Montana’s Steve Bullock Still On Board With Democrats’ Anti-Gun Party Platform

montana governor steve bullock

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

By Larry Keane

Montana Democratic Governor Steve Bullock has had a difficult time deciding where he stands on the Second Amendment. Voters couldn’t be blamed if they developed sudden severe whiplash ahead of November’s U.S. Senate election where he’s trying to unseat Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.).

Gov. Bullock is attempting to go maverick by voting against the 2020 Democratic party platform. He didn’t suddenly find his Second Amendment North Star, though, to declare his opposition to the party’s gun-grabbing plank.

Party Maverick Except on Guns

The Democratic National Convention wrapped up last week with no shortage of antigun speeches and gun control rallying cries. The party formally nominated Joe Biden and U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) as their president and vice presidential nominees, solidifying the most antigun ticket in modern history.

The official Democratic party platform was adopted as well and included plenty of gun control. Two paragraphs out of the 80-page platform spelled out the party’s gun-control intentions, which aim to dismantle the entire firearm industry. The platform includes:

– Criminalizing private firearm transfers

– Disrupting interstate commerce by criminalizing online firearm and ammunition sales

– Instituting endless “delay” windows for background checks

– Banning the manufacture and sale of modern sporting rifles

– Banning the manufacture and sale of standard magazines

– Enacting licensing schemes to exercise Second Amendment rights

– Enacting ex parte “red flag” laws to seize guns without legal recourse

– Mandating home storage requirements under penalty of law

– Repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to subject the industry to frivolous lawsuits

Bullock, though, voted against the platform, stating “I’m not going to rubber stamp a platform that was crafted by party leaders.” But his vote wasn’t because of its infringement on the Second Amendment rights of Montanans. Bullock rejected the DNC platform over objections to banning new oil and gas permits on public lands, abolishing the death penalty and “reimagining policing.”

His platform ‘no’ vote wasn’t because he disagreed with the radical antigun ideas. In the Big Sky State, that’s a big deal, and Montana voters can thus assume Gov. Bullock is A-Okay with these gun-grabbing party tenets.

Not His First Gun-Grab Rodeo

The whiplash from Gov. Bullocks’ stance on Second Amendment issues has come to be expected by Montana voters. Just a few years ago, then-Attorney General Bullock voiced his belief that the Second Amendment was a “personal” right and declined to include his state in lawsuits banning modern sporting rifles from personal possession. He termed them “assault weapons” at that time.

More recently, while Gov. Bullock was weighing his own failed-run for the Democratic presidential nomination, he had quite a change of heart. When questioned about his back-and-forth-and-back-again position on confiscation and gun-banning, he tried to clarify, stating “When I view an assault weapons ban, it’s sort of military, semiautomatic, typically removable clips, a magazine of 10 or more — it’s like the AR-15s.”

This is common “scare language” used to describe the same one-shot-per-trigger-pull technology used in any number of semiautomatic handguns, shotguns and rifles.

This last-minute change-of-heart leadership has become a notorious trademark of sorts for Gov. Bullock.  He initially waived off the notion to run for the Senate seat until he got a special visit from former President Barack Obama and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) who personally recruited and convinced him they needed his help to gain control of the upper chamber.

Gov. Bullock filed his candidacy paperwork just before the buzzer and all but one Democrat considering a run dutifully withdrew to clear his path. 

High Stakes in Big Sky Country

Montana voters face a critical decision as they decide who their next senator will be. Sen. Daines has a steadfast belief in the Second Amendment and a track record of voting to uphold that constitutional right. The balance of the Senate may come down to voters’ support for Sen. Daines’ reelection. With Gov. Bullock continuing to muddy the waters on his stance on the Second Amendment, the stakes for Montana, the rest of the country and the firearms and ammunition industry could not be higher.

With 2020 already seeing 5 million new first-time gun owners, the Second Amendment and the ability to possess a firearm to protect oneself and one’s family and property is the key voting issue for millions of Americans this year. According to recent retailer surveys, modern sporting rifles – like those Gov. Bullock and Democrats would ban and confiscate – have been among the most popular firearms purchased this year.

