The Evolution of a Modern Democrat Gun-Grabber

Election 2020 Beto O'Rourke

(AP Photo/John Locher)

By Larry Keane

Remember all those years when gun control politicians told us they “respect the Second Amendment,” which was usually followed by some statement suggesting the Second Amendment just protects firearms for hunting? They tried to calm the fears of gun owners by saying, “No one’s taking away your guns.”

I kind of hate being the one to say “I told you so, but…” Well, the mask is off. Everyone can thank presidential Democratic candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke for just coming out and finally saying what we’ve known all along. Politicians who claim to just want a little gun control have an entirely different end game.

“Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”

Not Your Father’s Gun Control

O’Rourke’s emphatic pronouncement is a radical departure from his party’s mantra that gun control politicians want to limit access to firearms for those who can’t be trusted. Former President Barack Obama famously said, “First of all, the notion that I or Hillary or Democrats or whoever you want to choose are hell-bent on taking away folks’ guns is just not true.”

In fact, when it was previously proposed by U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), not a single Democrat candidate pushed back. In fact, since then, former Vice President Joe Biden, U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have all endorsed gun confiscations. Sen. Amy Klobuchar defended a forced seizure as constitutional.

Fund Raising of Gun Grabs

It makes you nostalgic for the days of old when at least gun control politicians tried to be sly about it. No longer. O’Rourke ripped the lid off that on the debate stage. He didn’t stop there.

He’s marketing the phrase by putting it on t-shirts to raise money off it for his campaign.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is chiding Politifact for once claiming O’Rourke was part of the “not really going to take your guns” crowd when the site rated the rumor as “false.” The site backed O’Rourke in his U.S. Senate challenge when he claimed he didn’t want to seize anyone’s guns.

O’Rourke explained on “The Chad Hasty Show” in 2018 that he believed AR-15s in private ownership weren’t a concern. “To be clear, they should have them. You purchased that AR-15, if you own it, keep it. Continue to use it responsibly.” He even added, “If you own a gun, keep that gun. Nobody wants to take it away from you — at least I don’t want to do that.”

Don’t Say It Out Loud

That’s got some fellow politicians a little nervous. U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, (D-R.I.) told Fox News, “That message doesn’t help…” That’s coming from the guy who is writing the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019, the bill that would ban the sale of modern sporting rifles. U.S. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told CNN, “I frankly think that that clip will be played for years at Second Amendment rallies…”

Others, though, are downright giddy. U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said her push for criminalizing private firearms sales “are the base from which we must do anything.” She also warned Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell there would he hell to pay,” if he didn’t pass her flawed legislation.

Pelosi warned President Trump any proposal he puts forth must include universal background checks and if he agreed to her demands, she promised she’d drag Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) so they could gloat while he signed a bill into law in a Rose Garden ceremony.

 

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

comments

  1. avatar strych9 says:

    I chuckle at this.

    I’d love, though it will never, ever happen, for someone at a debate to ask “Do you believe that an election is a system where you’re applying for a job working for and at the behest of the citizens of this country or, in your mind, is this something else where as long as you’re in office you just get to have other people enforce your opinion on the rest of us?”

    1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      “She also warned Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell there would he “hell to pay,” if he didn’t pass her flawed legislation.”

      Hell hath no fury like a Cryptkeeper scorned.

      She’s lost all credibility, even within her own party due to the upstarts in The Squad. She won’t be able to effectively get anything done now.

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

        “Hell hath no fury like a Cryptkeeper scorned.”

        For the kids who may not know what that means, the Crypt Keeper :

        (The resemblance to Pelosi is remarkable…)

  2. avatar Chapo Guapo says:

    No one will ever take my guns. I will need to be killed before that happens. As someone who was abused and bullied for a significant part my life I know personally from experience what happens when you can’t defend yourself. There is a significant portion of the population that does not have morals. The only thing that keeps them from doing harm to others are consequences from breaking the law, or fear of retaliation.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      We will win and they will NOT be coming for our guns.

      However, were they to do so, taking a gun from one person is easy, even if that person has to be killed. But taking guns from a militia is more difficult.

