Democrat Candidates Vie to See Who Will Assume the Most Anti-Gun Stance

U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif.,(AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

California’s Kamala Harris is the current leader in the race to see which presidential candidate is willing to articulate the most radically anti-Second Amendment stance. But fellow left coaster Eric Swalwell is coming up fast on the outside.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) is the latest Democrat to demonstrate just how much the politics of gun control are shifting.

Harris, a leading 2020 presidential candidate, promised during a CNN town hall event on Monday evening that, if elected, she would take executive action to strengthen background checks and revoke the licenses of gun dealers who break the law.

The California senator said she would give Congress 100 days to tighten gun laws before stepping in.

“Supposed leaders in Washington, D.C. … have failed to have the courage to recognize” the imperative to change the law, she said.

Harris’s approach is the latest piece of evidence showing how Democrats have become more assertive on gun control.

– Niall Stanage in Harris move shows shift in politics of gun control

 

comments

  1. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    I’m already dead set on voting for Trump again, even though he is not Pro 2nd amendment. This just cements that. As of now we all have to wait another cycle for Crenshaw to be ready for the White House.

    1. avatar Biatec says:

      I may see who the libertarians have. If no one good again. I will just not vote. It will be the first election I didn’t vote in.

      1. avatar Walter says:

        The democrats thank you for your service.

        1. avatar Walter says:

          Biatec,

          For someone concerned about the constitution, you don’t seem to be worried about what kind of federal and supreme court judges will be appointed. I’m sure you can find something you don’t like about those appointments too. Now contrast Trump’s appointments with the type of judges Hillary (or Kamala, etc.) would appoint.

          It’s like a Bar exam question. You don’t pick the perfect answer, just the best one.

        2. avatar Biatec says:

          Yeah I don’t know. They seem about the same to me. republican judges both make judgments that are anti Constitution. One is not really less than the other. They both don’t like free markets, they both want to centralize power and they both. Sometimes you get a democrat who actually rules in favor of rights and sometimes you get a republican who rules in favor of rights. Gorsuch was nice but he is the only one on the court who might be able to say he is a textualist originalist. Kavanough is certainly not a good pick.

          If Gorsuch is the only decent pick what does any of it matter? I’m sure in the future the supreme court is going to be ruling in favor of surveillance, unjust taxes, and gun control. It’s all the same.

        3. avatar CarlosT says:

          Washington state is a foregone conclusion: Whoever (D).

          Trump has been mixed on gun rights. The judges have yet to rule on a case, but it’s a somewhat hopeful sign that they’ve finally granted cert on another. As for what he believes personally, I don’t think he’s committed to protecting gun rights. If it’s expedient, we’ll be thrown under the bus in an instant. He isn’t at all loyal, and the fact that gun owners were a big part of getting him elected will mean nothing to him.

      2. avatar Walter says:

        Part of the reason Trump won is that many dem voters weren’t inspired enough by Hillary to go to the polls, essentially casting a vote for Trump. Trump can also lose by non-democrat leaning voters not going to the polls so they can wait around for the ideal, perfect candidate to vote for.

        Rarely will you find a candidate that you agree with 100% on everything. You can find some common ground with a candidate, or you could be horrified by the opposition. Democrats have gone so far extreme on most issues (firearms are the tip of the iceberg) that it’s worth considering to go to the polls just to vote against them, if not for Trump.

        1. avatar Biatec says:

          I’m not voting for someone who is as anti constitution as a democrat. It’s the same thing. Being pro gun was one more part of the constitution. he had a leg up on them. Now he is the same. Before you call me a single issue voter I do consider the Constitution more important than economic prosperity and border control. I am not voting to trade it for them.

        2. avatar SteveO says:

          “The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

        3. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          Yes, I can understand not wanting to vote for the lesser evil. But they are not the same at all. There is clearly a lesser evil here.

        4. avatar Biatec says:

          They are the same thing. They both want the same things. They want the constitution to be gone. I’m not voting for that. Border control, tax cuts and all that stuff don’t matter if the government doesn’t respect basic rights. You can live well with no freedom. That doesn’t mean you should vote for restrictions on your rights. I’m more involved than politics than almost everyone I know. That does not mean Trump is something we should tolerate. I wouldn’t vote for Bush or ted cruz either. It’s the same issue. Every president has pushed us closer to tyranny while one side says “lesser of two evils” It’s really not the lesser. It’s the side that makes you feel better to have in charge of your life.

