Previous Post
Next Post


TTAG reader Pascal writes:

As I am up this morning making Easter breakfast I glanced at my phone to view my news reader app. I came across is this from FoxNews: NY GOP Rep. King unsure about White House run, but campaign message appears fully formed. The trial balloon (in the shape of an article) reveals that “New York GOP Rep. Peter King is undecided about a 2016 presidential run and starkly behind the presumptive front-runners when it comes to fundraising and organization. But the 11-term congressman clearly has a full-fledged campaign to convince Americans the government must remain vigilant against the constant threat of terror and to warn them about the GOP being overtaken by what he considers the party’s isolationist wing — led by likely White House hopefuls Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.” Really? The POG may remember King as . . .

the GOP House Rep of NY who sponsored the NY SAFE Act in the House. Before that blessed event, in April 2013, King recorded a gun control ad for the New York’s Democratic Party that’s since disappeared (the ad not the party) wherein he said the following:

My father was a New York City cop and I’ve been a Republican my entire life, but if there’s one issue that should not be about politics, it’s common-sense gun regulation. Strong legislation is what’s needed for our country, our communities and our children—the kind of bi-partisan law that Governor Cuomo passed in New York. By standing up to extremists, he passed the toughest gun law in the country. Now Washington needs to show the same courage and bipartisan leadership that Governor Cuomo did in New York, because our safety is too important for politics.

Later that year, after the unSAFE Act passed (twenty-minutes after being introduced without the usual three-day waiting period), King PERSONALLY presented Governor Andrew M. Cuomo with the Allard K. Lowenstein Award for Public Service for his “leadership” in the battle to disarm Americans. This is how New Yorkers Against Gun Violence described the honor:

Introduced at the event by Congressman Peter King–a Republican and sponsor of H.R. 1565, the House’s gun background check bill–Governor Cuomo spoke passionately about how gun laws like NY SAFE are just common sense, and that one’s right to have a gun does not override one’s right to be safe. While some have claimed that the NY SAFE Act was passed too soon– just a month after the Sandy Hook shootings–the Governor said it was in fact passed too late. How many lives would have been saved if such a strong gun safety law had been passed years before?”

And now King wants a run at the White House.

While he is WAY behind in funding and polls, if King gets a single nomination vote, it will be far too many. This is the kind of BS we, the POG, need to be watchful for in this coming election year. Now that many POG have taken the domain names of Everytown(state-abbr) we should be outing these people as no friends of ours. They should have no voice.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I hope this helps bang through some of the thicker skulls in our audience that simply having a R next to one’s name does not make him or her our ally anymore than having a D makes one our enemy.

    • Granted, having an R next to your name does not make you a friend of the 2nd amendment, but I’d have to view anyone with a D by his name and claims to be pro 2nd amendment with suspicion. Why would you choose to associate yourself with and caucus with the most rabid anti-rights zealots when you disagree with their zealotry? Further, if you believe in the right to keep and bear arms, you must believe in individual empowerment, which is the antithesis of the whole progressive philosophy. I’d say that for every truly pro-gun Democrat there are at least 10 pretending to be what they aren’t.

      • I am certainly not saying that there aren’t a LOT of dems that hate guns. I am simply saying that, before walking into the voting booth, one might want to whip out the smart phone and do 10 minutes of research before making a decision. I know this sounds intuitive to the point of insulting for some people, but it is truly frightening how often people will vote for a person they have literally never heard of before they saw his or her name on the ballot.

        • I get sick of hearing people telling stupid people to go vote. If you don’t appreciate your privilege enough to educate yourself do us all a favor and DON’T vote – you’re just taking away the vote of someone who did do his research. That goes for more than just 2nd amendment rights too.

      • Economically conservative, socially liberal (permissive) libertarians can often go either way. I’m not much of a fan of the oppressive big-government policies of many neoconservatives. The last Republican presidency was a disaster for America and the world. On some issues I identify more with the Democratic Party than with the Republicans, and sometimes enough to vote Democratic. While I am disgusted by the Democratic Party and their platform, I have registered myself as a Democrat so that I can vote in my local Democratic primary. I do so because in my district, Democrats always win in a landslide (usually about 90-10) and the election happens in the Democratic primary. In the general election, most of the local voters just look for the (D). If someone wants to get elected in my area, they run as a Democrat no matter what they believe. So, at least in certain highly partisan districts, there are valid reasons someone who does not support or condone the Democratic Party platform might be vote for or be registered as a Democrat. If I live in a Republican dominated district I’ll register as a Republican to vote in the primary without reservation. When it comes to the general election, party is irrelevant to me. I’ve been registered as a Democrat my entire voting life yet I’m proud to say I have never voted for a Democrat for President.

