Previous Post
Next Post

In the era of Trump, the Democrat Party seems to be leaning even further left. Which is bit like drinking coffee when you can’t sleep. But what if the Dems get their hat handed to them in the mid-terms. Might they then change direction?

When it comes to gun control has a heads up for the party: it’s a losing issue with a key demographic.

“As the number of women gun-owners rises, so has the number of women conveying doubts over the virtues of gun control,” [33-year-old Penn State graduate and recent newlywed Sarah] Cable said.

The gender gap on guns has been huge in the past. But a Pew survey showed that between 2008 and 2012, the percentage of women supporting gun rights rose by nine points.

“As more and more women are connecting gun ownership and self-defense with empowerment, their views on gun control have shifted,” said Brad Todd, founding partner of OnMessage.

“I think this is an indication of where Democrats have failed to understand the self-defense aspect of the Second Amendment.

The more cynical amongst you might say the Democrat leadership understands the connection well enough. They [rightly] see armed self-defense as the enemy of statism, the party’s preferred form of government.

Is it even remotely possible that the Dems will “recalibrate their gun-control message for future elections, as the relationship between women and guns continues to strengthen”?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The far left is invested in their message and goals. It would be admitting defeat to drop one of their main messages.

    • Democrats will never drop gun control because it’s a means to an end; that end being the control of the American people.

      • The left has clearly decided that control of the American people is not a viable path forward. This is why they have abandoned white working class Americans,

        Their efforts have now turned to replacing Americans with “people of color” from any 3rd world that wants to send its refuse to our shores.

      • Exactly what I was going to point out… “Question of the day: Will democrats ever drop CONTROL platform”. Fixed it for you Robert Farago.

        Answer: No.

      • Yes. In my 20’s was an an enthusiastic, if very naive, leftest. I read my Marx and could talk about the “revo” with the best of them. But, as I became better educated, and understood just what all “progressive” and socialist models of government did to dominate the lives of individuals, it took a midnite epiphany in a Dunkin’ Donuts on Guadalupe Street for me to realize that liberty and freedom are constantly threatened in societies governed by an administrative state. It took me awhile, but I finally got there.

        • Similarly, I drifted from left to right as I became older and more educated. I even did a 180 on gun control. However, I think that we’re in the minority. Most people don’t have the capacity for introspection nor the courage to break from their “tribe.” The coastal states will remain deeply blue and the Dems may place federal gun control on the back burner, as they did during the 1970s, but it’ll return after that. Or…maybe I’m just a pessimist and a misanthrope.

      • Great Comment you hit the nail right on the head. There goal is complete control. They can’t gain
        total control without disarming the people.

    • Perhaps, but when the real examination of 2016 happens and another defeat in 2018, the democrats might modify their positions. There are still a few dems around that remember what the AWB did to them. But I could be wrong.

      • Well, yes, there are some, Bill Clinton being an excellent example! But he couldn’t get his wife to believe him, much less Osama, what hope do the others have? They are going to get their asses handed to them in 2018, despite the polls telling them they are going to win it all.

    • Yep. They are living in a state of delusion. Hopefully the next DNC chairman will drive them over a cliff into obscurity much like the Whig Party of old.

  2. No. Their ultimate goal is complete power over the peasants – socialism/Marxism always seeks to reduce the people to the status of serfs. They cannot achieve this with an armed, self-sufficient citizenry, so they will never stop trying to disarm us. We must remember that you cannot compromise with tyranny.

    • Socialism is communist lite, but only lite at the beginning. They can’t implement their true agenda until the guns go. So, no, they will never stop.

      • Short definition:

        Communism is enslavement by force of arms.

        Socialism is enslavement by vote, to be followed by enslavement by force of arms.

      • The Nazis were National Socialists.
        Much of their agenda was very similar to that of today’s left.
        The behavior of many of many of today’s left is similar to that of the early National Socialists.

  3. No – the leftists know they must disarm the peasantry if they are to ensure their ultimate goal of resucing us to serfdom. You cannot make armed, self-sufficient citizens into slaves, so they will always try to disarm us. We have to remember that you cannot compromise with tyranny. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. NO COMPROMISE.

  4. Highly doubtful. The Commiecrats pander to the entitled, terminally whiny, overly emotional, illogical, minimally informed, and irrational sheeple, of which there are far too many in this country now. That is their primary voter base. That is why they like to wave the bloody shirt any time there is a mass shooting (ignoring the fact that the shooter -A- ignored any existing gun control laws, and -B- went after a crowd of defenseless targets who DID obey existing gun control laws, thus MAKING themselves defenseless), and then scream for even MORE draconian gun control laws, citing the “fact” that the existing laws weren’t restrictive ENOUGH. Sort of like the German people in the Wiemar Republic era, who were scared and upset by their crashing economy and rising inflation, and humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles which allowed the winners of WWI to systematically rape their country in the name of “war reparations”, they were willing to follow a monomaniacal madman who offered them “hope and change”, not to mention gun control (sound familiar?) – and instead ended up living in an even greater nightmare for another decade.

  5. The Democrats leadership is FUBAR beyond any hope being central or right sided. Let them keep shooting themselves in the foot again. It is much funnier to watch them spew lies and try to cover up their own mistakes.

  6. No. The majority of Democrats don’t like America, our freedoms and our traditions, the more they can urinate on them the better they feel.

  7. They won’t drop it — there is simply too much money involved.
    They also have come to believing their own lies and that demographics are on their side. Even though intelligent people know exactly why men, rural persons, older persons are more likely to be over represented in surveys on gun ownership; and other populations who do own guns but don’t tell a survey or pollster, are likely under represented.

    I’m (East coast) urban, younger, never hunted, and so gun ownership for is not about social activities like hunting or target shooting, but rather is about home and self defense. If a person with GSS, Pew or gallup or anyone not in my immediate family were to ask if I owned a gun I would simply say “no” eve though I own one. Why? Because it was one of the things the police instructor in my legally mandated safety class told me over and over: “never tell anyone you have a firearm at home.”

    I think the Democrat leadership simply don’t know that it is likely 60% of the US owns a firearm, and more and more solely for self or home defense.

    By the way I am in a demographic that would vote Democrat in many cases. I am sympathetic to gay rights; I am not in full support of all the climate change schemes, but think that denial of carbon fuel driven climate change acceleration is anti-science; and agree with the Democrats on some other issues.

    But frankly not only the second amendment, but the entire bill of rights are more important than any other questions regarding policy and government roles. The attacks on the the second amendment, and the rational used to attack it, can be used to attack the entire bill of rights. And over the very long term in the future, just as has been the case in the past, that is the biggest threat to humankind has been governing class/entities monopoly of violence and constant growth and control

    • Slightly off the “gun” topic here, but related to it nevertheless. With regard to your point of at least moderately believing in the man-made carbon caused effects on the planet (notice, I’m being politically correct by not calling it neither global warming nor global cooling, since it depends on who is pushing which lie at the time), ask yourself a simple question: if the science (e.g., the facts) had actually supported any of those “theories,” why would the authors of the theories have to lie and fabricate the data? I have been in the science field for 30 years and it is quite natural for the professionals in the field to completely reject any paper or study whose author has been caught fabricating data. Don’t we do the same with the so-called studies and data relating to guns? If the data is fabricated, the entire report is automatically considered to be junk; why then do you partially accept reports whose authors have been caught, and many have admitted, in fabricating data?

      • I agree. A lot of the climate science is junk science. I have enough educational grounding in science to know when the scientific method and other general scientific principles are being ignored. Like when you eliminate samples because they are not favorable to the conclusion you are trying to reach.

        If you know where the “97% agree” statistic comes from and you repeat it, you are either a liar or don’t understand statistics. If you have to lie to prove your point, I doubt your point is true.

        • An interesting fact to keep in mind when talking about man-made carbon dioxide global warming – 80% of the atmosphere is nitrogen; oxygen is some 18.5%, all other gases total 1.5%. CO2 makes up some 0.04%, or 400 ppm, which is a trace amount. The human-caused component, by the most Progressive of calculations, is about another 100 ppm. By the most Progressive I mean the total human-caused output without compensating for CO2 being absorbed by more abundant vegetation due to more food for the vegetation (CO2). The warming of the atmosphere is caused by sunlight absorption, which is primarily caused by water vapor. Water vapor (H2O) is 10 times more absorbent of sunlight energy than CO2. I think that it is clear to a child that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is hugely larger than the amount of CO2, and H2O is ten times more absorbent of sunlight than CO2. So, if global warming is a problem, stopping the oceans from evaporating must be the first priority, followed by control of the rainstorms. And leave the CO2 alone.

