Cartoon (courtesy theprgressivecynic.com)

“Democrats are becoming more and more outspoken about gun violence in the wake of seemingly ever increasing mass shootings, despite the fact that the American public remains as opposed as ever to many gun-control measures,” businessinsider.com reports. Copy that. This gun blogger has noticed a distinct uptick in civilian disarmament background chatter in the run-up to the 2016 election cycle. This despite poll numbers revealing that Americans’ support for gun control is waning and the widely acknowledged fact that . . .

disarmament types lack the political muscle of pro-gun voters. In fact, Hillary’s anti-gun position seems like an act of political suicide, as Bill warned his beloved many moons ago.

Business Insider doesn’t offer any insight into the Dems’ anti-gun agitprop propagation – other than ideological intransigence. Are Dems and their mainstream media enablers playing to their loony left during pre-primary school before making a move towards a more palatable position (i.e. a tissue of lies) for the grown-ups?  Enquiring minds want to know.

104 Responses to Question of the Day: Why Are Democrats Still Pimping for Gun Control?

  1. Let me see if I understand the question. Are you ask for someone to explain the inner workings of the mind of a politician?

    Let me get some popcorn, I wanna see the answers because I couldn’t even begin to explain that to you.

    • Apart from the occasional ideologue, I don’t think it’s too complicated. They want to maintain or increase their power and grow their bank accounts. Doesn’t account for everything, but it accounts for a hell of a lot.

      • OK, so we agree. I keep being told I’m an idiot though so I was hoping to see something other than the basic ‘power trip’ answer I had come up with myself.

        Here, have some popcorn.

    • I don’t care why, it seems to be hurting them badly in the polls so keep up the good work.
      Earlier today there was a video of a PBS News discussion. The guy said there were 250 million guns in the country, he supports any and all additional gun control possible, but don’t hold your breath, and by the way, in the last 10 years violent crime had dropped by 50%.
      With logic like that from the leftists, whats not to like?

    • Are you ask for someone to explain the inner workings of the mind of a politician? Power is an end to itself according to Big Brother. Silly boy.

    • EASY. Gun hatred equals valuing “safety” which is a fungible term versus LIBERTY which is self evident. The sheep have convinced themselves that making ALL of us sheep will make us safe from the wolves and it does NOT work that way. In addition hoplophobia is a surrogate religion. The problem is that you can’t debate faith with fact.

      Ray

    • My thoughts exactly. Why would the author even dip his toe in the water of that lie-filled cesspool? Violent crime is decreasing. Conservative writers need to be clear about that and avoid co-opting the jargon of our opponents and oppressors.

    • +1 Ask yourself, what is the nature of a Statist? To constantly demand increasing power for the state and to try to reduce the power of the individual. Individually armed citizens who could effectively refuse compliance with some future federal edict are anathema to them. Their very DNA demands that they try to disarm the believers in individual liberty least we pour gravel in the gears of their Socialist Triumph!

      • We tried to do that by handing control of the Congress over to the Repugnantcans. Only to see the grease on those gears increase some more.

        • Yep. I think all the GOP establishment wants at this point is a space at the gravy trough for them and their cronies while it all goes to hell for us peasants.

        • At least half of Congress still thinks he/she has a shot at becoming President. They’re like some pathetic 30 year old street baller, still wasting away his days playing hoops down at the Y, believing any day now an NBA scout is going to discover him.

          Most of the rest of Congress knows that’s never going to happen, but also knows that they’d lose their cushy current gig if they ever actually did what was necessary to pull this country out of freefall. So they’re content to reign over an America in decline.

          We’ve already passed the tipping point where a majority af Americans each have a vested interest in perpetuating an inherently unsustainable system. Nobody wants to bear the sacrifice personally, so everybody will vote out whomever dares pare back the pork.

          This is why Trump is surging in the polls. He’s saying what needs to be said and people know he doesn’t need the job.

  2. I actually like that picture… I’d be interesting if they put up a picture of a Continental Minuteman right next to a modern Marine with all his support vehicles.

    The way I see it, the guy on the right is severely underarmed. He needs to trade in his second rifle for a SMAW.

    • I was thinking something similar.
      First, the Framers were wary of a standing army. That’s why they wanted the people armed, so they could be assembled to defend the country when needed. So really, the guy on the left should be presented as farming.

      Second, the Framers envisioned and experienced armament parity between the military and the individual citizens. So both men above should be depicted as comparably equipped. Where’s my SAW? Where’s my MRAP?

  3. Funny thing, both are wielding the most technologically defensive weapon of their era that would be commonly available. Also its worth noting that our “Founding Father” has a “Maximum Capacity” rifle, while our humble AR friend here has a “Just Right” capacity magazine for his firearm.

    • I don’t see a similar cartoon contrasting an old printing press, quill and ink well vs. modern satellite TV, radio, and internet. What’s good for the goose…

  4. I guess that cartoon is supposed to be anti gun but aren’t those two people dipicted the same thing just from different time periods?

