CCRKBA: Millions of First-Time Gun Owners Will Re-Shape the Gun Debate

gun store buying surge

(AP Photo/Ringo H.W. Chiu)

The recent gun-buying surge that began with the COVID-19 pandemic panic and continued through the civil unrest and riots following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody has created millions of new gun owners who will now eagerly protect their right to protect themselves and their loved ones, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms predicts.

“Look at all of the new people who suddenly decided to exercise their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms,” observed CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “We’ve witnessed something that is nothing short of a sea change, and in some cases might approach the level of epiphany, about gun ownership. We’ve heard anecdotal reports from all over the country about people flocking to gun shops who had never before owned a firearm. Now that they are gun owners, we expect them to be very protective of their rights.”


March, April and May saw record numbers of background checks, according to FBI data and information from industry sources. June data should be out within days, and CCRKBA expects the trend to continue.

“As we’ve said before,” Gottlieb recalled, “we welcome all of these new gun owners to the firearms community. We know many of them are minorities, especially Black and female citizens from literally all age groups, and they will find gun owners have a big tent with lots of room for newcomers. They can take advantage of training opportunities, meet new friends who share more interests than they might have suspected, and gain a new understanding of our efforts to protect the one fundamental right that actually protects all of the other rights.

“We’re not surprised to hear about new first-time gun buyers who have discovered how much enjoyment they get out of shooting,” he added. “We’ve seen this with generations of new gun owners who may never have had any previous experience with firearms. Many of them discover a sense of empowerment that allows them, maybe for the first time, to understand they can take care of themselves, and that they are responsible for their own safety.

“This new wave of gun owners could become a formidable force during this year’s election,” Gottlieb noted. “From now on, we expect millions of new gun owners to pay closer attention to candidates, and reject those who would trample on their Second Amendment rights. With legions of new gun owners ready to protect these newly-discovered rights, it could be a pretty scrappy election year with lots of surprises.”

 

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

comments

  1. avatar Ralph says:

    “Now that they are gun owners, we expect them to be very protective of their rights.”

    They might be protective of “their” rights, but they won’t do a damn thing for ours. “They” will sell us out in a heartbeat.

    1. avatar Defens says:

      Yeah, I’m not particularly hopeful about this. Millions of first time gun buyers in liberal cities will be as helpful to the 2A cause as RINOs Congresscritters are.

    2. avatar StLPro2A says:

      Yeah….just like politicians and Hollywooders and Elitists…..:”For me; not for Thee.” Same old, same old.

    3. avatar BLAMMO!! says:

      They may mostly be latte slurping hipster douche-bag assholes but a good number of new gun owners might also be independent-minded people who may have been on the fence about owning a gun for some time and just didn’t know where to start. Well now, they’ve been pushed off the fence.

      Whomever they may be, let’s welcome them to the armed citizenry.

      Let’s not be dicks about it this time, okay?

      1. avatar Hush says:

        BLAMMO is correct, “Whomever they may be, let’s welcome them to the armed citizenry.””

        We should not be too judgemental too soon, after all the new gun owner’s just joined POTG…..hence New gun owners!

      2. avatar Tired of the bs says:

        If only 1/4 of new owners flip to the right way of thinking that could be a couple million by the election.

    4. avatar Mjd says:

      Unfortunately I don’t have any faith in new gun owners to all of the sudden become constitutional scholars and save the republic.

    5. avatar Stephen says:

      All it means to me is many will sell their guns because it’s just not what I thought when I bought it. Be the opportunity to buy new/used guns for cheap.

    6. avatar BillOfRights says:

      So the potential for law abiding persons of color educating and defending the second amendment just went up. I’d still vote Eric or Colloin Noir for NRA president.

  2. avatar Shire-man says:

    I’d be amazed if even 5% of them changed their politics.
    It’s far too late to sway the dems to get off the gun ban train even if their regular voters push for it for even among gun owners most don’t prioritize their rights.
    What they do prioritize I have no idea because literally everything is gained or lost by the gun. You lose the gun, you lose it all.

    You want equality? Here’s a gun.
    You want stability? Here’s a gun.
    You want security? Here’s a gun.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Shire-Man,

      You may be correct, but 5% can change the outcome of local and national elections.

      I remain a knuckle-headed optimist.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        5% can be bought, and for cheap.

        1. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Ralph,

          Are you raining on my optimism? LOL!!

          Then, I will just be a soaking-wet optimist!!!

          🙂

      2. avatar StLPro2A says:

        It’s not the voters….it’s the counters, that count. Dems have boldly stolen elections forever. During Johnson’s Senate race, Dems went back to the same West Texas precinct three times to find more boxes of ballots, until they had enough. Biden has been accusing that Trump is going to steal the election. Listen to what the Democrat Libtards tell you. They are telling you what they are doing. OBUMMER: “Join me in radically transforming this great nation.” Why do you think Dems push no photo ID voting? Why are they pushing mail in ballots? Vote harvesting? Why have there been instances of more Democrat votes counted than registered voters in some precincts? Chicago-itist is spreading across America…..Vote Early; Vote Often; Don’t Let Being Dead Slow You Down…..We Are Here To Help You. Wake up, America. America has been over run. Today, and for several decades, the enemy sits in the Command Post.
        Freedom is never won at the ballot box….only lost. Soap box; Ballot Box; Cartridge Box. The last trumps the other two.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          This an easily observable, and so far, unbroken pattern.

          Whenever Democrats push coordinated accusations against their opposition, it is because they are already deep into that same unsavory activity and need to pin it on someone else before the public gets wise.

        2. avatar Buckeye says:

          Ing is correct….see Saul Alinsky’s text book for radicals. One of the key points is to always blame the other party for what you are doing wrong.In fact, you can observe the Dems and they follow this book completely

      3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        LifeSavor is correct. In communities & districts where a vote might otherwise have been 51% Dem / 49% Repub, the simple math shows that if 5% of only half</b of those Dem voters switching to the Repub candidate in the hope of preserving their gun rights (due to newbie gun purchases and exasperation of the riots in Dem-led cities) would swing the election to 49.7% Dem / 50.3% Repub.

        Every vote matters.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Crap. I even proofread this to ensure I didn’t type too quickly and mess up the HTML.

          (gets up from desk, stumbles to kitchen to get more coffee…)

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          (…stumbles to kitchen to get more coffee…)

          Cawfee? That stuff will rot your guts out. You need to find a fine brand of Vodka, and a Vermouth that is smooth. Martinis will get you through the day with no pain.

        3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          you speak of vodka martinis. a volatile panacea, but not a martini.
          if i may, for those of you not juniper averse, schwarzwald monkey47.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          A Gin Martini? Nope; smells like Christmas tree, and leaves a pounding headache. Of course if a Vodka Martini is offensive, just go with Vodka, and skip the pretenses.

        5. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Agreed about the coffee. Never drank the stuff for the first four decades of my life. Finally succumbed to my wife’s insistence that it’s the Elixir of Heaven with the right creamer, and after a short-lived run of enjoying the bright-eyed, bushy-tailed readiness for the day at the office, the honeymoon is over and I find myself pining for a simpler existence. Really do need to wean myself off the stuff, though I suppose I can be grateful my veins are running with homebrew instead of the overpriced coffee-flavored milkshakes offered by certain Socialist corporations located on every corner.

          ****
          “I picked a heckuva day to quite coffee…”

        6. avatar CarlosT says:

          I’ve never understood the point of vodka. It’s just alcohol, no flavor.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I’ve never understood the point of vodka. It’s just alcohol, no flavor.”

          Well, now. ‘Tis a grand means of transportin’ cereals and potatoes without takin’ up so much space.

          Since the goal of Vodka is to not allow the ingredients to influence the flavor, there is the fine humor of tellin’ me wife I kin git drunk on orange juice.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I’d be amazed if even 5% of them changed their politics.”

      That’s the darn truth. Saw something yesterday, or day before, where a business owner in one of the riot zones was being threatende because she called police when looters took over her store. She said she was afraid for her life, and the police really did save her.