        • Much of the fear and emotion based “science” the public gets force-fed from officialdom is junk or pseudo-science, with the intent being to convince the serfs they are a collective nuisance to the planet and that they must surrender their individual rights in the name of the collective to be less of a nuisance to the planet.

      • Much like the CDC being accused of manipulating drug/vaccine safety/effectiveness data by whistle-blowers. Many professionals in the field disagree with what the public is told is scientific consensus, or “settled”.

    • As much as I can respect that y’all aren’t simply single-issue voters ( that is not at all a bad thing) I’m gonna turn the wheel back to guns…
      I do make my vote about only guns for this reason – it saves time. I have observed that any candidate that is against or even somewhat compromising on an individuals civil right of self-defense, thay will likely vote wrong on most any other issue I care about. Just ask yourself, if this candidate doesn’t support ALL of my civil rights, can they really claim to be on my side?

      • Science fiction author L. Neil Smith argued some years ago that how a politician stands on 2A issues pretty much explains his or her views on liberty in general. Works for me.

    • An important and well-established scientific fact to always keep foremost in mind is that 73% of poll results are made up on the spot.

    • You’re only “sympathetic” to gay rights? I’m willing to pick up a gun and kill or be killed to defend HUMAN rights. And yes, as far as I can tell, gay humans are human.
      But I will NOT bake a gay wedding cake. That is MY right, and examples like that are why I have a big, big problem with anyone who votes (D).

      • If you bake wedding cakes out of your home and operate on advertising and referrals, then you should not have to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage. If you own a bakery that is open to the public, then refusing to bake a cake for a customer on the basis of race, religion, age, gender, or sexual orientation is discriminatory and illegal. It is exactly the same thing as a diner in the deep south refusing to serve a black person.

        If you are a county clerk and you refuse to issue a marriage license, you are failing to do your job.

        If you are a pharmacist at CVS and you take a woman’s prescription for the morning after pill and refuse to fill it, you are interfering in the medical care between a patient and her doctor. Not only should you be fired, but you should be jailed for a felony as well.

        The fact that many Republican candidates use these as divisive wedge issues is the reason I continually vote Libertarian. I’m sorry if you believe any of the above laws violates your freedom, but your freedom extends only so far as you do not use your position to violate MY freedom. I don’t care how you worship, what you think, what you say. But you do not have the right to use your beliefs as an excuse to repress others. There should exist no laws save those that protect us from from those who would do us harm or attempt to deny us our basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 2A is a fine example of such a law.

        • So, what you are saying is that a person must work for the benefit of another person, otherwise he must not be allowed to work at all or be jailed? If I cannot refuse service or work to anyone that I wish to refuse, for any reason that I wish to, then I am a slave to the wishes of the person who managed to coerce the law into his camp. Basically, this is government enforced slavery.

        • No, that isn’t remotely what I’m saying. Slavery implies that you do not have a choice. Last I checked, employment is at will. If you own or work for a business that serves the public, you do not have the right to discriminate against any protected class. If you work on a contractual or consulting basis, then you have the right to choose your clients. It’s a pretty simple distinction. A physician in private practice can choose whether or not to accept patients into the practice. An ER doctor cannot refuse care to someone who walks into the emergency room.

        • The ER physician is not a good example since emergency health care falls under completely different, age old morals and requirements. But if I am a baker and I own a bakery, and if I am required to work for the benefit of someone that I do not want to work for, or men with guns will come and take me away, then this is slavery. Today, the men with guns are forcing me to work for the benefit of gay men, tomorrow they will force me to work for the benefit of a gay commune, and the day after they will force me to work for the benefit of the commune. Comrade Stalin or Herr Hitler will decide what composes the commune and what and how I need to serve it. I think that you can follow the Progression; goodbye your Anarchy, goodbye your freedom.

        • I think it is a fine example. If you are a baker and you work by appointment, then like the private physician, you may set an appointment with whomever you choose. If you hang an “Open” sign on your door and choose to sell your goods to the public, then you become bound by a set of legal and moral guidelines. Like the ER doc who must provide care for whomever walks through the door, you are obligated to sell Customer B the same goods you would sell to Customer A. Don’t like it? Then don’t serve the public.

          The racist white grillman at Waffle House may not refuse to grill eggs and bacon for black customers, just as the black grillman may not refuse to grill eggs and bacon for a table of Clansmen. His job is to grill the food ordered by paying customers.

          Now, in the case of the baker, selling a cake to a gay customer is different from providing customizations to said cake. If a customer points to a cake in your catalog and says, “I want this cake for my wedding,” then bake them the damned cake. If the customer says, “I want this cake, but could you add giant schlongs with big, hairy balls all over it,” you can tell them you’ll bake the cake in the catalog, and what they do with it once you deliver it is not your responsibility.

        • For your reference:

          For Right of Association
          ”It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.”
          – See more at:

          A government agency must service all citizens. A private individual (or a business), if forced to service or work for whom the individual does not wish to work for, nullifies the First Amendment and destroys the concept of private property. This is the basis of a socialist state.

        • Absolutely correct, Alexander. The baker, photographer, and every other merchant or vendor has the constitutional right to, or not to, conduct business with whomever they please. Despite having no constitutional authority to do so, Congress arrogated to itself the power to obligate “public accommodations” to the otherwise right and proper provisions of the civil rights acts. Unless and until that portion of the Bill of Rights is negated by further amendment, the individual right to freely associate still exists, Congress notwithstanding. Americans knew this well a few generations ago, when signs stating, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” were posted at thousands of establishment entrances nationwide.

        • A private business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone for ANY reason except for skin color and sex. Facebook is currently refusing service to conservatives, pro-Israel groups, pro-LEO sentiment, etc. While you may not be able to choose your skin color or your genitals, there is still zero scientific evidence that homosexuals are “born that way,” let alone trannies and other mentally ill people. Refusing to bake a cake for a couple of lesbians who literally searched high and low for a bakery that would refuse to bake the cake is not hurting a damn soul. Being a business owner is not the same thing as being an employee. If an employee of said bakery refused to bake the lesbian cake, contrary to the owner’s orders, they can find another job. But the owner doesn’t have he option of just doing something else. You really think it’s a good thing that a couple who never did anyone any harm are now out of business and have had their lives ruined by a pair of spiteful lesbians who sought them out with the intention of creating a media sensation and making themselves victims?

        • Did you intend to post the exact same thing twice? Since you did, I will add that while I find your description of LGBT people as “mentally ill” to be absolutely repugnant, I will forever support your right to hold and voice such beliefs. What I will not support is your use of those beliefs as an excuse to marginalize or trample on the rights of others.

        • I did not mean to post the same thing twice, my phone was f*cking up per usual. Now I’m on a laptop.

          The Oregon law they “clearly violated” clearly violates the 1A, so no harm done there. I did some research, and while I see it’s true they posted the complaint on their facebook that included the lesbian couple’s personal info, do we know for a fact that Klein did it with the intention of encouraging death threats etc against them? There is no evidence that he did so, therefore we must give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he made an honest mistake. I’m not saying I believe one way or another, but we can’t know for sure. I have also found that I believe I was wrong in saying they specifically sought out a bakery that would refuse service; however this type of thing has happened numerous times and is well-documented. Memories Pizza, etc. If you want I can provide links but I’m assuming you already know about the other cases. The point is, without hard evidence that Aaron Klein A: intended to publish the Bowman-Cryers’ personal info and B: did so with the express goal of fomenting death threats etc, the idea that they should be fined an astronomical sum (for a small business) is absurd, authoritarian, and downright evil. Do you think it’s a good precedent to set that they are fiscally responsible for the actions of others? Also, death threats are nothing. Post a few comments on political YouTube videos and you’ll get plenty of them. You know what the Bowman-Cryers could do to make themselves feel better after receiving a few death threats? Buy guns, and carry them. I don’t care how well-established the case law is for mental anguish and the rest, it’s a bunch of utter nonsense. Show actual damages, not “we felt scared and sad and our feelings were hurt.”

          I hate Facebook and Zuckerberg with a passion. I think he is among the worst of the global elites bent on control of us little people. However, Facebook, as a non-governmental organization, is incapable of violating the First Amendment.

          So you “just know” that some children, who aren’t sexually developed yet, are homosexual. Got it.