    • No, the one on the left is armed appropriately to fight against a modern well-equipped military of his era.

      The one on the right is woefully underequipped and unsupported for the same purpose. He would need at least: Helmet and body armor, NVG, high explosive weaponry, comm gear so he can call for artillery and airstrikes and coordinate with other militias…

  5. Now lets be honest here. If we could somehow go back in time and ask the average Minuteman at Concord Bridge which of the two guys in the cartoon he wanted to look like, the only thing they would probably keep from the traditional getup would be the hat. The Founding Fathers weren’t stupid, and neither were their troops.

    • My thought exactly!

      If they could have, they would have.

      And although the gent on the right is ddepicted as a tad, um, overfed, the Continental Army would certainly have appreciated MREs. Not to mention GoreTex.

    • The Revolutionary War Militiaman would turn green with envy over the guy on the right. The guy on the left would love a Star Trek Phaser Rifle if he could get his hands on one and a Star Trek Communicator and Tricorder. Close air support by the Starship Enterprise would be appreciated by the Militiaman as well.

  6. Yeah we need to duplicate the first picture, replace the musket with a sharpened stick, and say “founding fathers 2nd amendment according to hoplophobes”

  7. Most of them are probably trying to pander to the children who frequent places like CSGV and always proclaim to be a single issue voter, and their issue is guns. Though it wouldn’t surprise me if some of the candidates may simply be just out of their mind, who really knows in this day and age when it comes to politicians.

    • Yep.

      Why do Republicans politicians favor illegal immigration? It can only bite them. But their special interest money demands it. Same thing with the Democratic politicians and gun control.

  8. …in the wake of seemingly ever increasing mass shootings…

    Actually, mass shootings are not statistically significant, and “gun violence” is on a steady, long-term, deep decline. Such things only “seem” the opposite because a compliant media fosters that misperception, through exaggerated coverage intended explicitly to make such things “seem” to be increasing.

    And if that political cartoon was published on anything other than a manual press, it is hypocritical and self-contradictory.

    • Sometimes I miss dueling. Sure it had its downside, but at least when you lied about somebody they had a quick and easy recorse. Maybe we should bring it back in a non lethal ( but painful as hell) form? And also being able to sue publishers when they lie. If not for damages then just to make them tell the truth. The climate change lawsuit in the UK comes to mind.
      Staters gotta state. I want that t shirt!
      The fact is that disarming the right and the free is essential to the lefts plan and their ideology. The left does not work by building a coalition. That is a temporary means to an end. The statist dream is to make a better citizen. They do this through thought control( propaganda) and public education ( indoctrination) and even with coercion of those who fail to fall for the first to( behave as we want or we will starve you or shoot you). The state remember is fucking evil. It’s champions are the sickest of perverts who get off on controlling other people’s lives and vain idiots who actually think they know better than you what’s good for you. Like another human being actually could.
      Until we privatize governance and outlaw coercive governemnt we will have to live with these sickos. I hope and I pray that someday to make a coercive state through threat of violence will be a capital crime and those guilty will stand trial before they are lined up against a wall and shot.

        • PP is evolution in action. People having abortions are a genetic dead end. Let them abort enough and we will not have to worry about them. Gays and druggies are in the same dinosaur dead end. Elimination of the unfit.

        • Seriously, Gerard? If nobody is forcing anyone to go to Premeditated Infanticide, er, I mean, Planned Parenthood, then how do you suppose the unborn children get there to have their skulls pierced and brains vacuumed out? Uber app?

    • Always remember that any media outlet including this one is not a news organization. They are advertising sales organizations.

  9. Gun control is one of the highest tenets of the modern progressive liberal, aka Democratic party. It can’t to abortion for number one, but it’s likely in the top 5 of mandatory theological progressive belief. It’s a religious belief to them at this point, an unquestioned sacred tenet.

  10. It’s too late to go back. They are out of the closest, and they are going to have to own it all the way. I have two theories. Either they truly think this sells well (which I doubt), or they knew that Hillary couldn’t pretend to be moderate about it given her previous very public stances on the subject. Obama had the privilege of being the candidate that no one knew anything about, and therefore anyone could transpose their own hopes and dreams onto as he navigated his campaigns (see e.g. the Twilight series). He was very cautious not to take a solid stance on the subject until his last term. Before then, he could have fooled some into thinking he was a moderate on the issue. Hitlary does not have that kind of cover, and she is just getting in front of the story. I sincerely think that this will doom the Dems in the general election.

  11. “disarmament types lack the political muscle of pro-gun voters. In fact, Hillary’s anti-gun position seems like an act of political suicide, as Bill warned his beloved many moons ago.”

    What does something Bill said to Monica Lewinsky have to do with Hillary?

  12. Well, I have a theory: The Dems are headed for a wide-open Presidential primary (i.e. no incumbent running). The candidates have to scramble to distinguish themselves to the party base. Dem primary candidates have to pay obeisance to various of the party-faithful gods, including “gun control” and “reproductive rights”. Right at this moment they would probably rather not talk about “reproductive rights”, and the recent shooting incidents give them a reason to talk about something else, namely gun control. So the various candidates and their surrogates are competing with each other to stand out in the gun-control arena.