        • Usually the areas that are dominated by a single party are that way more because of cultural biases than policy. People in the northeast don’t want anything to do with the beer guzzling NASCAR fans they associate with Republicans and in the south they don’t want to identify with the cheese eating beta males they associate with the Democratic party. Libertarians mostly break on the issue of abortion, which is really more of a scientific disagreement than a political one – no one believes it’s OK to kill your baby, it’s the definition of a ‘baby’ that the two sides disagree on. Fiscally, any libertarian has to detest the liberal Democrat policies.

          Makes sense to put your vote to work though, even if that means registering Dem. Do your homework and don’t trust a single one of the bastards though. (And that goes for Republicans too.)

        • “it’s the definition of a ‘baby’ that the two sides disagree on. ”

          Actually, it’s about property rights. Who is the owner of you and your organs?

        • Our disagreement is that I don’t consider a human baby with fingers, toes and it’s own independent heartbeat pumping blood that’s not even the same blood type as his or her mother’s as an ‘organ’. Therefore our disagreement is scientific, not political. I agree, if a woman wants to remove her spleen, it’s none of my damn business. But if we fail to protect the most vulnerable of our kind, what kind of civilization do we have?

        • I see it as much simpler than that. The skin is the final property line.It’s SUPPOSED TO BE the edge of the front yard, or at least the front door, but they’re not honoring that boundary any more, so why should they care about violating the sanctity of your body? Can you really honestly believe that anyone has a “right” to dictate to another person that they MUST use their body to produce something for another person’s benefit? Isn’t that called slavery?

          For Christ’s sake, unless she tells you so, there’s really no legal or moral way to even know that a person is pregnant! Does pregnancy nullify her right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, or taking control of her body without due process?

          Not to mention Amendment 14: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…” (emphasis mine)

        • Again, this is a scientific argument, although I see that at least you’re actually trying now. My (scientific) belief is that a spleen doesn’t have a heartbeat. It doesn’t have it’s own blood type, nor does it have fingerprints. It is neither male nor female. It is an it. A human IS male or female from the instance of conception, having either two X chromosomes or an X and a Y chromosome. He or she develops his or her own heartbeat about 18 days after conception, pumping blood that is frequently it’s own blood type different than his or her mother’s. I could go on, but I think you get the point. Your skin hypothesis is novel, but if you were to accept the nature of a human fetus to be as I do, how would you defend the willful killing of another human being? Granted killing is sometimes justified, but you can’t kill another human simply because you refuse to be inconvenienced. The fact that another human resides inside your skin is not relevant, any more than that human living in your home.

          A human is a human, and just because the person is not recognized as such by any amendments to the constitution does not make the human non-human. Before the 14th amendment people with dark skin were not considered human, a viewpoint even upheld by the Supreme Court in 1857. The constitution is not the ultimate authority on science.

        • Don’t wet yourself playing the drama queen. last Republican presidency was a disaster for America and the world Bush 1/Bush2 were hardly ad “disaster” Either/or certainly RINOs but slightly in the +.

          #2 did MUCH better than I expected. Heck, he was supposed to be the placeholder until could get a REAL conservative elected (when babyboomers started to wise up/croak and the Gen X start to mature). Still waiting. Guy at least showed he had a backbone and a bit improvement over Billbob. But then came the emaculated One

        • Rich, as to your 4th amendment objection, the police have no right to search my home without cause either. If I had 26 young boys buried in my crawlspace would the fourth amendment invalidate any laws against murder? Should John Wayne Gacy walked away a free man because his 4th amendment rights were violated?

        • ” If I had 26 young boys buried in my crawlspace would the fourth amendment invalidate any laws against murder?”

          Now you’re using the same extreme strawman tactics used by the antigun nuts.

          If you’ve committed homicide, then you’re a murderer. But no one has jurisdiction over the inside of any other existing person’s body.

          If government power doesn’t stop at the skin, then we might as well all don our swastika armbands and start marching the goose step.

        • That’s not a straw man, that was John Wayne Gacy.