          As to your hand-wringing over my “repugnant” description of “LGBT” people to be mentally ill, two things. First, I was specifically talking about transsexuals and other people going down that road, like that guy who thinks he’s a girl who thinks he’s a dragon, etc. I wasn’t explicitly including gays and lesbians in the mentally ill category, but so what if I did? Up until fairly recently, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. I’m sure you think they took it off the DSM because they found that it wasn’t in fact mental illness, but it’s pretty clear to me it was removed due to ideology and political expediency (again, show me a single scientific study that shows homosexuality is genetic). Watch transsexuals come off the DSM too. They’ve already had their illness changed from “gender identity disorder” to “gender dysphoria” which is apparently less mentally ill or something? Not sure. The point is that calling someone “mentally ill” isn’t saying I hate them or want them abused or trampled on or whatever nonsense you’re projecting into my statements. I’m a live and let live right-wing libertarian. I don’t care if my neighbor was born a black man and is now a Chinese genderqueered dragon. If he needs to borrow sugar, I’ll lend it to him, and if some a*holes try to break into his house to queerstomp him, I’ll make a visit next door and shoot them full of .300″ holes, but I’m not going to be inviting him to any hot tub parties or even for dinner. Mentally ill people need help, by definition, to improve their lives. If you find that position hateful or repugnant, then we are at an impasse.

        • A private business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone for ANY reason except for skin color and sex. Facebook is currently refusing service to conservatives, pro-Israel groups, pro-LEO sentiment, etc. While you may not be able to choose your skin color or your genitals, there is still zero scientific evidence that homosexuals are “born that way,” let alone trans and other mentally ill people. Refusing to bake a cake for a couple of lesbians who literally searched high and low for a bakery that would refuse to bake the cake is not hurting a soul. Being a business owner is not the same thing as being an employee. If an employee of said bakery refused to bake the lesbian cake, contrary to the owner’s orders, they can find another job. But the owner doesn’t have he option of just doing something else. You really think it’s a good thing that a couple who never did anyone any harm are now out of business and have had their lives ruined by a pair of spiteful lesbians who sought them out with the intention of creating a media sensation and making themselves victims?

        • Oh boy, I’m assuming you’re referring to the Oregon case. That “nice” couple who owned the bakery clearly violated Oregon law. But that isn’t the worst of it. They wouldn’t have been fined such a huge amount for simply refusing service. What they did was much worse. When they received a copy of the complaint, they posted the entire thing on Facebook, which included the woman’s name, address, phone number, and email address. The lesbian couple were relentlessly harrassed, received death threats, and nearly lost custody of the two foster children they were trying to adopt. Talk about inflicting emotional pain and suffering! Punitive damages were absolutely in order in this case. So yes, I do think it’s a good thing that this bakery was put out of business.

          In regards to your other points, Facebook routinely violates the First Amendment with the greatest of glee. I’m not sure what you’re asking. Do you want to know if I think it’s OK that Facebook does this? I do not.

          And as for your claim that there is no scientific evidence that some people are born gay – I don’t need scientific evidence. If you have ever known any gay people, some of them are quite obviously born that way. I can spend five minutes observing some of my childrens’ classmates and tell that they’re gay. Others do make a conscious choice, and a few have those desires imprinted upon them through abuse. The “why” doesn’t change the fact that these people should have the same rights as other consumers.

  8. When you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!

    Rather than offering these people reasonable and logical advice (which they admittedly will most likely ignore), we should be finding ways to send them more shovels.

      • Colorado voters just voted for an “open primary” because it’s MOAR FARE and JUSTISS! I’m gonna do some monkeywrenching next year, for sure.

  9. The left will need to splinter, the socialist / progressives from the left leaning liberals. The left leaning liberals will be the one to drop gun control. But I doubt it would happen.

  10. The Democrats won’t get routed in the mid-terms. They are fired up and will work hard (first time for everything) to put some asses in seats. So let’s not get complacent here.

    PS: Man, those signs. Where do I begin?

    • Dems won’t get “routed” in the midterm. However, they will suffer more losses. 33 seats for reelection, 25 of them are Dems, 8 of those Dems are in states Trump carried, 4 are in states he carried by more than 15%. Republicans probably won’t pick up all 8 of those seats to give themselves the 60 votes they need to defeat fillibuster, but they’ll pick up some for sure.

      Dems have as many seats this midterm in red states as Republicans have total. Dems have too many vulnerable seats to guard to save them all.

    • Except historically demtards only show up in presidential elections. Soros Inc will be going all out to change this but highly likely will work for the.

      BUT it shaping of that a whole lot of RINOs are going to have their heads lopped off in primaries. GOOD.

  11. Even if they did you couldn’t trust them not to bring it up again.
    As of this moment whenever one of the “smart” Democrats mentions gun-control as an issue is costing them votes they never speak of dropping it altogether. Rather they speak of toning it down or setting aside.

    Basically: “we need to trick people into voting for us then we can do what we want.”

    • I feel this is one of the biggest threats to the future of gun rights. Some outside consultants are going to show the Dems the data that gun control is a losing issue in the critical states of Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. As a result, the Dem leadership will “tone down” the anti-2A rhetoric in an effort to slip into the White House. Once in control, they will then crank it up to 11.

      • That’s exactly how it will go. They will leave it in the party platform, but just quit talking about it so much, and definitely quit campaigning specifically on it. Then, when the pendulum swings back their way (and it will, eventually) they will come out more and more in force. If it comes to the point where they have a supermajority in both houses, then yes, you can expect extreme gun control measures to be put in place.

        But I expect them to tone it down for the next few years.

        • Makes sense, but it would have made sense in 2016, also. These morons actually think gun control is a winner, no matter how many times it causes them to lose.

      • That’s exactly what Obama did. Only he failed in the “enact extreme gun control measures” part because the Republicans stopped him.

  12. No. That’s not how democrats work. They have always run on the “we know what’s better for you than you do” platform, and will always try to force their ideas upon the population. No matter what happens. Even if they lost the next 6 elections and virtually held no power, they’d still push for gun control. And at the end of the day, if they did, would anyone believe them?

  13. All these Progressive Lefty liberals need to have their ass handed to them. They are straight up on American. If you don’t believe in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights you need not to live in the United States of America end of story. Message to these Progressive liberals stop complaining about guns in our country stop trying to enact socialism and fascism in our country. If you continue we will simply show you the border and tell you to start paddling on a raft. If you do not believe in the freedoms and Liberties of the United States of America you should not be allowed to live here end of story.

  14. All these Progressive Lefty liberals need to have their ass handed to them. They are straight up un American. If you don’t believe in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights you need not to live in the United States of America end of story. Message to these Progressive liberals stop complaining about guns in our country stop trying to enact socialism and fascism in our country. If you continue we will simply show you the border and tell you to start paddling on a raft. If you do not believe in the freedoms and Liberties of the United States of America you should not be allowed to live here end of story.

  15. They never admit to being wrong, so will never moderate towards the center. I see them doubling down in their efforts and playing the waiting game. In other words. as more and more folks immigrate, and the generations that value liberty, resiliency, self sufficiency and determination die out and become the minority, then they will pounce.

    If the battle against the entrenched ‘permanent government’ (ie those appointed by the Obama regime into the various government organizations, various courts etc) isn’t won, it will be a long battle to move the country back towards its constitutional principles.

  16. Nope. The party is in denial, they are refusing to come to terms with the things that cost them votes. Even if they did, with their track record of lying to the voters, who would believe them?

  17. I’m not a big fan of banning anything but I do believe if we are going to ban something we need to ban any political organization democrat or republican that goes against our freedoms our liberties our Bill of Rights our Constitution and our way of life. We need to get these organizations expelled from being electable officials. You either follow the rules that this country has had for over two hundred and twenty-five years or you get the F out. These people on the left are like a cancerous tissue embedded deep in our political game of sorts. There’s only one way to get rid of it cut it out and discarded like the trash that it is. You should not be allowed or able in this country to run an anti-American agenda and get away with it without penalties. All of this crap that has been going on lately is because of these Democratic Lefty liberal socialist blacklivesmatter for one Shannon Watts for 2 and all her cronies it’s like a hodgepodge of crap 10 pounds of sewage in a 5-pound bag. If you don’t like the American way of life then do us all a favor and move the F out. There’s gotta be some kind of crap hole somewhere that we can put these people and let them run themselves into the ground. God Bless America God bless our troops and God bless Donald Trump our commander and chief.

  18. If they “reform” it will probably be like when Rudd (labour / socialist) was prime minister in Australia after gun banner Howard.