  13. I believe there are three factors at work:

    (1) Democrat candidates are appealing to their base for the upcoming primary election. That requires (in their minds) a strong gun-grabber image.

    (2) Democrat candidates are immersed in a Progressive echo chamber. Virtually all of their family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, peers, and advisers are Progressives who embrace civilian disarmament in deference to the Almighty State.

    (3) Democrat candidates and the press believe that they are superior to the unwashed masses and know what is best for everyone. Since the unwashed masses have begun to reject civilian disarmament en masse, they have to ratchet up the beating of the disarmament drums to convert the unwashed masses once and for all.

    Of course Progressives are going to double down on their gun grabbing rhetoric. Why wouldn’t they? They know better and their echo chamber reinforces it. What better time for them to amp up the message for primary voters and the “little people” who have fallen away from the Progressive “light”.

  14. “Democrats are becoming more and more outspoken about gun violence” when were they not “more and more outspoke”? They are statist traitors. It’s in their DNA.

    • From about 2000 to 2012, they got pretty quiet about it. Democratic candidates made a point of being seen hunting (Gore and Kerry) and they generally shut up about gun control, since some of them noticed the more they talked about it, the more people resisted the idea.

      With Sandy Hook, they went for broke. It was going to be their Dunblaine or Port Arthur. It was going to be the BIG EVENT that finally pushed the U.S. into full U.K. style gun control. It didn’t turn out that way for them and they’ve been throwing a hissy fit ever since.

  15. It goes with the whole left-wing commie thing-plus control of the unwashed masses. Need to send some $ to the evil NRA…or buy another gun(he he)…

    • I wish trump would put his money where his mouth is and agree to match or double bloombergs gun control money with contributions to NRA and SAF

      • Bloomberg has almost 10 times the net worth of Trump. If Trump made a public pledge like that it could get painful in a hurry.

  16. I think 2nd Amendment advocates have it all wrong. I know a couple of really intense left wingers who frequently express their feelings and hope that all guns eventually will be banned and violence eliminated. But upon being questioned, they aren’t really for banning guns or violence. They only want to ban guns that aren’t used to enforce their agenda and support the use of State Sanctioned Violence to further it. When you point that out to them they really hate you for it.

    Clay

  17. I think part of it is a feedback loop – they are caught up in their own bubble/feeding on their own propaganda.

    and part of it (ie – from the Administration) is to distract from the HORRIBLE foreign policy disaster that is this administration and the chaos that is ensuing. That may also be some of Hillary’s calculus – to keep the Democrat sycophantic sheep from wandering out of their pens and starting to actually ask questions about all of her lies and scandals.

    The Repubs need to get the focus back on Foreign policy at some point, which is their strength and puts little media memes like “gun violence epidemic” back into perspective.

  18. Personally, their mind set says the end justifies the means. I’m betting they have something planned, or they know that something will happen, (Economic collapse perhaps=Civil unrest anyone?) that will make grabbing guns a winner for them.

    There’s a report by a former director of the CIA that projects a world wide economic collapse, massive civil unrest, starvation, mass migration of populations, world wide, and even in this country.
    Youtube: Warning From Former Director CIA and DHS Personel-Civil Unrest Ahead

  19. The Dem base has no enthusiasm and low turnout is a concern among Dem vote getteroutters. Black voters, who came out in droves for BHO, have no real affinity nor love of HRC. Hispanics don’t think the Dems have gone far enough on borders. Go down the list, there is dissatisfaction within the Dem coalition of special interests.

    Thus, demanding more gun control and railing against gun violence are two things all segments of the LibProg coalition can agree with and support. It is a clarion call, and intended to divert attention from their internal disagreements or infighting. Do you know Soros is behind the folks pushing “Black Lives Matter”? Why would he do that? Because it might be the only way to motivate blacks to vote for an all-white or white-brown Dem ticket in 2016.

    • I think you are hitting close to an explanation.

      Nothing matters quite like votes. So, let’s pick a couple of voter-groups and toy with the possibility of influencing them. Blacks; and, Independents.

      Blacks represent a really good pool of potential converts. They are the primary targets for criminals and they are keenly aware of their risk exposure. They have leaders in the Detroit CofP and Milwaukee Co. Sheriff. They are picking up in numbers as gun buyers and CWP licensees.

      However, the Dems “own” the Black vote. Blacks have lots of reasons to vote as loyal Dems; and, converting to the RKBA probably won’t convince them to vote Republican. While I firmly believe we ought to have outreach to the Black minority, I don’t think it will swing votes.

      People who fancy themselves as Independents are not “owned” by either the Dems or the GOP. They will think independently. Independents control the outcome of numerous races where neither the Dems nor the GOP has a clear-cut majority.

      To make deep inroads into the Independent voters would likely make gun-control a 3rd rail for the Dems.

      Is this arm-chair analysis correct? Or, is there a better target group than just “Independents”?

