate contender, Reid and Pelosi both said that there weren't reliable votes for it in the current climate. I don't see red flag or an expansion to background checks being a big driver in the post-election sessions either, with so many other hot button issues taking the stage right now.
 
What happens on guns this year will depend on the outcomes of the Senate elections, not the presidential election.
Yes and no, because Kamala would sign any kind of anti gun legislation that hits her desk. We've been one or two votes away from disaster more than once.

Stop voting for anti gun politicians, starting with the senate and the house, and hopefully president, but too many people want to put their heads in the sand.
 
Yes and no, because Kamala would sign any kind of anti gun legislation that hits her desk.
If, as expected, the Senate goes under Republican control, no antigun legislation will hit her desk. At least nothing significant, and nothing without Republican buy-in.
 
Abortion rights will kill the 2nd..This what happens with single issue voters
You miss the big picture…the low info voter, be it some misconstrued perspective of abortion rights, gay rights, alien rights, etc. wont just kill the 2A, they are also killing the 1A. They attack not only our guns, but our voice. And pretty much the others of the Bill of Rights if you think about it.

But the reality is they are a screaming minority, and we are a reserved majority. We must find our voice and make it clearer and louder.
 
Right. Just because the Democrats are against us does not mean the Republicans are for me. They had a majority administration with Trump Mk I.
So where is my Tommygun, silencer, and CCW good in Manhattan?
President Trump is just as much an Ignorant Democrat as President Reagan was, unfortunately it's hard for Men to change. Both men are and were Ignorant about the 2A.

Plus, every President from FDR to Brandon has been against the 2A, check a history book please.
 
If, as expected, the Senate goes under Republican control, no antigun legislation will hit her desk. At least nothing significant, and nothing without Republican buy-in.
Doesn't matter how, you keep preaching it won't happen, don't worry about voting for antis, but it will indeed happen one of these days if we keep putting them in there.

As I posted before, start demanding politicians that won't vote blindly anti but still align with your other beliefs. Someone will fill that role for the possibility of getting elected to some of the most powerful and lucrative jobs with almost no work in the country,
 
What happens in the long run on guns will depend on the outcome of the presidential election and the SCOTUS and Fed District Judge appointments made by the president.
Doesn’t take much to expand the court and drastically change the appetite of the court with new appointments. At least the current crop of justices seem to have at least one or two eyes (total, not each one) towards the constitution and the bill of rights. Truthfully I suspect that the 2nd will come under less scrutiny than freedoms of speech, press, assembly, religion etc. It’s dangerous to try to disarm, but it’s much less dangerous to silence, suppress, and disenfranchise, and then what’s left isn’t worth fighting for.

I was hopeful for suppressors to become mainstream firearm accessories under Trump 45 but very little happened. I expect about the same to happen under Trump 47. If much does happen I fear it will not be to our benefit. If KH gets in, I expect worse and fear drastic change.
 
I was hopeful for suppressors to become mainstream firearm accessories under Trump 45 but very little happened. I expect about the same to happen under Trump 47. If much does happen I fear it will not be to our benefit. If KH gets in, I expect worse and fear drastic change.

I was kind of hoping the suppressor law was going to change, too. In all honesty, T45 was rather busy doing other stuff in his 1st term, I suspect he would have gotten to other stuff like that in his 2nd. In this case, again, he will be quite busy with more important stuff.

Oddly enough both sides fighting the battle over how much the .gov is allowed to control others.

What bugs me about that is how everyone immediately turns to the Federal government looking for answers, when the real responsibility belongs to the several states. Now, even the States are turning to the Federal government, ceding their obligations.
 
I seem to remember a particular member on the Wednesday after the election 2020 give a pretty good and well thought out diatribe on how gun ownership, RKBA, the politics of 2A, and THR were inexorably tied together and that the disallowing of one, would invariably break down the others.

Maybe we should just see how this plays out instead of pointing fingers at our fellow members and THR policies.
 
Last edited:
The guarantees of the Constitution will be suffocated slowly and methodically over time - it is a long game of hearts and minds - it no longer matters what party prevails, our challenge is an entrenched corrupt government. I once asked an old Vietnam vet what he would do when “they” came for his guns. His answer was very clean, very perfect and very pragmatic - “It is hard to say right now but I guess I will make that decision when they come to the door.”
 
What bugs me about that is how everyone immediately turns to the Federal government looking for answers, when the real responsibility belongs to the several states. Now, even the States are turning to the Federal government, ceding their obligations.

Not everyone. There are a number of people that just want the Federal Government to provide protection for our United States and secure our Nations border as well as LE across our internal borders, and let us handle the rest. Fewer now than in the past but they still exist.
 
Same old, progun horror show candidate vs. relatively sane antigun candidate - and also political - which supposedly is a no-no.

The solution was the old cranks in Scotus who seem unable to enforce or decide in favor of Bruen based challenges to various laws.
 
If they did, we could. If Scotus acted with alacrity and clarity (which they didn't and don't), the election could be about the quality of candidates and relevant policies. Instead it is again the lesser of two evils, depending on which set of insanities from both sides, you are forced to choose between. Or even presentations of policy without the histrionics of the current two.
 
Right. Just because the Democrats are against us does not mean the Republicans are for me. They had a majority administration with Trump Mk I
So where is my Tommygun, silencer, and CCW good in Manhattan?
You can buy the first two right now if your state allows it. The third will happen on the 32nd day of the month of Never.

What I see in this and many other threads, not singling out any person, is that people are all too eager for some things to stay "state's rights" and then for other stuff people want Federal laws passed the day before yesterday.

The reality of Trump is that even though Obama was more overtly anti-2A, Trump did more anti-2A in his first term, than Obama did in two.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GEM
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top