    Much was made of him being in local clay target club before the election and after the new government floated the idea of banning all firearms. They lost that badly, one of the few wins for shooters in Australia.

    As I have said here before antis have to anti no matter where they are.

  19. Leftists haven’t changed anything in their platform in 150 years. The might moderate this or that position temporarily for political advantage, counting on the general populace’s chronic case of ADD and the proven ability of the Fourth Estate/Fifth Column to massage their message, but their utopian evergreens of class warfare, redistribution, free-lunch, and control, control, control will pop-up like dandelions whenever the time is right. They learn nothing and forget nothing.

    • Agreed. If you want to know the direction the Democratic Party seeks to take, one has to look no further than Europe and the EU. Most European countries have3 instituted strict gun control measures, and the EU has sought to impose those strict measures, including limits on ownership, on uncompliant countries such as the Czech Republic and nonmember Switzerland. When bad things happen, there are calls for complete bans and confiscations. Freedom of speech is being eliminated; anything that upsets anyone else is deemed hate speech and is subject to criminal sanction (and some say, speech that is offensive to or attacks Muslims). For example, a man was arrested in London and criminally charged a number of years ago for a hate speech crime for reciting a WWII speech by Winston Churchill. Yesterday, Marie Le Pen’s EU legislative immunity was lifted at the request of a French prosecutor so that he could charge her with a hate crime for tweeting a gruesome photograph depicting an ISIS execution slaughter; she therefore is being subject to criminal prosecution for transmitting a true picture simply because someone found it offensive. All of those countries have large and expensive social welfare programs such that a significant proportion of the population does not work and may have never worked, yet are entitled to free government housing and other benefits. Medicine is socialized, and although free, elective procedures may take months for approval. Yes, 1984 is overtaking Europe, and the only thing it needs now is a perpetual war to keep the populace at bay. That is the direction the progressive liberals, in their own views of morality and social justice, seek to take this country.

  20. The republicans weren’t always pro gun rights. Heck even the NRA hasn’t always been pro gun Rights. So yes democrats could switch and support gun rights, but they seem destined for self destruction first.

    • Forget it, man. Reminding many of these guys that places like California are the way they are because Ronald Reagan and other conservatives were afraid of armed black people is a non-starter.

      Or if they do acknowledge it, they’ll tell you that conservatives have all changed an are no longer capable of being racist, and Democrats are the real racists because Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, as if that makes a goddamn bit of sense.

  21. Some individual democrats will, but unfortunately since the democrat party has been taken over the CP-USA, no they won’t.

  22. No, Progressives will never drop civilian disarmament.

    First, the Progressive ruling class knows what is best for us as Hank mentioned above. And they are better than all of us … so, there is no way that the Progressive ruling class is going to let us keep our toys.

    Second, Progressives operate on Altruism, Fantasy, and Emotion. Altruism: we should all be kind and no one should need firearms. And the Progressive ruling class has an obligation to protect us from ourselves. Fantasy: we really can achieve that altruistic world with technology, a unified voice, universal healthcare, or some other such nonsense. Emotion: we HAVE to cling to that altruistic fantasy world vision because it feels sooooooo good … and abandoning that altruistic fantasy world vision feels really baadddddddd.

    Add the fact that Big Money calls the shots in the Democrat leadership, and Big Money wants us disarmed for various and sundry reasons, calls for civilian disarmament are a foregone conclusion.

  23. Mass shootings and shootings in general don’t happen in Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan on a daily basis.

    People are actually fighting back against the “pro-gun” movement as most Americans don’t want to see spikes in their violent crime rate or suicide rates rise.

    Here are a few more salient numbers that prove that strict gun control laws lower the incidence of gun violence.

    Firearm-related deaths per 100,000 population:
    United States 10.2
    Switzerland 3.84
    Canada 2.13
    Norway 1.78
    Portugal 1.77
    Greece 1.5
    Sweden 1.47
    Denmark 1.45
    Italy 1.28
    Germany 1.10
    United Kingdom 0.25

    And just for those of you bellowing about the above numbers including “suicides” (and other types of “accidental” shootings):
    Firearm-related murders rate per 100,000 population
    United States 3.60
    Switzerland 0.52
    Canada 0.50
    Norway 0.04
    Portugal 0.48
    Greece 0.59
    Sweden 0.19
    Denmark 0.22
    Italy 0.36
    Germany 0.06
    United Kingdom 0.04
    Sources: UNDOC, USDOJ

      • So riddle me this porkchop.

        Besides being brainwashed by “pro-gun” fake news.

        Your using distorted data that makes a country looks worse than the way it is when it’s not.

        How do rare once in a blue moon incidents like the Paris attacks (Which were caused by the NRA and other “gun rights” groups which gave guns to these same terror groups) compare to the dozens of hundreds of mass shootings that happen in America on a daily basis.

        Where are the bad guys getting the guns?

        All “illegal” guns started off as legal.

        All “Bad guys” started off as “good guys”.

        Who is intially, legally purchasing these guns used by criminals, and how are they getting from the intial purchaser to the criminal? Please don’t try and claim they are all stolen. Something less that 5% of weapons used in crimes are reported stolen.

        How are those guns getting to the black market?

        Every gun in legally purchased. Yet, they are finding their way into criminal hands.

        Possible explainations:
        1. The criminals using them in crimes are purchasing them
        2. Straw purchasers are buying for criminals
        3. People too irresponsible to own guns are unable to control them, and somehow they are winding up in criminal hands
        4. Guns that are bought by responsible owners are being stolen, despite being secured, and those guns are reported stolen by the owners. I’m betting that is an infinitesimally small percentage relative to #1-3

        #1-3 indicate that the current level of control on gun purchases in insufficient to prevent people who should not be permitted to own guns from buying them, and those people are either the direct criminals or responsible for providing, thru omission or commision,the guns used in crimes.

        Illegal guns don’t appear spontaneously, Porkchop. They come from somewhere, and move from legal to illegal. That flow needs to be stopped. Do you have any thoughts as to how to accomplish this? Or is your response just to scream “I want my bang-bang?”

        • Don’t like guns or people who support gun rights, Buttercup? Then get out there and ban them!


        • Reality is, criminals will ALWAYS find ways to get what they want, no matter what the law says.

          Smuggling is big business, and has been for centuries, because whenever something is restricted, it creates more demand.

          Back when your hero “Slick Willy” was president, the Chinese smuggled in a load of REAL assault rifles (as opposed to what triggered liberal whiners like yourself define as “assault rifles”): fully automatic AK-47’s, to be exact. I very much doubt these were intended for law abiding US citizens, either.

          Here’s a couple more for you:

          REAL Americans will not willingly give up their guns to appease hoplophobic morons. REAL Americans know that the government can’t be trusted to keep them safe, and that a place where only the police and military are allowed to have guns that are effective for personal defense is called a POLICE STATE. Your little rainbows and lollipops fantasy world where guns don’t exist and everyone is safe and where the government can be trusted to act in the best interests of the people, is exactly that: a fantasy world.

        • I’m 100% certain that 80% of our gun violence is gang violence in inner cities that have been dominated by Democrats for the last 50-100 years (Source CDC’s most recent study on gun violence).

          I’m also 100% certain that overall American attitudes towards guns is at an all time high with women and minorities being the fastest growing segments of gun ownership. (Source Gallup).

          But please, keep pretending that all gun violence is the fault of Republicans and their support of the 2A will cost them future elections.

        • Started legal. Started illegal. Homemade. “What difference… At this point, what difference does it make?”

          Bad guys will always find a way to acquire the tools necessary for their trade. Whether they make, steal or buy them from Leland Yee, it makes no difference – the bad guys will still get guns. And passing laws whose only effect is to inconvenience or disarm the peaceable and law abiding will have NO affect on the violent crime rates.

          It’s not all that much different than banning doors to stop bad guys from breaking them down. Whaddya bet the bad guys and the well connected will still have doors – really big heavy doors with great big locks. But anyone can walk right into your house.

    • WTF. Like a firearm death or suicide is so much worse than one committed without a gun. And it is not like governments never go rouge and start killing their citizens.

    • The_Resistance,

      I see that you failed to include the murder rate (with a firearm murder weapon) in these countries with strict gun-control: Mexico, Brazil, and South Africa.

      Please include them since they have significantly higher murder rates than the United States.