      • I always thought of them as “swing voters”.
        They’ve been the ones that decide elections for decades.

  20. Here is my question: do the anti gun people REALLY believe their gun control accomplishes something or is it a cleverly disguised plot to make us all tax slaves. I don’t want to believe a third of our population is that stupid (the Shannon Watts types) and the billionaires ( Nanny Bloomberg, Bill Gates etc) are that evil but I think they probably are both stupid and evil.

  21. The cartoon. I grow weary of this politician endorsed wrongheaded argument. The evolution of firearms is no different than your smartphone. That was then, this is now. It’s a matter of being aligned with the present. Does the left suggest the criminals carry muskets and in the event of a need to protect us from tyranny we should whip-out our black powder pistols?

  22. I consider myself moderate and am registered an Independent since both major parties are at least half bad. That said I probably lean a bit left and would love to see the Jackass party give up this loser pet issue. Many Dems are NOT in favor of gun control. Between the left and the right they’re both doing things that 90% of reasonable, sensible Americans can’t stand.

  23. Same reason so many Republicans can’t stop harping on abortion or gay marriage.

    You know it’s a gimmie group. A (D) knows that bringing up guns is a guaranteed block of votes just as an (R) knows bringing up anything churchy is a guaranteed block of votes.
    If that block if big enough you use it to anchor the rest of your campaign.

    I’m fully 100% convinced that the only reason the (R)’s even bother to play pro-2ndA is because they find that block of voters to be large enough to matter.
    I cite RINO’s in slave states. They know there is no boon to their campaign to go full bore pro-2ndA. The block of voters is not there.

    Republicans and Democrats are like cable utilities. They split territories to benefit them both. The two groups chose their blocks and relative positions. Many of which contradict others held by the same party.
    Not a single one of them actually has any strong feelings one way or the other on any of their respective issues.

    Look at how distant and detracted so many pundits and party officials are on the Sunday talk shows. They go back and forth as if it’s all figures on a sheet of paper. They don’t care one bit about the real lives affected by any of their policies. It’s just a game to them. Your liberty, life and property is just a game to them. A little plastic knob to be moved about the board.

    Why do they keep beating a dead horse? Because some strategist thinks it’s beneficial to do so.

    • Did anyone actually think Obama could be re-elected after Obamacare and the damage he has done to the economy? Be afraid, be very afraid!

    • Bernie Sanders socialist message has captivated the young, Occupy crowd. The Occupussies don’t like Hilary because they know she’s a rich bitch and stands for the 1%. Once the limp media realizes that the young people, who the media seems to always have a raging semi for, are for Bernie and not Hilary, they’ll start hammering Clinton about Benghazi, missing emails, the Clinton foundation money, etc. Hilary will tank and Sanders will get the nom.

      It’ll be Trump-Sanders, the ultimate battle of Capitalism vs Socialism in the United States.

      • >> It’ll be Trump-Sanders, the ultimate battle of Capitalism vs Socialism in the United States.

        Because there’s nothing quite like a guy who filed for bankruptcy 4 times, telling the people who gave him their money to go pound sand every time, and still ended up with a net worth of several billion (without ever repaying any of those debts), to exemplify the wonders of capitalism.

        You might seriously want to reconsider your champion.

    • There’s a significant sub-set of voters who will vote for her simply because she’s a Democrat, or because it would be “historic” to elect a woman. These people think all of the scandals and issues surrounding Hillary, from the out-of-touch to questionably legal to outright illegal, are either right-wing fabrications or minor distractions. Of course, they’d be up in arms if a non-Democrat did any of the same things.

      I don’t think many people who are genuinely looking for the most credible, ethical, and thoughtful candidate will end up supporting her – but there are far too few voters like that.

    • A lot of old authoritarian statist republicans and old authoritarian statist democrats will vote for her. And those old authoritarian statist types vote with more regularity than everyone else. I fear she does indeed have a very good chance.

  24. As to the cartoon- who REALLY believes that if Washington could have had a few thousand pieces of modern weaponry that he wouldn’t hand them out faster than you could say, “Down with King George!”
    Show of hands?? I’ll wait……..

  25. Because a third of Mexico is going to be voting in our elections.
    Why the hell are you asking questions with common sense answers?

  26. “poll numbers revealing that Americans’ support for gun control is waning.”

    Poll, schmoll. The Dems know that it’s not just Americans who vote. Requiring voter ID is racist and illegal, so pretty much anyone who can be bussed into a polling place gets to cast a ballot. Add the non-Americans to your poll data and it changes the results.

  27. The dems running for president already have everything done for them except gun confiscation… I mean, gun control. If Barry from Hawaii doesn’t pull an exec orders in the next 16 months, then it’ll be up to Clinton/Sanders to do it.

    I do believe that gun control will be one of the major issues come 2016.

