Every Democrat Should Support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Oh Wait . . .

“Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” Democrat Party Chairman Thomas Perez announced in a statement last Friday. “That is non-negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.” So . . .

Democrats are now, officially and completely, the pro-abortion party. And why not? Abortion is, according to the Supreme Court, a constitutionally protected right. So why, then, are Democrats against the clearly constitutionally protected enumerated right to keep and bear arms?

Don’t give me that “We support the Second Amendment, but…we favor common sense gun safety laws.” You can no more support the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and argue for gun control than you can be a little pregnant.

Truth be told, by eliminating the pro-gun as an acceptable position for their candidates, the Democrats are doing The People of the Gun a favor. They’re making supporting Republicans a no-brainer.

Or are they? It’s hard to keep Republicans’ feet to the proverbial fire on defending and extending firearms freedom when they know that they have the pro-gun vote in their pocket.

Still, that’s the way America rolls these days. We shall see whether or not the Republican controlled Congress and White House honor their pledge to enact The Hearing Protection and national reciprocity.

comments

  1. avatar Stoney Man says:

    The Democratic party is now the Non-White, Baby Killing, Anti Christian, Pro Islam Communist Party.

    If you are against any of these things, they literally want you dead. Act accordingly.

    They cant run
    They cant hide
    They get helicopter rides.

    1. avatar n64456 says:

      Democrats love their victims unarmed….. Democrat = criminals

    2. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      They abort their future voters, why do you think they have to control education and support open borders.

  2. avatar Swilson says:

    Granted that mainstream Republicans need to be constantly, hawkishly watched over to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to be doing; but they are certainly better than the Democrats who have made their feelings on anyone of a “non-protected status” quite clear.

  3. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    I support a woman’s right to choose, I even paid for her first one. She thanked me for it too. She is now the proud owner of a 9 mm Walther pistol.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      All statements made herein, not in conformance with ATF&E directives and Form 4473 disclosure statements are hereby withdrawn and stricken.

      1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        She CHOSE the gun and I bought it for her as a gift.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          My comment was tongue in cheek, and I believe we are on the same side [?]. But did mean (generally) be careful with the wording of such statements.

          It doesn’t matter anyway now. Btw, I wish you a safe fishing trip with the boat with the leaky gas tank. ; )

  4. avatar Ralph says:

    Thomas Perez, the latest Democrat Party Chairman, is living proof of the old adage that the scum always floats to the top. At least among Democrats.

    1. avatar Bob Jones says:

      Perez would make a GREAT dictator.

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        He already grates…

      2. avatar Ing says:

        And he’s a dick gone full potater. The epitome of a postmodern Democrat.

  5. avatar Renner says:

    The Democrat position is consistent. They kill babies because the woman’s imagined right to kill babies trumps the baby’s God-given right to live. Democrats believe in taking your guns because their imagined “right to feel safe” trumps your enumerated right to keep and bear arms, including the sub-category of defense of life.

    This argument that a woman has a right over her own body stops when it harms another, just like my right to throw a punch ends at your nose. This nonsense that a fetus is not life so therefore we can kill it is pure unadulterated evil.

  6. avatar strych9 says:

    The take-away for me is that we need to re-brand the DGU as a “PBA” (post birth abortion) and we will then get 100% Democrat support.

    Comon’ NRA, you’ve got a PR department!

    1. avatar Swilson says:

      You’re a smart fella!

    2. avatar Renner says:

      I refer to it as a Post Term Abortion, but same concept.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Retroactive abortion” works as well…

  7. avatar Realist says:

    If they are pro late term abortion, then they should also favor allowing a new mother to legally snuff out her baby for any reason in the first three months after birth.

    1. avatar C.S. says:

      You don’t believe in “sudden infant death syndrome” do you?

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      You’re too late on that demonic idea, there are people on the Left already arguing for that. Leftists keep spouting crazy, ridiculous evil ideas until it becomes commonplace and then law. Witness gay marriage. Man/boy “love” is high on the list for the next “right” to get.

    3. avatar Button Gwinnet says:

      https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993—-.htm

      “In dealing with an objection to the view of abortion presented in Chapter 6, we have already looked beyond abortion to infanticide. In so doing we will have confirmed the suspicion of supporters of the sanctity of human life that once abortion is accepted, euthanasia lurks around the next comer – and for them, euthanasia is an unequivocal evil. It has, they point out, been rejected by doctors since the fifth century B.C., when physicians first took the Oath of Hippocrates and swore ‘to give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel’. Moreover, they argue, the Nazi extermination programme is a recent and terrible example of what can happen once we give the state the power to MI innocent human beings.
      I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show in this chapter, however, this is not something to be regarded with horror, and the use of the Nazi analogy is utterly misleading. On the contrary, once we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life that – as we saw in Chapter 4 – collapse as soon as they are questioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific.” – Peter Singer, “bioethicist.”