      • Because I am such a good sport, I’ll provide the data for you:

        Brazil: 19.99
        Mexico: 6.34
        South Africa: 8.2

        And for comparison:

        Switzerland: 0.23
        Czech Republic: 0.15
        United States: 3.43

        Please note that a LOT of people have firearms in Switzerland and their gun-control laws are non-existent compared to the United Kingdom. Also note that the Czech Republic has a LOT of firearms and, more importantly, they have quasi-shall-issue concealed carry.

        Please explain why some gun-control paradises have high murder rates and some gun ownership paradises have low murder rates.

        Numbers above are murders per 100,000 people.


    • So tell me, how do the incidents of violent crime, irrespective of method used, compare? The only one I know about, England, based upon Home Office numbers (which are based on convictions while ours are based on arrests) are that the violent crime rate there is at least 4 times higher, and is mostly knife related crime. Second, if we eliminate homicides resulting from gang activity, how do the numbers compare? The fact is that 85% of the homicides in the US are gang related.

      • Or maybe we should talk about Brazil Venezuela, or Mexico, all of which have total or virtual gun bans yet a “gun violence” rate many many times higher than Europe or the US. If gun control works in Europe, it should work everywhere, right? Sadly, it does not. The simple truth of the matter is that humans are not altruistic and peaceful beings, but irrational, violent animals, and no amount of gun control will ever change those basic human behaviors. As a simple example, the cartels in Mexico could simply kill/execute their opponents, yet they find it necessary (or simply pleasurable) to torture their victims to death before beheading them and often cutting off their arms and legs with chain saws before dumping the bodies. No amount of propaganda about “gun culture” has anything to do with such behaviors.

    • Europe is NOT a peaceful place. Malmo Sweden has had 100 Hand Grenade attacks over the last two years perpetrated by muslim refugees. Germany has epidemics of rape and assaults. The refugees are out-breeding the natives by 4 to 1 and will control the politics within a generation.. European cities will look like Baghdad and Sharia Law will rule at some point. The leadership of Europe is in denial but major carnage is looming right over the horizon.
      Better visit soon if you’ve never been but want to see it.

  24. They will not drop the anti-gun agenda, although it may temporarily go into a remission. The issue is not so much that the citizens can fight back a totalitarian government if they have guns. In a way, the Progressives have a valid point – a rifle is not a match for a tank or an airplane, so the ability to field a bunch of rifles is pretty moot. But when a citizen is armed, he feels free, and that is the biggest impediment to enslaving him. The Nazis certainly had the ability to machine-gun the Jews and other undesirables where they found them (especially since they were already disarmed), but they preferred to spend their limited resources and give priority to transporting them over clogged railways because the long process of demoralizing people made their extermination so much easier. Likewise, a statist government must not allow the citizen to feel free.

  25. If they ever do appear to change their messaging and drop or de-emphasize gun control, it’ll all be a lie – whatever it takes to win an election. Then once back in power, expect to hear them claim a ‘mandate’ for public safety and it’s Katy bar the door.

    In the immortal words of Admiral Ackbar, “It’s a trap!!”

  26. No the homosexual democrat will not change. The black democrat will not change. The white socialist/progressive will not change. The white atheist who likes to use government to replace the voluntary association of a church will not change. The Jewish democrat will not change. Did I miss anybody????

    All of them believe in the police. They love the police. They totally support the police without question. Because they all believe only the police should have guns. Anything coming out of their mouth opposite of that is a lie.

    • “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.”
      Well, so what white, non-atheist group do you belong to. Of you have a better understanding of Christianity than Paul? Or do you just agree on some things and not others?

      • I understand where you are going. You have to be EXTREMELY careful with a strict reading of that Bible verse. A strict reading would suggest that God instituted every genocidal government and expects us to submit to such governments who command our walk into the gas chambers.

        Ponder that for a bit and get back to me.

        • It’s the definition of irony when for the sake of argument an atheist assumes the position of an actually biblical literalist ( words at face value ) and then the panicked theist has to swoop in and reveal the REAL meaning behind the scripture like in Mark 16:18, or Mark 13: 29-30.

          It then devolves into an appeal to “context” and “word definitions” and “STRICT READINGS” as to why the words don’t mean what they actually say. It’s a very sleazy deflection worthy of ex president Clinton and his bull shit definition of what “is” is.

        • If god doesn’t love murder/genocide, then how is there murder/genocide? Another opportunity to twist yourself into a knot trying to justify blind adherence to nonsense.

        • Simple answer: we live in a fallen world. God gave mankind free will, mankind chose to abuse that free will by disobeying one simple rule and listening to someone they SHOULDN’T have listened to, sin entered the world, and now bad things happen, even to good people.

          Jesus once said that just because bad things happened to people did not mean that somehow those people were worse sinners than others who didn’t have disasters befall them, though (Luke 13:1-5).

        • Rich K, God being omnipotent means that no one can defy God UNLESS HE ALLOWS IT. The take away is that nothing good or bad can happen without his PERMISSION. Which makes God morally culpable for even the so-called free will choices of his creation.

          What if I strongly suspected a terrorist cell was going to blow up a kindergarten full of children and I failed to warn the authorities so that they could stop the attack ?

          If the law found out I withheld important information that could have thwarted the attack you can be damn sure that in the eyes of the law I would be held partially responsible for the deaths of the children.

          So according to your god-logic if I simply stated to the judge that it was actually the free will of the terrorists to commit acts of murder and even though the bloodshed was AGAINST MY DESIRES …..then that would absolve me of the guilt of having done nothing to prevent the killing ?

          That’s some twisted thinking.

        • It is not for man to judge God, but for God to judge man. He created mankind to be His children and friends, not mindless robots – hence the gift of free will and that spark of creativity “in His image”.

          You have apparently made your choice in your disbelief, and all I can say is, you will have to live with the ultimate consequences of your choice. I’m sorry for you. I have to say, though, that you are acting as “tolerant” towards my beliefs as any liberal that ever walked.

        • uncommon_sense, one last question and you can have the last word since TTAG is not a religious forum:

          A.) The biblical narrative clearly shows that a sin nature is NOT required for disobedience to occur. ( Lucifer was once a sinless angel who lived in God’s presence; Adam and Eve were created without a sin nature and enjoyed unhindered access to God. They later exercised their free will and lost their sinless status. )

          B.) If TRUE free will carries with it the option of choosing to disobey God, will you still have free will in heaven ?

          C.) If you believe that God will allow the saints to retain free will in Heaven but will somehow keep them from choosing to forfeit their sinlessness, then why wouldn’t God just do that from the very beginning instead of having to later shovel billions of souls of people that he purportedly loves into the fires of hell ?

          Seems like an incredibly wasteful system for a being that is incapable of making mistakes.

          EDIT: uncommom_sense, this is in reply to your post at 21:29. My post is out of sequence. Sorry.

        • PDW,

          Again, I am honestly impressed. I wish everyone would ponder and analyze as much as you have … and ask such truly profound questions. Here is the best analytical response that comes to mind on short notice! And keep in mind that complete answers to such questions require a lot more than a couple paragraphs. I hope my thoughts give you some ideas and inspiration.

          A.) The biblical narrative clearly shows that a sin nature is NOT required for disobedience to occur.

          I totally agree.

          B.) If TRUE free will carries with it the option of choosing to disobey God, will you still have free will in heaven?

          An excellent question and I do not have an authoritative answer off the top of my head. The only “logical” answer (off the top of my head) is the exact premise of your next question.

          C.) If you believe that God will allow the saints to retain free will in Heaven but will somehow keep them from choosing to forfeit their sinlessness, then why wouldn’t God just do that from the very beginning instead of having to later shovel billions of souls of people that he purportedly loves into the fires of hell?

          Seems like an incredibly wasteful system for a being that is incapable of making mistakes.

          Some thoughts:
          First and foremost, our finite minds are trying to grasp the infinite God. We obviously grasp a great deal about God’s nature, motivations, and creation. Nevertheless, there will be some concepts that are beyond our grasp. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to say that humans will not fully understand and agree with everything with respect to God. Having said that, let us see how close we can get.

          Your closing questions/comments …

          Why not skip straight to a Heaven condition where the saints have free will and God somehow ensures that the the saints retain sinlessness? It could be as simple as the fact that God exudes love, righteousness (holiness), peace, and tranquility — and cannot be immediately surrounded with ongoing dissension and rejection … any more so than you can be surrounded with 500 degree air. A physical creation is somewhat separated from Heaven (God’s immediate spiritual presence) and allows some level of ongoing dissension and rejection.

          Furthermore, God’s physical creation arrangement (which allows some level of ongoing dissension and rejection) allows people to have ample time and opportunity to ultimately choose Him. If we sealed our eternal fate in one instant with one single mistake — without any future opportunities to restore our future with God — everyone would go to Hell.

