(courtesy "clarity" on Flikr)

“I speculate that the NRA and the gun industry are secretly pulling for a Democratic victory,” Bloomberg Businessweek journalist Paul Barrett emailed guns.com, “as the prospect of a Hillary or Bernie presidency would inevitably lead to a new round of fear (and, on the left, hope) that tougher national gun control could be on the horizon.” And thus more memberships and greater sales. (TTAG’s pulling for a Republican president, m’kay?) Given that the Obama administration has awoken the sleeping giant of American gun rights, would a Democrat presidency be good for firearms freedom, on any level whatsoever?

(An earlier version of this post mistakenly attributed the quote to firearms manufacturer Ronnie Barrett. We apologize for the error.)

Recommended For You

104 Responses to Question of the Day: Would a Democrat President Be Good for Gun Rights?

      • If Jackson had been born rich, never served in the military, never been in battle, never held elected office and had armed bodyguards, then yes, Trump would be this generations Jackson. Although, if there was a Trump presidency there would undoubtedly be a Trail of Tears for this generation.

        • I think he was referring to personality similarities (Jackson was known to be direct, crass, and brazen) not similarities in professional achievements and day-to-day life structure.

          As far as the Trail of Tears; Eisenhower shipped millions of illegals back during his presidency and we all remember FDR’s “camps” for the Japanese citizens.

          Now, I’m not saying whether these things were right, or wrong, nor I am drawing a comparative to the Trail of Tears and these events. But, I am noting that Trump’s rhetoric isn’t new to “modern times.”

      • Jackson was pretty rich before it was all over. He was also a statist of the first order if I recall correctly.

        • Logically enough–I mean, who is going to seek political office in the first place? But my impression is that some are more so than others, and Jackson pretty much invented, or at least perfected, the “imperial presidency”–all in the name of “protecting the common man”.

      • +1 to California Richard’s comment.

        The only “benefit” of a Hillary or Bernie President would be extremely short term … while people buy everything on the shelves until the shelves are bare. And then it would go downhill from there.

        Remember, above and beyond whatever policies/legislation a Hillary or Bernie President would support, the real key will be Supreme Court Justices … the next President will likely nominate THREE Supreme Court Justices. Installing three Progressive U.S. Supreme Court Justices would be an utter disaster for the long term prospect of our rights.

  1. :…would a Democratic presidency be good for firearms freedom, on any level whatsoever?:

    No.

    The SCOTUS only needs *ONE* decision to start the beginning of the end for our rights. The next president is going to get the opportunity to appoint as many as -four- Supreme Court Justices.

    A Republican candidate might be just as bad, to be sure, but the odds are in our favor (even if only slightly) with an Republican in the big chair.

  2. The last thing any of the gun rights groups want is a world where “Shall not be infringed” is universally understood and accepted. No group wants to put itself out of business.

    So yes, I would agree that the NRA, GOA, etc. are secretly hoping for a Democratic President. Its good for business and they really don’t have anything to lose.

    • Hard to believe, there’s enough coin to maintain a natural right to keep pro gun organizations working for 50 years.

    • I’m not that cynical. There will always be opposition to firearms, the left is never going to give up. Considering there are vocal progressives that wish to have the NRA categorized as a terrorist organization (Hillary being one of them), I can’t buy the notion that the NRA secretly wants her to win. It’s one thing to suggest it would bolster membership; it’s another entirely when the candidate will create a culture where NRA leaders could be placed on no fly lists and potentially prosecuted. This nation is spiraling into an Orwellian nightmare, and only a fool would support those who would label, alienate, and ultimately defeat them for the sake of membership dues.

      • You know, I’ve heard many people opine that the NRA should be categorized as a terrorist organization. I will say this: if people wonder what could start the next civil war, this would likely be the thing.

        Categorizing thousands of patriotic law abiding citizens as terrorists, and persecuting them/the leadership for doing literally nothing wrong is exactly the sort of thing that would put mainstream Americans “up in arms”.

        • There’s not going to be a civil war. Dems have taken care of that. Vast majority of young folks boot lick government for freebies, they’re not gonna pick up a rifle. And us old guys can’t get up a hill.

        • 1. Not all the youngus are morons.

          2. Then get out of the lazyboy. Old age and treachery are supposed to beat youth and enthusiasm 3 out or 4 falls.

        • Mk10108, do you want to say that to me or many of the tens of thousands of young folks like me who’ve picked up the gun to preserve the Constitution? In the service or not. A war is exactly what we’ll have, and soon, if the left doesn’t back off and leave us in the “flyover states” the hell alone.