  28. Dem Politicians are victims of their own news cycle. And just like with the primary’s, will be SHOCKED when they find out that most of the People don’t really buy their shit – and many of the ones that do, aren’t really motivated enough to vote. Why do you think Trump is doing so good in the polls? The MSM is by and large very liberal, metrosexual, elitist and urbanite, so that’s what we see in the news, by and large… The Dems fall right into that trap of believing their own lies, because that’s all they see and hear.

  29. Because they are control freaks. And because they think everyone who they disagree with is evil. And because they don’t give a rip about what the Constitution says or means.

  30. Follow the Money a Politician Especially the Democrat Party would sell their own Mothers for power, money, women etc! most have no balls a rubber neck and a backbone like a dog they keep trying to find some, the Rhinos aren’t much better, you got the man hating Senators from the land of the whispering bush! they are so afraid because of their destruction of true American Values that they want too protect their Necks, guess they better outlaw Machete’s and Rope

  31. I was just thinking, regular old private citizens figuring out how to make or otherwise procure small arms which were more advanced, better, and faster than the British’s is why the queen isn’t on our money. Out of numerous examples of British monarchy and colonial rule for hundreds of years, we were the only ones to fully throw off the yolk of enculturated subservience. So many people around the world still have the gut reaction to pay deference to monarchy, even if it’s been burned out of their government by democracy. So I guess that statue on the right is EXACTLY the point.

  32. It is a stupid thing they’re doing, but it’s also true that they’ve completely discarded one of their former constituencies, white working class males, the group that’s traditionally cared the most about gun rights. I think it’ll backfire though, given the current views on gun rights.

    Years ago I remember a smart Texas Democrat strategist complaining bitterly that gun control didn’t reduce crime, but it did help turn Texas Republican, and it helped Dubya get elected to governor and president.

  33. The demonrats went full retard on gun control in the early 90’s with Slick Willy leading the pack. They got spanked real hard by the voters in the following midterms. Slick Willy was singing his gun control blues in the key of misery for decades.

    The demonrats forgot all about their 90s ass whipping 6 years ago and tried to go full retard on gun control again. They no longer control the US House of Representatives or the US Senate. They know they misbehaved and they know their punishment was deserved but they are doubling down on their failure because that is all they have.

    • + 1. They are a one-issue party anymore, because that’s all they have. They offer nothing, but only to take away that which we already have. Yeah, that’s a real winner that’ll get people excited (/sarc)

  34. Obama and Democrats only focus gun control as a liberal wedge issue in large blue cities where the idea is already prevalent. A gun acts as their totem, however only when it suits them. Democrats never call out the concentrated, daily violence within certain neighborhoods of, say, Chicago because to do so would raise uncomfortable questions of over 50 years of Federal (mainly Democratic) policies directing the War on Poverty related to welfare programs, education spending, urban housing planning, labor regulations, race, and tax policies. Add the devastating impact of 40 years of the War on Drugs layered on top of those policies with massive incarceration rates, police militarization, and criminal gang wars for ever escalating drug profits in neighborhoods with no jobs where families and the community disintegrate. No Democrat can face the awkward questions over why, after the trillions (TRILLIONS!!) spent on all these programs combined, and all the government planning, and all the government regulations, and all the local, state, and Federal bureaucracies established to “fix” all these problems, that all they’ve done is create concentrated areas of urban strife where people live with drugs and endless violence up to and including shooting each other on a regular basis. Add in the fact that the neighborhoods where all this planned disaster commonly occurs are distinctly minority populations in large blue cities and the entire justification for Democratic social policies falls on its face. So… GUNS!

  35. In that political cartoon, I see two figures with the paramilitary equipment of the day. That musket is the military technology of the time, akin to today’s M4 carbine or M16 rifle. The difference I see is that the equipment has changed over hundreds of years. Yeah, so? Back in the days of the founding fathers a private individual could actually own heavy military equipment (like cannons and ships), enough to go toe-to-toe with government military forces in open battle. Today we’re fighting to protect the right to own modified, inferior copies of the most common personal military weapons. New or unregistered assault rifles and submachine guns are banned.

    • There is not a lot of evidence that heavy ordinance was privately owned in the founding era. There are, however, at least 2 notable exceptions.

      – privateers were routinely licensed to seise enemy shipping on the high seas; and, these ships were fitted with heavy ordinance. That ordinance had to be manufactured and sold by ships chandlers and we have no record that they were licensed or regulated.
      – the Boston ordinance forbidding taking loaded guns into buildings enumerated a long list of ordinance, including heavy ordinance. Why would the authors of this ordnance have bothered to mention diverse types of heavy ordinance? Merely for theoretical completeness? Or, because manufacturers and chandlers would have stocked such ordnance within Boston’s city limits?

      I have great difficulty imagining that voters of the founding generation would have made any distinction between the types of arms which an individual militiaman could bear vs. those that would be moved and operated by a crew. They would have had no motivation to consider the distinction.

      Rather, I can more easily imagine the reverse argument. Private property was private property and there was no particular public purpose to limiting what sorts of private property anyone in particular might own. We begin from a presupposition that if you owned it then it was your right to own it.