      3. avatar GS650G says:

        “It will be the first election I didn’t vote in.”
        Don’t worry about it. Plenty of illegals will vote for you.

        1. avatar Biatec says:

          Probably. There are quite a few here actually.

        2. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          Dont forget the dead folks!

      4. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Biatec
        The only thing that Libertarians care about is getting legalized marijuana and then getting it “free” from the government. They will trade the Second Amendment for “free drugs” and drug legalization every single time. Just look at the candidates that they put up.

        1. avatar Biatec says:

          I agree. that’s why I never vote for them. If they have a better candidate this time maybe I will. If not I’m just not voting or I will write in Rand paul or something.

      5. avatar David says:

        Not voting is the same as turning your back on your rights — and mine. You may have to hold your nose to vote for Trump but if a Dem gets in — we’ll have the jack boots at our doors and people will die because it will result in the same thing as when the Brits came for our guns!

        1. avatar Biatec says:

          It’s just a slowed down tyranny. Trump opened the doors for worse gun control by doing what he did. he still expands the power of the government. Don’t you get it will be worse now? It’s getting worse. It’s not inching towards a better country. It’s slowly destroying it by supporting people like him. RINO’s. Nothing is ever going to change when we support the lesser of 2 evils. Because it’s not the lesser they all hate freedom to the same extent. Some just want to do it slower. I don’t see the benefit to supporting him anymore. The first vote was a gamble hoping he was at least pro gun and slightly more constitution abiding than the others. He wasn’t.

        2. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          So……you’re just gonna vote for a quick death?

        3. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

          So which do you prefer to get bitten by, a Rattlesnake or a Cottonmouth?

    2. avatar napresto says:

      I really don’t like the guy – his ethics and personal style especially – and I didn’t cast a vote for him last time (I voted for my sister who, by the way, would be an awesome, pro-2A president… heh). Before you all start thanking me for “voting for Hillary,” I live in NY State, where my vote means nothing in any case. That said, I’m pretty sure I’ll be voting for Trump next time around, barring something truly unforgivable happening from his administration. The left has turned into a rabid monster, consuming everything good about western civilization and then defecating out the broken pieces in horrific little feces-smeared piles that we all must share and enjoy together… or else.

      I’m probably not alone in coming to the view that Democrats MUST. NOT. GAIN. POWER. no matter what. If Trump is the vehicle for keeping them from power, so be it. Fight with what you have, not with what you want. The thing I think is most unfortunate is that neither Trump nor the Democrats have any interest in truly scaling back the scope and importance of the Federal Government in our daily lives. Baby steps I guess…

      1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        Baby steps indeed! So much better than giant steps backwards.

      2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “I’m probably not alone in coming to the view that Democrats MUST. NOT. GAIN. POWER. no matter what.”

        Yeah, that’s pretty much it.

        I’m less fearful of Harris than another ‘sneak’ candidate, tho. Apparently, she has *really* shit the bed on quite a few prosecutions she had a hand in. Some pretty ghastly things, legal-wise. Like seriously violating people’s rights and blatant prosecutorial misconduct. She’ll be eaten alive in the primaries, I hope.

        I’m far more concerned about an unknown with no track record to attack sneaking up late in the game and saying all the right things getting the nomination. A 2020 version of Obama…

        1. avatar UpInArms says:

          And that would be Mayor Pete from S. Bend.

    3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Considering the cultural ramifications of a second Trump term I think it’s imperative that he’s reelected.

      Also, it’s better to have an untrustworthy ally to the 2nd Amendment than an avowed enemy.

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      the dems seem committed to gun control as a vote getter…the reality is that it may cost them more than they think…

  2. avatar kap says:

    Ban Harris.

  3. avatar A Deplorable says:

    Kamala Harris has no chance so she can threaten anything she wants to position herself better for future Presidential runs.

  4. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    The more Dimwits that get on the anti2nd tear the better. It helps every bit to make them look as stupid as they are to the Independents. Who will make or break alot of the 2020 national and regional elections.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      The following pearl of wisdom comes to mind,

      “Never interrupt your enemy when he/she is making a mistake.”