  8. avatar -Peter says:

    Democrats and liberals want us all to think they’re the official guardians of science and reason. At the same time, they also think gender isn’t determined by chromosomes, but rather by feelings; that vaccinations cause autism; that unpasteurized dairy is good for you; that an inanimate object (a firearm) causes violence; and that a gestational human baby is analogous to a clump of tumor cells.

    1. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

      Unpasteurized dairy is good for you, but there also risks to it and it doesnt have as long of a shelf life, which is why pasteurized is more common.

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Also, although it is rare and does not negate the positive effects of vaccination to the public at large, some vaccinations in some children have been proven to result in autism. The Federal government has conceded to that and has awarded millions of dollars to victims. Probably the most famous among those is Hannah Poling. If I remember correctly, her parents got $1.5M for year one and then half a million a year after that, back in 2010.

  9. avatar Joe R. says:

    “CONSIDER the same matter using the weighted and defined terms of equality and value in the full and complete framing of the argument. [sic] While the Author may be prevented from acting on the choice, the Author is always able to decide for himself. Therefore: IF the Author, by the imposition of the Author’s will, in seeking to enforce the Author’s believed shared notion of Societal Agreement, in forcing a woman to keep her child, as the woman’s initially chosen pro-creation of herself, in [intended or not] affirmation of the idea of Tomorrow, and [as] the most intimate part of herself that also happens to be someone-else as well, until that part of herself has appropriately concluded the time that the woman is, at minimum, supposed to carry such person (as an undeniable part of the undeniable process as previously stated); if that makes the Author an imperious Fascist, wrecker and thief of the woman’s meaningful personal freedom, in the Author’s request to have the woman not kill her baby; AND if the Author’s demand is akin (Equal) to the Author’s demand that the woman risk her life by attempting to accomplish the opposite (i.e., the killing of her child) by sub-standard and secretive means, unaided by persons skilled, by repetition, in the manner of ending the life of other similar such persons in similar such circumstances, and removing this intimate part of the woman from her body in a manner that is only less likely to also cause the woman’s death; THEN demanding, from the Author, in abandonment of Societal Agreement, that a Woman, devoid of the consequences of the severe and absolute violation of Societal Agreement, be allowed to accomplish the same, makes the woman, and those who aid and otherwise promote such activity, regardless of statutory directives in the affirmative of the position, Monsters. Human history has already so decided.” (J.M. Thomas, R., TERMS, 2012 Pgs.70-71)

    1. avatar Renner says:

      Wow, that was a tough read. Unfortunately I left my lawyer language hat at home today. That whole thing was only 2 sentences. I believe in the right for grammar school teachers to whack lawyers upside the head every time they construct a run-on sentence similar to the above.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Two SHORT sentences. C’mon man, breath thru your ears. /sarc

        Short version. If I’m a Facist for SAYING abortion’s should be illegal (causing a woman to use only slightly less deleterious means). Than those seeking and those providing abortions (ACTUALLY KILLING PEOPLE) are Monsters.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          . . . And, I don’t think the quote is true “legalese”, and I am not a lawyer. Nor do I play one on t.v.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Renner, some days it’s almost like Joe forgets to take his ADHD meds…

        😉

    2. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      (J.M. Thomas, R., TERMS, 2012 Pgs.70-71)…..Joe, give us the link to the damn book already.

      1. avatar DaveL says:

        I regard J. Thomas’ Terms as the Gun Rights Movement’s version of The Necronomicon from HP Lovecraft’s stories: a book of legend that drives its readers insane.

        1. avatar Scoutino says:

          It sure did a number on the author. 🙂

    3. avatar Button Gwinnet says:

      Hey – I know that guy. He’s from Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi. Nobody there can write worth a sh!t.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Half of the value and discernment of writing is reading.

        Again, at least no one said it was ‘wrong’.

  10. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    If the Republicans don’t support the 2A after promising to, that is what primaries are for.

  11. avatar rt66paul says:

    The Republican platform does not state that they support unlimited gun rights, they are just the other party. Just because one party doesn’t like something, doesn’t make the other like it.

    We all have to be vigilant, these politicans turn on anyone for a point in the polls.
    Do NOT trust anyone because of thier political affiliation.

    Remember Nixon and Reagan both wanted more gun laws.

    1. avatar ron cassano says:

      read the{dick act of 1902-gun control forbidden,the dick act of 1902-can,t be repealed{gun control forbidden}its protection against a tyrannical government. the dick act of 1902 also known as the efficiency of militia bill 11654 of june 28,1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

  12. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    “It’s hard to keep Republicans’ feet to the proverbial fire on defending and extending firearms freedom when they know that they have the pro-gun vote in their pocket.”

    The way to keep Republicans’ feet to the fire is to “primary” the ones that refuse to act like Republicans.

