The View of the Presidential Election from the Liberal Gun Club

donald trump smiles

File Photo by: zz/Dennis Van Tine/STAR MAX/IPx 2016

Eric M. thinks that, short of nominating Bloomberg, liberal and moderate gun owners could be persuaded to vote for someone other than Trump.

If it’s Bloomberg, I can almost guarantee that a large chunk of [Democrat and independent gun owners] will either vote for Trump or vote third party. And no, berating them will not work, nor is it helpful. He’s awful for a variety of reasons in addition to the gun conversation, and would likely lose support from both gun owners and non-gun owning minorities who have witnessed his horrific policies in NY.

The other candidates? Look, what doesn’t get done in the first 100 days is likely to wither on the vine without large bipartisan support. Pragmatically, if the candidate has released a plan for the first 100 days that is focused on other stuff, more gun owners are going to, perhaps, jump on board. As most of the folks we’re discussing don’t just disapprove of Trump, they vehemently dislike the way he’s governing and what he’s done to this country.

And if you give them enough to be excited about, with policies that can really make a difference to folks who haven’t been “winning” for the last 40+ years of Reaganomics, the election is winnable. And if you took a hard look at the policies that all the Dems have signed off on about guns this time around, then go read about real root cause mitigation, and decided to roll out some policies along those lines instead, you’d not only win gun owners, you’d make a real difference.

– Eric M. in The 2020 Election and the Impact of Gun Owners

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Anybody retarded enough to vote Demokkkommie in 2020 is too stupid or straight up evil to be allowed near firearms.

    1. avatar Lost Down South says:

      What I read was blah blah blah blah (continue).

      Seriously. I couldn’t get through more than a sentence before my attention drifted.

      Maybe that was the plan.

      1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        +1

    2. avatar Will says:

      Im sorry you feel that way but Democratic Voters are entitled to all Civil and Constitutuional rights including the right to gun ownership.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        People are entitled to rights. Commies aren’t people.

        1. avatar Big E says:

          Checkmate. Can’t argue with that.

      2. avatar turn about says:

        I was rather surprised to read about all of the “poor” democrats who belong to the elite gun clubs who had such a trying time with Reganomics making them rich. They’ll vote democratic regardless of the candidate, Bloomberg is just another rich guy who would exempt exclusive gun clubs from confiscation. just my opinion

  2. avatar enuf says:

    That’s true about the first months of a new Presidency. Not so much the first “100 Days” exactly, but certainly that first year. If a candidate has a legislative agenda that is impossible to get done riding the wave of his election success, the odds of getting it done after that fall rapidly.

    And hell yes, a lot of independents are more likely to vote third party than for either an anti-gun Democrat or the Anti-American Trump.

    They have no Republican choice running in this race. It’s either the Anti-Gun Party or the Anti-American Party.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Oh look… commie troll is undermining the greatest American president since Lincoln.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Lincoln was “great”. I missed that.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Lincoln’s only fault was that he didn’t have every Demokkkrat stood up against a wall and shot when he had the chance.

        2. avatar BlazinTheAmazin says:

          Lincoln routinely violated the rights of citizens including those in states that had not seceded. Also worth noting is that onerous economic regulations had pushed the south towards secession even without the slavery issue. I definitely suggest the following video to get the “other” side of the story:

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Had the South freed the slaves before they opened fire on the federal troops they may have had an argument in their favor .

          But holding human beings in slavery while spouting off about rights and injustices….not so much.

          Sorry, revisionists, but the south was wrong.

        4. avatar rogerthat says:

          jwm apparently isn’t aware that slaves were held in the north, and in northern occupied territory before, during, and after the civil war. Probably should look a few things up…

      2. avatar StargazerATX says:

        The greatest president since Lincoln.. Is that the guy from New York who said “Take the guns first, due process second” or is it the guy who banned bump stocks, e juice, ballooned our deficit past 21 trillion, who has increased tariffs that have already cost the U.S. economy over $7.8 billion, who has a hard on for eminent domain and asset forfeiture, increased government intrusion on both the state and federal level, and campaigned about healthcare bills that are “better than Obamacare”? Oh wait, those are all the same guy. Trumpism is a combination of executive overreach, victim politics, and economic buffoonery all rolled up in a McDouble wrapper.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… Because “free trade” with totalitarian dictatorships is just a GREAT idea… Why I’m sure US workers would be more than happy to compete with third world slave labor.

