Can Pro-Gun Pols Be Trusted? Ever? Question of the Day

betrayal (courtesy feelingsoulmate.wordpress.com)

“I talked to nearly a dozen Republicans in the House and Senate for this story,” atlantic.com writer Elaina Plott reveals, “and heard nearly a dozen different proposals for how to curb gun violence and mass shootings. They all said they wanted GOP leadership to address gun violence in a meaningful way. It’s not possible to have conversations, they told me, if there’s nothing on the table to talk about.” In other words . . .

Republicans for gun control!

To be charitable, perhaps the plot thickens. Maybe the Republican pols schmoozing with the East Coast media maven were just pretending to be pro-gun control, in private, with a liberal writer. After all, their lips were moving.

Or maybe none of these unidentified proposals weren’t gun control per se. Maybe they were anti-crime or mental health proposals.

One thing’s for sure: just because a politician declares themselves to be a pro-gun Republican, just because the NRA blesses them with an A rating, doesn’t make them a friend of ours.

To wit: the Republican lawmakers who betrayed The People of the Gun in the once [and let’s hope future] Gunshine State, enacting a raft of gun rights rollbacks in response to astroturfed post-Parkland teenage histrionics.

Is there a single dependable pro-gun politician in this country? If not, how do we hold ostensibly pro-gun Republicans’ feet to the fire when the only alternative is politicians belonging to a party that would restrict the right to keep and bear arms right out of existence?

comments

  1. avatar Shire-man says:

    Politicians cannot be trusted.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Boom. ‘nuf said.

      [ . . . err, and yet I continue, , , (please forgive me)]

      D.C. and seats of power give people brain damage. They begin to fancy themselves as 1+ (>1 the average citizen).

      No “> = Pigs” (to loosely paraphrase Orwell).

      Thankfully, no position of power (in the U.S., or elsewhere if everyone was paying attention) supersedes OR SURVIVES, the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

    2. avatar tmm says:

      I’ve said it for many, many years. They are ALL crooks.

    3. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      They have stopped listening to the constituency and it’s best we all start realizing they are not going to suddenly change their ways.

  2. avatar anonymous says:

    Over the past 25-or-so years, the Republican Party expended more political capital trying to prevent gays from getting married than it did protecting RKBA.

    1. avatar Euronam says:

      The sad thing is they’re both protected constitutionally. If we had invested that money in the 2A we might not have an NFA anymore.

      1. avatar burley says:

        The GOV should have nothing to say about marriage. Conversely, in a healthy society, Marriage would never be threatened with the kind of perversion it’s threatened with here.

        1. avatar anonymoose says:

          I don’t care if homos want to get married, as long as they don’t do it in my church…which is one of the main reasons I’m no longer a Presbyterian. The others being their blind support of the Democrat anti-gun agenda, and my just being too lazy to get up on Sunday mornings anymore.

        2. avatar Casey says:

          Funny. Us gays ALSO think the government shouldn’t be involved in marriages, and most of us don’t want to have to do it in your church, or the courthouse, or even the bath houses where we all go to have sex with inflatable chickens, or whatever.

          The marriage debate is really about “who will the government allow”, to which I think the only reasonable answer from all sides is “What do you mean, ALLOW?”

          But here we are.

        3. avatar CarlosT says:

          So, here’s a question for the “government should not be involved” people: what about spousal privilege?

          What’s spousal privilege? It’s a set of of protections against government authority, specifically in the legal realm. Testimonial spousal privilege means that a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other spouse. Evidentiary spousal privilege means that information shared with a spouse remains privileged.

          Here’s the issue: spousal privilege is in effect from the start of the marriage to the end of the marriage. If you make statements to your fiance and then she is subpoenaed, she can be compelled to testify about those statements, even if you marry her immediately. On the other hand, if you made statements to your wife, then divorced her immediately after, she can’t be compelled to testify about those statements. She can volunteer the information, but not compelled.

          For spousal privilege to work, the government then needs to establish what it recognizes as a valid marriage, when it begins, and when it ends. What is the mechanism for doing that?