      • “This nation is spiraling into an Orwellian nightmare…”

        “…spiraling in an Orwellian nightmare”
        There, had to fix that pesky future tense / current tense thing.

        Yes, It is subjective on my part because I believe we ARE there. George Orwell thought so too; that’s why he was inspired to write.

    • Mack- Larry Pratt & GOA are legit. Sometimes they will call NRA when they sell out, but generally Larry does not pick a fight with them. GOA is good on Capitol Hill, not so good on the state level but they are a small outfit.

      Alan Gottlieb and SAF do a good job and win a lot of legal cases. Then NRA barges in and sells out to police unions. Look at the McDonald case in Illinois. NRA writes off Illinois for 40 years and doesn’t spend a dime because Mayor Daley is in office.
      Grassroots promotes concealed carry in IL, NRA & state affiliate ISRA do NOTHING for 20 years.

      Grassroots activists get Chicago black man Otis McDonald to sign on for the lawsuit against the City of Chicago. SAF funds the lawsuit, Alan Gura takes it to the Supreme Court. NRA hires former Solicitor General Paul Clement to barge in and take 10 minutes out of Gura’s 30 minute oral argument in front of the Court.

      Meanwhile back in Illinois, the U.S. Federal Appeals Court in Chicago overturns IL’s concealed weapons law in Dec. 2012, clearing the way for a carry bill. NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde sells out to the police unions and puts Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 NRA backed carry bill.

      NRA is a bloated self-perpetuating bureaucracy loaded with rats and traitors like Vandermyde who feast off the blood of their own membership after they betray them the way they sold out Otis McDonald. NRA made $1.3 MILLION in legal fees off the McDonald case. The worse the carry bill, the more job security for scum like Vandermyde to “fix” NRA’s garbage bills. NRA benefits from a Democratic President.

      • Are you the guy that has been skewering this Vandermyde fellow over at Ammoland? Not agreeing or disagreeing, just wondering.

  3. Distinction without difference. For the last 40 years, neither party has been our friend. A few were merely slightly nicer enemies as POTUS.

    Recent tear-shedding and grandstanding aside, POTUS has little power, beyond the bully pulpit.

    • For the last 40 years, neither party has been our friend.

      ^ This!

      All Republicans seem to do is slow the rate at which we are moving toward complete Progressivism. Sure, Republicans manage to repeal some stuff that Progressive governments enact. The trouble is that Republicans only repeal some of it and even then they quite often only partially repeal whatever they repeal.

      • Fair enough, pretty much post-JFK.

        I use the ’40 year’ gambit since a good chunk of the folks here can remember at least back that far. But to be honest with old Gerry, he supported many beliefs that the majority of gun owners know to be true, and he was the last guy in the office since then who has…

        http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Gerald_Ford_Gun_Control.htm

        Every single one since, has been absolutely horrible, to merely dreadful in his views on the subject.

  4. Try reading the article first: ‘…says Bloomberg Businessweek’s Paul Barrett, who authored the bestseller “Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun.”’
    Not quite of the calibre of Ronnie Barrett.

  5. Hell no. More guns sold is well and good, but the people buying during panics are not the ones that need convincing on RKBA. A Dem would be a Disaster.

    • I don’t know about that. I sure am seeing a whole lot of people buying and shooting guns who look as though it is a totally new thing for them, and some look like they are way far out liberals, with piercings and tattoos and all. My chiropractor is consulting with me on the prospect for himself and his wife to buy first-ever firearms and sign up for carry classes. He noticed that I carry, and then the wife mentioned that she and our son do as well.

      • Last week my pop had another colonoscopy and in the recovery room his doctor mentioned that deli attack about a week back and how he and his wife want to get carry pieces.

        I advised him to get safety training and a secure place to store it.

        Did I mention that his last name and his appearance led me to believe he was a member of a somewhat small-ish community?

        More and more people are wanting to tool up…

  6. Presidencies are like the stock market. It’s a big picture deal. Any untrained asshole looking to “get rich quick” can buy shares and hope to flip them fast at a profit. Those of us interested in investing stick around for the long haul.

    No legit and established pro-2A hopes for a quick profit bump without considering the larger, longer picture. What happens when they surge sell a bunch of black rifles and ammo, only to have a future liberal Supreme Court ban these items altogether?