NSSF launched the #GUNVOTE campaign to make sure voters are educated and informed about the Second Amendment and the positions of candidates for whom they will vote in November. This will be critical for Montana voters considering whether they will send Sen. Daines back to Washington, D.C. to protect their Second Amendment rights, or Gov. Bullock who may be the deciding vote to infringe on their rights.

 

Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

comments

  1. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

    If trump doesn’t come out with some strong support for Kyle Rittenhouse I’m voting Libertarian again. This isn’t one of the times when he can sit around and see which way the wind is blowing.

    1. avatar Thixotropic says:

      All considered , your brain is in your shoes, trollboy.

    2. avatar John says:

      I’m curious why you feel the President needs to weigh in on this situation. Thanks.

      1. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

        I’m not voting for the democrats because in my opinion they are actively endorsing the rioting/domestic terrorism, trump needs to be loud and clear with more than just tweets, that he actively supports the victims of said rioting/terrorism. My vote, if he wants it he can earn it.

        1. avatar John says:

          I have no idea the whole story in the Rittenhouse situation and he could have been completely and undeniably justified in his actions. But I also know an investigation has to be done into what happened. I also know that people are often arrested at the start of these investigations. Is that good or bad, right or wrong? It’s all those things based strictly on your individual interpretation of the events. And of course there is always politics that come into play especially in high profile events such as this. And lastly I know, or I should say I think, your status as a “victim” should have no bearing on an investigation into whether or not you committed a crime. That is something that can be and should be brought up in trial if you are ultimately tried. And no, the President regardless of party should not weigh in on individual ongoing police investigations. Our judicial system while in action is not designed for useful input from the Executive or Legislative branches at any level. Afterwards? Go for it. Push/make changes if the citizenry calls for it.

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          “. . . the President regardless of party should not weigh in on individual ongoing police investigations.”

          I agree.

          In our system of justice the accused – whomsoever he might be – is entitled to a presumption of innocence. ANYTHING we do to undermine that presumption should be approached with caution.

          The prosecutor has enormous power to besmirch the accused’s reputation simply by drafting an indictment. Ideally, I’d like to see EVEN prosecutors refraining from saying anything publicly that strays outside the 4 corners of the indictment.

          If we indulge politicians – especially those now in office – piling-on, complaining about an accused’s conduct, then we are allowing the least reliable members of our system to marshal their offices to damage an individual. Isn’t it sufficient that the prosecutor has this power?

          If the accused is – in fact – a dirty rotten scoundrel, then that should become apparent in the trial. We can all refrain from public pronouncements of our opinion of his alleged behavior until AFTER the trial. Perhaps our opinions will change once the findings of fact are reviled in the trial.

          We should all remember that, one day, it may be we ourselves in the dock.

        3. avatar StLPro2A says:

          So if Trump doesn’t toe the line to your specifications, you will vote otherwise??? A vote anywhere but Trump ….Libertarian, Biden, Plaid and Stripe Party, et el….. this lap is a vote for Socialism. Unless you want America to be radically transformed in a bad way……and probably actively see civil war on your streets…..Trump is the only horse available to bet on. Like it or not. Sadly, yet again, America gets to vote for the lesser of two evils…..no other viable better choices. Even Trump winning only delays the threat maybe another four years.
          Evil will be back. The new, more evil youngsters are already on the scene. That’s the way it will be until we re-drive the stake of Freedom in the hearts of anti-America Socialis/Marxists/One Worlders. The Tree of Liberty thirsts severely….not watered for 70+ years..

        4. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

          If trump had an across the board policy of not speaking on these “local” matters, I would agree with the above but he either waits until its obvious which way the wind is blowing and then jumps in, or does the late night drunk (I know he claims to be teetotaler) tweeting thing with whatever the last headline he read or watched. I’d like to see him go on record this time, there’s plenty of video evidence at this point.