      Powerful lessons from the stand-off at the Bundy ranch.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        They won’t have to actually come to our doors…yet.

        This a very interesting article I saw on The Gun Feed earlier today. The author’s logic of the Left wanted to make guns increasingly harder to legally own is what I ponder as I choose which of my guns I can openly use (or have prepared for self defense), and which ones have to stay in the safe until I leave this state one day in retirement.

        https://townhall.com/columnists/scottmorefield/2019/09/16/leftists-wont-be-going-door-to-door-to-take-your-guns-because-they-wont-have-n2553128

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          (pardon the grammatical errors above…I was typing too quickly and hit “post” before proofreading…ugh)

        2. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Thanks for posting that link. Interesting read. Giving it some thought.

          In the meantime my two pistols and my shotgun get taken out regularly. I do not have any of those ‘scary’ guns.

      2. avatar Merle 0 says:

        Indeed. The left seems to thing there’s only a “couple hundred of us hillbillies” they’ll need to squash. First of all, the greatly under estimate hill billies. I guarantee you even a competent, United, modern infantry division with full air assets would have a severely difficult time trying to tame a rebellion in Appalachia. It would begin to resemble Afghanistan rather quickly. Secondly, there’s far more of us then they could ever imagine. Not just us as gun rights supporters, but this new hyper left that’s emerged is incredibly unpopular. With the media at their side they like to show off like they have the “vast majority” on their side but the reality is quite the opposite.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Exact-o. Not too many people want to be the first “patriot” to stand up to an approaching SWAT team and possibly die (with the media spinning the event as good cops against bad domestic terrorist), but once there is resistance and the news spreads, more and more people will become emboldened. It will be a veritable see-saw effect, where there will be a tipping point everyone recognizes. There is strength in numbers, and suddenly all the fence-sitters will jump into the fray, enough to cause a pandemic of the Blue Flu.

    2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      The potheads in California, Colorado, and Washington state will all be very compliant. Their marijuana is more important to them.

      1. avatar James Campbell says:

        I have to laugh when I think of all the half-wits who lined up for medical marijuana cards, WILLINGLY putting themselves into the database. Now it’s impossible for them to pass a 4473 background check. If they lie, and claim not to use marijuana, the check will show them in the state med-marijuana database.
        Hope getting high is more important to you then defense of self and loved ones stoners.

  3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Robert O’Rorque’s recent statement is hardly the first outright statement that Democrats want to confiscate several classes of firearms.

    Back in 1995, United States Senator Diane Feinstein of California famously said on a television news magazine interview, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in — I would have done it.”

    And how about the countless Democrat efforts to ban handguns in the 1970s and 1980s?

    Democrats have been announcing their intense desire to ban/confiscate most firearms in the United States for many years. Robert O’Rorque’s tirade is simply the latest example.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      “Democrat efforts to ban handguns in the 1970s and 1980s”

      Hell, how about the 1930s? The NFA was originally going to ban civilian pistol ownership. That’s why it infringes on short barreled or otherwise concealable firearms.

      1. avatar James A. Farmer says:

        Klamath Falls Herald and News: Tuesday, September 27th, 2016/Letters To The Editor

        Trump description would fit LBJ well
        Letter to the Editor Sep 27, 2016

        In her Sept. 20th letter Sandy Couch describes Donald Trump as “narcissistic and egotistical.” That is an accurate description of Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) , perhaps the worst president in American history. Unfortunately, an issue doesn’t disappear simply because it’s been ignored, censored, covered up and concealed for decades.

        Also, the legacy of deceit, abuse of power, and political corruption that continues to curse America today! Case in point: “American Experience, “LBJ: Beautiful Texas/My Fellow Americans. A profile of Lyndon B. Johnson.” This recently aired on KSYS Channel 8.1 Aug. 15 and 16, respectively.

        Consider the following the itemized links below:

        Barr McClellan’s 2003 book: “Blood, Money, and Power: How LBJ Killed JFK”. Also posted at YouTube.

