2020 Democrat Candidates Try to Convince Rural Voters to Ignore Their Stance on Guns

kirsten gillibrand gun control second amendment

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)

Can dedicated anti-gunners like Spartacus, Fauxcahontas, Creepy Uncle Joe, Kama Sutra HarrisCrazy Bernie and Tracy Flick convince middle-of-America deplorables to vote for them?

There’s no consensus on whether rural success for Democrats is about policy or personality or some combination. Some winners establish a personal brand at odds with the national party — West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin defending the coal industry, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown opposing much of U.S. trade policy, Montana Sen. Jon Tester playing up his rancher credentials.

But that won’t necessarily work for a presidential candidate looking to become the face of a party with a decidedly liberal base. None of the declared candidates deviates from Democratic orthodoxy supporting abortion rights and LGBTQ civil rights and opposing Trump’s hard line on immigration — all positions that run afoul of rural and small-town voters who collectively are more culturally conservative than urban dwellers.

Sanders struggled with that balance in 2016 when Hillary Clinton hammered him for some Senate votes against gun measures that most Democrats backed. Sanders noted that many Vermonters, as in the rest of rural America, view guns differently than most big-city residents, but Clinton successfully used the issue against Sanders, particularly with black women.

– Bill Barrow in 2020 Democrats aim to make inroads in rural America

comments

  1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Ignore the fact that they are Anti Constitution/Un American/Marxists,Hardly.

    1. avatar Bob Jones says:

      They are more Stalinist than Marxist………they want to violently terminate all of their opposition.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Is there another way to implement Marxism?

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Ultimately no, with any of the various types of totalitarianism especially the Marxist flavors the guns are always pointed at the opposition. It’s just a question of at which point in the revolution.

        2. avatar Bob Jones says:

          In Stalinist Russia, you would be murdered simply because your wife’s sister married someone who mildly disagreed with the party line of the moment….which constantly changed. Any taint of anti-party was justification enough to be terminated. It was as hard line as it gets.

        3. avatar TexTed says:

          >>Is there another way to implement Marxism?<<
          Well, that right there is the so-called difference with "Democratic Socialism". It's Marxism that gets implemented by voting, instead of by bloody revolution.

          Same thing, same outcome, but the bloodshed and mass murder comes after implementation instead of before, during and after.

        4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          BJ, how was Stalin any different than Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Kim, etc.?

          Tex, the problem with implementing ‘Democratic Socialism’ is that while people are quick to vote for welfare if they’re the ones on the receiving end, they’ve never voted for Marxism.

          How do you throw people off their family farms and seize their bank accounts and investments without pointing a gun at anybody?

        5. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Gov does there come a point in democratic socialism where what people voted for no longer matters? And yes seizures and political power comes from the end of a gun (spear drone whatever)

        6. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          ‘…does there come a point in democratic socialism where what people voted for no longer matters?’

          Yes, that’s the point when it becomes ‘undemocratic’ socialism. Don’t forget that Hitler was voted into office. So was Chavez. For socialists the democratic process is a tool to be used and disposed of when it is no longer useful to their agenda.

        7. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          So really only a difference in when the killing starts in earnest? Nit at all disagreeing with that assessment as I live in a slow motion (hopefully) version of that ideology for the immediate future.

      2. avatar enuf says:

        False. They are wrong about guns. They are not Stalinists.

        1. avatar QED says:

          Actually they are statists like Hitler. Stalin and pol pot.

        2. avatar Mort says:

          THEY ARE STALINISTS– THEY BEING THE DETESTABLE DEMOCRAT PARTY. And, they are not “wrong about guns…,” because in their view, they are “right about guns.” An American populace with civilian weapons to ensure our liberty is necessarily anathema to the society they envision and are working hard to create– guns make their goals literally impossible. Look, if you want to be all semantical and call them “neo-Stalinists,” or “Stalinists-Lite,” or “wannabe-Stalinists,” then go crazy with it. But, by several substantial empirical measures, these people who are consolidating the Democrat Party platform are indeed Stalinists.

          First and foremost, they demand a uniformity of thought– and the consequences of objecting to or “violating” that uniformity are severe punishments. Even prosecution and prison… there are substantial elements in the Democrat Party that loudly advocate for criminal prosecution for “hate speech,” and “hate crimes” that give an offense to someone’s “feelings” or “identity” legal equity with “threats” and “violence.” The primary ideological currencies of this movement within the Democrat Party are identity politics, “social justice,” and intersectional hierarchical victimhood. All of this immoral insanity can generally be summed up as: conform to opinions of the mob majority, or face persecution or prosecution. If you don’t realize this, perhaps pay more attention. (Or put it to the test: Face or Twit something “controversial” that flows against the grain of that uniformity of thought, and see what happens when a True Believer notices and revs up the outrage apparatus….) It’s Stalinism by any other name. Close the door in the room, and ask them… you will likely get an answer that quite “logically” leads to reeducation camps by any other name. What happens to those who refuse to be reeducated and rehabilitated? When people feel the need to sift through the last decade-plus of your public remarks in a calculated attack to shame, villify, and destroy your livelihood… what do you call it other than Stalinism? Denouncement is the backbone of Stalinism.

          We can also talk about the innumerable social and economic policies that are loudly advocated in today’s Democrat Party. These ideas are dekulakization by any other name. “Redistribution” of private resources with the express purpose of ending class disparity and inequality, while maintaining an “educated” and reliable party elite (True Believers) to police the fairness and equity of citizens’ positions in a purportedly free society– that is Stalinism by any other name. The Democrat Party is well on its way towards literally demanding societal uniformity of thought, of class, and absolutely of voice– on pain of ruination or prosecution of the dissident.

          There are literally dozens of political and elected officials within the Democrat Party that are publicly today (on teevee right now, guaranteed…) loudly demanding that anyone who resists their ideological advancements be labeled suspect, be shamed and “called out” (denounced!), and then be made an example of by punitive social realignment until they repent and fall in line. Are they not Stalinists merely because they don’t yet have a Stalin? The Democrat Party has buckets of would-be-messiahs literally tripping over themselves to prove to their adherents who is most ideologically pure and worthy of adminstering “social justice.” The only good thing about a movement like this is that such ideological fervor has a high likelihood of cannibalizing itself vis-a-vis its impossible purity standards… especially when everyone and anyone can be denounced as a “racist” or “homophobe” or “misogynist” if a decade-plus of social remarks are sifted and strained to reveal “one’s true ideological character.” Party in-fighting and smiling betrayals are a telling characteristic of totalitarian bureaucracies.

          These people are indeed Stalinists. You’ll note, I’ve cited no specific examples. Don’t take my word for it– find it yourself, as there is an abundance of propaganda to navigate. I’m not necessarily suggesting confirmation bias, but perhaps play “Devil’s Advocate” and peruse the words and ideas of today’s Democrat Party rising personalities… are they applicable to a “fresh,” modernized bent of Stalinism that could realistically take hold in an American society with today’s social media phenomena? Be honest.

          As for the guns… which is why we’re all here: An armed American citizenry means that there can never be, past a tipping point, an effective state police apparatus to enforce the True Believers’ hellbent vision of Stalinist uniformity. But anyone who believes they won’t try is a fool. “Extreme Ooga Booga Boogeyman Protection Orders” and “Red Flag” laws? This is Stalinism incarnate. The literal encouragement of your own family, friends, neighbors, coworkers et al to publicly denounce you for “threatening” the “safety” and “security” of our new uniform society? Complete with requisite ideological encouragement (e.g., “for the children!”) to assuage any guilt or doubt over violating and betraying a fellow citizens’ civil rights? And what of the inevitable chilling effect we will all experience when “Red Flag” denouncement laws to take hold? Who will want to post gun photos– or even write an opinion admitting advocacy for citizen arms– for fear or being watched and denounced? Make a perilous misstep in your navigation of such a social minefield– one spiked with the teeth of “Red Flag” laws to back it up– and suddenly face denouncement and the loss of your civil rights forever… never mind losing your job, friends, and reputation. How can sowing such fear and paranoia over essentially nothing but prejudiced, bigoted ignorance be anything but Stalinism?

          “False. They are not Stalinists.” Yes, they bloody well are… and at a minimum, whether they know it or not, that is exactly the spiritual vision that the Democrat Party has for the United States. And they will find their “Stalin,” their messiah, soon enough. It might not have been Obama as many hard right Americans feel it was… he might have only inspired the viable possibly of a real new-Stalin. But whoever (hopefully never) achieves that position next time will doubtless be afforded a much wider liberal mandate to implement the noxious ideas and ideologies of these new Stalinists. And then you’ll be able to witness not just Stalinist thinking, but hard Stalinist pragmatics. What happens when that thinking turns to policy and behavior will be much worse, as it always is, as history repeatedly has demonstrated…. and we won’t have any time to say “I told you so.” The only pragmatic bulwark opposing that possibility is the reality of American gun owners. Without an invasive police apparatus, which can be checked by willing armed citizens, Stalinism can only ever be implemented to a certain degree… still damaging, still destructive, but checked enough to be eventually reversible. Ergo, we must protect civilian arms at any cost.

          Vote Democrat = Vote Stalinist in 2020. For safety! For security! For the children!

          (actual Mort in AZ)

        3. avatar enuf says:

          Wow, you guys do enjoy this off the deep end stuff.

          Hitler was not a “Statist”. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot were not about the same ideals. Similar methods in some cases does not make them the same. All were evil thugs tho, that much is true.

          And no, liberals and Democrats bear them no resemblance.

    2. avatar enuf says:

      False. They are wrong about guns. They are not Marxists.

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Walks like a commie, talks like commie, infringes like a commie, but not a true Marxist as the idea has never been tried correctly.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          Wrong. There is nothing about Communism in what they are saying or wanting. They are wrong about gun rights, they are not Communists.

        2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Bro what neon colored leftist hairs are you trying to split? Whatever you want to call them it’s all control seeking statism seeking to subvert civil rights through deception and ends in bloody miserable failure.

      2. avatar Southern Cross says:

        We are looking at the difference between Marxist theory and actual historical implementation.

        20th century communists would consider Marx to be a bit soft, even bourgeois, on the implementation of Communism. Marx in his manifesto was a bit vague on details quite often and would use cop-out phrases such as “will be provided by the dictatorship of the proletariat”.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          Blithering nonsense. There are liberals, not Marxists.

  2. avatar James Banish says:

    Nothing suprises me when the issue of Gun control comes up when dealing with a Democrat. I am not going to give Marco Rubio a pass either. The fact s are the states that have the toughest gun control laws have the most gun violence

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Absent the big cities, they wouldn’t have the violence (see Vermont) and absent the violence, they wouldn’t have ‘had’ to pass the gun laws. It’s because they don’t even remember what prompted them to pass the systems they have in place, today.

      Oh yeah, and absent a multitude economic games to subsidize living in a tight cluster in order to hold down wages for employers, they wouldn’t have the big cities in the first place.

      1. avatar binder says:

        Big cities in on themselves is not the issue, look at the crime map for Chicago, half the city has a crime rate lower than national. And don’t forget NYC, with a murder rate lower than most States. And then there is Alaska.

        And then look at NYC vs Chicago. NYC is far more dense than Chicago

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          This is a remarkably insightful point! Just what is it that distinguishes NYC from Chicago?

          A weak argument could be made that Chicago is surrounded by gun-culture states whereas NYC is surrounded by gun-culture-free states. But, I think that’s a very weak argument. A criminal is likely to want a gun regardless of the greater culture he lives in. And, it takes little more to move a gun across 3 or 4 state lines than a single state line.

          Might it be that the NYC police and NYC judges have fine-tuned their sights on those criminals with a pattern of priors that make them most likely to commit homicides in the future?

          I firmly believe that large city police have the detailed data to know that some crime patterns (gang membership, violence, armed-robbery) anticipate homicide while other crime patterns (grand-theft auto, burglary, graffiti) anticipate a future of criminal behavior but not necessarily homicide.

          If you pursue and incapacitate the former you can push your homicide rate down – really low. You might not change your over-all crime rate because your auto thieves and burglars get the soft touch. But, the much advertised homicide rate is kept low because the gang killers aren’t free to kill rivals.

          In Chicago (and other cities) the cops and judges might not be so clever. Treating all crimes leniently they leave killers and soon-to-be killers as free to kill as auto thieves are to steal cars.

        2. avatar Sian says:

          Aggressive prosecution and sentencing of Known Bad Actors does more to reduce violent crime than any other enforcement factor.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Aggressive prosecution and sentencing of Known Bad Actors does more to reduce violent crime than any other enforcement factor.”

          Damn straight.

          You only get those kind of results when you engage in ‘profiling’, and a ‘Progressive’ will never tolerate criminal behavior profiling.

          The profiling must be politically correct, like what they use on lawful gun owners…

        4. avatar Ing says:

          MarkPA, from what I’ve read, that’s how they got the crime rate down in NYC — by using a “broken windows” policing approach to scoop up and sequester the bad actors in prison. Petty crimes were vigorously prosecuted. Repeat offenders went to the Big House and didn’t come back for a very long time, and it’s been that way ever since. Exactly the opposite of Chicago.

        5. avatar QED says:

          Big cities in on themselves is not the issue, look at the crime map for Chicago, half the city has a crime rate lower than national. And don’t forget NYC, with a murder rate lower than most States. And then there is Alaska.And then look at NYC vs Chicago. NYC is far more dense than Chicago

          Actually out of several hundred cities, the huge number of murders in just a handful, about 50, comprise the entire elevation US murder over internal averages.

          As far as yor examples lets take them:
          1) NYC: NYC is no argument for gun control. Knifing and beating murders are down there as much as gun murders there. So gun access is not relevant, other factors are:
          a) In both Federal homeland security money to NYPD and their own money NYC has the highest per square foot concentration of police and police networked private cameras in the US. In the western world only London has more.
          b) NYPD has federally paid for ultra high tech and trained anti-terrorism that has a high impact on normal crimes as well, this includes computerized crime hotspot presence and response and an entire criminal activity intelligence division without par.
          b) NYC has been profoundly gentrified. The entire cohort that makes up most murders has been pushed out.
          c) over 75% of armed repeat felons arrested during stop and frisk peak are still in prison today.
          d) NYC drove down crime with “broken windows’ and that is ‘long tail effect,” ie still reducing crime.

          2) Alaska. Alaska is an outlier due to high violent crime rate of native population (like Wyoming). And Alaska as an entire state has less total murder than quite a few US cities.

        6. avatar Mad Max says:

          It’s rumored (Chicago Magazine, multiple articles) that some Chicago alderman, judges, prosecutors, and public defenders are actually gang members or closely associated (financially or otherwise) with gangs.

          What Chicago needs is some Federal enforcement of the GCA.

  3. avatar barnbwt says:

    Ah, so “gun issues” are why urban black women wouldn’t vote for an old white academic from the boonies who perpetually campaigned to coddled white lib-arts college kids. That explains it.

  4. avatar GS650G says:

    By offering free shit someone else pays for they can buy a lot of support. Unfortunately for them decades of broken promises means they don’t believe a word of it

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      They don’t have to. Only the people they’re pandering to have to believe it. And then only for a couple of months every other autumn.

  5. avatar Shire-man says:

    As long as gun owners are not single issue voters they are open to voting for the party of free shit and bankrupting the children Boomer style. Either they don’t care that much about their rights, figure any laws/bans or regs don’t apply to them because they’re special or just expect to ignore any laws/bans/regs until they get busted then they’ll cry victim because they’re Democrats and that’s what Democrats do.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      There’s a lot of stupid, blind loyalty to their sports team, too. Case in point, all the now-familiar apologizing when Trump does something anti-gun.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        The effects of the Trump victory went global. Even down under Hillary was portrayed as the great savior who could walk on water. There was great disdain and contempt for the American voters not knowing what was good for them. I was not popular when I pointed out that many Democrats didn’t vote for Hillary either and no-one questioned why.

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Emperor’s new clothes kind of situation?

      2. avatar QED says:

        Case in point, all the now-familiar apologizing when Trump does something anti-gun.>

        Case in point people whining about Trump when in totality there has never been a better president in the US for Second Amendment rights.

        1. So, how are you liking those “Red Flag” midnight SWATTING gun-confiscation raids he’s pushing so hard?

          Reagan gave us mail-order ammunition. What has Trump given gun owners, other than the back of his hand?

  6. avatar No one of consequence says:

    These are also the people who want to disband or neuter the electoral college – I will be reminding folks locally that the Dems are the ones who want to effectively disenfranchise them in favor of the densely populated coasts.

  7. avatar Carl B. says:

    Voting? Really? We are waaaay past “voting.”

  8. avatar Hasaf says:

    I know a lot of people that own guns and vote D. While we can disagree on economic policies, particularly which ones will bring about a sustainable and higher quality of living for the majority of people, the reality is that the parties have chosen to pursue very different paths. Unfortunately, neither is very positive in regard to the rights of gun owners, one is just less bad than the other.

    As a group, we have crippled ourselves, in our ability to sway policy, by going all in for one party. The result is that neither party has any real intent to cater to our needs. D recognizes that they can never get our vote, so there is nothing that they will do for us. R recognizes that they have our vote, so they don’t need to do anything for us.

    Gun owner rights organizations shouldn’t be going all in for anyone other than individuals who have proven themselves to support us. Instead I read, non gun ownership related rants in the editorial pages of American rifleman. Dana Loesch is so bad that the first time I saw her speak I sincerely though she was doing a parody act.

    We need to stay focused on gun owner rights, not on the other balls that are bouncing in the court. Unfortunately, there aren’t many people that are focused on both a sustainable economy that serves the American people, and pays its bills, along with supporting the rights of gun owners. It wont be easy but those individuals need to be found and courted. This is very different than going all in for either party.

    1. avatar Carl B. says:

      How much did Soros pay you?

      1. avatar BR says:

        You are a fool to think that Hasaf did not have a point. Every gun 2A advocate agrees that the Republican party is better for gun rights than the Democratic party and that some Republicans are better than others on these rights. In other words the Republican party is not wholly good for us. Even if you don’t agree with Hasaf’s stance on economic polocies there is no doubt he is spot on that neither party has our best interest at heart as they apply to our civil rights.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          Agreed, well said.

        2. avatar QED says:

          on economic ;policies everyone who bothers to work does better under the the GOP.

          Lets not forget that it is well established, and indeed specifically said by Obamacare legislation authors, that everyone who works was a net loser under Obama care. Jonathan Gruber said this directly and the numbers show it.

          the main issue with the Democrat culture is:
          a) statism, more and more control by the state. There is no denying this is the core of 90% of what the Democrats promote
          b) divisive identity politics creating aggrieved sub-groups
          c) endless government spending and invasive policy growth which is not sustainable without growing Us population endlessly. that is why they promote open borders even thought that drives down middle and lower working class wages

        3. avatar Carl B. says:

          Right back at ya, fool.

        4. avatar Carl B. says:

          That’s to “enuf” and the other Soros plant.

    2. avatar DaveP. says:

      “I know a lot of people that own guns and vote D. ”

      Translation: “I know a lot of people who can’t connect cause and effect.”

    3. avatar enuf says:

      You are absolutely correct and shall be villified for such heretical and impure talk.

      1. avatar QED says:

        Except the facts say the parties are not at all the same on the issue, more different than ever, and the Democrats are running about 95% voting for more and more gun control.

        There were over 170 gun control a) bill presentation with co-sponsors, b) committed vote and c) full votes in the 50 state legislatures in the US in the past two years. Unlike in the past when the correlation was semi-partisan, the correlation today is fully partisan.

        The Democrat party and its leaders have never been more anti Second Amendment than today. That is a stone cold fact.