          My point is that while I agree that the government has no cause to inspect my or anyone else’s body without specific, credible evidence that I have committed a crime, that really is no different than my home. Or for that matter (back to the straw men), what if I had 26 bags of heroin stashed up my keister. Under certain circumstances the government has the right to look up there, and that’s no less invasive than any other orifice. Evidence must come first. Pregnancy is no more evidence of an abortion than gun ownership is of murder.

          Also you seem to be ignoring the fact that beyond the first few days, it’s never the mother that actually takes the life of the child, it’s an abortion ‘doctor’. If you accept the humanity of the fetus than the abortion doctor is no different than a contract killer. There’s no need to go looking into any bodily orifices to investigate that.

        • “That’s not a straw man, that was John Wayne Gacy. ”

          Which has absolutely nothing to do abortion, and is therefore a total strawman.

          It is HER BODY. It is HER PROPERTY. What she puts into, or takes out of, HER OWN BODY is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!!!

          It’s about Property Rights, the protection of which are really the only excuse for government in the first place!

          If you can’t even grasp the fact that whatever is inside of a person’s skin is their own property, under their absolute control and not subject to your whim, then I give up.

        • Yes, it is about property rights. And so was Dred Scott. ( )

          Speaking of under a person’s skin, I believe I’ve successfully gotten under yours. Your 4th amendment arguments fall flat in the face of a murder investigation, and you’ve made no serious attempt at convincing me that there is a scientific reason to consider a human fetus to be something other than human. Perhaps we should take a break from this and you can look into the science and we can pick it up another time.

        • “convincing me that there is a scientific reason to consider a human fetus to be something other than human”

          I’m talking about existing humans, that you can see and touch. Discrete individual bags of skin, with a definite, observable, documentable, measurable, tangible boundary, the penetration of which, by any means, including X-ray or ultrasound, without the expressed consent of the owner of that particular walking, breathing body, is assault and battery.

          Dictating that she MUST, at your or the tyrant’s behest, carry an unwanted fetus to full term and birth it against her will is slavery.

        • “Rich–at some point the fetus develops skin, no? Does that not count?”

          There is no way to know that without penetrating the skin of a person who is already there.

          But you slavers don’t even acknowledge that women are human beings, do you?

    • He’s republican like Bloomberg, Arnold, and Christie are. As in, not really. They live in some weird anti-reality bubble. I don’t think he even realizes how much the people in the free states hate him and his kind.

      • Those are the real republicans. The party was founded by former whigs as a party of centralized, top-down, favor-trading, cronyists.

        People like the doctors Paul are the exception.

        • Dr. Ron only wore the R in ’08 so that he could get on the ballot. He’s a Libertarian at heart. And Rand is vocally Anti-Choice, which makes him unacceptable.

    • As little Mikey Bloomberg showed us all too well – there is no legal criteria for deciding which party you claim to belong to, even when running for office. And aside for disavowing you in the press, even the RNC cannot force you to take the (R) off of your campaign literature.

      Politicians LIE. If a Progressive believes he will be better served/elected by claiming to be a Republican, that is exactly what he will do. And it is not unheard of for Liberals and Progressives to enter a primary as an erstwhile member of the other party for the sole purpose of muddying the water and diluting the vote for the front runner.

  2. He couldn’t win the GOP primary in his own state. Frankly, before this article, I would listed Mark Kirk and Peter King as the mostly like GOP congressmen to switch parties.

    • True. Unfortunately the RINO list in the Senate is longer.

      King wouldn’t have the stones to show up in Iowa for the Primary season.

  3. Ha Ha Ha. No way KING. You might as well be a Liberal Democrat in my mind. I don’t care what letter you put after your name. You have ZERO shot at being nominated by Republicans. Oh and I HATE NY – because of people like YOU. And Bloomberg and Cuomo. Who want to legislate the People’s Freedoms into non-existence in the name of Safety. You’re a traitor to the Constitution you swore to uphold and protect …so I’m sure Obama has a cabinet level position for you somewhere. Traitor. You can keep your Nanny-State crap. We don’t want it.

  4. Damn. I actually thought the guy had some sense. He won’t be picking up in funding or the polls thanks to me.

  5. He’ll probably win a few votes, if not the whole nomination.

    Why? Because the writings on the wall. If you want to be President, you’ll need to convince the fedora and latte crowd in NYC, Chicago, Baltimore,LA, SF, and DC you’re progressive enough for their vote. If a candidate, GOP or Dem, can’t get the vote of the city slickers, game over.And a prime requirement of the urban electorate is support for gun control.