        2. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          He’ll get to the better health care plan, drained swamp, middle-class tax cut, border wall, etc. in his 2nd term. Just got to re-elect him, and he’ll do all that great stuff he promised.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Fucktard, the wall is already being built and the tax cut came through two years ago.

        4. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          ^^^TTAG really needs to get a laughing emoji for the comments section.

      3. avatar Miner49er says:

        A true stable genius with a perfect memory!

        “Congratulations to the Kansas City Chiefs on a great game, and a fantastic comeback, under immense pressure,” Trump tweeted. “You represented the Great State of Kansas and, in fact, the entire USA, so very well. Our Country is PROUD OF YOU!”

        Someone needs to tell him that they aren’t from Kansas.

        1. avatar That Jason says:

          First tell him about the Ashwaubenon Packers.

          The Kansas side is Kansas City is the respectable and boring side. Families, nice schools, all that. A KC team represents both states… but since Missouri has that sinkhole on the Mississippi River, a KC team represents Kansas more than it does Missouri. So Trump is right again.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Why? He has better things to do with his time than worry about a bunch of grown ups getting big pay for playing a game.

          We all do. ‘Stable genius’, your inner vlad is shining through.

        3. avatar California Richard says:

          Neither are the New York Giants and the 49er’s play 50 miles away from San Francisco a few miles away from the San Jose Shark Tank.

        4. avatar Red says:

          That’s because he just returned from visiting all 57 states…

          …oh wait! Oh geez that was Barry Sotto/Obama!

          Someone needs to tell him that there are 50 states in the union.

          I wonder which comment will receive more news coverage?

      4. avatar Will says:

        Because if you dont like Trump you must be a communist right? No plenty of Americans like in 2016 dont like their choices from either major Party.

        1. avatar turn about says:

          TRUE

    2. avatar Napresto says:

      I don’t love Trump either, but I’m pretty sure the Democrats are the anti-American party, not the Republicans. Actually, I’m certain of it. Submitted for evidence: AOC et al, wailing over Soleimani, the Kavanaugh hearing, the impeachment circus, distain for the entire bill of rights, hatred for the founders of this country, and the list goes on…

      1. avatar enuf says:

        To be entirely fair and equitable about it, both parties have been anti-American for some time now. Both parties see their platforms as more important than the Republic. To be a true, purity-tested and approved Republican or Democrat is to no longer be an AMERICAN FIRST.

        Now we live in a time of PARTY MEMBERS and CITIZENS OF THE PARTY. That is where loyalties are found.

        1. avatar napresto says:

          Well that, at least, we can both agree on!

        2. avatar Joel says:

          I tend to agree with enuf as well. Further more I would say THIS is the primary reason we have Trump for President. He doesn’t really belong to either party. Wether you believe he is good for the country or not, his Presidency has shown both Parties for who and what they really are…

          And I do think having the masks stripped off the party policicals IS good for America.

        3. avatar California Richard says:

          +1 Joel.

        4. avatar Dude says:

          Trump is the only president I remember really talking about America first. Every prior president was okay with shipping our jobs overseas and nation building. Both of those things have made a very small group of people extremely rich. So naturally, the establishment on both sides lost their minds when Trump came along ready to make a change.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        Dems are the anti-American and anti-gun kabal.

      3. avatar Will says:

        Both parties have shitty canidates.

        1. avatar Big E says:

          False. GOP has some shitty candidates. All Democrats are just shit.

    3. avatar LibertyToad says:

      Yeah, Trump is so anti-American he’s brought the economy back from Obama’s “new normal” and the US has its lowest unemployment in recorded history. Yep Trump really hates America….

      1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

        What other president could squeeze over 10 years of steady economic growth into only 3 years in office? The guy is incredible!

