Dem Candidates Were So Wrong on Guns Last Night That Even the Associated Press Noticed

Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., left, former Vice President Joe Biden, center, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., raise their hands to speak during a Democratic presidential primary debate hosted by CNN/New York Times at Otterbein University, Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2019, in Westerville, Ohio. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

How badly does a Democrat presidential candidate have to “mis-speak” about guns in the US for a big time legacy media operation to call them on it? Pretty badly. Last night, the misinformation was flowing freely at the latest Democrat 2020 presidential debate.

It was so bad, in fact, that the Associated Press (of all outlets) found it necessary to fact check some of the candidates’ claims. That’s the kind of treatment usually reserved for right-of-center politicians.

But don’t give the AP too much credit. They only called out a couple of gun-related claims because — as the they sees it — the reality makes a stronger case for more gun control.

First it was Mayor Pete and someone named Amy Klobuchar (who’s so nondescript that the AP garbled her name). Their statements unduly raised hopes that one of the Democrats most desired goals is close at hand.

PETE BUTTIGIEG: “On guns, we are this close to an assault weapons ban. That would be huge.”

AMY KLOCHUBAR (sic): “I just keep thinking of how close we are to finally getting something done on this.”

THE FACTS: No, the U.S. is not close to enacting an assault-weapons ban, as Buttigieg claimed, nor close on any significant gun control, as Klobuchar had it. Congress is not on the verge of such legislation. Prospects for an assault-weapons ban, in particular, are bound to remain slim until the next election at least.

Legislation under discussion in the Senate would expand background checks for gun sales, a politically popular idea even with gun owners. But even that bill has stalled because of opposition from the National Rifle Association and on-again, off-again support from Trump. Democrats and some Republicans in Congress say they will continue to push for the background checks bill, but movement appears unlikely during an impeachment inquiry and general dysfunction in Congress. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made it clear he won’t move forward on gun legislation without Trump’s strong support.

Buttigieg was citing the chance for an assault-weapons ban as a reason for not supporting the more radical proposal by Democratic presidential rival Beto O’Rourke to force gun owners to give up AR-15s and other assault-style weapons. Klobuchar spoke in a similar context.

That’s right. There was never a chance for a new “assault weapons” ban, except maybe in the fevered dreams of the most radically anti-gun Democrats.

Any chance that Trump could have been convinced to stumble into support for expanded background checks or a bill to incent more states to enact “red flag” laws likely died with the impeachment push. Just an unintended consequence of the never-ending #resistance.

As for those assault-y looking guns in civilian hands . . .

KAMALA HARRIS: “Five million assault weapons are on the streets of America today.”

THE FACTS: The California senator’s statistic on the number of AR- and AK-style firearms is not accurate. Even the gun industry estimates there are now 16 million “assault weapons” in circulation in the United States today. In 1994, President Bill Clinton enacted an assault weapons ban, at a time when there were an estimated 1.5 million of them in circulation. Current owners were allowed to keep them, however, and once the ban expired a decade later, sales resumed and boomed.

Correct again. The most frequently cited number for Diane Feinstein’s least favorite firearms in civilian hands is usually somewhere between 15 and 17 million. No one knows the exact number, but it’s likely north of 20 million.

So like so many things gun-related, Kamala Harris is woefully misinformed.

comments

  1. avatar -Peter says:

    I’m glad that the factual inaccuracies at last night’s debate were limited just to the discussion of firearms.

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      Satire: The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

  2. avatar former water walker says:

    Watching “The Five” right now. Mostly about the “so-called” debate. Guns,climate and the middle-easy. A bunch of tards…

  3. avatar LarryinTX says:

    It’s “FloFUBAR”. And the numbers they should be studying are how many Dem seats were lost in the House and the Senate during the next election (1994). Ya’ll have fun, now!

  4. avatar James Campbell says:

    It seems the dems are doing EVERYTHING possible to push everyone away from their party.
    Makes me wonder if they have some kind of “victim status” angle in the works.

  5. avatar Dude says:

    An interesting takeaway from the debate is that the democrats are now in line with George W. Bush Middle East policy.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      Yeah, that’s one of the funniest things about recent politics. Remember when Obama was elected in ‘08 thanks in no small part to his promise get us out of the Middle East? Now the Ds are screaming bloody murder because Trump DOESNT seem keen on getting us mixed up in another hopelessly complex, endless, and ultimately worthless war in the region.

      President Trump, circa 2021: “Puppies should never be tortured”

      Democrats, circa 2021: “Watch me skin this puppy alive on video! #Resist!”

      Democrat voters, circa 2021: *cheering*

  6. avatar D says:

    Doesn’t matter. Their stupid and gullible audience laps it up

    If they are that stupid on guns, why would the be any smarter on any other topic?