        J. Evett Haley’s 1964 book: “A Texan Looks At Lyndon: A Study In Illegitimate Power.” “How Persecution of American Christians Really Began in The US!” via the Constitution Party of Oregon (www.constitutionpartyoregon.net) posted under “Liberty In The News.”

        Trump to Pastors: ‘Christians Have Been Silenced Like a Child” via Pat Robertson’s 700 club confronts the 1954 Johnson Amendment which remains blatant censorship.

        “Lyndon Johnson Murdered John F. Kennedy” at YouTube. The oppressive 1968 Gun Control Act LBJ signed into federal legislation and its Nazi/ racist roots long since exposed by JPFO, Inc. at http://www.jpfo.org.

        Finally, the Vietnam War (1961-1975). How LBJ and then Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara greatly escalated this “no win war” in Southeast Asia. And at a cost of 58,000 American lives. Lyndon B. Johnson likewise paved the way for Carter, Clinton, and Obama.And while Richard M. Nixon was no saint, he wasn’t even in the ballpark with Lyndon when it came to the above political atrocities, abuses, and crimes against the American people.

        James A. Farmer, Ashland
        Since October 2016 a resident of Merrill, Oregon (Klamath County). My response to Eric of Oregon (above). Lyndon B. Johnson is largely to be blamed for perpetrating this anti-gun
        class warfare and political deceit back in 1968! Our nation continues to pay for his crimes today. Also same for the corrupt Earl Warren and Warren Burger Supreme Courts, Ted Kennedy,
        Thomas Dodd (D) U.S. Senator from Connecticut who framed GCA’ 68, the tyrannical mob controlled Daley Democratic Machine in Chicago, Illinois (Cook County), and their related ilk in New York City, New Jersey, California, Maryland, Road Island, etc!

    2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Agreed. This won’t change anything. If it ever comes down to confiscation, the gestapo thug who has you face down on your front lawn at 2 AM with his knee on your back will lean over and whisper: “Relax, nobody is going to take your guns” while his team is tearing apart your house looking for your guns.

      1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

        This is why the proliferation of private home security cams with live upload feeds to the Cloud can be a good thing. Catch any improper behaviors in the act and post for the entire world to see. Enough of these get uploaded, with enough public outcry, then (some) politicians will shift their positions on the issue of confiscation. Nobody wants to be a target

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Guesty McGuesterson,

          This is why the proliferation of private home security cams with live upload feeds to the Cloud can be a good thing.


          While I certainly agree with your reasoning, I have my doubts about widespread ability to send live camera feeds offsite for storage in some data center. A good quality high-definition 1080p video stream is at least 5 Mbps. Uploading four such video streams would require at least 20 Mbps of upload speed which many people do not have. Of course eight streams would require an upload speed of 40 Mbps. And then there is the problem of storage. The server at the data center would be required to have 2 Terabytes of storage for about one week of continuous video from 8 cameras at a decent frame rate (25 frames per second) and resolution (1080p). I sincerely doubt that data centers are going to house 10s of millions of additional 2 Terabyte hard drives for video storage.

          I am thinking that a better plan would be to discretely store the video on a storage device in a local location where jack-booted thugs would not be able to find it.

        2. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          Doesn’t need to be HD 1080p. And it might be wise to at least have a copy accessible on a Cloud server of your designation, so your attorney or significant other can retrieve it from anywhere. You know, in case your home is trashed by the unwanted guests.

  4. avatar LifeSavor says:

    It seems like the Democratic party must be sponsoring a race to the left. Not sure what the prize is, but it will not be the White House.

    I am thankful that the Dems have started to openly admit they DO NOT support:

    Freedom of speech.
    Freedom of the press.
    Our right to privacy.
    Our right to defend ourselves.
    Our right to raise our children as we see fit.
    Our right to make our own medical decisions.
    Our right to own and manage our own personal property.

    The Dems insistance that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is obsolete and irrelevant cleanly distinguishes the issues in the next election.

    I belong to no political party but believe we need to make sure the Dems lose and that no RINOs are elected.

    This next election is all about preserving the Constituion and Bill of Rights.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Just really worry if there is a Dem budget proposal to massively increase the budget for FEMA.