  5. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    Like Maxine, they know she’s nuts, but she’s great for exciting their base. Great for sound bites and slogans. Remember, all those antigunners were looking for guns during the LA riots.

  6. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    The way things are looking…President Trump will win a 2nd term easily.

    just my observation

    ..and I think Swalwell (I’ll nuke gun owners) is tied with Harris on anti-gun blather.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “The way things are looking…President Trump will win a 2nd term easily.”

      That’s a dangerous way to think.

      Remember, the Leftists were just as certain Hillary would win. We need to be afraid he will lose narrowly so we are motivated to show the fuck up and actually vote…

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        the stay-at-home voters may decide this election…if trump wants my vote he damn well better do something to earn it….

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “if trump wants my vote he damn well better do something to earn it….”

          Before election day will be the ‘NY Pistol’ SCOTUS decision.

          Or will you piss-and-moan that isn’t good enough?

  7. avatar enuf says:

    Trump deserves to be impeached by the House and Convicted by the Senate. Or, the 25th Amendment would do well enough too. But there’s no guts anywhere to stand up to that lying, amoral, anti-American sack of NY fertilizer.

    The Democrats though, they are already setting themselves up to lose to Trump. Yammering on gun control and socialism, setting themselves up to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. Trump has very good odds going into the election because his opponents are damned idiots too.

    I watched Bernie Sanders screw up an answer about socialism. He’s not a Socialist, he’s a socialist. Two completely different things. But he never explains the difference between northern European nations strong safety net legislation and the Marxism that gave birth to the Soviets, Mao and other scum.

    The man is his own worst enemy. And now of course he’s mouthing gun control to appeal to more liberals. He used to be more on our side of that one.

    Just one example of the stupidity of the opposition that will enable Trump to go on polluting the White House for four more years.

    1. avatar Walter says:

      Impeached for what? Being pissed that he was set up and falsely accused by democrats that could care less about $100k worth of Russian ads that influenced no one? They only cared that they lost. How are the dems not liars when they’re the ones that have been pushing (and still pushing) the lie about a Russian conspiracy? You don’t care when they lie because you’re obviously a bitter partisan. If you aren’t a hypocrite, then call out your buddies on the left.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      “Trump deserves to be impeached by the House and Convicted by the Senate. Or, the 25th Amendment would do well enough too. But there’s no guts anywhere to stand up to that lying, amoral, anti-American sack of NY fertilizer.”

      See your doctor about that TDS problem you have.

      1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        Too late! It appears to be terminal.

    3. avatar CarlosT says:

      The Northern European welfare states such as Denmark disavow the label “socialist”, capitalized or not. They are, according to them, market economies with a large welfare state. Those that want to implement a similar system here don’t get into the details of what that entails, for example the top marginal tax rate of 60% or so kicking in around $60 thousand. Or extremely high sales taxes. “Free” as in “free college”, “free health care”, or anything like that is like “free lettuce” on a sandwich. It’s only “free” because it’s included in the price. You paid for it when you bought the sandwich.

    4. avatar jwm says:

      enuf. You’re now on record as supporting an illegal coup attempt against the legally elected leadership of this nation.

      Is there no depths you proggies won’t sink to?

  8. avatar daveinwyo says:

    Let’s see; Pro- tax, illegal immigration, anti- 2A, white, christian. Perfect platform. And to the non voters; use it or lose it. A non vote is a vote for the dimowits. Remember the dead vote dem. 2 to 1.

  9. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

    What the dems and their media have been doing for two years now, a frantic race to the bottom! Gonna be close.

  10. avatar GS650G says:

    It’s so quaint and naive of them to think guns can be removed from society by fiat. That’s the big error.

  11. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Harris is in well over her head just where she is.

    The only reason why she’s gotten as far as she has in politics is that she was Willie Brown’s side-piece.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      Were I Willie, I’d tap that too…

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Yup.

  12. avatar Sean G./The Rookie says:

    I rarely talk politics on this site, but the idea of Harris as President is a terrifying prospect. Her track record as a DA and California’s AG alone indicate someone very much in love with using the power of the state to satisfy her own needs and agendas at the expense of individual rights and general fair play.

