Michael Bloomberg’s civilian disarmament propagandists at The Trace can’t help but tell the truth about guns — on occasion. Guns Are Driving American Voters Further Apart cites new research from Social Sciences Quarterly that concludes . . .
Since the 1970s, possessing a firearm increases the likelihood of voting for Republican candidates . . . we find that the impact of gun ownership on the likelihood of voting for a Republican candidate increased across elections, reaching a level in 2012 nearly 50 percent higher than in 1972.
For once, The Trace gets the analysis right.
As the authors note, guns carry an enormous amount of symbolism for Americans of all stripes. To those who own them, firearms can stand for freedom, security, vigor, and masculinity. To those who don’t, they can signify violence, hierarchy, brute force, and indifference to society.
“We contend that the gun debate reflects a far broader conflict concerning competing conceptions of ideology and culture,” the paper reads.
My takeaway: gun ownership is an inherently political act. In fact, it’s a transformative political act. The more Americans who own guns, the safer our Constitutional republic will be. Without a shot fired.
Needless to say, The Trace’s Alex Yablon isn’t paid to doesn’t see it that way. He sees the study’s results as proof that the NRA’s flag-waving sh*t-stirring is effective.
It’s a conflict that the National Rifle Association, the self-appointed leader of gun culture, goes to great lengths to foment. The group’s political messaging is rife with appeals to cultural solidarity, values, and antipathy to those deemed enemies of freedom — the mainstream media, academics, Women’s Marchers — even if those targets have little to do with firearms. In this framework, Democratic candidates aren’t just gun-grabbers; they’re existential threats.
The problem being? “Right wing” gun owners block “common sense gun control.”
The irony is that while Americans may be drifting further apart when it comes to the politics of gun control, there’s a surprising amount of consensus on many aspects of policy.
Last month, pollsters at Pew found high levels of support across party lines, even among gun owners, for universal background checks on firearms transfers, as well as preventing gun possession by the mentally ill and those barred from flying under suspicion of terrorism.
Americans, gun-owning or otherwise, also broadly oppose allowing the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit.
Citation for that last one?
Never mind. The battle lines (so to speak) couldn’t be any clearer. Gun rights advocates must get the message out on civilian disarmament measures posing as “sensible solutions” and convert as many gun muggles to firearms ownership as possible.
Converting “gun muggles” into firearms owners is nice, but it guarantees nothing and secures nothing. Most of the “muggles” will sell out in a heartbeat for free shit. Hey, that’s the American way.
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
— Alexis De Tocqueville
Congress made that discovery a long, long time ago.
Agreed. I have worked tirelessly to get family members to break off their addiction to Democrat bs talking points, I mean “news”, and though I have made massive strides on their views of firearms ownership and training, each new CNN story pulls them back to the dark side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G29DXfcdhBg and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onhFH7jpq2c
It’s not just about tax payer funded “stuff.” Dems also support some individual rights republicans don’t. Gay Rights and abortion rights. If the founders were alive today they would support both as the government has no right to be involved in our personal love life or people’s bodies. Unfortunately there is no party that believes in both individual freedom and a social safety net.
Homosexuality and abortion existed at the time of the founding. If they would have supported such rights now, they would have supported them then. As they didn’t support women’s right to vote, I don’t think they would support women’s right to abortion.
It’s on you to prove that proposition.
I think the better question is if the Founders would have supported the level of government intrusion into our private lives that the current marriage licensing scheme entails.
Show me where they denied a homosexual’s right to vote, or to keep and bear arms. Was the BOR for straight men only? I missed that. Your assertion falls flat. As proposed, they believed these areas were none of government’s business, actually prohibited government from interfering.
If that’s what people meant by “gay rights,” you’d have a point. It’s not, and you don’t.
I didn’t make an assertion on that topic. I merely stated that the deeper question is how the Founders would see the current marriage licensing scheme.