      Arms were special in that kings had a nasty habit of depriving their subjects of arms; particularly when it seemed the arms might be used against the king. And so, we had a 2A. It stands to reason that the greater the threat of a type of arm to the king, the more important it would be to protect private ownership of that type. The lesser the threat of a type of arm to the king, the less important it would be to concern oneself with the rights of private ownership vis a vis the public good.

      And so, imagine the pocket pistol. It wouldn’t be decisive in throwing-back tyranny. It’s purpose would be limited to concealing the fact that one was armed from an unwary adversary. If we jump forward into the early 19th century there arose in the public mind a concern for the carrying of concealed weapons. Had such a concern been recognized in the founding era we might imagine – pure conjecture here – that the founders MIGHT have been well disposed to consider an explicit exception for a type of arms that might be readily concealable.

      Where does this line of reasoning bring us. We have a blanket RKBA for all types of arms which shall not be infringed. It speaks neither to heavy ordinance nor to arms that might be readily concealable to take advantage of unwary adversaries. We don’t have evidence from the founding era concerning the attitude toward concealable weapons. We DO have evidence from the founding era as to the attitude toward weapons that would be useful in restraining tyranny.

      We also have the 14A; which I think is every bit as important as the 2A in establishing the Constitutional basis for the RKBA. The 2A holds no higher claim to being the supreme law of the land than does the 27th (forbidding Congress from voting themselves a raise in pay). Likewise, the 2A holds no higher place than does the 14A; arguably, the reverse might be true. The “legislative history” of the 14A can only confirm and clarify – as well as possibly supersede – the 2A.

      What do we find in the legislative history of the 14A? A deep concern for the ability of freedmen to KBA for self-defense. This concern does not illuminate any concern for heavy ordinance; freedmen would not have had the means to buy heavy ordinance, nor would it have suited their needs. Nor, did the legislative history of the 14A say anything about guns that were readily concealable; albeit such guns were readily available at the time.

      State laws frowned on carrying concealed weapons without a license. We are free to speculate whether the authors of the 14A intended to intrude or confirm on the practice of concealed-carry. Likely to no avail. We might – to greater effect – speculate on whether the authors and ratifiers of the 14A intended to make Saturday-night-specials laws Constitutional/ vs. subject to strict scrutiny. If a major purpose of the 14A was to permit illiterate freedmen equal-access to arms suitable to self-defense, a strong argument can be made to attack any law with a manifest tendency to operate as a No-Guns-for-Negros law. This would include taxes, permit fees, training requirements or occupational purposes (such as being an armed courier).

      • ordnance
        mounted guns; artillery.
        synonyms: guns, cannon, artillery, weapons, arms, ammunition

        ordinance
        a piece of legislation enacted by a municipal authority.

        Note the difference in spelling.

        Spelling. It’s a thing.

        • I have denied the importance of spelling since 3’rd grade; I’m set in my principles and refuse to negotiate.

  36. They’re losing because they keep getting caught lying and their message is so ludicrous and demonizing that nobody takes them seriously. Piss on yourself to prevent rape? Scary signs to ward off shooters? The NRA is killing our children? It’s pathetic and not fooling anyone, even people who are open to the idea of gun control can’t take them seriously.

  37. What else? Both Dems and Repubs know foreign adventures just before an election are now a nogo.

    So, what domestic policy do we use to deflect interest in crooked government? Can’t be efficient government, so what will it be to get everyone’s shorts in a knot so they don’t think about the real problems like . . . . . . goodbye middleclass, printing money, buying influence overseas (exactly how many times have we double crossed the Kurds?), crooked CEO’s and large companies like Microsoft (laying of people and trying to increase immigration of tech people), Google (less than 1% black), our overthrow of the democratically president of the Ukraine, black unemployment is greater when Obama started in office, Nancy Pelosi (and her real estate husband who got the Post Office contract) who said stop critiquing the Iran treaty because you haven’t read it yet. . . didn’t she say about ObamaCare we have to pass it to read what’s in it?, BIG Pharma (the new cholesterol drug is 15k here per year but less than 1 k in Egypt), MSM is owned by the Democrats (mostly), the bank bailout of 2008, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

    Need I go on?

  38. The problem that Democrats have is that they are simply dishonest about the whole thing.

    At their root, they want to make the argument that the “greater good” trumps individual rights, and especially an individual right of protection…. the problem is, they know this argument doesn’t play out well with a public that is very aware that they live in a dangerous world.

    The other issue that they are typically dishonest about is the well held liberal perception that a gun owner is just someone “waiting to snap” and go on a killing spree. They don’t want to talk about this because even as the number of concealed carry permits being issued to those “psycho gun owners” is skyrocketing firearms deaths are dropping. Cases of regular citizens using their concealed carry weapons to settle petty disputes are fortunately extremely rare.

    The best weapon in the arsenal of those who are pro 2nd amendment is to keep the pressure on. Keep up with the education. Let MSNBC and CNN bury news about gun owners defending themselves as far down as they can or ignore it completely… people are starting to wake up to the fact that there is an active campaign to smear and discredit gun owners and eventually get rid of the 2nd Amendment….