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Exactly, they somehow gloss over Republican George bushe’s recession of 2007 and 2008, and Obama’s economic recovery during his eight years.

        2. avatar Will says:

          …….10 years worth of economic growth? The Ecomy has slowed down since the year before. We have essentially the same growth that Obama had his kast year…..techicaly slower 2.4% growth. 2.3%. Be honest.

        3. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          Because Trump’s policies are so awesome that they work retroactively! /s

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

      “If a candidate has a legislative agenda that is impossible to get done riding the wave of his election success, the odds of getting it done after that fall rapidly.”

      True. If Obama had focused on guns instead of ‘health care’, there’s a solid chance the state of the 2A would be substantially different today, and not in a good way.

      Now, had McCain won, we would probably have had 2 wishy-washy supreme court pics that would have been no better than Roberts in political reliability…

      1. avatar Will says:

        The Supreme Court should not be politically reliable.

      2. avatar Dude says:

        Both McCain and Romney were snakes in the grass.

    5. avatar Bemused Berserker says:

      There hasn’t beean a viable Third Party candidate elected to the Presidency since Theodore Roosevelt, over a hundred years ago. Historically, anytime there’s a strong Third Party Candidate, the achievement of that Candidate is tantamount to handing the Election to the Democrats. Third Party Candidacy’s barely impact the Democrat Voter Base, but see the most results in the Conservative/Libratarian Voter Base, as significant numbers drop from voting Republican. This was manifestly evident in the Bush/Clinton/Perot campaign of 1992, and again in Clinton/Dole/Perot in 1996. 1992’s split saw a nearly 20% drop in the GOP’s base, and 2-3% drop in the Dem base. Although in 96, Perot’s influence was 9-10%, it still effectively undermined Dole’s challenge of Clinton. In neither case, did Perot gain any Electroral votes, just the ever fickle popularity vote.
      Admitedly, I like the concept of Third Party Candidacy, but the reality shows it’s just not a viable option in the current political scheme. So long as the DNC and GOP hold the reigns on Electoral Votes, Third Party will remain a Pipe Dream.

      1. avatar UpInArms says:

        ” hasn’t beean a viable Third Party candidate elected to the Presidency since Theodore Roosevelt ”

        Wrong. TR served two terms (1901-1908) as a Republican. He objected to Taft’s (1908-1912) policies, split from the Republican Party and ran as a third party candidate in 1912 on the Bull Moose ticket. He did not win. Woodrow Wilson did.

      2. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        Something like half of the recent presidents have effectively been third-party insurgents: first take over a party, then win the general using their machinery n ballot access.

        Pres Trump, obviously, but as much as Pres Obama was a long-time “progressive” activist and creature of Chicago machine politics, his Pres campaign was insurgent. Reagan was not loved by the party on the way in, n Carter even less so. JFK likewise outsider hustling his way in. Candidates of the parties’ machines tend to loose.

  3. avatar Napresto says:

    It’s magical thinking to believe that any democrat won’t do their best to confiscate and criminalize firearms to the best of their ability.

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

      While *promising* they “Respect the Second Amendment”…

    2. avatar TenTwelve says:

      How many of your guns did Obama take? He didn’t even ask for any of mine. As a matter of fact it was Obama who allowed me to carry in National Parks and to let me have a firearm in checked baggage on Amtrak. Some other guy banned bump-stocks and suggested that due process should come after seizure.

  4. avatar No one of consequence says:

    Well that’s some seriously wishful thinking.

  5. avatar Napresto says:

    Snort. Seriously? Best since Lincoln?

    Even if he is (spoiler alert, he’s not), he still merits his share of criticism, just like all other elected officials, Lincoln included.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yeah… name one president who accomplished more in his first term, especially with the other party being on a continuous 4 year witch hunt against him.

      1. avatar napresto says:

        Calvin Coolidge is near the top of my list. Trump is doing better than I expected, I’ll give you that, but he’s no saint, and he doesn’t deserve to be revered like one.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          The guy who set up the Great Depression opening the door for that scumbag FDR? Yeah… Great pick.