        5. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

          Attention TTAG management :

          Some would like to help Rittenhouse out.

          There were some links posted yesterday by some folks, but they appear questionable to me.

          Is TTAG HQ aware of any *VERIFIED* links to help this kid out?

          Here is why I questioned the fundly links, there are a *lot* of them :

          https://fundly.com/official-kyle-rittenhouse-fund

          OFFICIAL kyle rittenhouse fundraiser

          OFFICIAL Kyle Rittenhouse Fund

          Kyle Rittenhouse Fund by USA Patriot

          HELP KYLE RITTENHOUSE

          Support for Kyle Rittenhouse project

          Justice for Kyle Rittenhouse

          Justice For Kyle Rittenhouse

          All of those are listed on ‘fundly’.

          Which ones are scams?

        6. avatar John says:

          Auxwood_Rebel, whether the President has weighed in on matters such as this in the past is irrelevant. It is not the right thing to do. And now is just as good of a time as any for him to start doing the right thing. If you truly are going to vote Libertarian if he does not speak out on this case then I sincerely hope you have to vote Libertarian.

      2. avatar cgray says:

        The fundraiser for this Neo-Nazi in training is a dead link.

        Kinda like his future.

        LOL

        1. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

          Post some evidence of his purported ties or ideological congruencies with neo-nazis/white supremecists/racists.

          I’ve seen a lot of people claim such with no links or proof of such claims. From the information I’ve gathered, he was defending private property, had stuff thrown at him (including a flaming molotov cocktail) and chased by a lunatic white boy screaming “N*****R” at him before cornering him and winning a Darwin Award for his efforts.

          If you have no evidence and are spewing unvalidated hearsay, I’d re-evaluate your life and its purpose, or lack thereof. Maybe apologize to your mother for being an obsolete waste of biomass and consuming precious O2.

    3. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      You want the President to weigh in on a local level on-going criminal case?

      Am I understanding what you are saying?

      1. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

        His administration did for the mccloskys, which they should have given the unjust nature of the persecution/prosecution, this kid needs support more than the wealthy elitist lawyers did.

      2. avatar Debbie W. says:

        He doesn’t understand what he is saying so why ask him?

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          I’m beginning to suspect that the ‘never-Trumpers’ on TTAG are trolls who will do anything they can to get gun owners to be angry at Trump. Don’t vote; vote for the Libertarian; vote for the Green; just vote against Trump because he isn’t REALLY strong enough on the 2A.

          What would we conclude if we could know for sure that all these ‘gun-owning’ ‘never-Trumpers’ were really registered Democrats? Or, if they were on George Soro’s payroll and have no real interest or politics?

          I don’t presume to know that such is the case; nevertheless, the effect is just the same. Whether they really support Biden or not, the result they are aiming at is to erode the votes for the one candidate who will replace Notorious-RBG when she retires with a Constitutionalist.

          Winning isn’t everything;
          a man has to have his principles!

          But will these guys be there at the barricades when it becomes necessary ” . . . to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”?

        2. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

          So at this point you’re voting trump no matter what. Cool. He still hasn’t earned my vote.

        3. avatar enuf says:

          MarkPA will be there at the barricades, posting lengthy posts on TTAG

        4. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

          This incident burns my soul, it really does, if trump doesn’t speak up he doesn’t deserve my vote, but with a little over 2 monthes to go, the democrats will likely force my conscience to pick the usual smaller pile of shit (trump).

        5. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

          “I’m beginning to suspect that the ‘never-Trumpers’ on TTAG are trolls who will do anything they can to get gun owners to be angry at Trump. Don’t vote; vote for the Libertarian; vote for the Green; just vote against Trump because he isn’t REALLY strong enough on the 2A.”

          That is *exactly* what is happening, and it’s being run by the DNC.

          Notice how those comments come from someone with *zero* post history in TTAG?

          The goal is to make Trump supporters just give up, that it’s hopeless to vote for him.