  13. avatar Shire-man says:

    The dems are actively running a pro-totalitarian campaign and their base thinks they’re the party of freedom. How dafuq is that possible?

    1. avatar Walter says:

      Indoctrination, ignorance, group think, peer pressure, controlling the media, academia, entertainment, and soon, if not already, sports.

      1. avatar Walter says:

        Oh and lets not forget corporate America (Chase, etc.) and tech. It’s amazing they don’t have more followers really. If it wasn’t for the internet and a few media outlets people wouldn’t know how bad it is. Don’t worry though, the left is working on censoring the internet and closing down those few media outlets.

        1. avatar David says:

          The left eventually and ultimately goes Pro-totalitarian — always! Because so many on the left make decisions based on their emotions rather than on their intellect, they’re easily led and easily buy into leftest propaganda!

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Didn’t the Bolsheviks promise freedom and prosperity to the workers but in reality implemented the worst oppression in history along with economic failure.

      1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        Shhhhhhh!😈

  14. avatar Michael says:

    “side piece”, so, that’s what you kids are calling it these days, cute…nah, she’s his little…, Sorry, I can’t supply anything bad enough…11…

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      Just say she spent a lot of time on her knees and all choked up!

    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Hey, I’m trying to be all urban and sophisticated…

      so here’s where the term came from (or at least what made the term popular):

      (NB: NSFW, obscenity, sexually explicit)

      https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/chrisbrown/sidepiece.html

  15. avatar former water walker says:

    What a bunch of dumbocrat losers. Buttplug may be the most dangerous(why he’s an Afghanistan vet😏),that means he’s a queero er hero. Methinks Kamala may be too severe in appearance & demeanor. TRUMP 2020😄🇺🇸

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      I read he was in the Navel Reserve but it didn’t list what his MOS was or job title.

      It would be interesting to find out but I’m guessing he was not part of the spears pointy end.

      1. avatar Slow Joe Crow says:

        A post I saw said he was in finance, so total REMF who never went outside the wire.
        If the Dems lose hard in 2020 gun control may return to being the third rail. Hilary made a semi-auto ban a key campaign plank, and a reasonable analysis of the 2016 election would have shown that was a mistake that cost electoral votes. Of course the Dems are still screaming “we was robbed” rather than acknowledging a polarizing candidate and failure to campaign in the Midwest cost them key states and thus the election.

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          I read that he was an intel guy who made the occasional foray outside the wire. He isn’t recognized for combat service, so he wasn’t in any engagements. What I picture is he needed to go somewhere to pick up some documents, so he goes out with a small team. They all kit up, because it’s outside the wire. They drive out, get the stuff, come back. Chalk up one “outside the wire” excursion.

          Later, you can talk about how you carried an “assault weapon” in a foreign country and leave people with the impression you were kicking down doors with the SEAL Teams.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        intelligence…doubt he ever got shot at…and his stay there was brief…just long enough to check another one of the boxes…the guys just another politician…..

  16. avatar ANG Pilot says:

    Politicians, especially “liberal” ones, are making the transition from viewing themselves as mere princes or princesses into “benevolent” dictators.

    Scary times, indeed.

  17. avatar Seizure doc says:

    Kamala Harris wants to take away my second amendment rights (I am a law abiding, productive, paying a crapload of taxes citizen) and give the vote to people who are in prison. Not just those who have paid their debt to society but the ones still behind bars like the Boston bomber.
    Trump is going to be the republican nominee in 2020. Just who on this website would not vote for him ? What the [email protected]$k is wrong with you ?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Seizure Doc,

      Let’s be perfectly honest. President Trump has some serious personality flaws and is therefore a less-than-ideal candidate. Fortunately, his tenacity, policy positions, and judicial appointments outweigh his personality flaws.

      The net result: he is a far better candidate for our right to keep and bear arms than anyone who wins the Democrat presidential primaries.

      Caveat:
      Trump is obviously not the perfect person to uphold our right to keep and bear arms. Nevertheless, he is the only viable candidate who mostly supports our right to keep and bear arms. And our votes for him will be endorsements of his policies, not him as a person.