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          How about my speech, to talk or not is my choice. Government isn’t some deity that can compel me to speak. Fuck that. The problem is that you are starting from a faulty premise; that it is somehow moral that government can compel me to speak like I am its slave.

          There’s your answer, the same as for a lot of today’s government created problems; more liberty.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      Love this one, cause you can knock it out of the park, easily if people are willing to be honest and use logic. I DGAF about gays or what they do, but by “asking to be married” other than the hyphenated “gay marriage” they are asking for something they are not willing to properly pay or trade Society for. They are asking to be “made equal” in a way that they are not (because, by logic, if they were, they wouldn’t have to “ask” for equality [loosely paraphrased; J.M. TERMS, 2012]).

      Society bestows upon heterosexual married couples the “title” of married (it doesn’t “give” them “marriage” as it cannot). Society says those two people have decided to become one person, and that pairing to-fusion IS BOTH A BENEFIT TO SOCIETY AND A PROVEN TERRIBLE HINDRANCE (IN PAIN AND DISCONTENT, FELT BY MORE THAN THE PAIR) IF THERE IS ALLOWED DAILY, OR AT WILL, INTERFERENCE WITH THEM (the “married pair”).

      LGBTXYZ@#$%^&??? – would say “so what” “so do we”. But that is only pretending like homosexuality (coupled) is a “new thing” like it hasn’t been around for just as long as there have been people, and has simply just NOT garnered as much shared or individual “VALUE” as heterosexuality (marriage) [loosely paraphrased; J.M. TERMS, 2012]). The immediate ‘proof’ is viewing it in the other direction. NO ONE is kicking down the door at LGBTZWTFE to get some of what they are selling as “gay marriage” and saying OHHHH BOY! they got some really great and better stuff over there, we need to have that, or have that instead, and no label of bigotry will ever stick to that. [loosely paraphrased; J.M. TERMS, 2012]).

      Plus, it absolutely defies truth and logic:
      IF YOU DREW A CIRCLE AND CALLED THE ENTIRETY OF THAT CIRCLE THE “SET OF PEOPLE” WHO EVER LIVED, AND TOOK A 10% CRESCENT SHAPED SLICE OF IT ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE AND CALLED IT “HOMOSEXUALS” (YOU’D BE BEING GENEROUS, NUMBERS WISE, BUT LET’S GO WITH IT FOR NOW) THEN TOOK A 30% CRESCENT SHAPED SLICE OF IT ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE AND CALLED IT “MARRIED HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES” (YOU’D BE BEING CONSERVATIVE ON #’S, BUT AGAIN LET’S GO WITH IT); THEN THE 60% ‘GIBBOUS’ SHAPED SECTION IN THE MIDDLE WOULD CONTAIN THE PEOPLE WHO ARE “UNMARRIED HETEROSEXUALS” (some, or perhaps many, are “couples”). And, that statement does not take away (or add) anything to what value homosexual couples have in Society.

      Now, a small-ish portion of the “homosexual” slice, want the WHOLE CIRCLE, to continue to DISCRIMINATE AGAINST the WHOLE CIRCLE, in order that there might still be a created class called “MARRIED” (AND THERE’S ONLY ONE SOCIETY HAS OF THOSE, THE “MARRIED HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES” [i.e., the LGBT group DOES NOT WANT there to be a new separate and hyphenated grouping]) AND THEY DEMAND THAT THEY BE INCLUDED IN IT. Even though, many more heterosexual non-married couples in the UNMARRIED HETEROSEXUALS group (THAT MUST BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST TO FORM THE DESIRABLE ‘SUBSET’ FOR “MARRIED” COUPLES) have and/or can obtain, more of the requisite qualifications. [again, loosely paraphrased; J.M. TERMS, 2012]) (AND AGAIN, that’s simple logic, and no label of bigotry will ever stick to that).