  5. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “The Evolution of a Modern Democrat Gun-Grabber”

    More like the “de-evolution” of American values…

  6. avatar James A. Farmer says:

    Klamath Falls Herald and News: Sunday, September 15th, 2019/Letters To The Editor

    Gun regs hint at class warfare

    I again stand in 100% total solidarity with local pro-Second Amendment/pro-gun activist Bill Speers who “tells it like it is” in his recent Thursday, Sept. 12 Herald and News letter: “NRA label nothing but a lie.” Attacking and demonizing innocent American gun owners, the NRA, our Second Amendment heritage etc. is historically nothing more than Saul Alinsky-inspired class warfare!

    Bill further correctly asserts, “The San Francisco councilwoman is typical of the liberal/socialist politicians who rule the major cities. “Their policies have turned great cities into sinkholes of crime, drug abuse, disease and violence. They create sanctuaries for criminals while they obstruct law enforcement efforts.”

    Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities suffer 10 or 15 (or more) shootings by criminals every week in every city. The liberals who live in those cities could sweep the gun-toting criminals off their streets in a week by enforcing existing laws, but they don’t.

    Of course they don’t. Why not? Is it because perhaps this would be an obstacle to their “LBJ/KGB” style anti-gun/civilian agenda of civilian disarmament? I mentioned the word “socialist” which is a simply a synonym for people control, eventual enslavement of the masses to the almighty nanny state.

    Remember modern totalitarian National Socialism is personified via Communist, Nazi, and Fascist regimes who perpetrated state terror during the 20th century. The seeds of such which were sown during the murderous French Revolution (1789-1799).

    Learn more about this via The New American at http://www.thenewamerican.com by reading “Socialism: For Your Benefit or Theirs” courtesy of William Jasper.

    James A. Farmer, Merrill

    Merrill, Oregon (Klamath County). Long live the State of Jefferson!

  7. avatar J says:

    Trump is going to throw us under the bus again. Just like he did with bump stocks, but this time with Democrats and Republicans helping him write the legislation for multiple bills. There are enough laws covering firearms that are not enforced at all, which makes more gun control laws stupid when criminals are not being punished in this country for crimes. We pay criminals to not commit crimes with tax dollars, we let criminals go for committing murder and put them on house arrest with an ankle bracelet is the only punishment in Chicago, IL and other large urban areas. What has happened to our criminal justice system? We as law abiding firearms owners will be the only ones going to jail under these new gun control bills and not criminals.

    1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      No we won’t. Read and learn what a HANSOB is.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        I’m a little nervous to Google that.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          I am with CarlosT on this one.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          I just tried a less well-known search engine and it did not return any search results.

        3. avatar WI Patriot says:

          Bing doesn’t provide any results…

        4. avatar Publius says:

          HANSOB- Heavily Armed Noncompliant Sons Of B’s.

          Courtesy of DuckDuckGo. No tracking, and no censorship.

    2. avatar WI Patriot says:

      IF you need a “bumpstock” to complete your existence, you’re pretty pathetic…give it a rest already…

      And feel free to vote for your hero from the left, pick one, there are 20 to choose from…

  8. avatar Mark says:

    Trump is absolutely going to roll over like a fat turtle about five minutes after re-election..

    He’ll be the grabbiest gun-grabber ever, just like Reagan

    1. avatar ‘liljoe says:

      I don’t think fat turtles can roll…

      The Dens amaze me, after the bump stock ban I wasn’t going to vote for trump, no way in hell… and I know a few others who thought like me… now after listening to the debates I’m voting for him, and those other guys are leaning in that direction or have swung that way as well. Better the devil you know that the other devils you know as well.

      1. avatar Shawn F says:

        The problem here is that we keep going with the ‘lesser of 2 evils’, when we should be saying ‘ENOUGH’, and can them all. They are supposed to work for us, yet we keep worrying about who’s not going to f#%k use the worst, and that’s who we choose. Let’s get someone else in there……stop going with what the ‘party’ tells us to go for.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Shawn F.,

          Please bring forth a far better candidate WHO CAN ACTUALLY WIN THE NEXT ELECTION.