I would suspect, though I cannot prove, that if you could “ask a Founder” about the State licensing marriage they would oppose such a system tell you something along the lines of “Marriage itself is a private religious/personal issue and the State has no business intruding into your private life in that manner”.
In other words I think they’d skirt the issue of “gay marriage” by telling you that the State has no reason to be involved in your private life at that level and therefore it shouldn’t be an issue other than between you, your lover and your God as you see Him.
My stance on the whole thing has always been “What fucking business of the government’s is it who gets to stand somewhere and swear their undying love to someone else?”. There’s a lot of bullshit about inheritance and other issues but all of that can be handled by standard contract law, the enforcement of which is as far as the State should be involved in the whole thing.
“My stance on the whole thing has always been “What fucking business of the government’s is it who gets to stand somewhere and swear their undying love to someone else?”. There’s a lot of bullshit about inheritance and other issues but all of that can be handled by standard contract law, the enforcement of which is as far as the State should be involved in the whole thing.” – That’s pretty much my stance on the issue (except more nuance as a subject matter expert that is besides the point).
On the whole what would the founders think question, my initial point was that the underlying human conditions that allow for these questions are not modern in origin. If one wants to say what the founders would have thought about such an issue, then one should offer support or at least state it as an opinion and not a fact.
Proposition: The founders were fine with all sort of state rules regarding marriage. Support: The founders were fine with state churches, and churches have all sorts of rules about who can marry and when. There was no federally enforced right to the free exercise of religion. If you were a religious minority, then move to Rhode Island where they were all accepting and whatever so as to not force your political views on everyone else.
The problem is the 14A making every constitutional issue so far reaching combined with the willingness of federal politicians to reach so far. Another problem is the ridiculous way in which the Constitution is interpreted.
Simply put my starting point on nearly everything is this: What business is it of the government’s and why are they involved at all?
If I cannot answer both of those questions with pretty solid answers then I conclude that it shouldn’t be any business of the government’s. If you’re not harming other people then society shouldn’t have any input on what you do.
Of course a lot of that goes out the window now that the government collects taxes and redirects the money to other people in lieu of having the latter group of folks exercise some personal responsibility. There’s what should be and what is, the gulf between and then my opinion on the matter.
While I may not like reality I am usually forced to begrudgingly accept it.
I agree with your position and also grudgingly accept reality.
Because, of course, neither “conservatives” nor society in general have changed their views one iota since 1776.
You could probably be a totally illogical, ignorant ideologue, if you tried really hard. Instead, you’re just an idiot.
NorincoJay made an argument based on an appeal to authority. If one is going to make an argument based on an appeal to authority, then that authority should at least support the argument. I still see no evidence that the founders supported gay marriage or abortion, which is the point I objected to. Therefore, it is a bad argument.
Your contention that I “could probably be a totally illogical, ignorant ideologue, if [I] tried really hard. Instead, [I’m] just an idiot,” based on my objection to a bad argument (based on the logical fallacy of appeal to authority) is just stupid. Your support for my contention that the founders didn’t support gay marriage and abortion is that “conservatives” and society has changed since 1776. I don’t see how one relates to the other. What “conservatives” and society think today is irrelevant to what the founders thought. Also “conservatives,” society, and the founders are all distinct groups. Furthermore, I am fairly certain no one today was alive in 1776, or even 1789 (when the constitutional republic we live in was founded).
In conclusion, your argument is illogical, incoherent, ignorant nonsense.
Yablon’s regurgitating the Pew report. This is in the .pdf:
“The public is broadly opposed to allowing people to carry concealed guns without a permit: 81% oppose this proposal, with two-thirds strongly opposed. Just 19% favor allowing people to carry concealed guns without a permit.”
The sample is 2/3rds non-gun owners. I have not read Pew’s methodology closely enough to determine if they underweight non-gun owners to account for their heavy representation in order to make that 81% claim.