    First step of the antis is trying to get 2A restricted to inside of your own home and nowhere else. 2nd step is national registration. 3rd step is tax and mandatory insurance on firearms. They will keep telling firearms owners “we don’t want your guns” as they chip away until only the very wealthy and incredibly patient can buy a 5 shot revolver.

  39. It’s an issue that will get their voting bloc out to the polls, which is all they’re really concerned with

  40. It has nothing to do with control. This is about the dems engaging their core voters and getting momentum for the 2016 elections. Energize the voters, and show them how the “bad guys (Republicans/NRA/Koch Brothers/Walmart/BPA/and all non-hybrid cars) have blocked them from accomplishing their “big goals”.

    “Look, Senator Liberty filibustered my ‘store all your guns at the National Guard Armory’ bill, this is why we need more Dems in Congress.” It has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with winning elections.

  41. The two depicted in the picture look remarkable similar. The only real difference is one was once a subject under a dictator’s crown; the other, a citizen that shall never be a subject under any Earthly crown.

  42. Why? Because there is a lot of money on the left devoted to gun control – that could care less about public opinion, or votes- its all about the narrative, and setting up excuses for executive action, if legislation wont work, for the next opportunity- du jour. Congress certainly isnt stopping Obama on immigration, Iran, lower spending- why shouldnt he and his allies “double down, to push through the resistance”…(Alinsky)

    Remember- its not gun control- its people control.

    Look at how much has been invested by Bloomturd alone- MAIG, MDA, Everytown, his Al-Jazeerha girl-drone Macias from Noceras anti-gun blog at NYT, the Trace. Johns Hopkins school of public health gun research, Joyce for same in UC Davis, CSGV and Brady becoming even more hysterical, despite losing lawsuits for obvious abuses of the law, handslaps that they write off as cost of doing business- etc etc.

    And you can trace the same sort of thing through the progtard media ecosphere TPM top down, Media Matters to attack by ad hominem, planted stories in PuffHos, Rolling Stones, RawStory, etc- that are clearly pay on order, by subject, for trading it up the chain technique explained in “Trust Me I’m Lying” and confirmed by CBS Sharyl Atkinson, ready for any bad news for 2A “because guns” news story.

    There is a lot of left money in the Soros organizations, fed.gov agencies and NGOs devoted to this, and have been from a long time back- they havent gone away, its just gone under the radar screen- witness I-594 in WA, and similar attempts in other states, the smart gun initiative, the never-ending dubious to outright dumb laws in CA, by one dinky dumb left city after another, including LA, on magazine limits, most recently.

    Now that objectives achieved on immigration, gay rights, mideast problems solved by Iran deal, what else is left for the One to fill his imaginary legacy for Nobel Number Two and top candidate to run the UN, now that he is only a few weekends of golf and done with the job, of faking it and voting absent, until 2016?
    He has done his job, all but one for the left elite, who really do fear the armed citizenry of 2A militia by the Founders intent, who strangely and foolishly cling bitterly to their guns. Something must be done.

    The left progtards are not giving up, just doubling down, and the pattern is obvious- collusion and coordination on message- from the top- Obama is pushing for this last legacy, via Agenda 32, iinside the fed.gov, and his allies on the outside agitprop brigade are more than happy to help, pro-bono nitwits in the PR biz, and with money spread around, just as it was spread around in Ferguson, down to the streets, for bogus protesters. We already know there are plenty of young writers, bloggers, and embed journolistas working on script, for pay, as directed or for free, believing naively that ends justifies the means, Raw Story, Rolling Stones, Daily Beast, Vox, and various places inside WAPO, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc.

    • You are pretty much right but you are missing one key aspect. The other side of this is the campaign in colleges against rape. It’s not really about rape, it’s about eradicating the idea that individuals have constitutionally protected rights and deserve due process in any kind of judicial action that may lead to some sort of punishment. “Rape” was picked because, after all, what law-abiding civil person is “for” rape? But the process denies a whole range of rights to the accused. The purpose is to get college students used to the idea that people generally considered criminals or villains don’t deserve rights and due process and constitutional protections are unnecessary for such criminals.

      College students who don’t get thrown out on false rape accusations will probably accept these ideas. Some of them will go on to become legislators and most of them will go on to work and live in the U.S. with those attitudes. It will be easier to pass laws that ignore constitutional rights, and to ignore them in courtrooms.

      Next on the list of things college students will be put on trial for is hate speech. They’re not being sent to prison or given a criminal record, just expelled because they don’t meet the standards of the university. Once again, without getting due process, adequate representation or constitutional rights respected. But universities begin to look a lot like the Soviet Union or Red China, and they’re producing students who agree with that.

      Also remember Representative Pelosi’s constitutional amendment that would have effectively gutted First Amendment rights. That idea is still festering in the minds of Democrats (and a few Republicans).

      But ultimately they can’t control every aspect of people’s lives if the people can resist with guns. It is not just the Second Amendment that’s at stake, it’s everything. Gun rights are a road block to power.