      She also said she was one with the protesters about leftist politics, and didn’t feel it was fair that she was treated as if she disagreed with the protests. She disagreed only with her store being destroyed; unfair because she is such a good person. She did not abandon her mentally disturbed politics.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Then the reality of the situation hasn’t yet truly hit “close to home” for her. Once she feels betrayed by the cause she claims to support, she’ll pause to reflect.

        Patience, my friend. All of this madness is unfolding rapidly. Started with COVID-19 fears, then has shapeshifted to add/include shutdowns, stimulus gifts made of unbacked “magically printed” money, frustration from extended lockdown orders and unemployment, a bad apple LEO using poor judgement to create a martyr out of career criminal, protests, then riots/arson/looting, an anarchist movement (Antifa) advocating for violence, a Marxist organization (BLM) rising to prominence, the forceful and illegal takeover of a major metro area, the removal of numerous symbols in an attempt to erase American history…

        …and amongst all the turmoil, many, many people who never imagined at the beginning of 2020 that they’d willingly purchase their first gun for protection of self and family. As these “newbies” gain more confidence through ownership, training, and acceptance into the POTG community, some of them will begin the curious and beneficial introspection that will lead to a change of overall political stance.

        130 days until Election Day in November. Much has happened in the past few weeks. Much more can happen in the next.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          That’s just it. The woman didn’t feel betrayed that her cause destroyed her store. She only felt it was unfair that a good person like her was treated like a deplorable. She said she would still support the riots because of her white privilege.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          …like the Mayoress of Seattle did…until the protesters she previously claimed solidarity with turned on her as well, ignoring her virtue-signalling “BLM” sign in her home’s front window and spray painting “Racist” on her front door. She then complained that they were engaging in domestic terrorism.

          Then there was the video of the two white college guys playing billiards in their second-story apartment, giving the “thumbs up” to marching BLM protesters outside. After a couple of rocks came through the window, the young men yelled “Hey! We’re on your side!” before ducking as another rock came crashing through. Reality has a heartless way of making itself known to the ignorant.

          Many are clutching their pearls from the comfort of their homes or cell phones and claiming solidarity out of a thin veneer of guilt. Many would continue to espouse their support even if “the cause” resulted in negative consequences to the inner reaches of their personal spheres. But once it hits home and they feel betrayed, things change. Many people remain fools forever, but some learn the lesson and refuse to be the fool again.

        3. avatar UpInArms says:

          ” until the protesters she previously claimed solidarity with turned on her ”

          Ultimately, this is where it all goes. As soon as BLM started yelling “systemic racism” the game changed. In the past, racism was always framed as something personal, a one-on-one event (or a many-on-one, basically the same thing). Point being that names and faces could be connected to it, and the retribution could be delivered to a specific target.

          “Systemic racism” is nameless and faceless, so nobody knows who, specifically, should be held accountable and punished for it. Now it’s going to come down to “get whitey” and no one is going to take the time to find out what whitey’s politics are. All whiteys are now to be held accountable in one massive group punishment. It’s only to be expected that BLM, if it want’s to maintain the integrity of what they started, would have to eventually turn on all the whites, including those that have come out to support them, and do it in a very violent manner.

          What we are seeing is Phase One of a full-blown race war. There’s really nowhere else it can go, short of BLM disbanding.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” “Systemic racism” is nameless and faceless, so nobody knows who, specifically, should be held accountable and punished for it. ”

          Think that got settled within the last week. The claim is, white people, are by nature of birth, racist. Thus the “systemic” adjective applies to everything white people are, and do. White people are the cause of racism, white people are to be held accountable, white people are to be punished. You can ponder on your own the only legitimate solution to “systemic racism”.

        5. avatar MyName says:

          I like to ask people who say all white people are racist as a consequence of their birth what they think of the concept of original sin. Do they accept the notion that they are inherently sinful as a consequence of their birth?

          Cognitive dissonance(TM): Get yours today, fun at parties.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Do they accept the notion that they are inherently sinful as a consequence of their birth?”

          For there to be “original sin”, as you understand the term, there has to be some sort of agreement that “sin” can exist in a world without a creator, and final judge of right/wrong, good/evil. Thus, your proposition makes no sense to those lacking your frame of reference, and is therefore irrelevant.

        7. avatar MyName says:

          You assume you know my frame of reference. My point is that the concept of inherent guilt due to the circumstances of one’s birth is either a reasonable or unreasonable proposition. If it is reasonable, either original sin, or inherent racism or both are possible. If it is unreasonable, neither is possible.

          In my experience, people who believe in inherent racism or implicit bias or whatever other similar term, tend to reject the notion of original sin – even though the two concepts strike me as roughly equivalent.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Original” is, I think, relatively uncomplicated in concept regarding the beginning of something. “Sin” is commonly associated with morality vs. utilitarianism. Without an external, and agreed upon, objective standard of right and wrong, “sin” is a useless concept.

          Without an external standard that escapes human manipulation of consciousness, morality exist only as a secular concept born of, and grounded in, opinion. Indeed, without a celestial/cosmic component, “morality” is at best a transitory concept, and at worst an expression of power (which is also transitory).

          Minus an external standard, I, and my cohorts, determine that what is “good”, or “moral” is whatever prospers us for the moment, and “bad”, or “immoral” is whatever frustrates me. Therefore I find it “good” to permanently eliminate anyone who frustrates me, and “bad” that anyone would attempt to frustrate me. When I, and my cohort, through whatever mechanism, become the majority opinion/force, “sin” is whatever we say it is.

          Humans cannot establish a universal, immutable, unchanging set of rules of conduct that are not subject to the pulses of human desire. Thus, “sin” has no significant meaning to individual conduct. “Sin” becomes whatever current society decides is prohibited, a standard to be overturned with a shift of the tide.

          It is from the above that I note “original sin” cannot be attached to the target you suggest, because they reject your idea that objective “sin” exists, whether based on a universal standard, or the opinion of people unable to wield power sufficient to punish the group that declares “original sin” against you. Lacking power, your concept of “sin” (original or otherwise) is irrelevant to the group claiming the power to establish “sin”. No metaphysics required.

          Note: explaining something is not the same as endorsing, supporting, or promoting it

        9. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          people who believe in inherent racism or implicit bias are simply “projecting their own issues onto the masses in search of exoneration for their own prejudices… If they can make it an ALL whites are racist issue they no longer have to feel guilty for their own personal biases… We are ALL a product of our own environments, there is no “racist gene”, there has never been anything found in the human DNA that precludes bias, hatred or animosity toward any group or person ethnically different from themselves, those are “learned traits”… You know something is really wrong when most of the dopes claiming that ALL white people are racist are themselves white, while the folks claiming that blacks CAN’T be racist are mostly mixed race individuals…

      2. avatar Defens says:

        Saw that. Some dimwit in an upper scale Minneapolis suburb. Felt guilty that she could exercise her white privilege and call 911, expecting that they would appear. I guess my brain is wired a bit differently – I don’t run around looking for shoddy excuses to feelz overprivileged, racist, misogynistic, or sexist.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I don’t run around looking for shoddy excuses to feelz overprivileged, racist, misogynistic, or sexist.”

          Liberalism is a mental disorder.
          – – M. Savage, radio host

        2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          That or just plain Braindead.

      3. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        Sam, absolutely right. They don’t change their politics. I’ve seen it in rural Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin. They may be hunters, but they say “I don’t need more than the one gun that my dad gave me”, or ” A shotgun and a rifle are more that enough”, (They use gun & crime in the same sentence. It’s gun & deer, gun & pheasant, gun & coyote, gun & bear. )
        The farmers want the subsidies that they think the Republicans will take away. (Just like the ad about throwing wheelchair grandma off the cliff and reducing their social security.) We need better PR!

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “We need better PR!”

          While the current Trump campaign can’t seem to find its footing, who controls the outlets for PR campaigns?

        2. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          “…, who controls the outlets for PR campaigns?”

          Trump has zero problems drastically changing campaign mode. He changed campaign managers about 3 times last election, didn’t he?