      1. avatar Seizure doc says:

        Unconmon_sense:

        I do not disagree with what you say. There few politicians who I would personally endorse and Trump is not one of them. My exasperation (which would be plain to see in person) is that the policies expressed by Democratic presidential candidates are insane. How can you restrict my current rights and extend rights to persons who in no way deserve it ? The choice is between Trump and a socialist dictatorship. Even taking what you say into account, it makes Trump look awfully good.

  18. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    The heading should be; The Democrats are vying to see who is the most unconstitutional and anti-American because these SOBs are, especially the ones with law degrees. Those with law degrees are political scum because they should know they are being anticonstitutional and if their basis for existence is not the U.SD. Constitution they are more my enemy than the economy ruining socialists.

  19. avatar barnbwt says:

    Wow, what a strident, brave, radical & inflammatory way to say you’ll do exactly nothing that isn’t done already (derp)

    It’s almost like this is fodder for her idiotic base that thinks machine guns are cash & carry or something, but won’t actually manifest as anything terribly different than the status quo.

    As we slide headlong into yet another presidential season, it’s worth reiterating (and will continue to be worth reiterating) that we have experienced more federal gun control –to include large scale confiscation & the making of innocent gun owners into felons by pen-stroke– under Trump than has been seen in nearly three decades. Besides banning bumpstocks & opening the door to Ms. Harris’ wildest dreams of gun control by fiat, he has ‘enhanced background checks’ (Fix NICS; given away for free), shut down FFLs, continued the insane campaign against silencers & SBRs, clamped down on MG transfers by SOTs, continued Obama’s practices involving enhanced scrutiny of sales in border states, and promoted a host of gun control laws at the state level, many of which immediately rode the endorsement to victory at the hands of his Republican party.

    Yes, it sucks and we have *very* few options left to us as gun owners (and none of them good). But we put ourselves in this position by electing tools like Trump, who were transparently anti-gun from the very beginning, but who tickled our fancy in various other ways. Maybe next time we can actually vote with our guns for a change, and not get distracted by fiery words that are never realized.

    1. avatar T.D.S. It's real.. says:

      Awww… Barnbwt… Your T.D.S. has flared up again. And after a few days where (some) of your posts where beginning to become coherent..

      That’s a shame, but back to head doctor you go!

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        Feel free to explain where I’m wrong any time…

        Trump’s done one good thing for the gun industry, with the ITAR changes, but that is it.

        1. avatar So yeah... T.D.S. it's real says:

          Well first you might have noticed the title of this story was about Democrat Candidates, most specifically Kamala “sleeping her way to the top” Harris. Not Trump. Yet somehow people afflicted with T.D.S. IMMEDIATELY run into left field, grumbling and growling and whining about…TRUMP!

          Every question posed to people afflicted with T.D.S. somehow they bring…TRUMP… into their answer. How’s the weather today? Oh it’s sun and 70, but I’m sure it would be sunnier and 75 if it wasn’t for…you got it…TRUMP! It’s pathetic and it is sick.

          Also I used to be a single issue voter, then one day I looked around, and grew the eff up! I’m not saying 2A rights are not important, they remain at the top of the list. However, your criticisms are akin to the girlfriend that just prepared a fabulous 7 course dinner for you, and you’re upset because one of the courses could have been warmer.

          Iran is building ICBM’s, because Obama said they could. Trump tore up that deal. China has a 2030 policy to overtake and replace the U.S. as the dominant power. Clinton started their rise, Bush furthered it, Obama accelerated it, Trump is deflating it. NAFTA…tore up and replaced by Trump. Illegal immigration will overwhelm this country soon, only Trump will take this issue on. And there are many more examples.

          To see what Trump has taken on, the forces against him, and how well he trolls them, ( heck he made Cher an unknowing Republican overnight ), is amazing…Enjoy the ride.

          However, you’re like the young chick that complains…ewww guys look at me. Well you will be a heck of a lot sadder when you’re older and they don’t. In other words your railings about Trump will be like sweet memories if Kamala ( or any of these Dem. candidates this story is actually about ) takes the House.

          So yeah…your T.D.S. has been diagnosed, hopefully in time. Now go see a doctor so you can enjoy this ride, winter might be coming.