  43. 1st ammendment by the founders -> goose quill, manual moveable type press using arachaic language

    as defined by budiness insider? computers, hypocrisy and bovine excrement it seems

  44. Why are the Democrats trying to distract the voters with gun control issues?

    Rising unemployment.
    Read inflation rate about double the official rate.
    City and State level financial mismanagement eg: Detroit and California.
    Porous borders that can’t keep out narco smugglers, much less actual terrorists.
    Numerous foreign policy failures (Iran, ISIS, China, Russia, etc).

    And this is just the start of a much longer list.

  45. What these Democrat politicians – very surprisingly – don’t realize, is just how many Independent voters they lost for life. Like a herd of sheep, they all followed their dear leader right off a cliff, when — conveniently right after his re-election — he came out of the closet, stepped on the 3rd rail and went full retard after the Constitutionally protected rights of law abiding gun owners, to punish US for some wacko kid that killed his mother, stole her guns and murdered a bunch of children. All of the anti gun Lib extremists like Feinstein were suddenly shoved in our faces like they were the people speaking ‘common sense’ with no pre-existing agenda. I admit, I WAS and ‘Independent’. But this issue alone has allowed me to see the bigger agenda of the Lib Socialists, and I am now a red-blooded Libertarian. I have 2 friends that WERE Democrats, and they have completely flipped over to Anti-Democrats in the last 3 years because of Obama’s extremist liberal, tyrant policies and behavior and specifically his blatant anti-gun agenda. If any Dems politicians are reading this, they should know that this is the result of your extremist liberal agenda. You no longer have any voters BUT your extremist liberal HuffPo sheep followers. You have completely abandoned anyone in the middle. You have galvanized all gun owners against you for life, including myself. And I’m willing to bet there are many more like me and my friends. I will never ever again vote for another Democrat as long as I live, as much as I’m socially moderate and don’t love the Republicans. At least they don’t want to steal our rights and disarm us and turn us into a European Socialist Monarchy. I relish every single chance to get to vote against you Democrat rats for the rest of my life. Molon Labe!

  46. That cartoon is obviously misleading. Draw the revolutionary infantry soldier next to the same-period citizen or militiaman. Same equipment.

    Today? Not even close.

  47. They’re relentlessly pimping gun control because politics ain’t bean-bag. The point is winning the political game to get what they want (mostly elected) and do what they want (mostly make being elected a bigger prize).

    Pimping gun control looks like a winner for them:

    – Tactically it helps turn out the base. They don’t mind turning off the already turned off. One can “win” just as well by getting slightly more of your own aligned minority to the polls.

    – Tactically, it creates opportunities to dirty up the opposition: create an impression of general craziness, and perhaps catalyze a useful sound bite that will be repeated endlessly. 47%, anybody? That one was a 2-fer.

    This one works for candidates, and for the constituencies. “Bitter clingers” and OFWG’s anyone. They are characterizing you on purpose – to make you beneath consideration both your prerogatives and your opinions.

    – It’s in line with the general world view, that those grubby humans shouldn’t be left to their own devices to make their own choices. The whole program works if people are incompetent, wards of a superior state. Flip either of those, and it becomes … questionable.

    So, it’s battle space prep for every single other argument and initiative, piggybacking in the notion that people are the problem, which government can make better … if only we will let it. (Also, “better” is what govt says it is, so the people voting, or voting with their feet doesn’t count.)

    Look, if they admit that people have the right, need, and capability to look out for themselves, the overlords are a tad diminished in comparison, no? My, I’d rather be trusted and respected by smart, informed people, based on their assessment of the quality of what I do and say. BUT, that’s a tenuous kind of “leadership” – constantly depending on doing things right, and the right thing.

    I think the ersatz acclaim of a bunch of hoodwinked proles shows only the strength of one’s propaganda effort, not so much one’s results, or character, or “leadership.” However, it works up to a point. And it that’s all you’ve got…

  48. I think its a confluence of factors. There is a nasty factional fight in the Democratic Party where the currently dominant Neoliberal faction (Clinton) is being challenged by the populist faction (Sanders). BLM is a big deal and African Americans are organizing to eliminate police brutality directed at them in addition to wanting to make sure that another self-appointed neighborhood watch captain (Zimmerman) doesn’t kill another one of their sons. Finally, the post-Sandy Hook gun control monies are making an organizational difference and they have a larger megaphone.

    Additionally, given gun control proponents inability to pass laws outside a few states and have gotten zero traction in congress I believe that they are increasingly desperate and frustrated.

    • I think a chunk of it is Clinton trying to find something to attack Sanders with. Sanders is at least fairly neutral on the issue (I think most of us would find Vermont’s gun laws an improvement over what we have now).

      Elections are mostly about the economy, despite what we might think, and unless it tanks (with the Iranian oil hitting the world market, it’s likely to improve between now and the election), the Demo candidate is going to win. I think you will like Sanders one hell of a lot more than Clinton.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *