Subscribe now to get the latest news on guns, gear, gun rights, and personal defense delivered straight to your inbox daily!

Required fields are bold...

Email Address:
First Name:
Zip Code:

A-Rated Joe Manchin is Against an Assault Weapons Ban. For Now. Really.

Poor Joe. The Hamlet of The Mountain State has been having a little trouble making up his mind on this whole gun control thing. As someone who just loves to tout his NRA endorsement, he was against it before he was for it. Only now he’s against it again. Honest. As reports, he told an MSNBC talking head that “I do not support an assault weapon ban because the definition of assault weapon is still hard to come by. So I am not going to comment on people’s legislation. I do not support that approach right now.” For today anyway. We don’t know if hearing from the folks back home had anything to do with it, but right now the answer is a firm no. Like Shrek’s buddy the donkey, he’s a believer. In the Second Amendment. At least until someone else gets shot. Or until he’s collared in the Senate cloakroom by DiFi or one of her civilian disarming henchmen. It can be so darned hard to know what you believe in when all you really care about is getting elected.


  1. avatar OkieRim says:

    Really? I call BS, Mr. West Virginia is flip-flopping on this so much he belongs in a Harlem Shake video…..

  2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    proof is in the pudding. I say let’s see how he votes.

  3. avatar William says:

    I predict this guy will go far. He’s got exactly what it takes: nothing.

  4. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “I do not support an assault weapon ban because the definition of assault weapon is still hard to come by.”

    I read that as, “I would support the banning of certain firearms, as long as the ban isn’t too vague (and it doesn’t hurt my reelection chances too much).” Not great, Joe.

    The right answer is “I do not support an assault weapons ban because it is unconstitutional.

  5. avatar Pulatso says:

    “…right now.” says all that need to be said. He’s a political opprotunist, not a believer.

  6. avatar gloomhound says:

    Man’s a turd and I am glad I did not vote for him.

  7. avatar JC says:

    Ok. I am prepared to get blasted here, but you know what, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt here, at least until he votes. He, like many in America, were shaken by Sandy Hook. If I recall, his error was in saying something to the effect of “we should look at all options,” and that he was re-thinking his previous opinions on gun control. He did not explicitly agree with or commit to an assault weapons ban, or to any of the proposals of the gun grabbers. All he said was, that Sandy Hook made him think about it. I know I thought about my positions on gun control. They didn’t change, but I thought about them. To me that is a responsible answer for a public servant, and any open minded person. We should all be willing to amend our opinions and beliefs if compelling evidence is presented for us to do so. He has since affirmed his pro 2a positions. Whether that was because he recognized what his constituents want after getting thousands or hundreds of thousands of calls and emails, or whether he came to that conclusion based on his own reflection and examination of the facts matters little. Even if it was because of the backlash his comments caused a politician should take into account his constituents desires. So with all of that in mind I think how he votes is the measure of the mans commitment to the 2a and I will withhold judgement until then

    1. avatar gloomhound says:

      Naw he’s turd from the old school. He ran a very pro-gun campaign even going so far as shooting a rifle in one.

      It’s a classic case of saying one thing and then doing another. Once he left for D.C. the opinions of the folks back in WV did not seem to matter very much to him.

    2. avatar JPD says:

      “He, like many in America, were shaken by Sandy Hook.” Yes, this was terrible. But where is the MORAL OUTRAGE for the 180 children killed EVERY MONTH in this country due to maltreatment and abuse????

      History has shown politicians NEVER solve a problem. They are in it for the power and the money. Sandy Hook is just another event they use for their own purposes. None of them give a rats behind about us, the country, or any dead children. If they did, they would work for real world solutions to our problems. Good luck with that.

      So, give this guy the benefit of the doubt? Not a chance. Just another criminal con man in office.

    3. avatar pat says:

      No bitch shaking allowed. What kind of turd is ‘shaken’ regarding the legality of semiautomatic rifles (thats all they are, honest)? He is a turd.

  8. avatar jerry says:

    A shame Raese didn’t win the seat, probably would not have to worry about this.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Yeah, but Raese holds the Guiness record for “Most Times Defeated in Statewide Elections Without Getting the Message.” He lost Senate campaigns in 1984, 2006, 2010 and 2012 and he lost the Republican primary for Governor in 1988. None of them were really close. You’d think that by now he would have figured out that West Virginia doesn’t like him all that much.

      1. avatar jerry says:

        So I guess good old Joe was offering a bigger slab of pork from uncle sugar.

  9. avatar Buell301 says:

    Go ahead and endorse an AWB in West-friggin-Virginia Mr. Manchin. You’d become a lame duck overnight.

    1. avatar Chas says:

      That’s what I’m hoping will happen to ANY politician who votes in favor of civilian disarmament, followed by them taking a beatdown in the next election.

      Of course, we know some are immune to that effect, such as Nancy Piglosi and her comrade, Diane Frankenstein.

      1. avatar Buell301 says:

        West Virginia is a whole different world than a lot of places, especially the ones where gun grabbers dominate. I live in maryland but am planning on moving there ASAP.

        Them mountaineer folks don’t take kindly to gun control.

  10. avatar JPD says:

    If you listened to him, he still supports some type of restrictive gun legislation, just not Feinsteins abortion. Sounds like he wants his own firearm ban.

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    Let’s see how he votes. He’s been reliable in the past.

  12. avatar Smaj says:

    He can’t be trusted.

  13. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

    Eh, kinda like one of my Senate critters, Bob Casey. Opportunist, and therefore not to be trusted. Kinda like most of them, really. At least Manchin is responding to pressure. From Bob Casey in his canned response to one of my letters:

    “After much reflection and careful study of the issue, I have decided to support a federal assault weapons ban as well as legislation restricting high capacity magazines. …Before supporting such a law, I would first and foremost ensure that it did not unduly abridge the right to bear arms as established by the Second Amendment.”

    Kind of like saying he’s going to rape us, but he’ll first and foremost make sure to apply a little lubrication.

    Meh, all we can do is keep up the pressure and force as many of them as we can to do the right thing.

  14. avatar CentralIL says:

    The AW ban seems to have become separated from the mag ban. I’d be interested in hearing his thoughts on a magazine capacity limits before forgiving him.

  15. avatar Lance says:

    I think this is prof that the NRA and grassroots gun owners in W-VA are having a impact on this. He went for Obama days after Newtown but the progun response is so BIG that he forced to change his mind to survive a election. Good job W-VA gun owners.

  16. avatar JohnnyNRA says:

    Well here you answer
    Civilian leaders cannot usually hope to challenge their militaries by means of force, and thus must guard against any potential usurpation of powers through a combination of policies, laws, and the inculcation of the values of civilian control in their armed services. The presence of a distinct civilian police force, militia, or other paramilitary group may mitigate to an extent the disproportionate strength that a country’s military possesses; civilian gun ownership has also been justified on the grounds that it prevents potential abuses of power by authorities (military or otherwise). Opponents of gun control have cited the need for a balance of power in order to enforce the civilian control of the military.

  17. avatar OkieRim says:

    hopefully he does come around, but i dont believe anything with a guy like this until he casts his vote..

  18. avatar Tim says:

    The real key is universal background checks which is being touted as the “commonsense” compromise position. No it isn’t — it is a prelude to national gun registration.

    If Manchin goes for that, then you know where his head is at, and whether to support him or not.


  19. avatar APBTFan says:

    I’ve landed healthy White Mountain trout that flopped less than him.

  20. avatar Alan says:

    Joe’s variety of positions on this issue would make Mitt Romney proud.

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