    The math is clear as much as it is cold. There’s more people in urban California then in my pro-gun state and two of its neighbors combined. Get the city vote, and you get the White House.

    • That may be the case, but first you have to get through the primaries. I don’t think the Republican primary voters are in any mood to support a twat like King. No way he’d make it through the early state primaries like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Ask Rudy Giuliani how having the support of latte-swilling city folk worked out for him.

      • Honestly, I’m just about done with the Republican party. There better be a purge in 2014, and Boehner & Mitch better be gone. He’s been nothing but a collaborator. 3rd most powerful person in the government with the power of the purse and he writes strongly worded letters. The job should go to someone who will use it.

    • All you need is 51% of the vote in about a dozen states to win the Presidential election. That’s the least you can get away with. Florida is purple, PA hasn’t gone red in 20+ years and the Austin types and Catholic Mexicans are shifting Texas to the D side. Once Texas goes Democrat, the GOP will never win another major election ever again.

    • Boehner? Guy can’t even use the house right, plus he’s incompetent and a thug actively sabotaging conservative and Tea party candidates who won’t kiss the ring. They sabotaged Cuccinelli and *tried* to sabotage that one in Florida though he somehow won.

      • That’s the point, as much as I dislike Turtle, Boner, and Act of love, I’d rather have them then this Ape.
        We know Peter, we can’t handle the truth… tough guy.

  6. He’s one of those “no one needs a military-style assault weapon” guys. He has as much a chance of getting the nomination as an anti-same sex marriage Democrat has of winning the Democratic party nomination.

    And that photograph is about as golden as you can get in terms of killing your chances with the GOP.

    It’s a shame because I actually do agree with him on the problem of the GOP’s isolationist wing, which I disagree with, and the need to be vigilant in fighting terror.

    But it seems that when it comes to the GOP, we have to choose between the more isolationist, ultra limited government,, but ultra-pro-gun GOPers, or those favoring a more involved foreign policy to keep terrorism at bay, and limited welfare state (and thus also comfortable for Independents), but who are gun grabbers.

    • “He’s one of those “no one needs a military-style assault weapon” guys.”

      Reagan was also one of those sorts of politicians. He backed the AWB.

    • “But it seems that when it comes to the GOP, we have to choose between the more isolationist, ultra limited government,, but ultra-pro-gun GOPers, or those favoring a more involved foreign policy to keep terrorism at bay, and limited welfare state (and thus also comfortable for Independents), but who are gun grabbers.”

      You’re describing the difference between right-libertarian and right-authoritarian. Right-libertarian is going to be your best bet every time if you want to preserve gun ownership.

  7. Representative Peter King from Long Island is one of the most despicable individuals to occupy a seat in Congress. He is a product of the Republican machine politics on Long Island NY. The same folks that produced the turn coat Sen. Al D’amato and countless other NY slimebags. But there is a unique quality to Petey King. It is a long history of supporting the out and out Communists of the Irish Republican Army. His friends, like Obama, are declared and unapologetic killers. When you read the books of Tom Clancy from the 1980’s and 1990’s he clearly describes the communist terror connections of the IRA. There was a reason Clancy wrote about it. IT WAS WHO WE AND THE WESTERN WORLD FOUGHT. Peter King supported them. Aided them. Raised money for them. Who knows what else he did for them? These same folks that trained with and networked with Badder Meinhoff gang in Germany, Col. Ghaffadi and countless other killers of innocent men, women and children. A who’s who of the worst radical communist revolutionaries of the latter 20th century.

    Peter King himself was declared a terrorist sympathizer by a British Court. To this day he still supports the IRA and their tactics. This is a quote from the following article in the NYTIMES of all places…

    “he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”

    He is without a doubt the purest of scumbags in politics today. I can only hope that folks read about him and pass this information on. How he got his security clearances to head the House Intel committee I have no idea. (Actually I do, but I will leave that to another day).

    • Thanks for posting this — that’s exactly what I came here to do, and you did it better than I could.

      King has somehow managed to be — at the same time — of the most statist members of Congress AND an open and vigorous supporter of terrorism. PATRIOT booster and IRA snuggler. Simply despicable.