          This campaign will prove if he wants it or not. He wanted it last time, and all bets were off. If he doesn’t want it, we’re fucked, flat out…

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Trump has zero problems drastically changing campaign mode. ”

          This really isn’t 2015/6. In those days, Trump consumed the media attention. They couldn’t not cover him (free advertising). Today, media has beer virus and insurrection to use against Trump, and can almost completely avoid covering him. Also, it will not be enough to only claim a once good economy, and fight with the media. Besides more of the same, what is Trump leading toward? What are his plans for the second term.

          Most people think G.W. Bush lost his second term because “No New Taxes” failed. Actually, he lost because when asked about his goals for the second term, he literally said he would handle whatever came up. Trump originally brought an image, a vision. Hashing old ground is not a vision.

          While Trump and his supporters might be happy about watching Dimwit cities burn, thinking it will show the electorate what Dims will actually bring, but the Dims are mentally ill, and their supporters are already blaming Trump and Republicrats for all the decay of Dimwit-controlled cities.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Should be easy, the wall isn’t finished and we need Tax Relief 2.0. And Biden needs to be locked up for his own safety!

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Should be easy, the wall isn’t finished and we need Tax Relief 2.0. And Biden needs to be locked up for his own safety!”

          Yes, it should be easy. Wonder if Trump is suffering from battle fatigue after nearly four years of 24/7 battering. All the other Republicrat office holders should be if full force fighting the Dims over the tyranny response to a virus, and the claims from the marxists that all the riots are Trump’s fault. The silence of Repubs is deafening.

    3. avatar binder says:

      They don’t need to change their politics if they can change the Democratic Party platform. I think if you were pro 2nd you would want to remove the gun debate from politics.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        It’s a nice idea, but it’s not going to happen. Whatever pro-gun Democrats that once existed have been purged. Opposition to the Second Amendment, and the Constitution as it exists generally, is a Democratic byword these days.

  3. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    Whom ever wins in November there will be massive unrest, violence, and death.

    2016 will look like a nice picnic compared.

    not looking forward to it.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Manse,

      I fear you are correct.

    2. avatar 9x39 says:

      Oh, I can guarantee it’s going to be interesting times to live in.

      Mal: “Define interesting?”

      Wash: “Oh God, oh God, we’re all gonna die!”

      -Serenity

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        “Target the Reavers. (looks around at the stunned bridge crew) Target the Reavers! Target anything!! SOMEBODY FIRE!!

        1. avatar Chi-Chi Montezuma says:

          Starts tying trash to my SUV and putting graffiti on it so I can drive in Reaver camouflage

    3. avatar WARFAB says:

      That’s pretty much the conclusion I’ve come to, and I know many others who share the sentiment.

      Just trying to figure out where to put my money; carbine for the wife, or some body armor for me.

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        Tannerite Lots and Lots of Tannerite. Best perimeter defense tool on the market. Just don’t forget the bird feeders/houses and lawn ornaments.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Garden gnomes filled with Tannerite and positioned in strategic entry choke points can be effective. Nobody suspects the gnomes.

        2. avatar WARFAB says:

          Nice.

      2. avatar Chi-Chi Montezuma says:

        Both. I had put off getting armor but got it in March. Writing was on the wall. Arm your spouse too.

        1. avatar WARFAB says:

          I had to buy this stuff honey. The internet spoke and I’m not one to argue. 😉

  4. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    I dunno about this. Even if these new gun owners are “protective of their rights,” if the Dems sweep the House, Senate, and Presidency, they’ll stack the Supreme Court and nullify the 2A.

    What these new gun owners need to do is vote Republican. Yes, I’m disgusted with the spineless GOP like the rest of you, but for many, it’s a choice between freedom, the 2A, and healthcare, which the Dems have promised.

    We’ll only find out on election day.

    1. avatar binder says:

      Healthcare, what a lie. The fact is that you “freedom” loving republicans are just in the pockets of the healthcare system. Can you imagine if we payed the same per capita as the 40 countries that do better with their healthcare systems? Dude, we 25% more than Switzerland who is next highest (with a higher per capita income) and TWICE what Germany pays.

      1. avatar Umm . . . says:

        It isn’t about “pockets”.

        The 13th Amendment prohibits slavery (except for those convicted of crime). It isn’t about the 1860s, or one particular race, or even one particular socioeconomic class.

        Together with the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law, it means no one has a right to ANY product of an American citizen’s labor, ever, for any reason, except consensually and reciprocally.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Umm has it right. If that is what you want, support it with your vote, but first discuss it for REAL, this time! Promising tons of something for nothing isn’t going to work, as soon as the lies are discovered the whole idea is gone, which is where we are now, as Osamacare was ALL lies. In case you haven’t noticed. Hint; you don’t have to have insurance. You don’t have to have the same insurance as everybody else. You don’t have to have the same insurance COMPANY as everybody else. By the time you get through that, nobody will vote for it.

    2. avatar Hooshier farmer says:

      Dems will NEVER get away with banning 2A , The US military has a ton of conservative midwest farm boys. We will see the military remove dems from power when they try to get rid of the 2A . Democrat Congress woman from Michigan is warning Dems that her constituents are telling her they are voting for Trump in 2020. She claims lifelong dems are tired of the liberal bullshit and voting Republican for the first time in their lives. I predict a landslide for Trump , gain seats in the Senate but a close call in the house. I’m hoping for the end of speaker dumb bitches reign. Say good night Nancy!

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        ” We will see the military remove dems from power when they try to get rid of the 2A . ”

        Are you talking about the same US military whose senior generals publicly declared that they want nothing to do with the current president?

        When a president requests the presence of members of his military, the request is an order. For a general officer to publicly proclaim that he should have disobeyed the request to accompany the president on a walk to the “church of presidents”, where the president made a speech to the nation, is grounds for a charge of insubordination, and a demand for resignation (not retirement) from the military. (for an enlightening review of a general defying superiors, peruse the events surrounding the court martial of BG William Mitchell)

        Do not be deceived, the military is not a bulwark against marxist statism in this country, it has become an enabler.

  5. avatar LifeSavor says:

    I am worried about rioters, looters, violent protests, and mobs.
    I am angry at the destruction and those posing a threat.
    So, I purchase a gun and get some training.
    I learn something about gun control in the process.
    I see a lot of people reacting like me.
    I see the gun-store people welcoming me and helping me.
    I realize that none of the ‘gun-people’ care about my race, my gender, my gender-identity, my religion.
    I see the pattern that the events and people I fear are all in Democratically run cities.
    I get it that these problems are local.
    I remember that I always vote for Democrats.
    I remember that I have always favored strict gun-control.
    I realize I don’t want anyone passing laws that will take away my gun or access to ammo.
    I have gotten the point that I am my own first-responder.
    I want to vote for new people, people who have not created/allowed this situation in my city, or anywhere.

    As Shire-Man points out, above, it may not be a large percentage of new gun-owners that ‘get it’, but every percentage tips the scales a little more toward our side.

  6. avatar Arandom Dude says:

    I expect that 90% or so will continue voting for anti-2A politicians. As close as things are even a small percentage switching could have a noticeable impact though.

  7. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “Now that they are gun owners, we expect them to be very protective of their rights.”

    If they even understand their rights.
    Government education centers haven’t educated children for many decades in subjects such as US history and civics.

    Much as the Appleseed project has, gun rights organizations should take a active role in education of the subjects to be productive responsible citizens of this nation.

    1. avatar Chi-Chi Montezuma says:

      No r33trd left behind dumbed down a generation of Americans. Common Whore Curriculum is working on another. It’s easier to rule when plebs are mentally diminished.

  8. avatar 2aguy says:

    It doesn’t matter if all of a sudden they love the 2nd Amendment……they will keep voting democrats into office and they will end the 2nd Amendment…. the democrats won’t care, they will just do it, even if it might mean a short term loss……the end of the 2nd Amendment would be permanent..just like obamacare…they took that hit happily to get obamacare. Any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment….full stop. The only way to protect it for the next 4 years is to vote in Trump and every republican on the ticket…..yes, even the spineless, coward, rino republicans….this is a numbers game, and for Trump to keep appointing judges, he needs the Senate……yes….we have only a 50/50 chance of our judge picks going lefty…but the democrats have a 100% record of their judges staying hardcore leftist….there is no choice if you want to save the 2nd Amendment….