          What we have to do is every time they pop up, identify them for what they are, psychological warfare on POTG. We will be seeing a whole lot of it, and it’s gonna get worse the more desperate they become about losing in November…

        6. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

          @ Geoff, I feel sorry for that 17 yo kid who thought he was defending “something”, the dnc doesn’t own me but the rnc owns you you sad sack.

      3. avatar Leigh says:

        You mean like Obama did with the Trayvon Martin case/debacle/waste of time and resources?

    4. avatar Freedom seed sower says:

      So you will vote for the party supporting and helping the burn loot murder crowd? Hmmm… so you are part of the problem. Good to know

      1. avatar Hush says:

        If a person doesn’t want to vote for Trump, then just don’t vote. No matter how one votes, a vote for anyone other than President trump is a wasted vote.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          the composition of a future congress may be of equal importance….

    5. avatar Fred says:

      A Libertarian vote is a vote is a vote for Biden.

      Only a fool would cast a vote like that out of spite.

      1. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

        It’s *two* votes for Biden.

        It’s the most effective thing they can do to hurt us…

        1. avatar Epicurean Paradox says:

          And you guys are both the reason we’re stuck with this “shit sandwich” or “piss soup” situation.

          I’d rather not eat if that’s all that’s on the menu. If dictatorial fiat-decreeing bump-stock banning “take guns first and worry about due-process later” Trump is our “only” option, I’d rather not even play, as the game is broken at this point.

          Get this, if enough people just stopped playing the R vs D bullshit and voted outside of the established system, we could break the cycle. Granted, we’d need some kind of national campaign to get everyone on the same page, but I’d push for no-one voting for any R or D. Vote for ANYONE but the two big party nominations.

          Political parties are cancer and have co-opted our entire electoral system. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state that parties call the shots, but they do. And people like are you how they keep their power.

          Wake up or we’ll never enact real change.

    6. avatar Debbie W. says:

      Deadwood_Blowbag…Wipe the finger pointing crybaby snot off your face and try another mealy mouth excuse for being a stick in the mud democRat Party lint licker just like the forum’s resident self-serving pos enuf.

      TRUMP/PENCE 2020.

    7. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

      trump’s top advisor kushner weighing in

      https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1299015593610412032

    8. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

      Your “principles” will see you in the gulag

  2. avatar John says:

    Just vote for Joe then. It’s basically what you’re doing. Look at the total picture not one incident. The choice should be clear.

    1. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

      Yeah, this is exactly how we change the two-party duopoly, by simply accepting one shit-heel over another. /s

      1. avatar Ing says:

        The political duopoly isn’t going away. It wasn’t the Framers’ intent, but that’s the way our constitutional system works. If 200+ years of political history hasn’t broken it before, we’re not doing it now — unless *everything* breaks.

        Parties have died and been born, but even that happened in the context of a brewing civil war, when the Republicans killed off the Whigs. Maybe it’s possible to kill off a party and replace it without war — I’m on board with just about anything short of it that will kill the Democratic Party — but I don’t know.

        Pick the best one, or at least the most changeable, and push it in a better direction. It’s difficult and unsatisfying, but unless you’re willing to provoke a war and watch a couple million people suffer and die, it’s probably our best shot.

        1. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

          And yet by voting trump no matter what he has no incentive to cater to your opinions, so he caters to the ones of those he may or may not get anyways. If you like the guy or don’t, least make him work for it. He’s running against a guy who (presumably) has dementia, and he can’t win if caters to his base?

        2. avatar Ing says:

          That’s one of the inherent problems with a two-party system; there are large blocks of captive voters whose interests never get considered but are constantly pandered to. With Democrats, it’s black people; with Republicans, it’s gun owners and so-called evangelicals. If they’re never in danger of losing you, they’ll never respect you. It’s a conundrum.

          It is possible to hold their feet to the fire, though. The TEA Party is gone now, but it succeeded in getting some of our better Republicans into office. Trump knows that he’s DOA without gun owners…but what will he do once there are no more elections to win? It’s a scary question because he has no political history we can base an answer on.