    • Thanks for being one of the very few here who really knows who King is. He is the very meaning of hypocrite and scumbag. A terrorist supporter who supports the war on terror(war on the people) and is anti-gun. Can’t get much worse than this guy.

    • Was it W who said if you support Terrorist, then you are a Terrorists?
      Mister King. You are a terrorist. Openly supporting a terrorist group.
      Do you think the British Government will welcome King as President?

    • Thank you for writing that up so I didn’t have to.

      King, along with the Kennedy clan, have a long and sordid record of support for the IRA.

  8. I live in King’s district. He his universally hated by gun owners on Long Island (such who we are). The consummate RINO.

    Peter King has about as much chance of getting the Republican nomination as, … well … Peter King.

    Or, Don King.

  9. Where is this right to be safe I keep hearing about? You are only as safe as you make yourself. You have a constitutionally protected right that is used to increase your level of safety.

    My right to own a gun does not endanger anyone’s safety unless they are trying to harm my family or myself. If I am not hurting someone I should be able to own the type of firearms I want.

    People like Cuomo will sign any restrictive law in the name of safety. You know, Internet blogging is not safe for your health due to long hours sitting behind a computer, therefore it should be banned for your safety.

  10. F**k him. I would give $$ to a democrap running against him just for giggles. Besides, given some of the intelligence committee stuff he has been involved in or knows about (ie, waterboarding, CIA rendition, secret prisons), the liberals will have a field day with him.

    C’mon fat boy – bring it

  11. My Fellow New Yorkers: A big FUAC, and a big FUPK. King will have to switch parties if he wants to progress in his political career.

  12. King represents everything of the Republican party I want nothing to do with. Having him in office is worse than a D, because atleast with an straight-up D it’s easier to marshall opposition.

  13. Getting really tired of this “common sense” dog whistle phrase.

    It’s like that twilight zone or outer limits episode where the programmed / brainwashed people keep repeating this slogan that’s been implanted in their heads.

    However I know the “common sense” chant serves a purpose: to undermine the pro-gun 2a message with a quick and universal two word message.

    But anyone who utters the words still sounds like a brainwashed zombie at this point.

    • It’s the new catch all buzz phrase used to screw people out of their rights. It can mean anything they want it to mean.

  14. Hmm… looks like I can save money by not buying zombie targets anymore. Just print a few copies of that picture and I’m good to go.

  15. Oh Lordy….he’s a RINO (Republican In Name Only) – from “Lung Aylaand” (Long Island) nonetheless….doesn’t stand a chance in hell…

  16. It’s shaping up more and more like we’ll have a choice in 2016 just like we had in 2012–we’ll have the statist liberal the Democrats picked, and the statist liberal the media picked for the GOP. The GOP liberal will lose (because the R voters will say “He’s too liberal” and stay home) and it’ll be 8 more years of increasing government control, increasing government intrusion, and the accelerating erosion of our rights, our freedoms and eventually our nation.

    Yeah, I know, not exactly a ray of sunshine.

  17. The irony and hypocrisy. King, a guy who supports the war on terror with 100% obedience and has made it known that he wants strict gun control just some years ago not only supported but funded and aided the terrorist organization known as the IRA because of the British tyranny that took their gun rights away. Anyone see the craziness King is? Has anyone seen the movie Edge of Darkness with Mel Gibson or The Constant Gardener with Rachel Weisz or 30 Days of Night with Josh Hartnett? Well there is an actor named Danny Hudson who plays the main evil character in each film who looks just like Peter King. I hope once Peter King is in prison for all his crimes against America along with all the other corrupt and anti-American politics we have they let Hudson play King because he looks like him and plays the best bad guy ever.

  18. Hey, everybody, lookit me! I’m running for President, too!

    And I bet that I get more votes than the king of peters.

  19. I was kinda disappointed, until I realized that this joker doesn’t have a chance in hell. If anyone from New York ever gets elected president, I will take it as clear proof that the government computers that we go press buttons on to vote are a joke.

  20. As a former NYer.
    Their is nothing GOP about King.
    If he wants to run for National office it better be as a Dim or Ind.