  9. avatar Umm . . . says:

    Patti got some bad, but all-too-common gouge.

    Loading a magazine or racking a slide can be challenging, but there are mag loaders, and even the slide can be racked (using larger muscle groups) against a tabletop or other fixed object. Both are done and verified long before the fight. Not that I’m recommending it, but two older ladies in my CCW class told me their husbands do it for them.

    That l o o ng 13lb trigger, OTOH, will torment those arthritic fingers Every. Single. Shot.

    For a young person unaccustomed to a task, repetitive exertion adds strength. For an arthritic person, repetitive exertion adds arthritis.

    1. avatar Chi-Chi Montezuma says:

      Was thinking similarly. Pretty much standard LGS stereotype playing out handing an arthritic old lady a large revolver with a heavy trigger.

    2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      Not sure a Ruger SP 101 357 magnum is something I’d recommend to a 59 year old woman w/arthritic hands as a FIRST gun, even a 38 special load will put a lot of pressure on the fingers and wrist… Hopefully she will get better advice while learning to shoot… I’ve been shooting for 60 plus years and my hands ache for days after a day at the range with my 45, 357 and 10 MM handguns but for what I know they are capable of I’ll deal with it..

      1. avatar LazrBeam says:

        Somebody tell her that .38Spl 158 Gr LSWCHP P’s will work nicely in a a .357 Mag SP 101. Actually, in terms of an SP101, or LCR/LCRx, I prefer the .327 Fed Mag (even though I’ve got the 357 also). Got ‘em all and love ‘em.

        1. avatar LazrBeam says:

          That should be +P’s but the edit didn’t take.

    3. avatar IAmNotTheHulk says:

      Agreed, she needs an M&P .380 EZ.

      1. avatar Umm . . . says:

        Much better advice!

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The easy way! 1911 in 9mm, have hubby load or whatever, leave manual safety “off” and rely on grip safey, trigger will satisfy, recoil very easy, couldn’t be better!

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        You assume she has a hubby… Maybe she’s a widow, likes girls, just never married, has no male children…… She did rely on the EXPERTISE of some guy because he worked in a gun store and knowledge of guns is not necessarily a prime requisite for selling guns.. as evidenced by some dumbass selling a 59 year old woman (first time gun owner) with physical limitations a 357 magnum that can be a handful even with 38 Special rounds (not to mention the actual weight of the gun)………

  10. avatar Ben says:

    I also doubt the perseverance of these new gun owners. We’ll know the outcome in years, not months.

  11. avatar Chi-Chi Montezuma says:

    Very wishful thinking.
    Plebs ain’t journalists, propagandists, politicians or oligarchs.
    Already there’s been a string of similar op-ed pieces in major newspapers attempting to tie change in policing to removal of 2nd Amendment rights. TTAG reported on it. If you think those propaganda editorials with a common theme are just a coincidence you haven’t been paying attention.
    The same liberals and independents in Blue States or gun control cities who were desperate to purchase guns and ammo and were shocked at having to wait are the same low information voters who gave power to those who want them defenseless. And there’s very little difference between them and their counterparts in Red States. And who will those people, who never dedicated much critical analysis towards politics or self-preservation and their freedom, be voting for come November? Trump because he’s sorta pro2A or Biden? Buying a firearm during a crisis doesn’t make one instantly aware of gun control policy or convert their other political preferences to those in line with the standard pro2A conservative platform.

    If you think the American public is a group of intelligent critical thinkers who wouldn’t work against their own self-interest you just haven’t been reading any history books.

    1. avatar Dennis L says:

      “Buying a firearm during a crisis doesn’t make one instantly aware of gun control policy or convert their other political preferences to those in line with the standard pro2A conservative platform.”

      Well said. I consider this buying syndrome a novelty at best. At worst it may raise the “awareness” of the anti gun movement even more. If I were the readers of TTAG I’d plan on a sweeping Biden victory in November. I hope it doesn’t happen but I personally am preparing for the absolute worse. Stockpiling will be the new norm if it isn’t already.

      1. avatar Chi-Chi Montezuma says:

        Hope for the best and prepare for the fecal storm. Even dementia Biden can probably take down Trump at this point. Between Trump’s self inflicted wounds and the likely election day cheating it ain’t looking good. I think Hillary’s hateable factor gave us the win last time. Politically ignorant people don’t know the usury and rape king, Bribery Biden.

        I’ve been stocking up more the past few months and will continue. Unemployment runs out in July for the tens of millions laid off. Virus on the rise again. Plus summer heat and political turmoil. Some cop pimp slaps a senior citizen and it’s going to get ugly.

        On the bright side, Biden in a debate will be enough comedy to kill me via laughter.

  12. avatar EpsteinDidNOTKillHimself says:

    The Minneapolis City Council voted 12-0 to change the city charter to dismantle the PD. Has a few other hoops to leap through and the cities voters will have final say come NOV if it makes it to the ballot.

    If they dismantle the PD and replace it (with what, exactly??), will it become the socialistic utopia? Or a third world dystopia?
    Magic 8-Ball says, “Future unclear.”
    If it goes the latter, I would expect it to be a warning to everyone else of what happens when you call 911 and rather than a LEO, you get a social worker.
    I think everyone watching the riots, and violence all said if the police are busy trying to quell/contain/limit the unrest, and I need to call 911, and I get dispatch saying,
    “We will make a note of it, all our LEOs are busy right now,” I might want to re-think my stance on the 2ndA.
    Might be a few liberal politicians who are also re-thinking their stance on the 2ndA . . . those without their own personal security detachment.

    1. avatar Leigh says:

      If they think they will rely on other departments…the neighboring ones should all agree NOT to respond.
      You had a PD…you got rid of it…you figure it out.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Sheriff should demand massive increase in funding before taking on even a portion of PD job.

    2. avatar Rabid conservative says:

      Epstein did not kill himself . Putting oneself in Bill Clinton’s way is a quick way to end your life. If you are tiered of life just cross slick willy (or threaten to expose him) you’ll be dead in no time ,and won’t have to pull the trigger yourself.

    3. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      Don’t know how things work in Minnesota but in Fl an initiative like that would take a petition with X amount of voters signatures to make the ballot, not sure there’s enough time to make it this Nov.. Be truly popcorn worthy to watch a bunch of Social Workers trying to stop a bank robbery in progress… Probably create major overload on County LE and no one gets the services they are paying for… My town does not have a PD but utilizes a dedicated force of County deputies stationed in town…

    4. avatar MyName says:

      I doubt they will rethink their position on the 2A but, if they get rid of the police, what difference does it make?

      Let’s say they get rid of the police and, then, outlaw the guns. Fine, done, but, there are no police, who is gonna go arrest the dude with a gun? The dude with the gun will be in charge and the prima fascia reason for the 2A (defense against an oppressor) will reveal itself in real time. (Oh, sure, the bad guy with a gun will still lurk about but, the good guy(s) with a gun won’t have to worry about the police inquest if they decide to defend themselves from the bad guys.) The dude with the gun will be more than a match for the crowd of city council busybodies and their team of social workers chanting, “guns r bad, mkay.”

      The truth is, they won’t “defund the police” in actual fact. They will defund the existing police department and replace it with their hand-picked brown-shirts who will go out and extra-judicially deal with the “deplorable” gun toting resistors with extreme prejudice. Again, the fundamental reason for the 2A will be apparent to anyone with two functioning synapses.

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    I have NO HOPE there will a huge republican surge from millions of new gun owners. Been there. Heard it all. There’s an enormous disconnect. And the republican party is also filled with RINOS & fudds. You can’t fix stupid…but you can shoot it!