      Many can be offended, if they want, but that’s only ignoring the huge affront, by a minority grouping of people, to the rest, THAT CANNOT INDIVIDUALLY, OR AS A GROUP, MAKE THE FORMER CONFORM TO THE LATTER, IN ANY OTHER FORM BUT BY SAYING SO. FURTHER, THEY CANNOT. INDIVIDUALLY, OR AS A GROUP, RE-WRITE THE SET OF SHARED VALUES (and, by logic, if it wasn’t a “shared value” of some sort, then there wouldn’t be an existing set to be made a part of and the LGBT wouldn’t be seeking to be a part of it). Again, the LGBT set is asking for something that cannot be given to it, or granted, by Society, because Society doesn’t hand it out. That might sound cold or cruel, but it’s not meant to be, and (even if it was) at the end of the day, that and $4.95 will get you a cup of coffee if you’re not FIRST paying attention to the logic of it.

      1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

        HOLY CRAP WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT…AHHHAHAHHHAHAH.

  3. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “just because the NRA blesses them with an A rating, doesn’t make them a friend of ours.”

    The NRA isn’t a friend of the right to keep and bear arms so its “A rating” is meaningless, or worse.

  4. avatar Geoff PR says:

    No.

    They have to prove their bona-fides with every vote.

    We must keep beating into their pointed heads that we will be watching them closely…

  5. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “how do we hold ostensibly pro-gun Republicans’ feet to the fire when the only alternative is politicians belonging to a party that would restrict the right to keep and bear arms right out of existence?”

    One cannot. On one hand there is fast tyranny and on the other is potentially slower tyranny. That is why shall not be infringed. It’s going to take a sincere commitment to the real exercise of rights and massive civil disobedience, or more.

    There is no voting or talking to get out of the way of what’s coming. Embrace it or fight it.

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      This

    2. avatar Oh noes says:

      “One cannot. On one hand there is fast tyranny and on the other is potentially slower tyranny. That is why shall not be infringed. It’s going to take a sincere commitment to the real exercise of rights and massive civil disobedience, or more.”

      “There is no voting or talking to get out of the way of what’s coming. Embrace it or fight it.”

      THIS IS NOT JUST A CUTE LITTLE AXIOM:
      “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”. ~Thomas Jefferson~

      There will come a time in the future where a Militia of the people WILL need to invoke our duty to throw off the chains of oppression of a tyrannical government.

      or

      Incrementalism will kill us, like the frog in the pot of water, brought to a slow boil.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Aye, and I’m not cut out to be a slave.

  6. avatar barnbwt says:

    No. Law-abiding gun owners aren’t scary enough to keep them on their toes. Maybe if we were responsible for the vast majority of crimes and assassinations, maybe if we were keyed into international organized crime syndicates capable of blackmailing politicians, maybe if we rioted and burned down our own neighborhoods whenever we didn’t get attention –then we’d get some attention.

    But instead we prefer to be non-threatening, ever patient, ever loyal, content with mere words rather than action or even attempts at action from our representatives. And more importantly, willing to live under ever more restrictive laws peacefully. The ultimate un-squeaky wheel.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “maybe if we were keyed into international organized crime syndicates capable of blackmailing politicians”

      The NSA, for example.

  7. avatar Soylent Green says:

    No, the only way I’d trust them is if they were on my squad at a 3 gun, USPSA, or PRS rifle match. Saying you are pro 2A is not the same as living it. Unless you live it, you are suspect.

  8. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    Words are a good start, but only if supported by actions that match the words.

    Unfortunately we see a lot of “I support the 2nd BUT…”, “The assault on the second amendment ends now!” Or vote for me, I will fight for your rights followed by “let’s ban bump stocks, add waiting periods, let anybody who knows you petition the police to take your guns, maybe a mag or AWB ban, be if we can get the votes?”

    It seems most Republicrats want either a slippery slope into gun control or to just stall, but not actually support gun freedom. We are supposed to be thankful and happy with them for not banning everything yet. Doesn’t that make you happy?

    Florida seems to be gearing up to be a Constitutional Amendment ballot battle, if we win… Nothing else happens, if we lose… All semi automatics that take 10rd mags or higher are banned. See how this works? At best we can maintain the status quo with existing gun controls, NFA, waiting periods, taxes, import and sporting purpose rules, or at worst we can lose more, or everything! Where is that part where we gain ground again?