          Here is yet another important aspect. Even if God’s nature allowed souls who reject Him to be in His immediate spiritual presence, forcing those souls to stay with God for eternity is cruel in its own right. It would be equivalent to forcing a woman to spend eternity in close proximity to a person who viciously raped her or mutilated and murdered her children. Rather, God lets them go which is, if you think about it, the kind thing to do. And what about God? Wouldn’t it be cruel to insist that God keep souls who reject Him and hate him to stay in close proximity to Him?

          Of course some people will ask, “Why does God send souls who reject him to a torturous eternity in Hell? Why doesn’t God send souls who reject him to an alternate Heaven separated from God?” One simple possible answer: it is a package deal. God is love, righteousness, peace, tranquility, and beauty. Absence from God means an absence of love, righteousness, peace, tranquility, and beauty. Souls who reject God and demand that they spend eternity separated from God will get their wish — and their wish includes being separated from love, righteousness, peace, tranquility, and beauty.

          Think of God and His Heaven like a beautiful desert oasis in the midst of a brutal and barren desert. If you choose God, you will be with God in that beautiful desert oasis with cool water springs, soft grass, shade trees, and abundant fruit. If you reject God, you will be in that brutal and barren desert — suffering unrelenting heat, thirst, and hunger every day and unrelenting cold, thirst, and hunger every night. Choose wisely.

      • Rich K, be truthful, the thought of my eternal torment wouldn’t cause you the slightest consternation and your expression of pity is simply religious protocol and superficial at best.

        The fact that you feel victimized by my simple examination of your beliefs, i.e. “intolerance”, expresses the pathetic tendency among Christians to covet martyr status.

        The fact that you completely ignored my point about free will is telling.

        God is OMNIPOTENT therefore evil cannot exist unless God ALLOWS it to exist. Man’s free will is still subordinate to GOD’S FREE WILL.

        • PDW,

          There cannot be friendship, fellowship, and love if there is no free will. If God uses his omnipotence to force us to conform to his will in every way, then there is no free will and there is no friendship, fellowship, or love with Him.

          I also see your point that it is extremely hard to accept God when He allows people to exercise their free agency and cause suffering to others. Please keep in mind that people causing other people to suffer is NOT God’s design. Rather, it is an artifact of sin in our world.

          And you are right to recognize that there is no simple easy way to put all of this into a neat little package. Again, that is because some people choose to abuse their free will and apply it to the detriment of others.

          Thank you for seriously trying to understand and sharing your perspective. And I really mean that. I completely respect someone who doesn’t see things the same way that I do when they have a reasoned approach and disagree respectfully.

      • Binder
        Playing the race card??? You sir are weak. You need to get educated on the more radical gun activist in this world. Martin Luther King, Wilberforce, etc., etc, these people set others free. Your godless leaders Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Che, and Mao took guns away from people and killed tens of millions. Here are some examples of the more radical people fighting for civil rights.
        Reverend Kenn Blanchard
        A Pastor Wearing Camo: Thoughts on the propriety of hunting as a Christian
        1. Talking Guns with Mrs. Armed Lutheran
        2. A Time To Kill
        3. Don’t Shoot! That Home Invader Might Be Jesus
        God and Guns podcast, and everything else on the network.

        As for myself this black gunowner moved out of the most racist slave state of California to the free state of Kentucky. Here are some of the reasons why I left the @ss hole of America, California.
        How black people lost their gun civil rights.
        The Black Panther Party for self-defense in 1967, explaining the second amendment.

        I have no issues with the Panther capital protest, just as people like you have no problem with white people burning a cross on a black person’s front lawn. Both are free speech. The Jewish lawyers of the ACLU said so.
        I say, “Make America great again President Trump”!!!!!

  27. No. They’ll refine their message and churn out new euphemisms for gun control, but disarming the populace will remain their goal forever.

    The best of them, which is to say the least bad, may genuinely believe that regular people are stupid, unstable, and reckless, and so shouldn’t be allowed to own firearms. The other 99% of them either explicitly want a dictatorship, or just want socialism and for people to be broken of any nasty self-reliance habits.

    Regardless, they can’t show their complete hand until the deed is done.

  28. We’re talking about a group of people who crammed Obamacare down our throats without even reading the bill, and continue to tell us that it makes healthcare “affordable,” despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Facts don’t matter to them. Their strength is in identity politics, favoring several classes of supposedly oppressed people, despite the fact that some of those groups hate each other.

    The shrewd Democrats will not campaign on gun control. They will avoid the issue and tell us they believe in the Second Amendment. Then after the election they will go back to making more unconstitutional laws.

  29. These days any Missouri Democrat who runs for statewide office has to be pretty gun friendly. It certainly didn’t help them in the last election though. Both the gubernatorial candidate, who was endorsed over the Republican by the NRA, and the Senate candidate, who put out an ad of him assembling an AR-15 blindfolded, were soundly beaten in the election. A shame too, because both were much better choices than their opponents.

  30. Uff.

    I used to refer people to this site for rational discourse with reasonable people about gun control. In fact, the early days of this site are what helped me form my more nuanced opinions on guns and gun ownership, but these days this place is just… not worth slogging through the bigotry and the name calling to talk to the few people left who can still type without sputtering rage foam all over the keyboard. The signal-to-noise ratio has skewed 90 to 10 in the complete opposite direction of what it used to be. The fuckwits who think “libtard” is cutting edge humor have taken over.

    It sucks.

    I hope the money is worth it, Robert. Click bait and Breitbart-type hysteria writing. You’re Boch’s bitch now.

    • NIcely put. I, for one, am abundantly tired of the “Three Glocks that come in black colors” or “Three Reasons you Need to Click this LInk.” I used to visit the site multiple times a day, and read every single article. I now hit is less than half as often and maybe read a couple of articles.

      When I do read the comments, I feel like I need to disinfect my monitor after some of the illiterate commentary posted here lately. Armed Intelligentsia? That was an arrogant and boastful claim to begin with, but a joke lately.

      • Given the increase in volume and voracity of the types of comments you mention, which I’d agree have increased, I’m frankly inclined to think many if not most are paid agent provocateurs. I’ve taken to calling them on their bullshit…excuse me, I mean challenging them on their intentions.
        If nothing else, it’s an opportunity to remind them that the rights lots of us long time readers love dearly and are here to defend apply to the same people they’d speak so poorly of.

    • Given the increase in volume and voracity of the types of comments you mention, which I’d agree have increased, I’m frankly inclined to think many if not most are paid agent provocateurs. I’ve taken to calling them on their bullshit…excuse me, I mean challenging them on their intentions.
      If nothing else, it’s an opportunity to remind them that the rights lots of us long time readers love dearly and are here to defend apply to the same people they’d speak so poorly of.
      That said, I believe there are still plenty of people here who are thoughtful commentators and are still worth the read…though I do avoid the “Three Reasons…” list posts like the plague.

  31. This sums up why it is incredibly important to get your non-white non-male friends out to the range and involved in gun culture. Democrats don’t give a crap about getting the white male vote but if minorities and women start to leave their party due to gun issues you better believe they will quickly change their tune.

  32. It depends on what motivates the Democrats. Some are true believers in their non-sense and will not change. Others, who above all else desire power, will do whatever it takes to accrete power to themselves. This may include moderating on gun control to maintain power.

    But ultimately, those who above all else desire power will want to disarm the civilian population because an armed populace is power they cannot control. They understand Chairman Mao’s statement that all political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

  33. Yes, but only after the leadership, all of which is super old, dies of old age (shouldn’t take more than 20 years).

  34. When faced with unpopular policies and losses of power in the past, the Democrats claimed that their messaging was inadequate. Basically, that the voters didn’t get it. That, or that the voters were driven by something bad–racism, Islamophobia, irrational fear, etc. Based upon this, one suspects that they will do the same in the future. In other words, they will retain their policies and refocus on their messaging.

  35. In the immediate and short terms probably not. Over the long term, possibly, but it will reflect a change of the party rather than just a plank in that party’s platform.

    The issue at this point is that the party lurched to the Left under Obama and the leadership of people who started out in the 1960’s and 1970’s and quite frankly never grew out of that era. Congresscritters generally reflect their district or state to a large degree. The result of “the lurch” was the slaughter of moderate Democrats because they couldn’t justify their party’s position to their constituents. This has created a party made up almost entirely of far Left Democrats who come from reliably blue districts or states. It doesn’t matter how far Left they are to their constituents because those people are generally pretty far Left or, in some cases just Blue for the point of being Blue.