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      fww, you are the guy I want covering my six.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        Glad to do it Ralph! I got kicked off my local crime watch group because Karen(s) thought I compained too much about crime & rioting. Oh and the cop’s are cowards. But the wife is still on it…

  14. avatar Phantom30 says:

    It is surely true that recent activities has spurred the right to bear arms. Rumor control reports that six ethic follows just when to a gun store and pawn shop up the road a piece and purchased three grocery carts full of ARs. Bulk purchase of long guns is totally legal as it should be. Crime within ethic neighborhoods has been reported as exceeding that of others, so self-defense is obviously being taken seriously given today’s environment. Today the underlying threat is Marxists, Marauders and Morons. In our society there is nothing alarming about these purchases, just wonder if this consumption was funded by the virus payout program. ARs are nice but a 12ga Bullpup magazine fed semi-auto shotgun is much more capable and versatile weapon in urban, suburban, or around the house CQB. It shoots Deer, anarchist, birds, and quad rotor drones equally well. Ammunition is affordable and robust.

    1. avatar Umm . . . says:

      I’m mostly with you on bullpup 12s, but I converted a Saiga years ago and found a decent-capacity box mag obscenely huge (defeating the advantage of a bullpup).

      I love the compactness of my KSG, as well as the ability to flick between slugs and buckshot. Do you know of any tube-fed bullpup semis?

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        How about converting a clip fed SKS to a bullpup?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “How about converting a clip fed SKS to a bullpup?”

          Not being a rifle guy (well, I would own a 105mm recoilless rifle if I could afford it), I don’t “get” the bullpup configuration. Doesn’t the design move the detonation of the cartridge closer to the ear?

        2. avatar Umm . . . says:

          Not a bad idea (the trigger group is conducive to the modification), but make sure you use a case deflector. My SKS ejects very vigorously about one o’clock!

  15. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    they will not become single issue voters.
    but many will become more protective of their rights.

  16. avatar Leigh says:

    And I wonder what their reaction was when they had to produce an ID…and pay for a background check…and in some cases wait for days to get that gun….
    Yeah…it probably won’t change how they vote…but we can hope

    1. avatar Well Armed says:

      How much is a background these days in your neck of the woods ? I have no idea what dealers are charging these days. For the last 25 years I have been doing building repairs for 2 local gun stores at great discounts , thus they have not charged me a fee .

  17. avatar Leigh says:

    some…even many…may be Republicans that did not have guns…yet…
    or independents that were on the edge but still want gun control at some point…
    or possibly apoliticals that don’t ever vote….
    there is no way to know that for sure…

    1. avatar Fred the deer slayer says:

      American elections get less than 25% of eligible adults to actually vote. There’s a good chance none of the new gun owners will vote.

  18. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Maybe. Maybe not.

    Remember when Karl “Turdblossom” Rove told us that latinos were ‘natural conservatives’ and would increase the numbers of GOP voters?

    How did that prognostication work out?

    Right now, I would not make bets on anything in American politics. We have entered Heinlein’s “Crazy Years” and things just become more insane by the day.

    1. avatar Chi-Chi Montezuma says:

      Many Latinos and Blacks are religious and conservative. That’s why the media transformed the GOP into the “racist” party to head off party growth.
      After a pro-lgbtq issue lost in California gay rights activists blamed it on church going Blacks. Protests by the LGBT community in Los Angeles had LGBT calling Blacks the n-word in the streets.
      Agreed on not betting on politics other than most people hating Hillary Clinton.

      1. avatar SoCalJack says:

        I have seen this in CA. Same with Many Asians; Conservative Democrats.

        1. avatar rt66paul says:

          Most immigrant Asians have come from repressive countries. They see police action as someone bad getting their just desserts, guns are bad because the good people can’t own them. Even the ones that have gone through U.S. citizenship do not realize that there are reasons for the Bill of Rights.
          They become gun owners when they realize this.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      I would point out that the theory posited in The Presumed Alliance (Vaca, 2004) has a hell of a lot of data to back it up.

      I would also point out that Chi- Chi has a good point here, though his example may be a bit too fine of a point.

  19. avatar enuf says:

    Far from convinced there is a “Sea Change” in gun politics. Oh sure, some people are having their point of view challenged and altered permanently. But for it to prove a significant number is going to take some very telling events happening over a period of the next few years. Hoplophobic laws repealed, Second Amendment affirming laws passed, that sort of thing.

  20. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “CCRKBA: Millions of First-Time Gun Owners Will Re-Shape the Gun Debate”

    Or have ND’s and shoot themselves or someone else…

  21. avatar Not allowed to speak says:

    Geez —the moderator does not like disparaging comments about speaker Pelosi, my comment was moderated to oblivion !

  22. avatar strych9 says:

    So… this brings up a cutsie story about a hyper-liberal professor, SPSS and my final research for Methodology.

    Long story short my original degree came from a high-falutin university. Senior year you were supposed to take Methodology II, essentially a practical stats course. I took it my Junior year because reasons.

    The entire class was to do research, write a paper and then publicly defend it. All the profs in the department got to ask questions/tear you apart. Essentially it’s a mini thesis defense, in public. Usually this attracted many students from outside PoliSci because of the fireworks that sometimes ensued.

    The paper/presentation/defense that yours truly had that day was the fireworks. Essentially it was a data analysis looking for predictors in voting (general voting, no party breakdown) along with some asides that arose from the data.

    So I fed an absolute fuckload of data into SPSS on this topic. Voting returns, exit polls, ownership rates (known and in some cases estimated), polling on various topics, election results, outcomes of various plebiscites, crime rates and a bunch of other shit. The idea was to look for items that were predictive of electoral or proposition vote outcomes. I didn’t really have a hypothesis as to what the things might be, but rather was researching if they existed at all (Others had posited portions of this political consultancy circles and I was essentially sanity checking their assertions by starting from the position of “Is there anything to this?”).

    I found that, indeed there are some things we might call “predictive”. What are the things thing that predict whether or not someone votes (and subsequently, how they vote to a limited degree)? Ownership of things take spots one through four. Number one is a house or other real estate. People with such a “stake” in things are ~43% more likely to vote. Rolling down the list number four is ownership of a firearm. (Two is a car and three is investments). Five, if anyone cares, wasn’t ownership but rather the having of children.

    Now, more loosely correlated was party affiliation. Ownership was slightly correlated with voting against the Democrats, but only slightly. It seemed from the data that ownership is correlated with voting in a negative sense, not “for” on party or candidates but “against” certain candidates or a certain party in some cases.

    Now the interesting thing is that party affiliation seemed to change. People tended to vote against the party, or specific candidates(s), that were a perceived threat to their ownership of something regardless of party preference. So, if local Republicans tried to pass a property tax increase to fund, say schools, home and property owners tended to vote against those Republican’s percieved to support that measure. Yet, it wasn’t correlated with an overall change in party preference. They may well vote “straight party ticket” EXCEPT for the supporters of the tax hike.

    A hyper liberal professor attacked both my conclusions and me personally quite publicly. I may or may not have handled that as well as I could have. *snicker* (I paid for my transgression the following semester.) The conclusion drove her nuts because it meant that for the “right” policies to be enacted with public support people had to be, essentially, denied property. (And you wonder why the far Left hates private ownership?) This meant that all the policies she championed were self-defeating because as soon as you gave people a hand up they no longer would support, uh, “redistributive” proposals. She had a bit of a meltdown.

    Long story short: Once people acquire real property objects they tend to want to keep them. IIRC, guns specifically had a ~7٪ effect on this, which is to say that even for “straight party ticket” folks you can expect that attacks on gunownership should peal off ~7% of party adherents who own a firearm. Also, keep in mind that this was in “normal times” (early ’07 before the financial crash) and the data went back a couple cycles from there into the heart of the “good days” of 1995-2004.

    Bit compare this to general truisms about the electorate and it seems to, generally, fit. Older people tend to be more conservative, they also have had time to amass assets. Cities tend to be blue while suburbs and rural areas are purple or red. You can go down this list pretty far and generally it fits in the broad sense of modern (2000-present) politics.

    So, I would hypothesize that attacks on gun ownership will fail rather badly for at least this cycle. I further hypothesize that you’ll start to see this in polling and candidate behavior in middle to late August as the cycle really starts to warm up and the public starts to engage with it.

    Just my $0.02.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Interesting that the thrust of your conclusions was behind detente with Russia and China. The theory was that people go to war because they have not. If enemies have valuables to lose in a war, they will change their core motives, and work to get along with other nations that could take gained valuables from Russia/China. Problem was the US (and allies) looked at having stuff as achievement from which they could gain more achievement. The Russians and Chinese see achievement only as weapons to support conquest.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        It’s commonly thought that Bastiat said “When goods don’t cross boarders, soldiers will”.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It’s commonly thought that Bastiat said “When goods don’t cross boarders, soldiers will”.”