        2. avatar barnbwt says:

          You didn’t refute what I said, and instead laid a bunch of juvenile analogies on me (“you’re like this girl I used to date blah, blah, blah…). Oh, and a bunch of bullshit about “grow up gun rights aren’t important” that I hear from a lot of antigunners. “Abortions don’t matter & no one including Trump is stopping the Mexicans, so grow up” —not very endearing is it?

          My point, not that this won’t sail over your head, is that while it’s important to note what the Dems are doing, it’s equally if not more important to keep tabs on our own. Guys like you will cheer Trump as he surely brags about saving our gun rights at NRA this week…and it won’t change the fact he’s the gun-grabbinest president we’ve had since Bubba or Bush I. That’s not strength & solidarity, it’s weakness.

          You know why I’m not as scared of Kamala’s gun banning as Trump’s? Guys like you will actually stand against her. Guys who likewise stood fast against Obama. Hell, even LaPierre, the complete weasel-shill we’ve come to find he is, was able to muster strong words of defiance after a shooting…because a Democrat was in the white house. If giving all 3 branches to the red team or blue team ends with more gun control, and if electing a red team gun banner gets the rest of his team to go along…even you can do the math. It sucks & it didn’t have to be this way, but it’s where we find ourselves today. Maybe next time we’ll have better options if we don’t elect a gun banner in the first place.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      Eh, I don’t worry about this kind of thing the way I used to and others still seem to.

      One of the things to note is SCOTUS appointments. Ignore for a moment, anything you think you might know about Kavanagh or Gorsuch on the 2A and instead focus on their view of the Commerce Clause for a moment. Both take a much more restrictive view of that clause than has generally been applied since Wickard.

      That’s kinda big for the 2A in a tangential way because a whole heap of gun control laws rest on the Commerce Clause being somehow supreme to the 2A. A more restrictive view of the clause means that the legal justification for those laws disappears.

      That means that there are a heap of 2A battles that don’t need to be fought over the 2A because a more restrictive view of the CC eliminates the authority to create those laws in the first place. No reason to worry about winning a race when the rest of the field is disqualified before the starting gun.

      Skinned cats, blind squirrels and all that shit.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        barnbwt,

        Please listen to what Strych9 said.

        Yes, Trump has failed to advance any policies which reinforce our right to keep and bear arms. And yes, he let us down when he kabashed bumpstock ownership (which seriously disappoints me for what that is worth).

        I contend that Trump’s judicial appointments are of much greater importance in the long run. Not only are Trump’s United States Supreme Court Justices poised to declare a fundamental right to keep and bear arms outside the home and require strict scrutiny for Second Amendment court cases this Fall of 2019, those same Justices are also poised to finally limit the reach of the United States Constitution’s commerce clause — and negate countless firearm laws in the process as Strych9 stated.

        Like it or not, we are stuck with Trump in the 2020 election. The good news, our future prospects could be far, far worse. Let’s re-elect Trump in 2020 and focus our efforts on nominating a Presidential candidate for 2024 that is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

        Note: I did not vote for Trump in the Republican primaries. I am not a huge Trump fan. I simply support Trump out of pragmatism. And I encourage you to do the same.

      2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “That’s kinda big for the 2A in a tangential way because a whole heap of gun control laws rest on the Commerce Clause being somehow supreme to the 2A. A more restrictive view of the clause means that the legal justification for those laws disappears.”

        As in, how some states don’t allow NFA ‘toys’, or that the whole enchilada of the NFA might be declared unconstitutional?

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          Geoff: (In two parts or more, fuck this new antispam thing they’re running).

          I don’t see how restricting the Commerce Clause would allow FedGov to tell the states what to do in terms of allowing NFA toys, that’s a federalism issue under the 10A IMO but an enterprising lawyer could surprise me on that.

          In terms of the NFA itself that law is fairly clever and doesn’t use the Commerce Clause but rather the Taxing Authority of Congress found in Article I, Section 8. It doesn’t ban anything it just requires you to prove that you paid a tax on the item in question in order to possess it. That tax stamp isn’t technically a “permission slip” so much as it is a tax receipt that acts as a “get out of jail free” card because it proves you did what was necessary to pay the tax (which has added hoops to jump through, which may be an avenue of attack against the NFA). As such I don’t see it as something governed by the CC because it’s well within Congress’ authority to levy a tax and that’s what they’ve done. However, both the men I mentioned probably take a rather dim view of that sort of use of the Taxing Authority too.