“The nationally representative survey of 3,930 U.S. adults, including 1,269 gun owners”
And I see abortion as asserting one individual’s desire over another individual’s rights. Called murder once the baby reaches air.
I do not have a problem with homosexuals but the modern push is for promotion of such and not acceptance. It is aberrant behavior by definition.
It is not about freedom. Freedom is fleeting and ambiguous. It is about Liberty, which requires action and resolve on the individual. Most that squeal for freedom say nothing about their own responsibility.
“If the founders were alive today they would support both”
That’s some funny $h!t right there.
Just imagine the conversation in the first Congress when someone brings up the idea that homosexual men (or women) should be able to “marry” each other. They would have had a good laugh and gone on with their business.
“Support” may well be the wrong term. The huge guffaw would come when someone suggested a law regarding government regulation of marriage in any way.
The founders would have had no issues, I believe, with laws establishing a minimum age for marriage, or prohibiting marriages between close relatives, or prohibiting interracial marriage. Such restrictions have been on the books in most states for a long time.
I doubt very much the founders would be for “abortion rights”, particularly with the Federal Government involved in subsidizing it any way, shape, or form from public tax base.
Then again, many of these so-called rights that have been pushed in the last 100 years have been the result of the government getting bigger and inevitable more intrusive. Like gay rights. It used to be “We just want the right for the government to stay out of the bedroom.” Fair enough, but it’s turned into “We want the government to validate and force other people to validate our relationship.”
This is a sticking point. When people say they want a social safety net, they usually mean a government safety net, which is not the same thing. I’m all for a safety net provided by voluntary social cooperation, but when government gets involved, the process operates on force and threats. Mandatory charity and forced cooperation are oxymorons; taken far enough, they become robbery and slavery.
About the two political parties, you’re right. Both of them fall short in protecting individual rights. But only one of them still acknowledges (for the most part) that individual rights necessarily come before collective “rights,” so that one gets my vote.
The problem with safety nets is that no one stops them from being used as hammocks.
Yes, this is true. Even more so when an enormous central bureaucracy provides the netting for free (with other people’s money).
You can’t have freedom and a social safety net. UNLESS you get the government out of the social safety net business. If the government gives to somebody it has to take from somebody else. This is the opposite of freedom or property rights.
Re gay rifts issue is two fold. One is shoild gays have the legal right to do whatever they want with their bodies. The answer is of course. The second is should people for whatever reason have the freedom of association to not hang out with , worship with , bake cakes for , etc gays. The answer is of course they should.
Abortion to me comes down to science. At some point a fetus becomes a living thing. At that point abortion is murder. We do not currently know exactly when that is. We can easily say it’s somewhere between 15-25 weeks. In 1973 the best guess of the court was 24 weeks. Since then technology has shown us that its earlier. In fact the record for a person delivered prematurely is like 19 weeks.
Before you start work on the Constitutional Amendment required before you can prosecute a mother for unintentionally causing the miscarriage of her child after a certain number of days, so that you can send her to prison (that is the kind of government interference into a private life that you’re discussing!), first you need some method of *positively* identifying the date of conception, independent of what mommy “thinks”. I have no idea how to start such a process, and most on your side of the argument seem to think if you just pray about it, it will happen by magic. Maybe we should just leave the choice up to the only person qualified to make it, the woman who is pregnant. As per the decision in Roe v Wade, I haven’t heard a better suggestion, ever.
Larry, your entire comment on the issue is non-sense. You clearly haven’t read Roe v. Wade or any of the subsequent abortion cases (which overturned Roe). Abortion cases pretty much held what Cuteandfuzzybunnies was suggesting. That is, the state can regulate the “right” to an abortion out of existence if the fetus was viable. The viability has been pushed back so early in the pregnancy these days that I think that position has been abandoned.