    Put down the pipe, Robert. A Democrat in the White House next year would be a cancer and a crash to our cause.

  7. One could say th Dems poke the 2A bear for no other reason than a deflection manuver to import illegals or loosen immigration. This in the last 45 years, along with educational system deconstructing young people values and culture, brought our Republic to the abyss.

  8. Are you sure this is Tennessee gunmaker Ronnie Barrett?

    The Guns article refers to Bloomberg Businessweek’s Paul Barrett, who authored the bestseller “Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun.”

  9. I know my gun store has been doing a booming business because of it and I know this is a gun website but looking at the bigger picture is a nightmare. I live in Chicago and for years we’ve been under democratic control. Guns were banned and lawful people suffered. However, the court system convicted people and the appellate court made sure the conviction stuck. Now, juries are refusing to find people guilty and the appellate court is over turning the convictions of those that are found guilty. The appellate court has an agenda and everyone is afraid to call them on it. Criminals are winning. A democratic president and a liberal majority in the supreme court will turn this nation into a criminal’s paradise. Imagine if they take away our right to defend ourselves?

  10. NO! Tell that to residents of California, NYC,Maryland,Conn.,Massachesetts,etc. Including my state of Illinois where my “rights” are precarious at best. Poignantly brought home as I mourned the late great Justice Scalia THIS morning…

  11. Are you freaking kidding me another Democrat in office How didi long do we have to wait for a Republican to get elected in this country??? Its absolutely ridiculous to think that a Democrat in office is going to do anything different than President Obama has already tried and done. It’s exactly what we don’t need is another Democrat in office And we’ve got such great ones to choose from Hillary Clinton give me a break do you remember Benghazi??? Or what about her Hard drive being erased when asked by a judge to prevent it??? She is a friggin crook And needs to be behind bars! In a nice Orange jumpsuit!! Donald Trump for president number one!!

    • “How didi long do we have to wait for a Republican to get elected in this country???”

      Ya know, it’d be a lot shorter wait if they’d actually nominate an ACTUAL REPUBLICAN. No more northeastern liberals or statist RINOS, please (Romney, McCain, Christie, Trump, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Jeb). The only actual, legitimate Republican (conservative constitutionalist) in the race is Cruz, and the Republican party will do everything they can to avoid nominating him.

      When’s the last time we had a real, legitimate Republican win the presidency, or at least the nomination? Eisenhower? I mean, we all loved Reagan at the time, and in his first term he was spectacular, but his second term was a huge disappointment and his brand of Republicanism would be vilified among 2A supporters nowadays (wrote an op-ed in the NYT supporting the Brady bill, joined with Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford to endorse the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, signed the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration reform act that provided amnesty for illegal immigrants with the same “pay a fine, back taxes, etc” provisions that today’s Repubs are crucifying Rubio and Bush over).

      And now the Republicans are doing their best to elect Trump, a lifelong Democrat, who says his positions have “evolved,” and whose public statements lead one to believe he wants to be dictator, not president. Good grief.

      So how long do you have to wait for an actual Republican to be elected in this country? Probably quite a while.

  12. Obama has awoken a sleeping giant, but that giant is tied down like gulliver and moments from having its throat slit by dozens of tiny knives.
    Unless we get people into positions to vote on our behalf and make judgements in our favor, the only thing an opposing party would be good for is causing us harm.

    This is as much a cultural war as it is a legal battle. It only takes small losses over the long haul to eliminate the gun owning base. Once that’s gone, there is no giant.

  13. Given how a Supreme Court slot is open, no. Not at all. There would be a short term spike of gun and ammo sales, but in the long term rights would be irrevocably stripped away.

    The NRA may be short sighted, but they’re not THAT short sighted to think it would be good for them. I could see them being good with throwing the presidency, but they wouldn’t jeopardize the courts.

    Of course if Obama gets his nominee in before the election then who knows.

  14. A Democrat President would probably further boost sales of firearms and ammo, and drive new membership. This would be of short to medium term benefit to NRA, the firearms/ammunition industry, etc.
    But if large scale bans, ammo taxes and possibly confiscations take effect, sales of the hard goods would dry up. Those companies would die on the vine, or nearly so.
    A sort of learned helplessness could settle in – if getting a gun and/or ammunition become prohibitive, why bother even trying to enjoy the shooting sports? Why bother keeping membership in a organization that wasn’t able to stop the severe restrictions, and seems powerless to curtail others.
    The Long Game could go very, very badly.
    The best medicine that I can think of (at the moment) is to do what we can to bring new shooters in to the fold, and while doing so remind them that losing the right to enjoy their new sport is potentially very close at hand.