        2. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Given the alternatives, he deserves to be revered, warts and all. We didn’t elect him to be our, mother, our pastor or some kind of spiritual leader.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          “I can’t spare the man, he fights.” ~atr. Best Republican President of All Time about the 2nd Best Republican President of All Time.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          The republican policies of ‘hands off’ corporate deregulation Coolidge and Hoover lead directly to the great depression.

          Thanks to FDR for saving America. And, it was FDR who gave the go ahead for the Manhattan project that won the war.

        5. avatar jwm says:

          miner. According to you leftist the A bombs were not needed to win the war. And fdr rounded up American citizens at gun point, based solely on their race, and had them put in camps.

          Yep, he was a leftard hero. Massive crimes against humanity and all.

        6. avatar UpInArms says:

          ” Manhattan project that won the war ”

          That’s a pretty bold claim. By the time the A-bomb was dropped in August 1945, the war was basically over. Germany had already surrendered in May, and Japan was on it’s knees and suing for peace. Whether the A-bomb should have been used in an entirely other debate, but it did not end the war. Shortened it, maybe, saved a lot of GI lives, likely, scared the piss out of the Ruskies, absolutely, but the bomb wasn’t strategically important enough to say it, by itself, ended the war.

  6. avatar Mark_PAV says:

    “…with policies that can really make a difference to folks who haven’t been “winning” for the last 40+ years of Reaganomics…”

    If we’re being honest, are there really very many of these folks left? The poorest of our country live like kings compared to most of the rest of the world. Political difference to dig your heals in, yes but way of living, most are doing okay or even quite well. Heck, I’d images more people who complained about Reaganomics back in the 80’s are actually technically in the top 5 percent earners now a days. Thanks to the best economy and lowest unemployment for all citizens.

    Again……if we’re being honest…..

    1. avatar bryan1980 says:

      I’ve always said that America has the fattest poor people in the entire world, so I’d say that very few in this country actually have it bad.

      1. avatar Mark_PAV says:

        Correct. And the fattest of the fattest get their own TV Shows.

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

        “I’ve always said that America has the fattest poor people in the entire world, so I’d say that very few in this country actually have it bad.”

        Writer Peggy Noonan (Regan speechwriter, Challenger tragedy and her best work, “These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc” D-Day speech) tells the story of having lunch in the White House cafeteria one day with an African leader who was in America for the first time.

        She asked him what about America surprised him the most. With a look of wonder on his face, he replied “Your poor are fat”.

        Noonan’s autobiography of working in the Reagan White House “What I saw at the revolution” is a neat read.

        *Breaking News* – We are about to see first hand just how compassionate the political left really is –

        Rush Limbaugh just announced he has stage 4 lung cancer.

        Anyone want to lay bets on how loud the Leftists will be cheering when they hear this?

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      It is said in the Soviet Union after showing a documentary on poverty in the US the rate of requests to emigrate from the Soviet Union more than tripled. When asked why applicants said if the poor in the USA can eat enough to get fat, own their own cars, and live in a house, it is better to be poor in the USA than live in the Soviet Union.

      1. avatar hawkeye says:

        I’ve written it before, and I’ll write it again. We travel occasionally, and whenever we get back to the States, I get off the plane and kiss the ground. My wife is from one of those banana republics, where the average monthly income hovers around the equivalent of $200.00 per month. That’s average, not minimum.

        Oh, btw, she has not become a U.S. citizen yet (has maintained U.S. permanent resident status) because it is easier for us to visit the family on her non-U.S. passport. But, she’s giving serious consideration to applying for citizenship just so she can vote for Trump.

  7. avatar Auxwood_Rebel says:

    Anyone else concerned with Trump reverting to his former democrat party stances if he wins re-election? He’s 74 and he’s only been pro-gun about the last five or so years. Still, he’s a wild card vs. a deck full of jokers…

    1. avatar jwm says:

      It’s all about the judges. Trump appoints business friendly judges. They are usually conservative. Presidents come and go. Those judges last a lifetime.

    2. avatar JG says:

      Anything is possible, but Trump not being fully conversative is far better than any of the Democrats who, despite what the author claims about the first 100 days, will move quickly to further restrict rights.