  7. avatar bastiches says:

    Still have yet to hear of a single weapon that can’t be used in an assault.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Yes, but semiautomatic rifles are the most useful weapons for service in a militia. (Other than the already very stiffly regulated select fire ones) That’s why they must go first, if the left should get any chance to introduce the socialist heaven on Earth. Sniper (hunting) rifles and the sneaky multishot handguns will soon follow. But first things first!

      1. avatar Fred Lead says:

        Not quite. They aggressively targeted handguns for decades, it was even the primary goal for much of the post-1960s push, but the Supreme Court spanked them hard. Not only did it rule handguns may not be banned, but it also led to the dismantling of the Chicago and DC gun bans. Logically they should target handguns but they literally can’t.

        They are going after what they perceive as low-hanging fruit, the scary AR-15, despite the fact these firearms are used in less than 0.75% of all gun deaths. They’re banking on the “weapons of war” argument and the media propagation of mass shootings that fit the narrative (while ignoring everyday shootings in places like Chicago, mostly democrat territory). In 1999 the FBI found media coverage is highly correlated with further shootings and a recent study quantified it; about 58% of mass shootings in the 2010s were influenced by media reporting.

        What we have is a clear strategy, death by a thousand bans with the scary black rifles first, even though they are statistically the least misused firearm. The media and politicians support each other, not only in crafting a false narrative, but also financially and materially support further mass shootings through their glorification. Pretty much everything they say of the NRA is simple projection; when they say the NRA enables mass shooters what they really mean is the media motivates mass shooters.

        That’s enough of that rant.

    2. avatar David says:

      I tried peanut butter on a squirrel, but it kept sticking to the spoon.

  8. avatar doesky2 says:

    I wonder how far off the count is off due to AR15 lowers that people buy in large qunatity purchases with one BG check.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Not to mention the 80 percent lowers. I nor my friends own any AR15s or LR-308s… with a serial number.
      It’s nobody’s business how many guns or cartridges I own.

  9. avatar Mad Max says:

    “So like so many things gun-related, Kamala Harris is woefully misinformed.”

    Kamala Harris is woefully misinformed on just about everything. So are the rest of the Democrats.

    How any thinking person could ever vote for any of them is beyond me.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Don’t underestimate your enemy. Leftists are neither dumb or ignorant. They are evil and scheming. They don’t care about truth any more than they care about human rights.
      It’s hard to guess when they are misinformed and when they just simply lie. My money is on 95% of the time they lie through their teeth.

    2. avatar Richard Steven Hack says:

      That of course is precisely the problem. 98% of the US electorate is equally misinformed and unable to think.

      That’s why you have Trump (I say you because I didn’t vote for him.) And why you had only a choice between Trump and the equally bad Clinton last time (I didn’t have that choice because I don’t vote for lying politicians.)

      Whoever wins the 2020 election, we will be worse off than we were before the election. That’s the only guarantee based on US history since, oh, maybe Jefferson.

      1. avatar Fred says:

        We will be fine if no Democrats win any seats in Congress or the Presidency! They represent evil and hedonism!

    3. avatar David says:

      Apparently, the only thing Harris is educated about is how to trade her body to an old married politician in order to climb the political ladder.

  10. avatar Jim from LI says:

    They kept talking about the importation of assault weapons,as if that was their primary source. Maybe we should let them keep on believing that and offer that as the compromise. “OK, no more imported AR-15s”.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      That’s not a compromise; it’s a capitulation.
      No matter how few ARs are imported, if we don’t get anything in return, it’s not a compromise.
      To the grabbers, “OK, we’ll just take this right, and let you have the rest (for now),” is their idea of compromise.
      A compromise, to paraphrase Mike Rowe, is when both sides think they’ve gotten it in the neck a little. With the gun grabbers, their idea of compromise is to take less than they demand, and give nothing other than a promise that they will take more, later.

  11. avatar Richard Steven Hack says:

    Given how many full-auto weapons were registered during the one year grace period back in the day, I wouldn’t be surprised if full-auto weapons numbered five million today. So maybe Harris was right. LOL 🙂

    Of course, that would just prove that “gun control” is a physical impossibility. And we can’t have that, can we?

    Seriously, these idiots are just pandering for votes from the moronic US electorate. And whatever legislation they actually manage to get passed should any of them be elected – which is irrelevant since only one of them might be – assuming Trump doesn’t win again – will be irrelevant as well since either it will be unenforceable or provoke a black market or both.

    1. avatar David says:

      It is an impossibility, but Beto is to stupid to realize that you can’t tie up every cop in the nation going door to door. First, because a large number of cops will not do what they know is unconstitutional and violates their oaths. Second, the same applies to the military unless they ignore the rest of the world that would welcome the opportunity to hit us when we are distracted…. and then there is still that oath thing and the honor, ethics, morals, etc. Next there is the SCOTUS which is leaning more to the right these days. Finally, there are all those gun owners who have been practicing “Civil Disobedience” and who are not about to turn in the weapons they spent all that money on during each buying frenzy.