  15. would a Democrat presidency be good for firearms freedom, Donkeycraps would be bad for any freedoms in the long run.

  16. Either of the Democratic candidates would be a disaster for gun rights. Even assuming the dem’s don’t get the house and senate back, a new president with a far left SCOTUS would be free to perform any kind of executive orders they wish and to without any fear of being stopped. Moreover a Democratic president would further seed the lower courts with antis. Gun rights cannot take another 8 years of an Anti Presidency.

  17. Gun sales? Sure. Gun rights? Not even close. Look what the current democrat gun-grabber-in-chief has done. While his executive orders are not as bad as some thought they would be, they restrict, rather than enhance, gun rights. Hillary and Bernie have both promised to do worse.

    • And that’s what the article was referencing – gun sales. Remember, the national press believes fervently that the NRA exists only as a lobby for gun manufacturers, so (in their mind) anything whatsoever to help sell more guns, is what they’d be after. So they’re taking the perspective that the NRA would be happy with a democrat because it would ensure another surge of sales. A profoundly short-sighted and absurd perspective.

  18. If the GOP think they have a lock on the big house, they’re wrong. Every generation laments the next and in the past there’s a small truth to the concern. What makes this round different is the erosion of self reliance and transfer of individual responsibility to the state. Two concepts shun in past generations.

    In 30 years America as we knew will be gone, replaced by a culture dependence. Sure ones hard wired for…will have success, but must navigate regulations designed to slow his/her success.

  19. Smaller, sooner; sales and membership go up.

    Larger, later; restrictions choke the market and put businesses, including the NRA, out of business.

    This would be an idiotic economic strategy, at best. Did Congress take over the NRA’s board of directors?

  20. Bernie Is only talking this shite albeit mildly to seem on Hillary’s side. Once in office he’d just be quiet. His State has no restrictions. Obama would have been but I have it on good authority that the Newtown mothers were harassing him.
    When it was all said and done his executive order was a feel good gesture.
    If Obama cared he would have sent some funding to “the Boston Miracle.”
    I’m not taking sides here I am realistically looking at all of the candidates for their 2A stance.

  21. Who gets nominated to the Supreme Court under a Dems reign is a huge issue. Frankly it sick that anyone would bring their own preferences to that job. You should be wise and interpret the law without your own shite.
    I liked Scalia because he believed in the letter of the Constitution. He believed you should not read it based on your times. He believed if you want to change it you Amend it.

  22. I’m surprised that people think POTUS and SCOTUS don’t make a difference. We’ve had the NSA, Obamacare, AWB, Fast and Furious, and multiple additional scandals and government expansions occur specifically due to guidance at the White House or the high courts. Add one additional anti-gun justice to SCOTUS and the following all become likely:

    -Mag cap limits
    -Assault Weapons Ban 2.0
    -National restraining order gun confiscation apparatus
    -expansion of gun free zones

    and God only know what’s else all are deemed “constitutional” by the stroke of a pen. The anti-gunners are ready to pounce on this moment just like they have laws ready to ram through in the aftermath of school shootings.

    There is exactly one candidate left who is a legitimate, vocal supporter of the 2nd and that man is Ted Cruz. No one else on the campaign trail is even close. If anyone on TTAG has the stones to follow their tough talk about supporting gun rights then not only should they vote for Cruz but they should also donate the cost of a few boxes of ammo to his campaign. Last year I spent $903 total which went to the FPC, NRA, Calguns, Rand Paul, GOA, and Ted Cruz. This year will be the same or more. The FPC also makes it easy to send form letters to your congress critters voicing your opposition to gun control measures.

    We banded together as a community and stopped the M855 ban. Let’s continue to work together. If more TTAG readers and gun owners did the same we might just peacefully secure our gun freedom for decades. Don’t let an anti-gun CA cop like me be more pro-gun than any of you.

    In all seriousness, I appreciate TTAG and what has been done here. If the NRA loses influence because Cruz wins we’ll be in much better shape than if Bernie or Hillary try to rule us. And we’ll have more freedom and lower taxes, too.

    • I don’t think the NRA would necessarily “lose” influence with a Cruz victory; they just might not see some increase in membership, etc. that they otherwise might have gotten with a Dem victory.