      1. avatar JG says:

        conservative. darn autocorrect.

    3. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

      Trump enjoys making his critics look like schmucks by doing the opposite, esp when they say it’s impossible.

      We are fortunate in his enemies.

  8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I have one simple question: how did our nation get to the point that something like half (or more) of our population is so impulsive, rude, petulant, and hysterical — operating on emotion, fantasy, and fickle/transient notions of virtue?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Full disclosure:
      — I do NOT like our President personally.
      — I do NOT agree with all of his policy positions.

      Guess what? If he is the best candidate in the field of candidates who have a realistic chance of winning the election, I am going to vote for him. We will never, I repeat, NEVER have a perfect candidate. All we can do is do the best with what we have available.

      If a loved-one fell into a sink hole and would soon drown, would you let your loved-one drown because you did not have a winch, rope, and OSHA certified safety harness? Or would you do nothing because sinkholes are not supposed to exist in a perfect world? Or even worse yet, would you do nothing because a football game is on television? Or would you use the best available option — even if it was only an electrical extension cord — to try and pull your loved-one out of the sinkhole and save his/her life?

      It seems like we are at the point where a lot of people — maybe as much as 50% of our nation — would let their loved-one die in that sinkhole. And will do the same in regards to our right to keep and bear arms in upcoming elections. I hope and pray that I am wrong.

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        The Democrats have a new, self-financed candidate who is on record as saying, even if you have these devices and are trained in their use, it’s not your place to use them. You should call 911 and wait for the fire department to come. No mention of what will happen to your loved one in the meantime.

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          Bloomberg is far more dangerous than any of the others, IMO. And that’s saying something.

      2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        ^Exactly how I feel. But if he’s the only one in the wheelhouse trying his best to steer the ship away from the iceberg while the rest are fighting about who gets the best deck chair, I don’t really care if he farts at the table or chews with his mouth open.

      3. avatar Sebastian says:

        U.C. asks “operating on emotion, fantasy, and fickle/transient notions”

        Do you really not see the answer? I have read your posts, and they are quite insightful, however there lies a glaring blind spot in your analysis. That is why you can’t really answer that question, not when you are so gynocentric.

        Look at the terms above, emotion, fantasy, and fickle/transient notions, that is the negative traits of feminism that the Democratic’s and feminist have weaponized.

        Then to answer your ‘simple’ question ‘how did we get here?’, the short answer (if you can accept it) is feminism.

        I stumbled across this clip minutes before writing this, it’s a short video by a woman fed up with the fickleness of feminism double speak.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Sebastian,

          Plenty of men operate on emotion, fantasy, and transient notions of “virtue” as well.

          Does that characterize a greater percentage of women than of men? I don’t know. Either way, I do not see any relevance in that detail. Please enlighten me/us if there is important strategy/value in that detail.

    2. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      How? Too much coddling, too much surplus, n too much feeding the sheeple.

  9. avatar former water walker says:

    I believe DJT has a divine mandate. Whine all you want about his percieved shortcomings vis a vis guns. Pro-Israel,pro baby,pro family
    ,the greatest economy in a very long time and all this from a NY billionaire written off as a buffoon. Leftar er ” liberal” gun owner’s are idiot’s. Oh and Blumturd’s Superbowl ad was pretty much nothing…

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yeah… The DNC pretty much showed their colors when the issues of abortion and “trans rights” took center stage. They want to murder babies before they are even born and then mutilate a good chunk of the ones that are.

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      “ I believe Trump has a divine mandate.”

      The granddaddy of all unsubstantiated assertions, with zero evidence.

      And people think the Christian religion is a religion of peace.

      I pray Lord Jesus, deliver me from your followers!

    3. avatar Miner49er says:

      “ Numbers 31:17-18
      17 Now k!II all the boys. And k!II every woman who has slept with a man,
      18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
      Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

      1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        Christianity offers a new covenant out of the context of the old. Quoting old testament directives is irrelevant, war policies doubly so.

        If you’re gonna critique people, at least get the doctrine right. Smearing people, you can make up whatever you like. Or quote scripture for your own ends. There’s a verse or 2 about that, too.