So are you saying that before 6 months a fetus could possibly become a pig or a monkey?? It is ridiculous to try and define the “clump of cells” as being anything but a very little human. People want to try to rationalize the killing of a little person because if they actually follow the science that little “clump of cells” in a couple of short months will be a living breathing person. What will apologists say when doctors can push human survival to 16 months or 12 or less? The science of survival determines if it is now a human?? Abortion should have been up to the decision of the states instead of having it forced on the nation by a disgustingly leftist supreme court.
Cuteandfuzzybunnies,
I do not support the “qualification” approach to deciding whether or not a human life is worthwhile.
Why? Because all of the qualifications are arbitrary and can be used to “legally” justify murdering people of any age.
Here are just a few of the common “qualifications”:
(a) The baby attains a right to life once its heart and lungs can keep it alive without the mother. This is a ploy on self-sufficiency. First problem, a full-term baby who is two days old is NOT self-sufficient. Second problem, a person who stops breathing or whose heart stops beating is NOT self-sufficient. So neither has a right to life, correct?
(b) A baby attains a right to life when it can think or feel pain. First problem, how can we ever authoritatively determine when babies think or feel pain? Second problem, a person who is unconscious or in a coma does not think or feel pain … so he/she has no right to life?
(c) A baby attains a right to life when the mother wants to keep the baby. First problem, whether or not we have a right to life depends on whether another person declares that we are worthy? Second problem, this notion enforces the idea that there is no inherent value in human life and opens the door for countless reasons to justify murdering people.
Rather, a human life is a human life, regardless of how big or small it is, how self-sufficient it is, whether or not it feels pain, or any other number of arbitrary qualifiers.
Homosexuals and democrats are both socialist progressive in their political orientation. Which means they want public approval of what they do in the privacy of their own homes. They also want the government to pay for their “free stuff”.
No one has to give their approval to public sexual activities or private sexual activities. In some parts of the country you can legally have public sexual activities. They won’t arrest you on certain days in California when the government gives you approval.
All these people have to do is to keep their damn hands off of other peoples property which includes guns.
And I should say San Francisco is a very violent city. Its not reported by the local or national press, I believe because proud homosexuals run the city. They boast about their political power. The liberal press covers for them.
This is why Libertarianism is the only real political thought of the future when it comes to America. An ideal that says I can keep my money, drugs, gay marriage, and guns.
Neither main party can deliver that and they’ll remain stuck in the 20th century until they learn that the majority of America just doesn’t want their garbage anymore.
Unfortunately those are about the ONLY individual rights they support – and they support making those superior rights – rights which allow those exercising them to take away other people’s rights in order to ‘fulfill’ them.
“Unfortunately those are about the ONLY individual rights they support – and they support making those superior rights – rights which allow those exercising them to take away other people’s rights in order to ‘fulfill’ them.”
The only reason Dems support those rights is because the Dems only support “victims”. Once those rights are mainstream, the Dems will drop them from their minds, and go after the next “victims”.
And “victims” must also victimize in retaliation. So we get bakers being sued in revenge. Go to another baker? Why? Where’s the victimization in that? Having to drive an extra few blocks? No one will donate money for that.
There are no such things as gay “rights” or abortion “rights”. What you are referring to are immoral privileges granted to gays allowing them to violate the Natural Rights of others, especially Christians, and license to murder babies.
Social Safety Net? You mean “Other People’s money ?”
OK,
Yes, the Founding Fathers would have supporting putting sodomy on the marriage altar and in-womb infanticide.
You’re insane.
“Dems also support some individual rights republicans don’t. Gay Rights and abortion rights.”
Not even remotely true. Many Republicans support both. However, most Republicans I know who are pro-life are intelligent and analytical enough to understand that, in the case of abortion, there are TWO sets of rights involved. Many would permit a “balancing” of such rights, which would allow abortions in the first trimester, or in cases of genetic defects or disease, or rape or incest. But pretending that a gestating baby has no rights whatsoever until the instant following birth (or maybe well beyond that point) is a degree of blind ideology that most Republicans are above.