    • Agreed on all fronts with Accur81.

      But it’s extremely unlikely now. Today is a referendum — if Cruz can’t beat Trump in South Carolina (a state tailor-made for Cruz’s strengths) then Cruz is finished. Coming in 2nd is okay in states that proportionally allocate delegates, but when it comes to states that are winner-take-all, you gotta come in first, and if Cruz can’t even come in first in SC, then — the writing is all over the wall there.

      However — here’s an alternate scenario. Trump continues to get the low/no-information vote and continues to do well. Bush & Kasich and Carson drop out, and the “establishment” lines up behind Rubio, which makes Rubio viable. It’s a three-man race which, unfortunately, Trump will win and Cruz will end up second or third, doesn’t really matter, because none will have a majority of delegates, so now we go to a contested/brokered convention. What happens there?

      Cruz cannot win. The establishment hates him. So he becomes kingmaker — he can pledge his delegates to either Rubio or Trump, and put them over the top. To whom does he give his support? Perhaps to the candidate who promises to nominate Cruz to fill Scalia’s seat!

      Could be perfect. We could end up with a like-minded conservative literal Constitutionalist on the court, although we’d be stuck with President Trump or President Rubio (whichever of them could choke down their bile long enough and retract their “liar” claims in order to nominate him). And then there’s the delicious irony of the Senate, who uniformly hate Cruz, having to confirm him to the Supreme Court. Will they? How could they not?

      It’s too good to be true. But it could possibly happen.

  23. A useless question and a false argument in the scheme of things, as I assess it.

    The only gun ‘right’ that actually exists is the Natural Liberty to keep and bear arms for whatever reason one chooses. This Natural Liberty is simply codified and enumerated in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and our founders deliberately enumerated and mandated an absolute prohibition on govt from infringing upon that pre-existing Natural Liberty.

    So, whatever ‘wing’ of our single Globalist-Collectivist Party (either the Democrat-wing or the Republican-wing) is allowed to take the reins this cycle, the Oath to support and defend that Constitution, all of it, is still required upon assuming office.

    Hello….the Republican-wing of the Globalist-Collectivist Party and the Democrat-wing of that same party, both refuse to adhere to their Oath…all of them….all the time.

    We do exactly jack-squat about it.

    All this nibbling around the edges of the only real issue, which is the several States and the People utterly refusing to mandate that govt adhere to the Constitution, and the endless perpetuating of the myth of Left vs. Right, or Republican vs. Democrat, is a waste of time and serves only to detract from the real issue, as laid out above.

    A ponderism: There is no Left or Right.There is only Tyranny or Freedom.

    As a people, we continually choose Tyranny…every time.

    It doesn’t really matter if there is a left jack-boot on your neck, or a right jack-boot. Government is the enemy of Liberty, including ‘gun-rights’…ALL government.

    The two-wings of ‘The Party’ merely progress at differing speeds and on slightly differing paths.

    The inevitable goals of both wings of this single Globalist-Collectivist Party result in a larger more powerful and expansive government, lessening of individual Liberty, more control of what individuals can do, where they can do it, how they can do it and under what circumstances they are ‘allowed’ restricted or outright prohibited from doing it….increased regulation, increased spending, increased govt scope of influence and power, increased takings of money, property and choice… and on and on and on.

    The Democrats and the Republicans are two-wings of the same bird and both are clearly domestic enemies of Liberty and of the Constitution….yet, we squabble over whether ‘our turd’, or the other, more odorferous turd (their turd), is placed at the helm.

    Ridiculous.

    Far more would be served by refusing to play the staged-game set up for you in the staged clown-circus which is our political system and the falsity that if only ‘our guy’ or ‘our team’ gains power, then things will be put right, or at least get better.

    Pfft…..ridiculous.

    It borders on insanity that so many people are so indoctrinated that they continue to cling to this false paradigm in the face of so many decades of mountains of irrefutable in-your-face evidence.

    • “You say you want a revolution
      Well, you know
      We all want to change the world…” – John Lennon

      Nice rant. Rants are easy. They don’t make you a prophet. I don’t see the slightest hint of a workable plan in yours. So you’re just wasting energy, letting Hillary or Bernie get in office and the POTG lose ground.

      “You say you got a real solution
      Well, you know
      We’d all love to see the plan” – John Lennon

      • Nice quotes, I guess…meaningless, but nice.