          Thinking he had none or little experience with Chinese Communists. Soldiers, goods: weapons all.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          So, I’m personally of the opinion that the quote attributed to Bastiat is likely an oversimplification but also that it does tend to apply to the Chinese and the Russians.

          At this point I’ll ask for a clarification of your OP on specifically which detente theory you’re referring to. Ours? Theirs? Our theory on Ruso-Chinese relations vis a vis Communism? How the Chinese or the Russians viewed this? I’m guessing I made the wrong assumptions here about what you were saying since the ChiComs and the Red Russians hates each other along political, race and natural resources lines.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          As I recall the situation at the time, the egg heads put forward the theory that both Russia and China could be brought to heel through economic parity with the US, rather than armed conflict. While the Russkies and Chicoms were not officially aligned, each saw the US as frustrating their plans for dominance. Neither was interested in co-existence. Rather, they were looking to other means to best the US, and then the US came knocking with the idea of giving China and Russia economic progress for little in return.

          The overwhelming thinking of the elites in this country seemed, then and now, to be that every world leader wants to have for themselves and their populations, the freedoms, wealth and luxury enjoyed the Americans. I heard it so many times, “No matter the country, no matter the political situation, inside every person on earth is a little American longing to break free of their condition, and become middle class.”

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          That theory certainly did exist and was popular in Washington. It’s failure, IMHO, is not due to Bastiat generally being wrong but because of what Rumsfeld, years later, would publicly call “unknown unknowns”.

          The fall of the USSR in 1991 led, years later, to the opening of archives that revealed a number of things which undercut our policy towards both countries.

          First, the Chinese and the Russians hated each other. Part of this was racial and cultural but part of it was also doctrinal. The USSR in general, and believed firmly in “top down” Communism while Mao championed “bottom up” Communism. Mostly this was due to the different types of society on which each was trying to take over/run. Stalin in particular hated Mao and there was great friction between the two countries based on this ideological difference while the two men were both in power respectively (~’49 to Stalin’s death in ’53). Malenkov isn’t really worth discussing here but Khrushchev continued Stalin’s general opposition towards this “bottom up” Communism idea very specifically because he believed it was a threat to Soviet-style rulership.

          The second issue is economic. The Chinese under Mao had a eye on Eastern Russia, Siberia, because of it’s vast natural resources. These are resources that to this day the Russians have not really exploited but Mao had the manpower to do it. This led to a decades long border standoff of which we had little knowledge of. Our spy planes stopped deep penetration flights around ~1960 and we never really cared about the “Mongolian border” anyway. Regardless the Soviets built a “Maginot Line” of their own along that boarder consisting of a huge number of concrete bunkers with tank turrets on top (so even if bypassed they could turn and fire on the rear of the enemy unlike the actual Maginot Line).

          Basically we didn’t know about this at all until the 1980’s and, really, didn’t know much about it until the late 1990’s. It led to a lot of what in hindsight were miscalculations, particularly surrounding Vietnam.

          However, I would point out that overall China in particular falls into Bastiat’s cliche here when you ask the question “Which Chinese are we talking about?”. For the high ranking members of the Party I think that you are certainly correct, in fact I’d say that’s irrefutable. However the CCP is not “the Chinese people”. For the general Chinese population I think Bastiat is correct. The CCP has managed this issue with a slow-walk towards Capitalism in the last few decades. They have to have an improving position for their population or the government will be overthrown. However, they manage that “slow walk” through a manipulation of their population’s understanding of the world, Chinese position in the world, history, economics and expectations. This allows them to control their population for the benefit of the Party while simultaneously harnessing that population’s desire for a better life as a means to direct anger away from the Party and towards the “right” people, the “enemies of the State”. Since the State is the Party that’s never going to be the Party. It’s always an outside group like us.

    2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      I further hypothesize that you’ll start to see this in polling and candidate behavior in middle to late August

      You mean IF the pollsters actually start doing honest, balanced and relevant polls AND those polled start answering honestly… How did your “predictors” work out in 2016, the same phenomenon is work again… I do believe you are correct about any significant changes to gun laws (ain’t gonna happen) BUT, the idea that “Brain Dead” Creepy Uncle Joe could have a 14 point lead in an honest poll (ghosts of Hillary’s voters?) is absolutely ludicrous….

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        So, back in 2016 I actually looked at those polls (I don’t have the time to do a broad survey of them this year). At the time I also had a Rasmussen membership.

        Rasmussen rarely, if ever, had the race outside the MoE. That’s because they’re honest.

        Those polls you refer to were, uh, for lack of a better term “rigged”. And I say that because a first year Methodolgy student six weeks into the class would have caught the errors. I posted some of it here on TTAG at the time. The internals and crosstabs had been manipulated to produce a desired outcome. For example there was a county in Florida I found that, once expanded for actual population, had more Minority Women with Post-Gtaduate degrees than it than it had minority women. That’s unpossible and it was such a glaring error that there’s almost no chance that it was an accident since the manipulation was professional. If you’re good enough to do the work you don’t generally make such a mistake by accident.

        The Podesta Hack also produced information that the DNC internals had Hillary behind or tied with Trump for most of the cycle. But internal polls only get seen when they’re leaked like that.

        You can see the same thing again this year. There was a poll CNN talked up wreks back that they had done for them by a consulting poll agency. The first page has the disclaimer that the MoE was 3.4% and that the poll contained an oversample of black people by almost 100%, an oversample which wasn’t normalized. (To be fair, Fox recently did this too BUT did so for a valid reason which they statistically normalized on rhe backend.)

        Now that poll had Biden ahead by 12, IIRC, and if that oversample was removed (or normalized)bit cut Biden’s lead by 5.4, down to 6.6. With an MoE of 3.4 that means it’s a statistical dead heat.

        If you ask me, personally, my opinion on this at the moment (since polling is a snapshot in time) I would hazard the guess based on what I’ve seen and historical data that Biden, in reality, has a 5-7% real-world lead. Most of this comes from a combination of the current name recognition, the cycle not really having an engaged electorate and general discontent about the current state of things vis a vis CoV-2, unemployment, lock downs, race relations, police issues etc.

        However, historically speaking the only way Biden maintains or expands that lead is if Trump faceplants on literally everything from here on out. Trump’s behind but well within striking distance at this point, Biden has obvious cognitive issues that will raise big questions going forward as the electorate engages. Races like this also tend to naturally tighten as people pay attention, so that’s probably half of Biden’s lead gone right there. Add in everything else and Biden’s not sitting pretty from my point of view, but to be fair, neither is Trump at the moment.

        It’s rare that I prognosticate on elections but in this case, from where I sit, I don’t see Biden winning. I say that as no fan big of Trump, because ultimately I don’t like politicians at all. I just find them fascinating to study due to the window they give you on people in general.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          IIRC, the Rasmussen poll included an estimate of silent/invisible Trump support that no other survey company considered. If that is so how is an unknown accurately represented in the data?

          Regarding “over representation”, there seems to be an established data point that there are more Dim than Repubulicrat voters in the nation. One implication would be that if all the Dims voted in each election, Repubs could never win any race. Another would be that such a differential must always be factored in any poll. That is, a valid poll would not be possible if the same number of Dims and Repubs were surveyed. That would mean that when surveys show “more” Dims than Repubs take this position, or that, such would be a logical outcome of the voter differential.

          One thing, already noted by others, is that pollsters can only record responses; there is no way to know if the respondent is truthful. I always lie.

          PS, just as before, most polling done to date is to influence, not represent, the potential outcome.

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Add in everything else and Biden’s not sitting pretty from my point of view, but to be fair, neither is Trump at the moment.