    4. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      The problem with Democrat gun owners is they’re not willing to vote out Democrat politicians who are anti-gun. Republican gun owners are willing and have voted out of office anti-gun Republicans.

      And that is why Republicans are seen as being more reliable when it comes to supporting gun civil rights.

    5. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Same down under. Conservative political parties thought shooters were a bunch of idiots who would vote for them regardless, and that was how it played in the late 80s and early 90s.

      Then the Howard Liberal Government was elected (note the Liberal party is our main conservative party, usually in coalition with the National party representing mostly rural areas) and when the Port Arthur incident happened, sensing political opportunism Prime Minister Howard turned on gun owners starting our (in)famous national firearms laws.

      State level political parties have sprung up to represent shooter’s right in the upper houses in the states. While small in number, they do hold the balance of power.

      1. avatar QED says:

        actually you have it backwards, not surprising that some left winger commenting here making up a statement that is false on the core facts would confuse you as you are form Australia.

        Conservatives and Republican voters and legislatures supported gun control MORE often 40 and 25 years ago in the US than today. That is the fact from gallup and pew surveys of voters, and the fact from analysis of state and federal legislator voting the past couple of generations.

        In the 1970s on anti second amendment legislation you would have about 75% of Democrat legislators and about 25% of GOP legislators voting for it. Today the numbers break more like 95% and 5%.

        1. avatar Southern Cross says:

          How do I have it backwards?

          Australian gun owners have learned that both major political parties will sell us out for political opportunism, a quick soundbite, or to appear to be tough on crime without actually doing anything. Does any of this sound familiar?

          This is why a special political parties directly representing shooter’s rights and interests were formed.

        2. avatar Southern Cross says:

          And The Greens want nothing less than our extermination.

    6. avatar Mad Max says:

      I think the Democrats are attacking the entire Bill of Rights, not just 2nd Amendment rights. The Democratic Party is anti-liberty.

      This is what really needs to be addressed because it is all interrelated. Lose 2nd Amendment rights, lose the rest. Lose freedom of speech, lose 2nd Amendment rights, lose the rest.

      I think that is where Dana Loech is coming from (maybe too aggressively).

  9. avatar raptor jesus says:

    Bernie voted AGAINST gun control?

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      Back when he thought he needed the support of VT Fudds. Now VT’s Republican governor is all in for gun control so the Fudd factor is no longer an issue.

    2. avatar QED says:

      Why is that a surprise. 25 and 40 years ago you had about 25% of Democrats voting against gun control or for 2A rights and about 25% of Republicans voting for gun control or reduction in 2A rights.

      Today all the voting by legislators show this is almost a pure partisan issue. People saying the parties are not much different on this are just lying or deeply ignorant. Today this is the most partisan issue there is, the data clearly show this

  10. avatar Napresto says:

    How anyone could possibly feel that these corrupt, intellectual midgets should have ANY say whatsoever about their life is beyond me. For my part, I’m far smarter, far more moral, and far more capable than any of these degenerates, and I’m offended by the idea that they want to tell me what to do.

    I say: for those running for office, mind your own business and keep out of mine. This extends even to things like paving the road in front of my house – I’d happily do it myself to be rid of you – or funding the fire department -I’d rather watch my house burn than have you involved in my life. You disgust me, and I want absolutely nothing to do with you.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Damn bro, I got nothing. Wish I could argue with you but you nailed our state and good luck with our pending financial crisis.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Napresto,

      I will highlight the value of your mentality:

      My neighbor across the street has two (and sometimes three) nasty, unstable German shepherds that have been on the loose with no supervision well over 13 times in two years: they already bit one person and keep charging me. In other words it is only a matter of time before they maul and permanently maim or kill someone. My county and state only allows for a small fine to the owner for not keeping his dogs in his yard. My county and state have no meaningful laws that come into play until the dogs actually attack someone, and even then it doesn’t get serious until the dogs attack someone a second time. In the meantime, if I solve the problem myself when the dogs are roaming the neighborhood and charging at people, it is a FELONY and I would be facing up to 4 years in prison for ensuring that those dogs never harm anyone ever again.