          The Democrats are having their feet held to the fire by their radical, violent left wing. Frightened and capitulating, like the amoral cowards they are, they might also have inadvertently discovered how to alienate their necessary captive constituency this time around.

        3. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

          @ Ing, thanks for being honest, I agree with you and will probably vote trump anyways but dammit, the guy needs to at least look pro 2A, or is that too much to ask for? Pro gun is not pro 2A for the record. Piers Morgan: why do Americans need semi auto rifles?
          Trump: ENTERTAINMENT

        4. avatar Ing says:

          Agreed. Seems like it shouldn’t be too much to ask for, but apparently it is. So we vote for the guy who’s only about 40% on board and hope he can be nudged toward not stabbing us in the back, because there are only two electable options, and the other one is 100% demented. It’s stupid, but that’s the reality we’re stuck with. It’s enough to drive you crazy.

    2. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

      Both parties can count on at least 30% of voters doing what you do and with the democrats actively supporting domestic terrorism, I was leaning towards being part of the republicans 30%, but this shit it Wisconsin requires a tangible with em’ or against em’ .

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        How many more people like this are going to show up and cry about voting for Joe or someone else and then we waste time arguing with them about it.

        Do what you want. I’m guessing lots of democrats are pissed enough at the dems to vote Trump this go around because they let animals run wild.

        Go ahead and get a bumper sticker that says don’t blame me I voted for a nobody.

        1. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

          “How many more people like this are going to show up and cry about voting for Joe or someone else and then we waste time arguing with them about it.”

          We *must* call it out for what it is when we see it. If we don’t, it risks votes being pulled away from our side.

          This is psychology, and it’s starting to work on you. Don’t let them get the upper hand in this fight for our lives…

  3. avatar Shire-man says:

    If there’s any reason left in this country we should see the end of Democrat governors this election.
    The ones up for a vote, anyway.
    What could the people in these states possibly find appealing?
    Gee, my state’s on fire. I like that.
    Gee, my state’s billions in the hole. I like that.
    Gee, my tax burden is greater year over year. I like that.
    Gee, my liberties require more licensing and paperwork and fees to practice year over year. I like that.

    What do they have to run on? They aren’t Trump?

    1. avatar White Lives Matter says:

      The problem is liberals from those state who don’t like that move to other states and vote for the same kind of socialists.

    2. avatar Umm . . . says:

      Gee, the only places on fire belong to those guys who think they’re so smart and never gave me anything. I like that.
      Gee, my healthcare’s paid for with those same jerks’ money. I like that.
      Gee, they’re finding more ways to spend those guys’ money, some of which will probably fall on me too. I like that.
      Gee, they let my cousin out of prison. I like that.
      Gee, my kids’ suntans got them into universities where their white and Asian classmates have twice the SAT scores and a full HS GPA point higher – yet I’M the one who gets to complain about “systemic racism”. I like that.
      Gee, my union protects my “right” to a comfortable middle-class living for doing the same mindless make-work I did when I was a 17y/o dropout. I like that.
      Gee, all the smartest people in the world, like singers and basketball players, vote D too. I like that.
      Etc.

  4. avatar Montuckian for Montucky says:

    Let’s not forget he vetoed the will of the people…twice, in our passage of Constitutional Carry.

    This keeps the burden on county Sheriff’s offices around the state to maintain that bureaucratic BS when they have better things to do.

    Plus, a right licensed is a right infringed.

  5. avatar MarkPA says:

    I don’t get it. And I think we need to figure out the answer to this question:

    Why do voters in Right-to-Carry states
    elect Senators and governors (and candidates for other offices)
    who FAIL the 2A litmus test?

    Let’s use Maine as an example. It has 2 seats in the House of Representatives. Let’s assume that one of these 2 Congressional districts is metropolitan and the other is rural. If so, I could understand if the elected representative in the first district were anti-gun and the other pro-gun. Nothing we could do about this.