          To be entirely honest, I haven’t much thought about how to argue against the NFA on purely legal grounds in terms of taxation. I look at margins first and I think the biggest percentage wins for the least cost are on the Commerce Clause at this point. After we put a steak through that vampire’s heart I’ll start thinking about taxing authority.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          #2:

          Where I do see the antis abilities limited significantly is in the crafting of legislation which relies on the Commerce Clause for the authority to craft the legislation in the first place.

          An example would be the ban on selling handguns to non-state residents, which is purely a regulation of interstate commerce issue and one for which the government really has no “compelling reason” in terms of the actual thought behind the Commerce Clause which is to prevent trade wars between the states. As such, it’s an abuse I think Gorsuch and Kavanagh would be willing to kick to the curb.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          #3 seriously!?

          Another example would be the GFSZA of 1990 which was declared unconstitutional in 1995 in the SCOTUS case United States v. Lopez. That was the first time since Wickard that the government had been told “no” on something like this in regards to the Commerce Clause. In response to losing on the technicality that the law was overly broad Reno basically had Congress change 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) to note that the GFSZA didn’t apply to all guns but only one which “has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce”. That is obvious bullshit since the government, under Wickard claims that everything, including non-action, or abstention from commerce is “interstate commerce” and subject to regulation and therefore this applies to all guns if they want it to. That would also go away under a more realistic interpretation, say a 1941 style interpretation of the CC. It’s also so blatant an end run that I doubt either of the new justices would tolerate it.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          #4

          I would also point out that the the 1994 AWB rested on the Commerce Clause and while the cases never made it to the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs anti CC arguments put forth in Navegar Inc. v. United States (1999) saying that the “purpose of the ban on possession has an ‘evident commercial nexus'” and that “”it is not even arguable that the manufacture and transfer of ‘semiautomatic assault weapons’ for a national market cannot be regulated as activity substantially affecting interstate commerce.” This is pure fucking Wickard thinking that didn’t exist so far as I can tell in this form, or at this level at least, before 1942.

        5. avatar strych9 says:

          #4 !!!!

          So ultimately I would say that if we can roll back these interpretations of these clauses then we force the antis to fight very nearly all their battles on our turf and defend their wishes in view of “shall not be infringed” which strikes me as hard to do.

          It gives them, in my view, a lot less avenues of attack and puts them kind of where we want them. If they want that hill they’re free to try to take it and thereby die on it IMHO.

          That’s just how I see it. YMMV.

  20. avatar WI Patriot says:

    More and more and more posturing, trying to appease each and every special interest group out there…the thinner they spread themselves the better off we are…

  21. avatar Draven says:

    Kamala (lying b**ch) Harris has already demonstrated that she has no problem with outright lying to the rest of the government and throwing your rights to the wolves in order to further her own anti-gun beliefs. Look into how she certified microstamping to be ‘free of patent encumbrances’ when it was not.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      She sucks dicks for a living, dude

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Are you just pissed off you weren’t ‘serviced’ by her?

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          I’m fine without herpes, thank you; my point is no one should be shocked by any sleazy/hypocritical stuff she does; she’s a whore in the most literal sense. It’ll be awesome in the debates with Trump; comedy gold right there

  22. avatar RA-15 says:

    We all know the saying : keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Trump 2020 🇺🇸 and there is no excuse not to vote , as a non vote , is a vote for the left.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Vote for more gun control, it’s a vote against more gun control

  23. avatar Joe says:

    What can one expect from a Democrat? And one who slept her way to the top, no less!

  24. avatar raptor jesus says:

    She’s not a leading candidate. FAKE NEWS!

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Good point; the DNC is suffering from “Stooge Syndrome” in that their idiots keep tripping over eachother so none can rise to the top of the heap without Party manipulation anymore. The Great White Creepy Uncle Hope Biden doesn’t even have as much support as Cruz did at his worst.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        They have to find someone who ticks more diversity boxes than a federal employee applicant.

        The problem is such a person doesn’t exist, but it won’t stop the Dems from trying.