          Given the the “shit storm” of lies, propaganda and a hostile media from day one (the announcement) toss in a group of “deep state” operatives and top level FBI/CIA anti-Trumpers and It’s an absolute wonder that this administration has been even remotely effective… The outside forces at work against this administration are mind boggling as well, anyone who thinks China, Russia, Iran, Syria and a number of NATO “allies” don’t desperately want to see him gone they are grossly mistaken, it seems his “take no shit and pay you own way” attitude is NOT a popular stance among the bullies and the freeloaders of the world (who knew?)… The virus and the civil unrest currently happening are a direct result of that outside influence (the attempted erasure or the Nations history is obvious) but Trump keeps punching back and the more different shit they sling at him the harder he will punch.. They all know Biden will just go hide in his basement for a couple of months, take the oath and step down, in fact he’s already said as much….

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          Sam & Maxx: I put the reply in the wrong spot. It’s down below.

          *grumble*

        4. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          At this point, I’m beginning to suspect Trump doesn’t want the job as much as he did 4 years ago. I hope I’m wrong, but I’m planning that being accurate.

          An observation on the Bush 1 re-election attempt. The perception I got at the time was that he really didn’t want to be president again, and that’s why he lost. Ex-director of the CIA and VP for 8 years and then prez for 4, I think he had enough of the game…

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The perception I got at the time was that really didn’t want to be president again, and that’s why he lost.”

          At the root of B 41’s single term is a question about our history, and our contemporary ideas. Most people do not know enough history to understand much of anything about our history. The current assumed roles of the three branches of government are not really what the framers intended (and violated in their own time), nor what most people “understand”. However, if you go back to the records of the early discussions one does find a curious episode: deciding whether or not to create an American aristocracy.

          Not to review everything in one comment, one should know that aristocracy was not an evil idea to the founders, only the actual operation. At one point, a crisis arose over how to remove a president other than by election. One faction declared that the ability to remove a president short of election would mean that Congress would spend all its time trying to overturn presidential elections (remember, in the beginning, the VP was the person who got the second most votes, regardless of political party). The other side pointed out that without a “peaceful” means of removing a president, the only alternative would be assassination. Eventually, impeachment and conviction was installed in the constitution

          Another consideration about the roles of governing branches, each, at one time or another became, or tried to become, imperial; acting as if one branch was the natural ruler over the other two. The tension has ebbed and flowed since the beginning of the constitution. But specific to the office of President, there has been an even deeper conflict of American values and ideals: the want of a Monarch. The original intent of having a president was not to make that person the “leader” in every aspect of American life. That responsibility was assigned to Congress. The role of the president was less nanny, and more symbolic, with specific powers related to the representation of the US abroad (ambassadors to not represent Congress, but the president’s vision of America’s role in international affairs). Indeed, if one looks at the times of the founding, there was no mention of the president submitting, via a budget recommendation, the president’s view of how the nation should be governed in detail.

          Whenever you hear the phrase “the president should lead on….” it is the mark of someone ignorant of the history of the founding, and the limitation of powers among the three branches.

          The role of the president is to execute the laws passed by Congress, not determine what such legislation should be. The idea of an imperial president is actually the inevitable outcome of party politics, where the president is the head of a particular party, charged with advancing party agenda. Thus, B 41 was actually envisioning a second term as an executive, not an agenda leader. We are apparently seeing the same thing in Trump’s lack of an agenda for a second term. Handling “whatever comes up” is more in line with original intent of the founders, than an agenda stetting potentate.

    3. avatar Beepbeep says:

      Long story short….damn glad we didn’t get the other $0.98….. 🙂 🙂 🙂
      But, to confirm one of your points, I didn’t vote for Trump 2016 (he’s never been a Conservative…), but I sure as Hell voted against Hillary.
      Sadly, in America for several decades, we have had to vote for the lesser of two evils. It’s getting harder and harder to convince me that Republicans are any lesser evil than Demtards. Politicians….you gotta love ’em, cause you can’t shoot ’em….yet. Just maybe Antifa will move that needle. And, that folks, is a lot of what is wrong with America.
      First American Revolution over taxation without representation.
      Second American Revolution over taxation by representation.

  23. avatar Coolbreeze says:

    They reacted to a health care crisis (Coronavirus) in fear by buying guns. They will react to a “health care crisis” (gun violence) in fear by selling to a buy-back program. They are not our kind.

  24. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    Apparently California either did not engage in the “Great gun buying spree” or they just didn’t get the memo since they are trying to ban even more guns… If I was a new gun owner in Ca and my just purchased shiny new rifle was added to the list of can’t haves I’d be pissed, hell if I’d owned a gun for years and those assholes suddenly decided that it’s too dangerous to own I’d be even more pissed…

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      We *did* get a lot of new owners. I personally have spoken with three (and treated two of them to a day at the range) separate individuals over the past two weeks who have lived their entire lives here in SoCal, have never owned a gun, but now want to buy one. Unfortunately, the available selection is now almost non-existent due to the demand.

      The Dems in Sacramento are trying to make not just purchases, but existing ownership and training as difficult as possible. And then, as we all know, they also call for defunding the police at the same time and wonder why crime is going up.

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        Milsurp C&R is your friend. Makarovs and other Easter Bloc handguns that are C&R are quality pieces. There are many that are for sale from importers that have very little(or no) use. These are legal to buy in Ca, as long as the mag is limited to 10 rds.

        1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          “Milsurp C&R is your friend.”

          For an educated new gun owner, probably. There are very few of those.

          Buying new implies they won’t have a dud. For them buying a Glock is a *perception* of a safe purchase……

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Doesn’t this new law exclude any gun CAPABLE of accepting a magazine that HOLDS more than 10 rounds.. Like my G29 comes with 10 round mags but will accept a 15 round G20 mag which according to the way I interpret the wording would make my G29 an illegal firearm in California…

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…which according to the way I interpret the wording would make my G29 an illegal firearm in California…”

          Being hyper suspicious of government (especially wen Dims are involved), I always read laws and regulations to determine the number of elements that can eventually be used to entrap the unassuming. In this instance, wherever mag limits are involved, I conclude that, yes, the capability to “accept” different sized magazines is the test to ultimately be used to make all firearms “assault weapons”. “Capability” and “accept” are the danger warnings.

        4. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          Copy the “hyper suspicious”… They be some Sneaky Bastards (at least in THEIR minds)

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The be some Sneaky Bastards (at least in THEIR minds)”

          Yes, they revel in using language as a weapon.

      2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        the available selection is now almost non-existent due to the demand

        They could always revert to the good old “gun show loophole” or just buy on line since most Dems believe that’s how all us criminal wanna-be mass murderers get ours….

  25. avatar Dave says:

    Well, it’d be great if they were all transformed in to Charlton Heston like eloquent defenders of the right to keep and bear arms.
    More likely we will see the old chestnut “I’m a gun owner, but…” pop up with frequency in future discourse on the subject. Most everyone is a fan of their right to own a gun. It’s the gun in our hand they often don’t care for.

    1. avatar Ronbusman says:

      Everyone with a gun, thinks they are the official spokesperson for all gun owners. Like one who owns a Prius is the official spokesperson for NASCAR…..NOT.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Everyone with a gun, thinks they are the official spokesperson for all gun owners.”

        Well, I have it on great authority (me), that I AM the official spokesidentity for all gun owners. If you disagree, you are wrong (says me).

  26. avatar Alan says:

    I too am suspicious of those who seem suddenly enamored/aware of Second Amendment Rights, or perhaps of the amendment itself. I would welcome them
    though, while keeping a weather eye on these newbies. I also wonder regarding the nature of their awakening. Will it turn out to be a passing fad, or something with staying power. Only time will tell.

    1. avatar DanDusert says:

      Hmmmm……were Russia and China to suddenly go on an arms buying binge, don’t think I’d welcome them into my house. Wonder how many new buyers were Antifa supporters? May just indicate we need more ammo. An enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend…. its not just a binary world……often just another enemy to watch.

  27. avatar 4VFK20629 says:

    In this article this quote is found. “Look at all of the new people who suddenly decided to exercise their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms,”.

    How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in. The Second Amendment DOES NOT give us the right to keep and bear arms.

    What these people are actually doing is exercising their right to not be infringed upon by the government.

    The Second Amendment is a prohibition on the government and does not contain any given rights that they can just as easily take away.

    This is so simple so let’s get it right, okay?