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Add in normalization combined with public school indoctrinate (reinforced by higher education indoctrination, MSM and social media indoctrination) and you have an explanation for why it is rarely possible to regain the real exercise of an unalienable individual right through incrementalism. Proper change must be abruptly demanded within one generation. Otherwise, efforts are just swimming against the currents as we all circle the drain.

  9. avatar burley says:

    No politician can be trusted, ever.

  10. avatar DaveL says:

    It is a core foundational value of the American political system that legitimate power is derived from the consent of the governed. A lot of nations pay lip service to this idea, but the US is fairly unique in actually giving it teeth, by protecting the right of citizens to maintain arms sufficient to resist illegitimate government. However, we should not expect any member of the ruling class to actually like this idea. We should expect it to be regarded by them, pretty universally, with anything from skeptical disdain to outright horror. It’s a philosophy that that implies the people ultimately rule, that the ruling class is not inherently better or special, and we should expect them to take to that notion no better than a mother would, upon being told her offspring were neither better nor special.

    So, politicians may make a show of supporting gun rights if it brings them votes, or money. They may refrain from attacking gun rights for those same reasons, or perhaps because they fear an armed populace bringing their whole system crashing down. But to look for principled friends among them is like looking for vegetarian wolves.

  11. avatar PeterK says:

    I describe myself as politically homeless, because both major parties are crapshows and the third party options are no-shows.

    It’s sad.

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      Also this.

  12. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    …It’s Big Brother Bull-$#!t ! We all know this…Stop pretending! Its the march of Globalization/ New World 🌎 Order/One-🌎 World Global Governance….Nothing like sudden uptick in “False Flag incidents and copycat mass shootings”….As the usual excuses to curtail personal freedoms by a government that didn’t grant them!!!

  13. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Politicians make a cold, political calculation: Are pro-gun people going to cast aside their entire political beliefs over second amendment rights? Or are pro-gun people going to decide that they have more at stake than “shall not be infringed”? How many pro-gun voters are single-issue?

    The calculus always leads to the conclusion that history teaches that pro-gun people who would refuse to participate in voting because of “gun rights” are not game-changers in any election.

  14. avatar anarchyst says:

    Two words–NO COMPROMISE…
    Let’s see what the NRA failed to stop…
    1. National Firearms Act 1934
    2. Gun control Act 1968
    3. Closing the NFA machine gun registry 1986
    4. Assault weapons ban 1993
    5. Potential “bump stock” and “rate increase” ban in 2018

    It seems that the only thing the NRA is good for is handing out duffel bags and key chains for new members. Is it possible that the NRA looks to these crises to push a new membership drive??

    1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

      “Is it possible that the NRA looks to these crises to push a new membership drive??”

      Yes, it is job security which is all they are after!!

  15. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

    Remind me which party was in power and sat by doing nothing while citizens were disarmed at gunpoint by federal troops in 2005 after hurricane Katrina.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      What happened to the promise of reciprocity?

  16. avatar Armed Partisan says:

    Personally, I innd to spend every dime I can spare ensuring that Rick Scott’s political career ends after this term; I don’t care if that means donating money to the Democrat. He needs to go away, and not come back. Florida already has an anti-gun Democrat as one of its Senators (and a squishy RINO as the other); we don’t need the likes of Ick Snot. The devil you know is better than the devil you think you know.

    1. avatar Docduracoat says:

      I am with Armed Partisan
      Rick Scott needs to be blocked from ever holding public office again!
      He was quick to sign the bump stock ban
      The other RINO’s who supported the gun control bill need to be primaried out as well
      Brian Mast, Florida Republican Representative from the 18th district of Palm Beach wrote an editorial against civilian ownership of AR 15 and bump stocks for the New York Times
      He needs to go as well
      I will contribute and help anyone who starts a movement to hold the RINO’s responsible for this accountable

  17. avatar Matt says:

    Nope. And those that think Republicans are “better than” are using the wrong lens. The two party system is the ILLUSION of choice. They both end up at the same destination.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      But, at a different speed.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        ” But, at a different speed.”