  25. avatar Political gristle says:

    “take the guns first, due process second”
    -DJT- on redflag laws.
    What the actual F#@K!
    I’m still pissed over that horse $#!+.
    But I’ll probably still vote for orange man with my teeth clenched.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      I voted for McCain with my teeth clinched..it can be done.. just hurts a bit.

      After the President said “Take the guns first” I’m pretty sure one of his advisors got in his ear and said “Don’t ever say that S%^# again. President Trump has not repeated it AFAIK. Now whether the President believes that taking firearms first is a bad path now or not I don’t know.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        the fact that it is now happening is not a ringing endorsement of trump….

      2. avatar barnbwt says:

        Uh, he followed up with “don’t be afraid of the NRA” & making Feinstein squirt on TV as well as bringing up bump stocks a half dozen times after the media had moved on, before banning them as promised.

        He’ll be cheered at the NRA convention in a few days, regardless

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      That’ll show ‘im!

      The only way to achieve political change is to do absolutely nothing, over a long period of time.

  26. avatar strych9 says:

    “Harris, a leading 2020 presidential candidate…

    *glances at polling data*

    Losing by double digits to multiple people is now “leading”? Granted, it’s early but maybe Trump is right and these people just can’t tell the truth.

  27. avatar Jbw says:

    Don’t worry about Harris, she has too much bad history, worry that at the dem convention on the second or third ballot a unifing candidate will come out: Michelle obozo. The Dems think the obozo s are the savior’s of the world and will do anything to get her and him back in the white house

    1. avatar Eli2016 says:

      “Don’t worry about Harris, she has too much bad history, worry that at the dem convention on the second or third ballot a unifing candidate will come out: Michelle obozo.”

      A frightening thought but not far from the truth. A “surprise” from the Dumbama people is very feasible. Truth be told, I’d rather have a Kamala than Obama. This country would turn completely socialist after the first 100 days. And that’s not a joke. No civil war will be needed with this Muslim couple.

  28. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

    . Even with my flexible spine I still can’t get my head up my ass far snuff to truly be called an anti gun stance. I’m sticking with the Weaver

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      ROFL.

  29. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    Empress KAMALA will crush all who oppose her! Regale in her majesty, you hapless knaves!

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Will she return California to Mexico?

      1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        How can she give someone something they already own?

  30. avatar Ark says:

    Imagine a primary field where candidates were competing on who could promise to roll back voting rights the most.

  31. avatar ATTAGReader says:

    Wow. Just wow. I voted for Donald in the primary. My wife voted for Sanders. Then we both voted for Donald in the election. Just to be sure our votes stuck it to Jeb Bush and Hildabeast Clinton, Hildabeast x 2. We live in North Carolina, where every vote matters. Donald’s mouth is his worst enemy, but being originally from NYC, for me it’s just a NY mouth. It’s what REAL NY’ers do. Not wimps, things of fluid gender, and politicians named Cuomo and deBlasio, but REAL NY’ers. It’s taken me my whole adult life to tone down the NY mouth because, thank God, I left long ago and it does not play well in most of the rest of the country. While I don’t like how Donald puts things, I get Donald, I support many of his policies (China, border, SCOTUS nominees, etc.), and I will vote for him in 2020 against any and all Democrats. Please do the same if you value your 2A rights at all.

  32. avatar UpInArms says:

    Voters will vote for a lot of incredibly dumb shit, but one thing they will not vote for is uncertainty. We’ve had the Donald for most of a full term now. He’s obnoxious, he’s got a big mouth, he’s thoroughly unlikable (in other words, a New York city guy)– but he is a known quantity. Everybody knows what they’re going to get if they vote for him.

    The Democrats, on the other hand, are not a known quantity. They are venturing in to territory that no party elite politicians have ever waded in to before. To many people that sounds very unsettling, if not downright dangerous. What they are pushing is not all that new– much of it has been proposed by marginal candidates before. But now it’s being blown out there every news cycle and it’s packaged in a way that’s as threatening as possible.

    We’re still a year away from the first primary. Most of the Dem candidates will drop out by then (with Biden, I think the count is now up to 19). Maybe the Democrats can find a way to package their shit in a more benign wrapper. Who knows. Way too early to make predictions, but if the Democrats stay on the track they are on, it’s four more years of Donald Trump.

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