      2. avatar Ing says:

        Really, Miner, that’s what you’re going with?

        That’s what Jews were told to do 4,000 YEARS AGO. Ever heard of a guy called Jesus of Nazareth? Get with the times and read the New Testament.

      3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Miner49er,

        Do you really want to know the whole truth? (Serious question, no snark or sarcasm.) I obviously cannot convey the whole truth in a few paragraphs.

        What I can summarize, in a nutshell:

        God has attributes. One of those attributes is having standards. And one of those standards is that we must not reject God to seek/worship false gods. Why is that such a big deal to God? Because it is absolute betrayal and rejection of his infinite love — just like a spouse that sets out to commit adultery against or outright divorce a spouse who deeply and richly loves the wayward spouse. And that path is incredibly destructive since people who reject God go on to commit all manner of crimes against humanity. (Without God in the picture, there is no reason to “behave”.)

        With that in mind, is it any wonder that God’s standard would include killing such people before they commit all manner of heinous acts against innocent people? To look the other way — and allow people who reject God to victimize innocent people — would be an abomination. If you had five children and one of those children demonstrated with absolute certainty that he/she would soon steal from, beat up, rape, torture, and/or murder your other four children, would you do nothing and allow him/her to victimize your other four children? Or, as painful as it would be, would you ensure that your wayward child would never steal from, beat up, rape, torture, and/or murder your other four children? So it was (and still is?) with God.

        As for instances in the Old Testament where God commands the Israelites to kill off some tribe (and those instances are few), it is because the tribe was so vile and evil that God could no longer look the other way. And when I say vile and evil, I am talking levels that you might have a hard time imagining. For example one of the tribes that God ordered the Israelites to kill-off would periodically make huge bon-fires and throw their infants into the fires to appease their false gods or some such nonsense. And before you claim that there was never such a tribe, modern archaeology has found once such site with evidence of such fires and thousands of burnt infants.

        If you really want to discover the truth, then do it. The truth might surprise you. Or will you let emotion, fantasy, and your own transient definitions of virtue prevail and end up rejecting the truth like gun-grabbers?

        1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          “that path is incredibly destructive since people who reject God go on to commit all manner of crimes against humanity. (Without God in the picture, there is no reason to “behave”.)” — Ahh, that explains all the Atheist murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc., and why there are so few people of faith in prison.

  10. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    They were Liberal, FIRST, before they became a Liberal gun owner. Anyone who calls themself a Liberal gun owner is the reason why the economy and culture have gone to sh#t. Liberal gun owners are responsible for the loss of civil-rights in California and the rest of the west coast. They supported the Mulford Act. Even after Reagan was gone they endorsed it. When asked to repeal it they said “we want it to stay on the books in California”.

    Getting “free stuff” from the government is more important than ARMS civil-rights to them. It was Liberals who removed 2A education and rifle teams, from the public school systems across the country. It was white Liberals who told blacks in the south, surrounded by the KKK, to disarm. They said the blacks didn’t need guns for protection.

    The 2A is for everyone. Even for late comers. But they will never be reliable defenders of civil rights. I don’t trust them.
    But they certainly do want THEIR guns.

    btw
    White Liberals totally supported the rights of the KKK to march in black neighborhoods while carrying guns. But they have NEVER supported the right of blacks to match while carrying guns.

    Read
    1. “Negroes with Guns”, by Robert F williams 1962.
    2. “Negroes and the Gun, the black tradition of Arms”, by Nicholas Johnson 2014.
    3. “The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement”
    by Lance Hill 2006

    or watch the movie. It’s not a great film. But it gets to the point about black armed self defense in the south.

    Deacons for Defense Full Movie 1hr 40 minutes long

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Enjoyed #1, didn’t hear about#2 but looks worthwhile. Thanks for the link on #3 as that will absolutely be fun to share.