      So, yeah, I would like to see my local government get out of my way.

      1. avatar Karl says:

        Only four years for solving an owner problem? Might be worth it…

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          If the only life at stake were my own, I would not be concerned about the dogs running around since I am always armed. The real problem is the risk that those dogs present to my children: I cannot possibly always be within arms reach of my children at all times that they are outside my home.

          I am thus forced into one of three choices:
          (1) Don’t worry about the dogs, not really a choice.
          (2) Solve the problem for certain myself.
          (3) My children and I are hyper-vigilant at all times when my children are outside.

          Option (2) guarantees that my children are fatherless for four years and is a financial disaster for my family, although it guarantees that the dogs never maim/kill my children.

          Option (3) guarantees that my children have their father for four years and stable family finances, although there is a fair amount of risk that the dogs maim/kill one of my children.

          In other words: I am in a lose-lose-lose situation thanks to my irresponsible neighbors and awful pet laws in my county and state. Like I said, it would be nice if government stayed out of my business so that I could take care of my own business.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Karl,

          For clarification that four year prison sentence is for a solution that only involves the dogs and leaves the owner untouched.

      2. avatar QED says:

        My county and state only allows for a small fine to the owner for not keeping his dogs in his yard.

        Escalate and document his/her civil liability. Send the owner a certified letter stating his/her dogs are of leash, roaming and threatening and dangerous.

        Get a couple of allies in the neighborhood, so it is not only you, not only two parties (he said v he said) and have them start calling onto cops stating there are threatening dogs roaming.

      3. avatar Mad Max says:

        Don’t shoot the dog; strangle it to death because it attacked you. I don’t think the government could win that case.

        I’m older and out of shape but I think I could get mad enough to strangle a German Shepherd (if it was attacking me). At least they don’t really have claws.

      4. avatar George from Alaska says:

        Leave a coffee can full of of ethylene glycol automotive antifreeze – don’t use the polyethylene food safe glycol antifreeze . Dogs will be attracted to the ethylene glycol, its smells and tastes sweet to them. They will later die from toxic crystals built up in their kidneys from drinking the waste antifreeze on your property from your recent automotive maintenance. It’s only a good thing when it affects violent animals so be careful of your own pets and the nice pets of others.

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      “I’m far smarter, far more moral, and far more capable than any of these degenerates…”

      They feel exactly the same way about you. Which is why they think they can and should tell you what to do and how to act.

      1. avatar Napresto says:

        Probably true. The difference is that I don’t care what they do with their life, while they want to control mine. If they actually ARE smarter etc. than me, so be it and more power to them. They still have no right to tell me what to do.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          “They still have no right to tell me what to do.”

          True. Unfortunately not the point. They will, without question, tell you what to do and do so at the point of a gun if they get the chance.

          The old saying from Pericles “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” applies to a lot of things.

          As we often point out in response to the antis: Being a better and more moral person doesn’t matter if the bad guy slits your throat because you won’t/can’t fight back.

  11. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “2020 Democrat Candidates Try to Convince Rural Voters to Ignore Their Stance on Guns”

    “Rural” voters control more than half the guns in the country, what makes liberals think that they will “ignore their stance on gun control”…???

  12. At this rate…Trump 2020..
    No Demo-Authoritarians!

  13. Piss-off a Liberal!
    Vote Trump 2020!

  14. avatar Ark says:

    We had this bullshit in my neck of the woods. The Democrats ran a Liberal Mom With Glasses #5 cookie-cutter candidate for our House seat who did everything she could to avoid acknowledging that she was 100% behind AWBs and confiscation. One of the big moments was when she slipped up in an interview and said something to the effect of “Well, we really need to take a look at what guns are useful for hunting and what guns aren’t, and do something about that”.

    She lost. Hard. Don’t fucking walk into a rural district fresh out of your Ivy League school and tell them you’ll take their guns away.

  15. avatar Mad Max says:

    These Democratic Socialists are going to try to convince the “Deplorables” that the Democrat’s social welfare policies will greatly benefit them and that they should vote against their gun rights and religious freedom in exchange for the economic benefits.