  13. avatar Icabod says:

    How does this sound:
    “We support the Constitutional right to abortion. But we favor common sense laws to regulate an abortion.” These include a waiting period, medical exam, informed consent, …..

    1. avatar Ing says:

      HATE SPEECH!!!1!1!!

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Can I “steal” this, as use it as my own?

    3. avatar The Duke says:

      Did you get a permit for that too?

      There’s a fee that needs to be paid, 8 hours of hands on experience in a training class and a 40 week waiting period before you can receive your permit

    4. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

      Also a background check, fingerprints, two references, need to wait between 1 and 6 months to get approved, and only 1 abortion per month. Oh, wait…

    5. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

      How about an 8 hour therapy session to ensure the woman is mentally prepared for the abortion. And a 2 hour course on the facts about fetal development so that the woman doesn’t have regret later when she learns that all the lies she’d been told weren’t true.

    6. avatar strych9 says:

      Background check, AGID card (Abortion Getters ID), limits on the number of abortions you can have without getting a new license, a per gram tax on extracted tissue… damn you could get really creative with this.

  14. avatar Norincojay says:

    I’m for common sense immigration control. As in if you want to be an American go through our immigration procedures and paperwork.

    I’m for common sense abortion rules as within the first 15 weeks at a registered and insured health facility. That’s it.

    I’m for common sense gun control as in felons shouldn’t be able to purchase and own guns legally. That’s it.

    That seems like compromise sense.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      You just may be onto something, here.

    2. avatar c4v3man says:

      If a felon can’t be trusted with a gun, they shouldn’t be released into the general population. Whether that means execution or life in prison I don’t care. Just because someone can’t legally purchase a gun doesn’t mean they can’t buy one illegally, create one, or use alternative methods to kill people. The concept of telling felons it’s illegal to purchase a gun defies all logic. Either they’re law abiding and mean you no harm, and should be entitled to defend their own life with a firearm, or they are a danger to you/others, and should not be released from prison.

  15. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    I know congress goes at a pace slower then a turd rolling up a hill.
    But Im already beyond pissed off if we don’t get some movement with pending rights bills.
    My rights that is………………… to have, keep and own my guns as I see fit.
    Move your asses already dammit.
    Or the next guy whatever or whoever he or she is that makes a statement I want to hear.
    Just might get my vote next time.
    Ive had it with these do nothing lazy worthless bums on both sides.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      Those bills will go nowhere until the Republicans can garner 60 guaranteed votes, without which they will not make it out of committee. Fight the battles you can win, not the ones that can be sabotaged by a filibuster.

  16. avatar MarkPA says:

    I think the way to get this across simply is to ask: In 1792, could a woman carry a double-barreled flint-lock pistol on the streets of NYC legally? If so, in the 21’st century, may she carry a double-barreled derringer on the streets of NYC legally? In either case, I presume she is a law-abiding, mentally-sound adult citizen (or green-card holder).

    If not, why not? What changed? Is it the change from flint-lock to center-fire? Did the 2’nd Amendment change?

    There is no need to ask about suitcase bombs or machine guns. No need to ask about Constitutional-Carry vs. Shall-Issue. At “street level” where we all live our daily lives, we can pose the simple question: What changed since 1792?

  17. avatar Shose says:

    Perez is so gaunt and ashen looking….is he HIV +?

  18. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    The idea that the Republicans know that they’re the only game in town when it comes to gun rights in many cases is a VERY bad thing. It means that they can take us for granted. Think about the unions and the Democrats. Do they actually get anything for their votes? We need to avoid being the same way.

    In terms of the abortion stuff it amuses me that they talk about how restrictive abortion clinics are in places and how they’re actively trying to shut them down etc. but they are totally okay with doing the same garbage to a gun shop.

  19. avatar Warlocc says:

    This one time, I met a Democrat I liked, and he worked for me like politicians are supposed to.

    No, really. I’m being fully serious.

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      Was it in Band Camp?

  20. avatar IYearn4nARnCali says:

    “Wait…no I…..You…….you…..just…..now hold uh on…….no….I mean yes…..I mean no….COME ON!!!!!” Tom Perez tries desperately on air to explain what exactly ARE the Democratic party’s “values” that are supposedly going to usher that disgraced, discredited, disreputable political ideology back into the myriad political seats they gave away under HRC.

  21. avatar Rob says:

    What I can’t understand, and have long since giving up on trying too, is why can’t we just be about freedom. Good ole American freedom.

    Using two of the hot buttons as examples…Want a gun? Good news, you are free to have one or as many as you want….Want an abortion? Again, you are free to do so.

    Flip side, don’t like guns don’t have one, don’t like abortions, don’t have one.

    Live your own life and leave others alone.

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      For those that believe that a fetus is a human child, your statement reads as:
      “Want a gun? Good news, you are free to have one or as many as you want….Want to murder a child? Again, you are free to do so.”

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email