        Dead is dead, whether by a hypersonic bullet or ten thousand cuts. The union slides inexorably into oblivion. The quiet revolution is happening now, and the future wave is inescapable.

  18. avatar strych9 says:

    IMHO politicians are basically like a venomous snake.

    They can be handled and used for useful purposes but they are always dangerous. Handling such creatures requires care and skill. Distractions or mistakes mean you’ll likely be bitten.

  19. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    The closest one to trustworthy in my mind is Ted Cruz. The reason for that is his track record post Sandy Hook. Perhaps Gowdy as well for his “no fly no buy” speech.

  20. avatar former water walker says:

    I trust JESUS and my wife…in that order. No one else is on my list(well maybe a couple of my kids). Politicians never…oh and I live Illinois where repubs suck-especially in my hometown of Kankakee.

  21. avatar Nanashi says:

    Have they introduced legislation to repeal existing laws? No? Can’t be trusted.

  22. avatar rt66paul says:

    How about, “I support the 2nd Amendment, but sadly, those who promised support in the last election do not.”

  23. avatar J says:

    Oppose Gun Control and Weapons Ban Legislation

    Please help save our 2nd Amendment rights. Please pass the first link to others so we can get this petition sent to the White House.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/oppose-gun-control-and-weapons-ban-legislation

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov

  24. avatar Jim22 says:

    “Can Pro-Gun Pols Be Trusted? ”

    No. No politician can be trusted.

  25. avatar GS650G says:

    Republicans are marginally better than democrats on most issues. Both will sell voters out if it suits them.

  26. avatar Ralph says:

    No. And not just “no,” but “no” with a four-letter adjective in front of it.

  27. avatar DA-HP says:

    Or maybe its time for Lexington 2.0.

  28. avatar C.A.1990 says:

    Its the Atlantic. They have published more outright falsehoods than virtually any publication on the issue. It is unsourced and the likelihood is the author of the Atlantic piece is simply lying.

    And Atlantic has over 230 blog pieces, articles, editorial statements on gun murder since newton, with exactly two stating US gun murder is down, when this is the central objective metric, and in fact gun homicide is profoundly the past generation.

    School authorities and at least thee different personnel at Parkland formally petitioned the state of Florida to commit Cruz as dangerous insane going back to 2016, and in 2017. The Americans Psychiatric Association has noted that in the US, [b] due to ACLU suits [/b] and our Forth, Fifth and Sixth amendments, has made the US the most difficult country in the entire developed world to remand and find dangerously mentally ill. Has Atlantic ever blamed the ACLU once? Noted how many Democrats support making it easier to commit the insane while the Democrat leadership and DNC blocks it?

  29. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Can pols be trusted? Never. When did this become a question?

    It’s no the pols, it’s the slobbering hordes they play up to. (Pols have not spine, or convictions. Sometimes they fake it, when they think that will sell.) It’s never over because the slobbering hordes have nothing better to do. It’s never over because for us, it’s an issue with real consequences, not a fashion statement.

    What to do…

    You keep the pressure on, constantly, relentlessly, to make it worth their while every instant to move closer to what you want and need (and is just, not that that matters.) Especially you make sure there’s a cost when they abuse you — why do you think the anti’s are so vocal about “the NRA” “punishing” politicritters? They don’t want us having the same leverage they do. Conform or get smacked is only for the RightThinkers.

    Electing one pol, or collection is never the answer. Inch by inch, despite them, things get slowly better. This is what the “No guns for you!” people do. When they’re not acting, they’re planning and war-gaming, so the response book is on the shelf when a convenient event shows up. (You think they hadn’t identified the likely spokes-things before the Fla shooting?)

    It helps if you have a billionaire or three bugged that they don’t control everything stealth-funding your “work.” Conveniently for those of us with lives, if it’s a personal preference, hobby, benefit or right — like the right to personal arms — you’ll be motivated all the time on you own.

    It’s never over because they have nothing better to do. It’s never over because for us, it’s an issue with real consequences, not a fashion statement.

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