    I hope it won’t work.

  16. avatar UpInArms says:

    I had a conversation with my state rep (a Democrat) this past election. He was a sponsor for our newly-enacted red flag law, and I asked him to explain how he could back such a blatant violation of due process. After a long-winded monologue that included all the usual “common sense” sound bites, he ended by asking me if he had explained it clearly enough.

    “Yes” I said. “You’ve perfectly explained why I’ll never vote for a Democrat.”

  17. avatar Guy in NM says:

    There is a surge in popularity for the idea of abolishing the electoral college, and if they get their way, the rural folk wont matter to them anymore. NYC and LA will determine who becomes president and what laws are passed (even though its supposed to be through the Legislature).

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Except that there isn’t a surge in popularity for that idea.

      This is bullshit based entirely on when “they” arbitrarily decided that the question mattered. They’re selling a narrative by removing the context.

      In the past couple of years they’ll tell you that support for the electoral college is down to a low and support for abolishment is at a high. True if we only pay attention to the last 10 or so years.

      What they’re not telling you is that current “low levels” of EC support are well above what they were 15 or more years ago. In 2004 the percentage of people that supported the EC was, according to the LOWEST numbers a polling firm could find, were at 35%. Today the lowest numbers supporting it are 41%.

      Overall, going back to 2002, support to GET RID OF the EC bounced around between 61% and 62% from 2002 to 2012 while support to keep the system bounced around from 35-37% from 2002 to 2012 when keeping they system started to rise up to 47% in 2016.

      So, in reality, support for ditching the EC has spiked in the last two years but is still 20 points below where it was up until from 2002-2012. Meanwhile, support for keeping the EC has risen 8-12% over the same time frame.

      So yeah, as recently as seven years ago things were A LOT worse and have been getting better since. A slight bump in the road doesn’t change the overall trends. A 27 point gap in support for the EC has closed to well within the margin of error, probably around 2%. That’s a 74% improvement from where I sit.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        *5 years or so.

  18. avatar strych9 says:

    It’s like the AP pulled my comments from weeks ago and made a story out of them.

  19. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The lgbtq, XYZ crowd of the Democrat Party will never succeed in rural areas. It has less to do with their sexual activities and more to do with their Socialist Progressive belief system.

    There are rural gay residents. Who decided to not move to San Francisco or other large cities. They are not seen as a threat because they believe in Live and Let Live. That is not the case with big-city homosexuals who will and have used all the powers of the State to crush people. And deny them their rights as defined under the Bill of Rights.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      The storm, is, coming.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Private citizens with individual gun ownership are indeed the nightmare of the big city homosexual population and their leadership.

        I wonder why people who make sexual gratification their primary concern and title are extremely focused on disarming the civilian population????

        1. avatar enuf says:

          I just thought it a funny, sarcastic video.

          Also don’t have any real problem with those people. I take a view similar to Thomas Jefferson.

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        It’s too bad a majority of homosexuals don’t think like Thomas Jefferson. The world would be a much better place.

  20. avatar enuf says:

    I’m expecting Trump to win in 2020. He does not deserve to win, he deserves to be impeached and convicted or to lose to a Republican challenger in the convention.

    I’m expecting the Democrats to lose the Presidency because they are already screwing up badly and show every sign of continuing to do so. Pelosi announcing it is not worth it to impeach Trump. Numerous Democrats refusing to say they are Capitalists when they absolutely are Capitalists, because they do not want to offend any voter who is currently awash in the glow of AOC’s idiotic and ill informed blathering.

    I fully expect another four years of that Cheeto Faced Shitgibbon, it is the most likely outcome.

  21. avatar Joe says:

    Well, as one newsletter commentator lamented, “never, ever underestimate the stupidity of the American voter”. And they just might be damned dumb enough to fall for whatever DemoRats have to say. For sadly, some voters seem to have short memories.

  22. avatar Sho Rembo says:

    Clinton didn’t use firearm issues to beat Bernie, she used the DNC to cheat him for her.

Leave a Reply to Chris T in KY Cancel reply

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

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