“Unfortunately there is no party that believes in both individual freedom and a social safety net.”
Explain to me, conceptually, how you reconcile “individual freedom” with a system which deprives you of property you have earned, under threat of violence and/or incarceration, to give same to “deserving” parties NOT of your choosing.
If there was, or could be, a national referendum to strip the all gun rights and $1,000 per yay vote was given, guns would be gone tomorrow.
No, we would have a civil war tomorrow.
The results would be meaningless due to our having a Constitution. Most other countries, you are correct.
The point was not that it could happen, the point was more that people will give away their right for the promise of cash.
“Democracy in America is a must read!
Bogus quote from de Tocqueville.
+1. Bloomturd and his paid $hit-posting trolls at the Trace are just pi$$ed that no one trusts them, or other astro-turf sock puppets inventing Fake News to “trade it up the chain” to the reliable Journolistas that make up 90% of the Leftymedia, or Congress.
And once again we see the NRA is the BIG DOG. Self-appointed? Nope. The Hildebeast would be President without the NRA. And Christian support. I am happily an NRA member…
Another Lifetime paid member of the VRWC…
One of the only reasons I don’t vote dem is because of their views on gun owner control. In reality my moderate views on a number of things align more to dem policy. But I can’t stand liberal progressives on a personal level. I don’t know if it’s their arrogance, condescendence, high horse, close mindedness or what. I just don’t like them.
Yup. Many of them in my own family ?
Well, yeah…
Most law-abiding gun owners probably tend toward self-reliance and political conservatism. Others who simply possess firearms acquired by nefarious means along with the leftist politicians who troll for their votes tend to favor disarmament so they can be the only armed thugs in the ‘hood.
…lines, even among gun owners, for universal background checks on firearms transfers,
Make the NICS citizen accessible with a phone call, get FFLs out of private sales, reverse the idiotic laws on transfers (here in WA at least), and– well, I’ll stop there, but that stuff for a start and we’ll talk.
as well as preventing gun possession by the mentally ill
Right. That sounds good until you start to get in to details. Who is mentally ill? What qualifies? Who decides who gets a gun and who doesn’t? What prevents vindictive abuse by family/ex-lovers/law enforcement/poker buddies?
and those barred from flying under suspicion of terrorism.
Fuck all of that. The Terror Watchlist is black work bullshit. Who is on it? Why? How do they get off? Who decides who is on it? See vindictive issue above.
I’m pretty left of center on many issues (hush Ralph), but the Democrats are dead wrong on gun control.
Secret government lists and no due process just screams democracy, freedom and the American way.
I’m “left of center” on a lot of things. For example:
I believe that if gay people are stupid enough to want to get married, they should not be prevented from being just as heartbroken and broke as straight people. And if they really want to serve in the military, they can be just as dead.
I believe in women’s rights. Women should have the right to open their own doors. They should have the right to put the seat down. They should have the right to stand on the subway while I remain seated. They should have the right to pay alimony and give the man a nice house when they inevitably divorce.
See, I’m just an old lefty at heart.
“They should have the right to put the seat down.”
Don’t get my started on the seat down complaint. I grew up in a house full of women and that jam gets old, fast.
I have to put the seat down to take shit; do you know how many times it has bothered me to do so? Zero. Do you know how many times I’ve fallen in from not doing so? Zero.
Maybe I’m crazy, but I think you should clearly assess anything you’re about to plop your bare ass onto.
No sympathy from me.
I keep the seat down. I just piss all over it. Then I start screaming “who left the fing seat down again! I’m not cleaning this mess up!”
(jk on all accounts)
Remember: The president who signed the GCA ran a campaign falsely accusing his opponent of mental illness (and a basic look at history will tell you that was most likely projection because Johnson was completely and utterly nuts.). That alone is enough reason to oppose gun bans on those the state deems “mentally ill” even without getting into the massive abuses of foreign governments.