  11. avatar 2aguy says:

    The Liberal Gun Club is filled with pretty silly/dumb people…….if they support the second amendment and vote for any democrat, at any level, they are voting to end the 2nd Amendment….that “First Hundred” Days silliness shows how foolish…..really, really dumb , they are……..appointing anti-gun judges to the federal circuit courts……appointing anti-gun Supreme Court Justices…….an Attorney General that targets gun companies….? See…this is why the Liberal Gun club is a dumb idea…they vote for the very people who will aggressively pursue ending the 2nd Amendment…and then try to pretend they can find somebody in the democrat party who won’t do that…..they are foolish and dumb.

    1. It is more inertia.

      there were plenty of Democrats who defended the right to keep and bear arms as recently as ten years ago.

    2. avatar King $hit says:

      The Liberal Gun Club is a joke. They have NO presence. Where were they in Richmond? Hell, Pink Pistols had a presence.

      Years ago, I looked into a local ‘branch’ of this so called ‘Liberal Gun Club’. All it was, was a bunch anti gunners who ‘respected’ the 2A, and supported any and all gun control in my state as ‘common sense’.

      Reckon when all we have left is .22 cal bolt actions that only shoot ‘gallery loads’ which barely clear the barrel, they’ll still be ‘respect the 2A’.

  12. Even as late as ten years ago, there were Democrats whop supported gun rights.

    Hell, there was a Democrat in the California State Senate who opposed gun control.

    But the Democratic establishment turned against the Second amendment, under the leadership of President Barack Obama.

    And people still think Urkel was good for the Democrats.

  13. avatar Ing says:

    “…they vehemently dislike the way he’s governing and what he’s done to this country.”

    Dislike the way he’s governing, fine. I dislike it too, sometimes.

    But “what he’s done to this country” is nothing more than what all the virtue-signaling NPCs and the oikophobic left-of-center crowd have been doing to it. The collective derangement of just about everyone from the center leftwards has been very illuminating.

    The problem with voting for a Democrat — any Democrat — is that at some point, when the political calculus adds up, the entire party WILL attack your Second Amendment rights, and probably your First Amendment rights, too (and your little dog, too!). And despite any promises to the contrary, that D you voted for will go along or else.

  14. avatar 2aguy says:

    Any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment. Any decision to not vote for a Republican to keep the democrat out, is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment. The time to vote out squish republicans is in the primary…..then, you vote against the democrat…if you want to keep the 2nd Amendment alive.

  15. avatar Tyler says:

    “I like taking guns away early,Take the guns first, go through due process second.” And
    “Last year, my administration charged the largest number of firearm defendants ever recorded in the history of our country.
    We’ve increased federal firearm prosecutions by 44 percent compared to the last two years of the previous administration. This is a record — a new record.”
    – your gun grabber President Trump

    According to Trump it would be hard for the Democrats to find anyone that prosecutes guns as hard as he does so I’m not sure why y’all are going so hard on other gun owners over a tyrant president who made thousands choose between giving the fed thier property or committing a felony with bump stocks.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yes. Because prosecuting gangbangers on federal gun charges when the local let them walk with a slap on the wrist is a BAD thing. Now pull the other one.

    2. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      While many of Trump’s gun policies are bad, increased prosecution of existing laws is something many gun rights enthusiasts have long been calling for. There is a small minority of thugs committing a large proportion of murders using guns. Lock enough of them up, and everyone (who’s willing to) can see how to reduce “gun violence” without passing yet more restrictions that only the law-abiding abide.

  16. avatar Red says:

    40+ years or Reaganomics? Where has this guy been? George the First killed Reaganomics with his tax hike.

    As for Trump having gun owners rushing to vote for him, remember that Trump is perfectly fine with the ATF calling a bumpstock a machine gun. If a bumpstock is a machine gun, than anything can be a machine gun and the ATF will use that flexibility to abolish every class of guns in America. Thanks, Trump.

    Keep voting for the UniParty and expecting things to change.

  17. avatar Will says:

    See if you actually read the Constitution or the declaration of independence you would realize you sound like a Fascist with that statement. All men are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. Just because you disagree politically with someone doesnt mean they can’t Vote, express themselves or defend themselves. God gave us those rights. Not the Government. The Constitution just confirms them.

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