    It’s been said by many people about both parties that “I didn’t leave the Party the Party left me”. That’s what’s happened to the Democrats. That problem is compounded by the fact that Party leadership is mainly old-line Lefties from decades past. These are the folks David Horowitz has written of as being a bunch of literal Communists with largely anti-American points of view. They’ve held their point of view for 50 years and they aren’t going to change. The problem is further compounded by the younger folks, indoctrinated in modern high schools and colleges, who have no real world experience but still have a vote who believe someone like “The Bern” is the change that the Party needs when that’s really just moving to a different flavor of the same sort of Leftist radicalism.

    So, I don’t see it changing until the Party has spent some significant time in “the wilderness” and more mainstream thinking has replaced what we see today. When Fauxahontus is the Democrats crazy aunt that they keep in the attic you’ll know things have changed. As long as she continues to say the kind of things she said yesterday and earn no rebuke at all things will continue the way they are now.

    In a way this is similar to not taking a full course of antibiotics. You kill off most of the bacteria but the resistant ones survive. The difference here is that they don’t rapidly multiply.

  36. Considering they need to take our guns in order to fulfill their vision for America, no. They’ll never stop. They will also never compromise unless they’re not really giving anything up – their idea of compromise is they only get some of what they want and we still don’t get anything we want.

  37. I could see them dropping it as a campaign issue, and even telling their wholly-owned Astroturf community organizers to tone it down a bit – but only to see if they can recapture some centrist votes. Once back in the majority, the gun control would come back like a swarm of locusts.

  38. Guns and immigration are pretty much the only two places where the establishment left differs from our current president, since they’re all in favor of central planning as an economic system.

    As such, they sort of have to dig in on the gun issue just so they can say they stand for something. That’s how the left operates, it digs up sob stories and uses them to win the sympathies of the voters. Sadly, guns seem to be a feature, in one way or another, of a lot of sob stories. That’s not to say that the majority of them wouldn’t occur even in the absence of guns, but it’s an easy strawman to construct.

    A good example of this is from the recent presidential election: Politifact,, Snopes, etc all went out of their way to explain that Hillary didn’t believe in total civilian disarmament…… at the same time that Hillary was saying that the supreme court decision that affirmed the right of citizens to keep weapons in their homes was radical and horrifically misdecided. This being the same person that espoused the virtues of having “public and private opinions on every policy issue” (paraphrased because I CBA to find the transcript). Why? Because a conscious decision was made to prioritize the “emotional appeal” over the rational one.

  39. They will never give up but gun rights are inevitable. Alphabetically they come right after gay rights.

  40. The problem is that the democratic party is increasingly urban and centralized in self-selected areas- NYC, San Fransisco, etc. Guns are foreign to them, and it’s not a big enough loser of an issue. There just aren’t that many people voting GOP just because of guns.

  41. As a former Democrat, I have zero faith that they will drop their attacks on the 2A. As long as establishment derpfaces like Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker, DiFi, DWS, etc control the party things will never change. FFS, the Dems just “elected” Perez as the new DNC chair.

    In the meantime, I’ll keep doing what I can to add my Liberal friends to the 2A supporter side (I’ve converted 5 so far).

    • What are YOU willing to trade in support for the 2A? Will you vote for a pro-gun democrat if it means he or she will never, ever accept restrictions on reproductive choice (just an example)?

      Many republicans should really consider which issues are most important to them. Is immigration more important to you than the Second Amendment?

  42. Nope, as long as there are suburban, middle class, moralizing soccer moms there will be various social crusades for enterprising authoritarians (ie politicians) to exploit for their own gain. Gun control is merely the latest moral panic. First it was booze, then it was pot, comic books, porn, violent movies, video games and now guns. It has little to do with actual death (and certainly nothing to do with crime), its all about recreational outrage.

    • “Recreational outrage”, GD that sums up the disingenuous tantrums of the zombies SOOOOO well. Thank you!

      • You’re welcome. I wish that I could take credit for it. Joe Rogan has used it in a few of his podcastst, it’s been in my verbal Rolodex ever since.

  43. Ok, here goes – listen up, republicans.

    I am a democrat. I don’t capitalize political party names because those stupid names are supposed to be descriptions. Not tribes.

    I am a pro-gun democrat. But, the right-wing doesn’t leave any room for us. NRA? How much #$%^&*ing money are you going to never, ever, ever send to any democrat no matter how pro-gun he or she is? AND how long will you continue to forget that you are supposed to be a GUN rights organization?

    Abortion: I’m for it ON DEMAND.
    Immigration: OPEN the borders-my great, great grandparents didn’t have papers so I am not interested in requiring anyone else to either. Come on in.
    Trump: Impeach him. Or try him for treason.

    FIREARMS: Leave the %^&(ing Second Amendment ALONE.

    But as long as GUN RIGHTS organizations will only support right-wing politicians, the left-wing politicians WILL NOT BE ABLE TO COMPETE without accepting support from anti-gunners.

    You want democrats to stop being monolithically anti-gun? You are going to have to support politicians that you may not agree with on a whole boatload of other issues. Until then people like me (and yes, I have been elected to office in the past), get shoved to the side. And, frankly, a few pro-gun democrats could do more for Second Amendment rights than double their number in republicans. A few pro-gun democrats could, for example, break a filibuster in the U.S. Senate.

    • If you are as you describe, you’re a one-off, 3 sigma away from the normal distribution. No one can or would bank on you in terms of elections. If you have been elected, it could not have been to anything major. But you do have one thing is common with the “typical” lefty – you think that other people think like you do, or at least they should be made to think like you do. Just because you combine the acceptance of the dictatorship of the proletariat with gun ownership, please don’t make the mistake of thinking that other socialists will ever accept that oxymoronic combination. Throughout the entire history of modern socialism (from the early 20th century), that combination has always been an anathema. Your one of a kind view will not change neither the past, nor the future history on this subject.

      • You goofballs need to adjust your political spectrum for windage AND elevation, otherwise you’re gonna keep shooting your neighbors. You mistakenly think all leftists are authoritarian so you’re fighting boogiemen who don’t actually exist. Democrats, and to a lesser extent Social Democrats (Bernie), are authoritarian, and both are fundamentally rejected by actual lowercase c communists like me.

        I know that you like it simple so here it is: Decentralize all power, both political and corporate.

        Otherwise do you really care if the mercenary army that’s coming to take your grandchildren’s shit was sent by Chelsea Clinton or WALMART? Makes no difference to me. It’s the same fight and we’re in the same boat.

        You don’t want to take my shit, and I don’t want to take your shit, so how is it that we are ideological enemies exactly?

        • So, you’re telling me that you’re a communist, but not in favor of authoritarian control? May I recommend further education before you start making more contradictory statements? But I will give you a bit of a benefit of the doubt and correct your terminology – you seem to be more in line with the Anarchist movement. But fear not, for if you carefully analyze the Anarchist movement, both historical and its philosophical basis, you will see that the result of anarchy is always totalitarian control and despotism. There has never been an exception, nor will ever be. It is a logical result of anarchy. Back to the voting issue that you brought up – the percentage of anarchists (not just people that participate in violent demonstrations, break and burn up property and attack bystanders, but those that actually understand and subscribe to the philosophy) is very small and can be considered insignificant when it comes to voting. Less than Jill Stein supporters.

  44. I’m an actual leftist, as in I’m a straight up libertarian communist and I actively support your right to own a gun. Democrats are merely centrists. Democrats are just neutered republicans, they are all right of center, and all believe in corporate welfare. Neither party has anything for you.

    The commies you fantasize about don’t exist. The ones who do exist practice small, decentralized government like in Rojava while fighting ISIS.

    • You really do need to get your terminology in order. A Libertarian is one who believes in individual rights. A Communist believes that only the society, the commune, has any rights. A Libertarian exists for the benefit of himself; a Communist exists for the benefit of the society or the commune. The two are polar opposites. What you have said in your comment is a total mumbo-jumbo-jibberish.

      • Anarcho communists like Bakhunin were fighting Marx from the very beginning. You’re the one who needs to read up on some things. Trotsky, a capital C state Communist betrayed the anarchists in Spain AND Ukraine. There is more to politics than whatever tea party bitcoin UFO blogs you crawled out from. Your perception of the political compass is this weird diagonal binary line. You know it’s the whole four quadrant left/right up/down thing right?