“and those barred from flying under suspicion of terrorism.
Fuck all of that. The Terror Watchlist is black work bullshit. Who is on it? Why? How do they get off? Who decides who is on it? See vindictive issue above.”
You missed the most important reason altogether: Due Process.
Flying on an airplane isn’t a protected right. Gun ownership is. Huge difference. Huge.
“To those who own them, firearms can stand for freedom, security, vigor, and masculinity.”
[Citation needed]
They might stand for freedom and security to some. To others, they might stand for freezer meat or recreation. But vigor and masculinity? Sorry, no. Believing your own manufactured stereotype doesn’t make it fact.
“Democratic candidates aren’t just gun-grabbers; they’re existential threats.”
That one, they got correct.
If anti-gun cultists didn’t lie, they wouldn’t have anything to say at all.
Yablon’s regurgitating the Pew report. This is in the .pdf:
“The public is broadly opposed to allowing people to carry concealed guns without a permit: 81% oppose this proposal, with two-thirds strongly opposed. Just 19% favor allowing people to carry concealed guns without a permit.”
The sample is 2/3rds non-gun owners. I have not read Pew’s methodology closely enough to determine if they underweight non-gun owners to account for their heavy representation in order to make that 81% claim.
“The nationally representative survey of 3,930 U.S. adults, including 1,269 gun owners”
Pew Research is well known to be Lefy of center, and has a habit of selective quoting to spin facts in a progressive direction.
They fail to update surveys in areas like gun control and trust in media, when the trend is to the right, thus depriving honest researchers and independent journalists of proof of trend, and longitudinal data.
Many people are for ending the MFs in the opposing party. They just haven’t acted on that yet. Arms make the difference. Both ways.
Arm up beotch.
“Guns Are Driving American Voters Further Apart” – It’s not guns, that are causing former Democrat voters to become Republican voters. It’s the lockstep mentality of Democrats. Tom Perez (the DNC chair) recently said that the DNC has no place for someone who is pro-life. I’m pretty sure he feels the same way about someone who is pro-gun.
If you are pro-gun and cannot find a Democrat who is pro-gun, then you are likely to not vote for a Democrat. The party discipline on the left is what is pushing the divide. You can find a number of moderate politicians. They’re all Republicans. For example, George “GFSZ Act” Bush, (I don’t remember any of Dole’s policy proposals), George “compassionate conservative” Bush, John “Gang of Eight” McCain, Mitt “RomneyCare” Romney, and there is an argument that Trump is a moderate too. He certainly isn’t a traditional conservative.
It could be argued that Bill Clinton was the most conservative president since Reagan (since Reagan is largely taken as the definition of conservative). Clinton balanced the budget, had a tough on crime legislative record, said every American is rightfully worried by illegal immigration (he even through in a “they took our jobs” line in a state of the union address), signed a big free trade bill, and did entitlement reform.
Clinton had several conservative issues passed because there was a majority Republican congress at the time who pushed the issues….he “went along.” He also went along when democrats controlled congress which is why there was a republican controlled congress afterward.
That’s why I started out with “[i]t could be argued.” There are enough facts to make the argument. Clinton just followed the polls.
Don’t be fooled by Clinton’s publicist.
He, like a lot of presidents, signed bills he personally didn’t like, but recognized the personal benefits of doing so, and then took credit.
I said it “could be argued” and “Clinton just followed the polls.” I think Clinton only cared about being president. I don’t think he really cared too much about policy.
Those lying bigots are so cute when they struggle with reality. They try so hard to reconcile their propaganda with the truth.
Democrat politicians campaign on gun-control platforms and lose, but voters really do want more pointless restrictions on our 2nd amendment rights.
Americans have been purchasing firearms in record numbers for the past 8 years, but they overwhelmingly support any and all attempts to suppress firearms ownership.