          Until you or someone else brings forth said superior candidate WHO CAN ACTUALLY WIN THE NEXT ELECTION, we are stuck with the candidates before us and it is our duty to choose the best candidate in the field — even if all candidates are awful and that means choosing the least of two (or more) evils.

        2. avatar Shawn F. says:

          @uncommon_sense If you think that your vote for president is actually a real thing, I feel for you. Presidents are elected by the electoral colleges, not ‘we the people’, and according to that last court case I recall seeing about the electors, they can vote for whom they want! Not who we choose, but who they choose. So, my thought is that if enough people doe either write-ins, or third party candidates, *maybe* we can get the establishments attention that we’re tired of the bulls!t, eh? Or are you comfortable with the status quo of a 2 party system that screws us either way?

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Shawn F.,

          I am not aware of any instance where the Electoral College voted differently from the people in the states that they represent. Thus far, I am not seeing a liability there. If you know differently, please share those details with me.

          As for our “two party” system, it is not a two party system. There are several parties running for office in any given election. It just turns out that two parties combined apparently represent the interests of about 99% of the population.

          People are fickle and flawed. As a result the overwhelming majority of (if not all) candidates for office are going to be fickle and flawed. If you want to reduce how fickle and flawed our politicians are in office, then ensure that the best candidates win the primary election in their party. THAT (primaries) is where you should be putting forth your effort.

  9. avatar Rocketman says:

    In 1989 it was “Relax, no ones going to take your guns.”
    In 2028 it will be “Relax, no one is planning to arrest you and ship you off to a reeducation camp and give you so many meds that your brain becomes mush.”
    No thanks. I’m getting out of here while I still can.

  10. avatar UpInArms says:

    Well, if Beto wants my guns he’ll have to personally come and get them. As for the ammo, I’ll be happy to deliver that one round at a time.

  11. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    They seem intent on discovering what the 2nd really means and how it should be enjoyed in connection with the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Proceeding on their present course will officially make them very misguided, anti-Constitutional, and extremely un-American. And verging on extremes of tyranny or at the least despotism.

  12. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I don’t believe the gun Community really understands the mind of the anti Gun person.
    They will defy court orders to give you your second amendment rights. And they have a history of ignoring court orders. And they have a history of ignoring federal law.

    Federal laws against gay marriage.
    Federal laws making marijuana illegal. Federal laws against illegal immigration.

    In all of these examples Libertarians liberals and left celebrated the states ignoring federal laws in these cases. And many of those people were gun owners as well.

    Does anybody really believe that leftist leaning States or going to Simply comply with the federal government when it comes to the Second Amendment?

    Do you honestly believe they’re going to do what they’re told by the federal courts and acknowledge you your second amendment rights?

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      The left is your mother-in-law on drugs during menopause. No logic or intelligence required. The left actually think the MSM media speaks the truth and does no have a political bias (Levin – Unfreedom of the Press). The left thinks the NRA is similar to a DC C Stree PR/lobbying firm buying votes (which they in all other occasions LOVE) rather than a grass roots confederation of believers. They even think “astroturf” = “grassroots”.

      1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        “The left actually think the MSM media speaks the truth and does no have a political bias”

        Some of them are saying the MSM is in the pocket of the GOP. I saw the thought the first time reading Think Progress (or maybe Democrat Underground), but I’ve seen the though expressed more often since then.

  13. avatar Armita says:

    they gotta kill me with their guns if they wanna take away mine
    درمان اضطراب بدون دارو

  14. avatar Country Boy says:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Unconstitutional Official Acts need not be obeyed.

    We The People Will Not Comply.

    https://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm

    Unconstitutional Official Acts
    16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

    The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

    Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

    No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

    Jon Roland:

    Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a “law”, and should not be called a “law”, even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

    All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one’s life.

    Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

    It is our duty to not comply with unconstitutional “laws” passed by charlatan politicians.
    God Save The Republic.

  15. avatar Ing says:

    “If you like your Constitutional rights, you can keep your rights.” Fucking…LIARS. All of ’em.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email