        You are not an antiauthoritarian if you are a corporatist. If you believe in millionaires deserving welfare then you are not a true libertarian.

        • Ok, this is getting far off the 2A topic, but I’m enjoying it. So, you idolize Bakhunin. Of course, like Marx, he died before his ideas killed millions, but he did lay the foundation. Naturally, for some (you may be among those), the communist experiment needs to be repeated again and again, for they just can’t figure out how something that appears so beautiful can kill millions, over and and over and over again. I guess that they just never learn that fairies do bite. The Anarchists in Spain did not need anyone’s betrayal – they have summarily murdered enough on their own. Not that Franco was any better, but if they were, they would had support of the population – which they did not, at least not after the Anarchists had their fun. Oh, btw, George Orwell wrote “1984” after he spent some time and fought on the side of the Communists and the Anarchists in Spain; he was well convinced of their holiness… As to the definitions – a true Libertarian stands for the freedom of an individual – to say what he desires, to do what he desires (not hurting others, of course) and to keep what he earns. If an individual earns millions, that individual keeps millions – that is the Libertarian philosophy. When others come along and say that, in their opinion, he is keeping too much of his earnings and must share it with others, otherwise we’ll shoot him – that is communism, as you propose and support. So, make a choice – do you want other people’s money, effort and time, or is an individual free to say, do and retain what he earns? Do you support slavery or freedom? Or do you support slavery only for those that deserve it?

        • alexander, calm down bud. I idolize no one, Bakhunin’s atheist rants against the state didn’t kill any millions, and Orwell admitted he would have rather fought for the anarchists than the Communists, if he had known better at the time.

          And do you honestly, seriously, have the nerve to call out individual crimes in societies made up of millions of people? You’re implying that those crimes are representative of the whole? You want to give capitalism a look with that same lens? No? How about Samuel Colt, while we’re here? Erik Prince? Tell me more about that slavery and freedom. Don’t think I’m just pointing a finger back at you, the point is that we’re in the same boat.

          I’m the one trying to keep real ANTIFA from fighting random Trump supporters, and embrace the Tea Party as the same disenfranchised, underrepresented people. This is still on topic because the democratic party is a failure of neoliberalism, and things like the 2nd amendment tie us together, left and right.

          The difference between me and you is that if you came to my house to steal my TV, I’d ask you to put it back. However, if I did that to you, you would shoot me. That’s the difference.

        • I like your example of the involuntary removal of the TV. To quote you: “The difference between me and you is that if you came to my house to steal my TV, I’d ask you to put it back. However, if I did that to you, you would shoot me. That’s the difference.” Now, let’s play out the scenario to its conclusion. Let’s say you do ask me to put it back. But I don’t. Now what? (Love that phrase from “Finding Nemo”!) Will you accept the fate that you’ve just been raped, or do you put on the other hat and shoot me back? Now what is the difference between you and I?
          As to the number of casualties that Marx and Bakunin are responsible for? Well, technically, neither killed anyone. Neither did Hitler. You can take it from there. But, please educate us as to how many people capitalism killed and how many people did capitalism raise out of poverty, misery, slavery and starvation? I’m all ears.
          And I agree with you regarding the failings of the Democratic Party (socialist/communist party, to be correct). I just don’t think that Anarchy or idealized communes are the answer. (Nor is the crony capitalism of the GOP, of course). I would be much closer to the original version of a Libertarian, until the Libertarian Party went off into the left field and became an adjunct of the Socialist Party USA.

        • “Democratic Party (socialist/communist party, to be correct)” that’s balls out crazy. That’s crazier than saying Catholics, Protestants and the Westboro Baptist Church are all the same thing. The democratic party backstabbed the only socialist that was running, so they’re socialist? The failings of the democratic party ARE freemarket capitalism. If comrade Hillary gave a shit about any of us we would have had single payer healthcare. I wish I lived in your fantasy.

          It’s more nuanced than this enormous boogeyman of “the left”. Also, really? You’re going to throw Bakhunin in with Hitler? Kropotkin is Hitler, Murray Bookchin is Hitler, everybody is getting down and doing the Funky Hitler, teens love this new dance.

          You know who Hitler thought was a lot like Hitler? Henry fucking Ford, son

  45. Some dems will, but their are many reps that won’t remember, it is about control of the populace. The only reason the reps put up with it is to get the votes that would otherwise vote Dem. We really need to scrap the 2 party system in this country and have a party that represents the working Americans with families.
    Giving so much power to splinter organizations has ruined the Dem party.

  46. No.

    The democratic party has long since determined it can win by puzzle pieces. Grab a minority from here and a fringe group from over there. Of course, the gun control movement is a central part of that. By piecing these demographics together, the left doesn’t need to rely on an overwhelming majority of evil white and/or conservative voters in order to win. It’s a proven winner.

    Now the reason it won’t stop is because they refuse to acknowledge the last election cycle. Most of the pundits are convinced they did nothing wrong to have deserved the curb stomp the left received. To point, they received a similar spanking in 2010 when they lost the house and senate. Was there change then? Did they redraw their battleplan for the 2016 elections? NOPE.

    TLDR; This sh*t works for as long as we field lukewarm moderates with no vision or backbone. Why change a winning formula?

  47. Using this logic would a black owned bakery be legally compelled to bake a cake for the KKK? Or could you compel a Jewish owned bakery to bake a cake for the local Hitler youth club?

    • Using logic – yes, but the only logic that the socialist have ever used, throughout all nations and ages, is that the Party is always right. There is a reason why socialist countries do not have constitutions or, if they have them, they are for show only (like Stalin’s constitution, which was very similar to the US Constitution, but wasn’t exactly followed…). They prefer a parliamentary system, where laws are created and deleted at will. Whichever group is protected or privileged at the time gets the cake.

    • Yep. If one of the groups in question walks into your bakery with the “Open” sign hanging over the door, you are obligated to sell them the same cake you would sell to any other paying customer. If they ask you to bake a cake in the shape of a white hood or a swastika, you may refuse. And you may tell them to write “White Power” on it their damnselves.

      • Unfortunately, that is not how the law is written or applied. If writing anything on a cake is one of your services, you are obliged to sell the cake with the writing of their choice. However, if the group is one that the socialists do not like, they simply consider it a group that has no right to exist and, therefore, it doesn’t exist. Verstehen?

        • That’s exactly what the ADL sponsored hate crime legislation codified into law…politically favored groups.

        • Granted, it has been roughly 13 years since I last studied business law, but my understanding is thus:

          If you advertise a product or service to the general public, you must provide that product or service as advertised.

          Therefore, if a gay couple walks into your bakery and requests a 3-tiered cake pictured in your ad for $399.99, you must sell them that cake. If your ad indicates custom lettering is available for $3.00 per letter, you better throw in an asterisk and “Some restrictions may apply.” That way, if they ask you to write “God Loves Fags” on the cake, you can refuse.

          Custom design work falls under a different set of rules. At that point, you have every right to choose who you will service, and you can protect your religious beliefs, artistic integrity, etc. to your heart’s content.

          That is how the law should be written. If it is not, then it needs to be changed. You seem overly obsessed with the socialist agenda. While I too have concerns with the “progressive” goals, especially where they concern eroding our freedoms in the name of warm fuzzies, my primary concern is protecting freedom for EVERYONE. I have a right to buy a cake as advertised. You have a right to buy a cake as advertised. Gays have a right to buy a cake as advertised. Assholes have a right to buy a cake as advertised.

        • First, a clarification of my “obsession” with the socialist agenda. Some people call it Progressive, or Liberal, or Democrat, or Freedom Fighter – but the terms are convoluted on purpose. The real term is Socialist, that is a person who believes in the primacy of the State. The value of an individual is measured only as it relates to the State; there are no individual rights, wants or needs. That is the antithesis of freedom. There are only two options known to humans to this date (maybe we’ll devise more eventually) – Individual Freedom, which can only occur through, or in conjunction with, economic freedom, or the State beehive, where individuals exist for the benefit of the State (and where some bees are more equal than others, of course). So, its not so much of an “obsession,” but an insistence on calling things by their proper names.

          Now, as to the case with the Baker, I think that your parsing of the issue into standard service or custom service, etc., is overlooking clear and obvious violations of the First Amendment (as demonstrated by my earlier post), but also the Tenth Amendment, which is perhaps an even more egregious violation. The 10th specifically limits the power of the Federal government to what is enumerated and allowed in the Constitution and nothing more. What the Federal government did here (as in many other cases, as well), was a treasonous usurpation of power from the people, as egregious as what old George III did.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here