    Nevertheless, I would HOPE that both Senators, the Governor and most other state office holders could be kept in the PRO-2A camp if the gun-owners in that state made Pro-2A a litmus test for voting.

    I suspect that the problem is that there is some other issue – let’s say it’s maple syrup – that is really important in Maine. (Cattle in Montana; oil in Alaska, etc.) If that issue – maple syrup – is overwhelmingly important to Maine gun-owners, then they will elect the guy who seems to be strong on maple syrup even though he is anti-gun.

    This becomes really important for Senate seats; and every state has 2 Senators. If the Democrat Senator from Maine sits on the Forestry Committee that controls maple syrup then gun-owning voters in Maine will re-elect this guy notwithstanding that he is BAD on guns. To these voters, maple syrup trumps the 2A.

    Is this the problem? Is it that the Democrats find a great looking candidate who is really strong on some keystone issue such as maple syrup in Maine, cattle in Montana, oil in Alaska? They get this guy seated. First as dog-catcher, then as mayor, then state legislator, federal Representative and finally federal senator or governor? Thereupon, he “comes-out” as anti-gun?

    If that’s the case then we gun-owners need to use the same strategy. We need to support the guy for dog-catcher, . . . federal representative, who is strong on the 2A from the outset. He must ALSO be strong on THE maple syrup/cattle/oil issue to get himself entrenched in the political system.

    I suspect we are failing to groom a seed-farm of rookies who are strong on the 2A who will produce the candidates for higher office later in their careers.

    Or, is it something else?

    If someone from each of the right-to-carry states could explain to us why his state elects governors and senators who are anti-gun then we might be able to figure out what the Democrats are doing right that we are failing to pick-up on.

    1. avatar Boots McGillicutty says:

      It’s the unions and teachers in Montana. They vote straight D tickets every chance they get. Missoula has a buttload of government bureaucrats and teachers, most are lovin’ the D. Butte, Bozeman and Billings have a lot of unions, also big into the D. Lots of ranchers and farmers in various counties here love the f̶r̶e̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶n̶e̶y̶ subsidies that they get hard from the D. Also, Browning readily enjoys the D, because more government f̶r̶e̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶n̶e̶y̶ investment means good things for them.

      Also, gerrymandering has been pretty bad here for several decades, if not longer. The D gets everywhere.

      All in all, Montana as a state has been given the D hard, even though most of us do not want.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        Thank you for addressing my question.
        So, respecting Montana, its: unions; and, agricultural subsidies.

        If that were to emerge as a pattern then we would have to figure out how to:
        1. target the unions; at least the teachers’ union;
        2. make agricultural subsidies a companion issue with 2A.

        Now, then, it may be that a given gun-owner is a union-man to the core. He feels affinity for the teachers’ union simply because they are union. Another gun-owner favors agricultural subsidies. No subsidies for anything else; but, if we are to have subsidies for anything there needs to be plenty for agriculture.

        Supposing these two to be THE pattern of issues, how do we deal with this?

        E.g., do we create an affinity between gun owners and industrial unions (Teamsters, etc.) while withholding support for unions of government workers? Do we swallow our principles on government subsidies and create an affinity between gun owners and agricultural subsidies ONLY?

        Or, do we resign ourselves to the inevitability that we will ultimately sacrifice our principles on the right to arms in order to maintain some other higher principle such as loyalty to all unions or loyalty to the principles of no subsidies whatsoever?

    2. avatar rt66paul says:

      It is something else. Politicians are NOT anti gun from the start, they become so because they want power and the power comes from the Party. Changing parties doesn’t work for an individual politician(look at Bernie – the Democratic Party does not trust him, although he has more supporters than Biden), they have to stay with the party to keep power, right now, the Dems want to limit the citizens so they will have more control.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        Thank you for responding.
        If you are right then it’s critical to control the party’s leadership.

        I doubt that’s feasible for the Democrat Party.
        Nor do I see it as feasible for the Republican Party.