        As to the remainder of your go-along-to-get-along post……snore…

        It is not my responsibility to outline a ‘workable plan’ for you.The solution lays out what is required of anyone who actually demands Liberty.

        The ‘plan’ is staring you in the face right there in my post. The fact that you seem to reject it and instead, need someone to ‘lead you’ or to ‘tell you what to do’, speaks volumes.

        How about you just start by refusing to accept anything less than adherence to the Constitution and the upholding of the Oath, regardless of whether it is ‘your turd’ or the ‘other turd’?

        What a toughy that was to puzzle out, huh?

        Instead, you will reject that and continue to facilitate tyranny in your smug indoctrinated state.

        Congratulations.

        • And how pray tell is one supposed to actually accomplish that?

          How am i, one who is never more than two inches away from death by economics meams supposed to contribute to effecting change?
          I am doing everything i am aware that is in my power to do. Now you say what im doing is utterly worthless or even counterproductive all while not even hinting at concrete options for me to explore.

  24. Um, I suppose a new civil war or revolution would lead to the final demise of the Democrat Party not to mention that it will be a good for those who have invested in the firearms industry, but I would rather just vote the Democrats out of office.

  25. Barrett the Parrot est un couché sac de merde. Pardon my French.

    This kind of bullsh!t works with anti-gun wingnuts. They enjoy being herded around like sheep and manipulated by the organs of state and their own organs as well.

    POTG know better.

  26. The mere posing of this question makes it clear that the administators of this forum are as desperate and frantic as Hillary’s handlers.

    • Nope. There’s a reason that Obama is referred to as the best gun salesman in American history. This article was posted along a similar vein.

  27. A democrat infested paper telling the largest voting block republicans have that they should be voting democrat so as to continue 20 million new guns in the public per year? Like this isn’t some kind of trickery.

    How about this one. The increase in taxes and administrative cost healthcare has created has stopped me from making impulse buys. Not to mention 6 years of record fuel cost which cost me about $21,000* extra. Geez this is depressing, I’m lowballing and think Obama cost me $50,000 since he’s been in. That’s 100 of the SW Sport II, or Ruger 5.56, or Eagle Arms, or build it myself AR’s. I’m feeling the Bern all right.

    *based on highest price gas got to compared to todays price but I’m betting I’m not far off.

  28. Let’s not over-think things. No manufacturer, distributor or dealer wants a round of prohibition and confiscation so they can sell the popular guns in volume for a ten month surge then never again. They want to be able to sell the popular guns every year for decades as that leads to far more profits over time (not to mention a sustainable livelihood).

    No Democrat Presidential candidate is good for either short-term or long-term sales or ownership because they will drag a bunch of Congress-critters in with them and most of those are blindly anti-gun. They have literally staked their careers on getting anti-gun measures passed, so they will do their best to pass them.

    This election is absolutely crucial. You may have heard that before, but it is absolutely true. You and me and and all of our friends that we can rely on to pull the lever or push the button for Republicans must go to the polls to try to protect our rights. There are Supreme Court seats to fill, laws like the Hearing Protection Act to pass, and gun grabs to defeat. Get out the vote. Please. Thank you.

  29. No. Because there is the chance that the Democrats will gain enough control of the House and Senate with a Democratic presidency to pass gun control.

  30. No, no, no!!! Why would TTAG even ask such a question? We have to stay focused. Our mantra has to be “Whoever can beat the Democratic candidate,” Hillary or Bernie. I hate RINOs as much as anyone, but those two are much worse than anyone on the other side. Unfortunately, the most pro-gun candidates on the Republican side may not be the ones who can win in the end.

  31. The Democrat Party, through their own words, has made it clear that its platform is the ending of civilian firearms ownership. Something happens, they reveal their true agenda, and then a few days later pretend they did not say it.

  32. Personally, I like to see a bit of balance amongst those who govern. Too much to one side it bad. The best case I can see is a President from party X (which one doesn’t matter), but enough of the rest of Congress to be so Constitutionally-minded (again, party doesn’t really matter, if this is the case) so as to provide sufficient protection against 1. vetoes that work against the interests of the American *people* (not politicians), and B. otherwise un-Constitutional acts unilaterally by the president (e.g., executive orders/actions) or the judiciary.

  33. Another Democrat president would be great for firearms freedom, because it would exponentially increase the chances for the rural/right v. urban/left civil war that’s been brewing for some time, which would hopefully end with the military assuming control and imposing a right-dictatorship that instantly kills the welfare state, takes steps to save the currency, and lets the whole crime problem work itself out by encouraging people to kill gang members. Oh, and then the mass deportations and right-wing death squads.