    Again, I rest my case.

  28. avatar strych9 says:

    Twofer:

    Sam: You’ve asked an a pretty complicated set of questions here. Let me try to answer this without writing an actual book but still covering it reasonably well…

    If that is so how is an unknown accurately represented in the data?

    This is one of those “dark arts” in polling and there are a bunch of theoretical methods for it. Rasmussen’s internal work on this is proprietary so I cannot answer exactly how they do it. Even if you buy their most expensive subscription they don’t let you know that. Generally speaking this falls into the category of working with “energy”, that is trying to figure out the morale of the population in question, usually phrased in polling as “enthusiasm”. You can look this up, I’m not going to write a book on it here. It varies enormously and it’s changed a lot over time as the methodology has been refined. Generally it involved generating a value for enthusiasm within a cohort and then assigning that as an assumed over/under sample for that cohort. So, Fox’s poll that oversampled Black voters did so specifically because they believe Black voters are very enthusiastic to vote this year. How they generate that number is almost always a trade secret but there are open source basic methods for your assumptions. Realistically the math doesn’t change much, it’s the assumptions that change. Last thing here: A big part of this has to do with fluctuations in Party Affiliation as noted within the Poll. If you suddenly see a big drop or big increase in the people with a certain identification there are some statistical models for what that means (see more below).

    Whatever Rasmussen’s method is it seems to work better than any of the *normal* (read: common) methodology. I suspect this comes from Rasmussen and his brother’s work as legal bookies before getting into polling. Oddsmakers love this kind of thing (when they’re good at it) because it helps them calculate their spreads. The spread they never want to talk about is the “fan” spread, which is essentially a statistical calculation on the percentage of betters who bet based on feelings towards a team/person rather than any actual logic or facts regarding the players. They just like to bet on the Seahawks or something. These people are a bookie’s bread and butter and if you’re good at reading them you can get very rich very fast.

    With regards to the Democrat/Republican thing: Gallup has, historically had the best numbers on this. This year they haven’t changed that much. 31% Democrat to 30% Republican with 36% Independent. Add those up and we get 3% unaccounted for. (Gallup allows for this question to be skipped and derives the data from their permanent members, that is people they call repeatedly and knowing who they are so they can track changes in a known person, and hence population, over time.)

    So far in 2020 we have 10 data points on this. They average out to 29.3% D, 29.0%R and 39.1% I. There’s an unfortunate media tendency to ONLY focus on the last data point which, for R’s is admittedly quite bad: 31 D, 25 R, 40 I. However, refer to the averages since Jan 2 and we find this isn’t a good data point but it’s also not a trend right now. ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx if you wanna look)

    So, a few things here:

    First, it’s important to note that the number that fluctuates the most here is Independents. Historically, it fluctuations by ~6% or so within any given year. This year it moved around more, with a low of 36 and a high of 45 with a median of 39.5. The reason this number moves more than R or D is because it draws from both of them.

    At this point the way things are going it stands-to-reason, and this is a common theory in polling, that it’s down for R’s right now because many people are the “silent” voters your mention. They don’t want to tell anyone that they’re thinking/leaning Trump because… well, Orange Man Bad and it’s not like Lefties are exactly acting all cuddly and nice right now, are they?

    So what we look at here is this: Yes, R’s are down quite a lot, five points since late April in fact. However, Democrats haven’t moved in the last four cycles, they’ve stayed at 31 in every sample back to April 1, when they gained a point.

    Now, since the first half of February the R’s have lost 8 points and the Democrats have gained 5 while I’s gained 1. This suggests that the Democrats position is deceptively weak. R’s lost 8 points but, 1 going to I’s but that should have boosted D’s by 7, instead they picked up 5 meaning 28.6% of R support that was lost “disappeared” into the void. They just vanished rather than going to I or D. The D’s inability to pick this up historically suggests weak underpinnings and that a high percentage of R loss is actually people who are the “silent voters” at this point. They’re not winning, R’s are having a rough go of it. I’s aren’t making much headway either though. In fact, for every 100 people who suddenly are “no longer R” the Democrats fail to pick up 37.5 of them when, historically speaking, they need to grab another 10% or so to be in a strong position going forward.

    So what the fuck does any of that mean? Well historically speaking it suggests rather strongly that the Democrats are not just going to sail through this year very well. Especially when we look at the Progressive side of things in primaries where even if Progs win every primary from here on out they still did poorly. I would suggest that this “back seat driving” is part of why the Party isn’t increasing it’s wider appeal over R’s and Trump at anywhere near the rate it needs to because in about 60 days you can take whatever they have and basically cut it in half as the public engages. Then we have the actual race and positions and things for the public to consider and name recognition is kinda out the window.

    MAXX:

    I would tend to agree. See what I’ve said to Sam above here for why I think you’re right here. If all that shit can’t shift this significantly more than it has then it’s likely that Democrats are playing a game like Sisyphus and are going to be REALLY pissed when it works out for them like it always does for the dead King.

    1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      Sisyphus: an interesting analogy that appropriately describes the futility of this massive effort put forth by the progressive liberals to discredit and stifle this administration… It must be extremely difficult for someone with no spine to understand the meaning of things like inner strength, courage, guts, balls and that in your face GFY attitude…. It’s like Ax said “what good is having GFY money if you can’t tell someone to GFY…

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Geez, strych9. I think you must’ve worn out your fingertips on your keyboard today.

    3. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Nine – absolutely smashing reply.; very informative, all around. Appreciate the cogent and succinct tutorial. Planning to package it for sharing with friends and neighbors (before you get around to charging for it (in a book).

      It would be good if more than the usual suspects here take the time to read your comment, and gain insight into not only polling methods, but statistics as well.

      Cheers

      Bonus Question: Do you know what happened that resulted in Rasmussen being separated from his company?

      1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

        TTAG and mises.org;

        The comments are often better and more educational than the articles. Kudos to all of you for that discussion.

  29. avatar FreeWilly says:

    Clinton had Epstien offed, he had too much on too many.

  30. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    If people question their previous belief that “guns r bad mkay” and realize that it was fed to them by particular people and groups then they will probably start to question other things those people and groups fed them.

    When minorities, feminists, and gay people enter the gun shop for the first time and buy their first gun they directly experience that

    1) Neither the gun shop employees nor any POTG encountered have any problems with them or disdain for them

    2) There are already plenty of restrictions on gun ownership including one or more background checks (depending on state and locality) to keep bad people form getting guns

    This may be enough to shake what they thought were their deeply held beliefs and change their voting patterns.

    Even if they don’t vote republican it may be enough to get them to not vote democrat, and that will be a help.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “If people question their previous belief that “guns r bad mkay” and realize that it was fed to them by particular people and groups then they will probably start to question other things those people and groups fed them.”

      As noted yesterday, a woman sympathetic to the rioters/looters did not feel betrayed, or the need to question her beliefs when her store was destroyed by the rioters and looters with whom she was sympathetic.

      The “liberal” crowd running to gun stores do not question their beliefs (that gun owners are a menace to society), they only recognize that in uncertain times, gun owners they don’t like pose a greater than normal threat, and “liberals” need guns to protect them selves from the “crazy” gun owners. Eliminate the “crazies” (you and me), and there is not need for anybody to have a gun.

      Liberalism is a mental disorder….

      1. avatar MyName says:

        One wonders how they think they and their shiny new gun is going to deter the “crazies” they imagine they are up against when there are no police to come and save them.

        A bunch of fools who have just now decided that they need to get a gun and some boolits to save them from all those gun nuts who, by the way, have truckloads of guns-n-ammo and actually figured out how to use those tools before the loonies started showing their ass in the street. Guess it is a good thing the POTG aren’t the trigger happy morons the lefties want to make us out to be.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “One wonders how they think they and their shiny new gun is going to deter the “crazies” they imagine they are up against when there are no police to come and save them.”

          Thus proving….

          “Liberalism is a mental disorder”.

  31. avatar RGP says:

    Some of these people buying a gun for the first time look at that gun the same way a new dad looks at a pair of dirty diapers the first time he has to change the baby. I don’t want THEM “reshaping” the Second Amendment.

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