  21. Peter King is a joke. As a few others have pointed out, he was perhaps the biggest public supporter of the Provisional Irish Republican Army during their “campaign” in the 80’s and 90’s. That is an organization that, among many other atrocities, blew up two boys aged 3&12 with a bomb left in a sidewalk trash bin on Mother’s Day 1993; and kidnapped civilians, held their families hostage and forced them to become unwitting suicide bombers against British Army checkpoints. He enthusiastically supported people like that not only having semi-autos, but fully automatic rifles, anti-aircraft guns, RPG’s and plastic explosives. I wouldn’t be surprised if King was directly involved in financing or arming the PIRA. Yet he doesn’t want law-abiding Americans who aren’t waging a war of terror to have simple modern sporting rifles.

    • Also The Kennedys are big time supports of The IRA, Old Teddy has a long history of support. Former CT senator Chris Dodd and former Hartford Mayor mike Peters were also supporters.
      No guns you Americans, but guns, bombs and Missiles for terrorists!!!!!!!!!!!

  22. Yuck. I admit I didn’t know much about this fool. What I do know is Mark Kirk is a SENATOR not a congressman. After he stroked out he might as well have become a dumbocrat. The WORST kind of TRAITOR. And yeah I live in Illinois.

  23. “They should have no voice.” I agree. Karate chop the basterds in the throat. That’ll shut them up good.

  24. “They should have no voice.” pretty strong words, RF. The First Amendment exists for everyone.

    He can have a voice. I just won’t listen. or vote for him.

  25. Congressman Peter King: Owned and operated wholly by the Anti-Terror Industrial Complex. Your tax dollars inaction. He actually wants to be head of the Secret Police (AKA VIPER+DHS “Police”).

  26. Whenever I hear that a NY representative said something stupid, it’s almost always this guy. He’s looney tunes.

    • There are so many variations on the theme of top-down control; statist, communist, nazi, etc, etc, etc, but they’re all enemies of Freedom, so the word choice really doesn’t matter that much.

    • Democrats are right-authoritarians who support the occasional social program and oppose religion-based laws
      Republicans are right-authoritarians who oppose social support programs and support religion-based laws
      Neither are left-authoritarian parties
      Neither are left-libertarian parties
      Neither are right-libertarian parties.

  27. Seems like the best way to terminate this little presidential dream is to defeat him in the 2014 congressional.

    He has a “D” rating from the NRA.

    Somebody on here in his area should take on a crusade to help defeat him even if it means putting a Dem in office. Would be a good warning shot to other Repubs.

    • I’m gonna guess that whatever Dem he winds up running against will have, or shortly would have following election, an “F” rating. Just my theory.

  28. Won’t vote for Peter King or Chris Christy both are liberal RINO’s . If she possibly had more coverage , since Hitlery is probably gonna run , I suggest South Carolina governor Nikki R. Haley as a candidate for President , from her policies since she has been in office she proves to be conservative , very pro gun , very pro smaller government , and very family oriented , I feel that she could give Hitlery a good run , but then again she isn’t in the good ole boy network so I guess that we will probably lose the office for president again . Be prepared and ready . Keep your powder dry .

  29. “Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns.

    This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them. If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.”
    -Ronald Reagan, March 29, 1991

    Republicans aren’t always on the side of gun owners. Indeed, they’re only on that side now for the votes.

    • Of course they are. And the Dems are anti for the votes. And for some, because it fits with their ideology. And for some pro-gun R’s, because it fits their ideology, too. The difference is, for the most part, it is the pro-gun Dems, to the extent that they exist, who are under pressure from their party leaders to vote against their purported personal preference (and they mostly do, and vote “anti” when it counts). It is the anti-gun R’s who are under pressure (such as it is) from the party leaders (such as they are) to vote against their purported personal preference, which they generally don’t, they continue to vote anti because R’s don’t have nearly the party discipline that collectivist-minded D’s do.

  30. I’m going to give up on my quest for national-level pro-gun Dems for the moment and concentrate on anti-gun R’s. It is my belief that you will not find an anti-gun R running against a pro-gun D on the national level. What you will find, when you find an anti-gun R is that his or her “competition” for office is an equally, or more, anti-gun D. Can anyone find me a counter-example?

  31. I’ll be a single issue voter in 2014 and 2016.

    2A rights are the canary in the coal mine of individual rights,
    vs a tyrannical state, as expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    Don’t care what initial is behind the name, show me a track record, and thats what I will vote upon.
    Actions speak louder than words.

  32. Wow, I didn’t know King was a gun grabber. Thanks for the info. I never supported him before, but will oppose him at every turn now. Molon labe.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here