  12. avatar Mark says:

    I go to bed every night and pray that there are over 100 million AR15s in America. That is my idea of a happy place. I’d prefer over 1 billion (every man and woman should own 5 at a minimum), but not everyone can have as many as I do….

  13. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    One question I have is why these people are allowing a moderator to asked for raised hands in answer to a question. Are they children and are they dumb enough to do that and respond yes or no as they would in a trial. That makes them crappy politicians.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      to paraphrase beto..”I trust the American people will obey the law…and turn in their guns”….yeah, right!

      1. avatar David says:

        Only when they are totally worn out and I can’t figure another repurpose.

        Beto is a fruitcake. Every gun owner who believes that the Constitution is the law of the land is never going to agree with a law that violates individual rights. Even Prohibition didn’t work. Banning any firearms will only result in good people being labeled as criminals just as our Founders were.

        In Australia and England, two countries the anti-gunners like to point out, there is a blackmarket in firearms. On top of that are the tens of thousands of firearms that the government admits were never turned during any of the buybacks. Not, there were multiple opportunities to participate in a buyback, and still the people refused. Lastly, the people in both countries are saying we should never give in as they did when they believed the lies their governments were laying down. They, themselves, are saying they want their rights back.

        In other countries where, under the yoke of communism, firearm ownership was very restricted, the presidents of Poland and the Ukraine have publicly stated that the people of those countries need their own version of the 2nd Amendment.

        Anyone who resists will be a patriot and hero.

        1. avatar Yoda says:

          You forgot IMBECILE. Those countries also have the highest crime rates.

  14. avatar Chris says:

    Im floored by the fact the phrase, “on the streets” keeps getting used in reference to ‘assault weapons’. It sounds like there’s just a bunch of ARs walking down the sidewalk. Ridiculous!

  15. avatar PMinFL says:

    Wow multiple lines removed by “edit”. Stake in the heart of U B Cs. If I (an individual) sell you (an individual) a firearm without a background check who knows? Even if you used it to commit a crime it couldn’t be traced because … no paperwork. The only logical progression (sorry) is to have a registry and have millions of A T F agents checking all “personal inventories” every day. I guess that’s the goal anyway but U B C s will go over well with the populace. It’s just the first step and … WE ALL KNOW IT.

  16. avatar Bob in IN says:

    Colin Noir youtubed that hammers caused almost twice more deaths than ar15s. When is the hammer ban? BTW I have at least five hammers (none has caused hammer violence). When is the hammer registration? The hammer buy back? Is open carrying of hammers legal? Why arent the communists discussing hammers?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “Why arent the communists discussing hammers?”

      Because they are very supportive of hammers, especially when teamed with sickles.

      1. avatar Dag Hammarskjöld says:

        Does that mean that when I get thoroughly sick and tired of hearing that incessant bell that I can grab my assault sledgehammer and beat the living daylights out of the ice cream truck?
        COOOOL!!

  17. avatar Stuck in NJ says:

    Kamala Harris claimed, “Five million assault weapons are on the streets of America today.”
    Sorry Kamala, but the only “assault weapons” that are “on the streets” are in the hands of cops, and I doubt there are five million cops carrying them.

    If the AR-15 were truly, as the antis claim, “a weapon of war whose sole function is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible,” then would we really want the police to carry them?
    But it’s not.
    When anti-gun people ask me whether “shall not be infringed” means that gun owners think average Americans should be able to own nuclear weapons, I reply No, average Americans should be able to own the same weapons the police can own. If it’s considered too dangerous for ordinary citizens to own (e.g. NFA items such as hand grenades, machine guns, and suppressors, which aren’t dangerous at all but a piece of safety gear — a topic for another day), then it ought to be labeled too dangerous for cops to own, too. Make the cops follow the same gun control laws, restrictions on suppressors, “assault weapons bans”, SBRs, and “high-capacity magazine bans” as the rest of us, and then you’ll see those AWB, magazine capacity laws, SBR laws, and suppressor laws repealed so fast your head will spin!

    I see no reason why the police should have machine guns, hand grenades, and bombs either, that they use to kill civilians, but they do, believe it or not.

    For example, a couple years ago, police killed a suspect with a bomb delivered by a remote-controlled robot (that’s some Judge Dredd level “justice” there!), so believe it or not, police do have bombs and do use them to kill suspects. Then there was the time police got the wrong house in a “no-knock” warrant, and cops tossed a hand grenade into a baby’s crib where a baby was sleeping. Even though cops got the wrong house, the cop who tossed the hand grenade into the baby’s crib later said, “I can’t think of anything I would have done differently,” and of course the cops got away with it because a badge is a license to kill.
    It was a flash-bang grenade, so the baby didn’t die immediately, but the grenade made a hole in his heart, so he might have died later.

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