    At this point you think that I’m either joking or crazy, but really take a look around and tell me this has a happy ending if we just keep trying to vote the right people in, like we’ve been doing for decades. Government is nothing but institutionalized violence that people seek to use to benefit their own group, so at some point institutionalized violence has to give way to actual violence for whichever group loses the most ground. And we have a full century of lost ground to take back if we’re to have an America where the DC government exists only within the narrow confines of the Constitution, or to scrap the whole thing entirely and try something new.

  34. Would a Democrat president be good for gun rights? Hell, I have a hard time thinking of anything a Democrat president would be good for. Especially the two fossilized socialists being offered up this time around.

  35. If sexual freedom and drug intoxication are your only freedom interests then the democrats are for you. Even some republicans as well. The democrats want to control every aspect of your life outside your bedroom. But tried to Randy Weaver ran away from it “all” and the progressives, republican type, still came after him. He was hurting no one when they murdered his family.

  36. The short answer: No. The long answer, and one I have been telling to my friends about 2016 politics in general:

    After a damn fine run spanning over two centuries of relative peace under the same flag, America today is a toy boat in the tub, circling the economic drain as all nations inevitably have. I am a proud member of the Rand Paul fan club, but I would rather a nationalist like Trump steer the boat into the drain with good intentions than let Commissar Sanders or Clinton shatter the boat against the walls in the name of social justice and laugh as we all drown separately.

  37. If we elect a President who who lowers Taxes, brings jobs that pay a living wage back to the homeland, cuts Federal spending on stupid stuff, encourages/enables small businesses to flourish and rebuilds the Military, that will create more disposable income. Gun and related sales may slump off a few years, but when people are not living paycheck-to-paycheck, small businesses are creating more products competitively priced and people are feeling better about their future, gun sales will rise. Neither Hilary or Bernie will do any of those things, rather they will take more money from us in taxes to pay-off the idiots who vote for them with “free shit”:and produce nothing but “Gimme more!”. No f*cking way will any Democrat running for POTUS be good for the Country. If the anti-gun groups go out of business, good! Pro gun groups can get their asses busy working to repeal NFA 1934, GCA 1968 and Brady Bill NICS, promoting the building of more Public Shooting Ranges and Areas, putting Shooting Education back into the Public Schools and promoting Shooting Sports in general.

    • Umm…not trying to pick a fight, but your post indicates that you are woefully ignorant of what the role and scope of authority of the POTUS is.

      Of course, you may simply be the inevitable result of group-think and indoctrination wherein people seem to accept a nearly all-powerful president, wielding powers far beyond the scope of his office. You may also have bought into the Trump brand of wild-eyed flag-waving ‘merica’ populust dicatorial-esque claims of what ‘he will do’.

      People largely have no knowledge of, regard for, or seemingly even a desire to know, the strictly limited, enumerated and delegated bounds of Federal Leviathan.

      Yet here we are, discussing the placement of one individual in what is supposed to be a strictly limited branch of leviathan, as if that person even has the constitutional ability to do even a smidgeon of what people seem to want from him, or what the ‘candidates’ so boldly claim they can and will do.

      Sad, really and yet it is a clear window into how and why the Federal Govt is all but nakedly tyrannical, albeit it is accelerating directly towards that inevitable result.

      • No fight picked and thank-you for expressing your point of view. I don’t imagine the POTUS and the Executive Branch he owns can do all the things you think I think he/she can.. A POTUS that refuses to work with the COTUS accomplishes nothing We have seen Barak Obama do great harm to the USA in the past two terms he has run the Executive Branch, and you can ignore those things if you wish. Another Democrat POTUS, particularly Hilary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, will only magnify that harm. While I do not actually support Donal Trump, as you have mistakenly inferred, I do firmly believe another Democrat Administration will complete the disaster Barak Obama has initiated in this country in both the Domestic and Foreign arenas and I would accept Donald Trump in lieu of any Democrat you could name.

  38. Is fear of bans good for gun businesses? Yes. Would any business owner want to risk an antagonistic political party taking a wrecking ball to an entire industry just for a temporary increase in sales?

    I speculate that Bloomberg Businessweek journalist Paul Barrett is a moron and/or an anti-gun hack.

Leave a Reply

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