        The only thought that occurs to me is that each party is desperate to achieve/maintain a majority in their respective chamber. E.g., if one Republican senatorial candidate would tip the Republicans from 50/50 to 40/51-in-control, the Republican Party leadership would dance to the tune of whomever held the strings to victory in that particular race.

        Could we make it a non-viable proposition for Republican politicians to work-their-way up from dog-catcher to federal Senate candidate without first pledging unqualified support to the 2A?

        The objective is NOT to be sure that the pledge is sincere; rather, it would be to ensure that the pledged candidate has burned any possible bridge to anti-gun support.

    3. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

      “I don’t get it. And I think we need to figure out the answer to this question:

      Why do voters in Right-to-Carry states
      elect Senators and governors (and candidates for other offices)
      who FAIL the 2A litmus test?”

      Mark, it’s simple. Leftists are expert at telling very pretty lies that sound so… Reasonable.

      It’s the spider talking to the fly in action.

      EDIT – Mark, we are failing at our messaging. The voters are believing the bullshit being sold to them.

      Ever notice how Leftists always frame us as being evil while they are claiming they are the good guys?

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        “Leftists are expert at telling very pretty lies that sound so… Reasonable.”

        And, I take it, you are saying that gun-owners fall for it?

        If that is so, then how do we “red-pill” our fellow gun-owners?

        1. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

          “And, I take it, you are saying that gun-owners fall for it?”

          The non-2A zealots? Yes, and I believe they are playing on people’s desire to believe the best of someone. “Oh, they wouldn’t possibly do *that*.”

          It’s an insidious psychological game they are playing, and they are experts at it…

  6. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

    How could a state like Montana end up with a Leftist?

    1. avatar Boots McGillicutty says:

      **REPOST** It’s the unions and teachers in Montana. They vote straight D tickets every chance they get. Missoula has a buttload of government bureaucrats and teachers, most are lovin’ the D. Butte, Bozeman and Billings have a lot of unions, also big into the D. Lots of ranchers and farmers in various counties here love the f̶r̶e̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶n̶e̶y̶ subsidies that they get hard from the D. Also, Browning readily enjoys the D, because more government f̶r̶e̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶n̶e̶y̶ investment means good things for them.

      Also, gerrymandering has been pretty bad here for several decades, if not longer. The D gets everywhere.

      All in all, Montana as a state has been given the D hard, even though most of us do not want.

      1. avatar Kanye2020 says:

        Kamala wants the D, let her have some more

      2. avatar Shadow says:

        Hello, Boots, thank you for the clarification. I have not been to Montana in nearly 30 years, but got out when the Californians and other liberals started moving in. The fact that-of all things-gun control, is being proposed in Montana is really quite sad to see (and read about here). Montana used to be a pro-freedom, hands-off-my-guns kind of state. Sadly, it seems to have morphed into a second type of California or New York City in terms of its views on the Second Amendment. The even scary thing, is these teacher are educating future generations, which makes them even more dangerous.

        1. avatar StLPro2A says:

          Cancer inevitably metastasizes until it kills the patient or aggressive treatment kills the cancer. America is at that juncture today…..right now……8/27/2020….administer the treatment…..or die.

        2. avatar Montana Actual says:

          It’s only that way in a couple zities. The rest of the state is dark red. There will not be a democrat governor for very long. Teachers and union employees say just how much the dems care about them during COVID, and now A LOT of places are voting the unions out already.

        3. avatar Montucky Rifle says:

          The biggest Democrat-voting cesspools in Montana are Missoula (due to the ‘progressives’ at the university with zero life experience), Helena (state capital–bureaucrats and trade unions), Butte (lots of established unions set up shop back during the mining days), Billings (trade unions and greenies) and Bozeman (another university). There are a lot of ranchers that get subsidies and want the gravy-train to keep rolling.

          Funny side-bit, farmers and ranchers here always seem to gripe about never having any money but drive current-year $90,000 deluxe, all upgrades and options diesel dualies (usually Dodge or Ford).

          Dishonorable mention: Whitefish. Because I live close enough to little Aspen to not like going there and get stuck behind some Karen driving 15mph under the speed limit in her silver Subaru Forester on a two-lane only to watch her smash a deer while flapping her gums on the phone. Whitefish suburbs have a lot of good folk, but get screwed by the city council. Did you know, Whitefish, MT is one of the few places in the state that has a sales tax?

        4. avatar Shadow says:

          I did not realize White Fish had a sales tax. Lord, I have not been there in years. It does not sound like the place I remember from some forty years ago-sad to say. It makes me wonder what other places like Planes or Kalispell (or Superior) have turned in to? I probably do not want to know….

      3. avatar Nickname says:

        Lots of farm subsidies here in Idaho. Pretty much every local Idaho State Republican senator claims them. I forget the specifics of how they work, but many local senators claim these subsidies with the bare minimum of land and cattle (20 acres $20K of the top of my head). Even some of the Democrat senators are on it too! Its disgusting.

  7. avatar Jimmy James says:

    Havent decided which way I’m voting on any post in November yet, but it goes without saying that if the Dems win Hse, Sen and Pres, gun owners are in for a rough ride for the next 4 yrs.

    1. avatar Tim says:

      So……still mulling it over?……

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        in montana they’re muling it over.

    2. avatar Dude says:

      I think they’ll keep the House, and they could easily end up with 50 or 51 Senators.

  8. avatar Tim says:

    Turds get flushed at my house.
    What do you do in Montana?

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Dig a hole and cover it in dirt.

      1. avatar There is a Marion Mafia! says:

        And shut up about it.

  9. avatar GS650G says:

    When Trump wins he’ll unleash the dogs of war. That’s the best reason to vote for him.

  10. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    Biden/Harris are anti gun communists.

    Trump is the only other option with any chance of winning.

    1. avatar Kanye2020 says:

      Don’t forget Kanye West

      1. avatar StLPro2A says:

        West already out. In his diminished mental capacity, I think he saw an opportunity to pull black votes from Dems to “stalking horse”for Trump.

  11. avatar Ing says:

    The most important thing to know about mavericks is that they all end up wearing the brand in the end.

  12. avatar White Lives Matter says:

    Montana? What the hell. Is there 1 state the dems haven’t ruined or won’t ruin in an ear future? What a plague these folks are with their government control agendas.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      It’s still very nice up here. Open carry is a go. Our democrat governor will be voted out.

      1. avatar Anton Solomyr (FROM THE FLATHEAD VALLEY, REPRESENT!) says:

        Maybe we can finally get Constitutional Carry passed and signed instead of having some asshat (like Bullock) veto it every time it gets to his desk via referendum or passed through our state legislature.

  13. avatar DevilDog53 says:

    Never trust any man or woman with the bad judgement to be a member of the Democratic (anti-America) Party. They are not to be trusted.

  14. avatar Mandew says:

    I feel that somebody who believes in and backs the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the only person qualified to “govern”, any less and your voting for the wrong person. A person who strongly supports the 2nd Amendment, will more often than not have values that align with those who value freedom and liberty .

  15. avatar possum says:

    I would have thought Montana would be a gunm friendly state, guess not. All Dems are not anti gunm or perhaps no they better not say they are and lose their voters. This state I reside in has been Republican for years, then a woman Democrat from New York of all places got elected and I thought “Oh shit” but nope, she fell in love with Our state and it’s ideals. We are still constitutional carry, no magazine bans assault weapons bans, life remains the same.

  16. avatar The dems have all the answers, until they’re in control(CONTROL) that’s all they want!!!% look at all the dem cities, shitttholes! says:

    If you vote democrat, your drinking to much fake news! Watch FOX news learn the truth!

  17. avatar Montana Actual says:

    Nobody that I know wants this asshole in office. He will be voted out.

  18. avatar California Kid says:

    Not voting for Trump because he does not do exactly what you want is stupid.

    I would rather rather vote for Trump who I agree with 90% than help elect Biden (who I agree with 10%) by throwing my vote away on a 3rd party.

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