A drooling idiot in a padded cell could do better than these morons.
Firearms ownership is indeed transformative. I was raised in a Democrat household, my mother was even a member of the League of Women Voters. I grew up thinking guns were bad and society would be a great deal better off without them. The father of a friend of the family taught me how to shoot and I bought my first pistol shortly after I turned 21. After that I decided that since the Democrats had lied to me about guns, they likely had lied about other things as well. Further examination of things like the “population bomb” and the “Coming Ice Age” lead me to conclude that I should verify anything that a Democrat tells me thoroughly from verifiable trustworthy sources without using their usually tainted listed sources.
Bottom line: Democrat parents raised two kids that became conservatives, because guns.
“The group’s political messaging is rife with appeals to cultural solidarity, values, and antipathy to those deemed enemies of freedom — the mainstream media, academics, Women’s Marchers — even if those targets have little to do with firearms. In this framework, Democratic candidates aren’t just gun-grabbers; they’re existential threats.”
The thing is, the NRA didn’t start this. All of those groups have for years been demonizing, threatening, browbeating, and insulting the NRA, it’s members, and gun owners in general. The NRA fighting back and exposing the obvious truth that these groups are in fact existential threats is a response to the repeated attacks and slanders those groups have committed. You can only be threatened with violence or slapped with the label “terrorist” by anti-gun/anti-freedom types for so long before you have to push back. I’m glad to see the NRA doing so, and I’m proud to be a member.
It’s nice that an old dog can still learn new tricks. Keep it up, NRA. 🙂
“Guns Are Driving American Voters Further Apart”
Wow, those guns must be sentient. Unlike The Trace “writer” who obviously lacks self-awareness.
Lefturd gun policy is dividing America, as it should. If the Left would leave us alone and just spend their time promoting drugs and female genital mutilation, I’m sure that there would be no divide at all. Why would there be?
I read you comment to my brother. Cracked him up. Your comment just kept getting funnier and funnier.
” In this framework, Democratic candidates aren’t just gun-grabbers; they’re existential threats.”
Yep!
(Mic drop)…
“Americans, gun-owning or otherwise, also broadly oppose allowing the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit.”
I DON’T.
If you passed the NICS to buy a gun, you should be able to carry it, openly OR concealed.
Criminals don’t bother with a permit to carry concealed. Why should we?
I do believe that one should have training to carry, but it should be voluntary by the person, not forced to take it.
I have my carry permit for 5 years now (just renewed in March) and it costs $50 every 5 years.
I wonder what would happen to our national politics if the Left/gun controllers just gave up and accepted firearms as just another tool in the tool department at the Home Depot?
I think it would be a good move but the rest of the Bill of Rights is just as important.
Once you buy your first gun you start to truly realize the value of your constitutional rights because you start to see the left trying to strip that right from you.
The Left hates that new found realization by new gun buyers. It seriously F’s with their plan of grinding the governments boot into your face.
It’s not a culture war. Remove soros and kapo bloomberg from the equation and the gun control drive ends. shannon and the msm are just in it for the money.
Take the Trace writer into the backwoods of S.C. Leave him with a .22 rifle and no phone. Then send in a trained marksman to “educate” him on exactly why a gun is needed to preserve one’s life!
“My takeaway: gun ownership is an inherently political act. In fact, it’s a transformative political act.”
Of course they are aware that their cultural programming is eroding — that’s what they do.
And politics is downstream from culture. Once they lose the programmed notion that your life is your own, or that the only people interested in guns are deranged whack-jobs, compensators who can’t afford a red corvette, or nationalist racists, they have to argue on the merits.
Guns are transformative. They level the odds between thugz for hire like Soros and Bloomturds anx Obamas BLM, OFA, La Raza, BAMN and Antifa,
And the victims tey hold for ransom on the Progressive Plantation, the elderly, women, and LGTBs.
Thus the huge sales to women, and the support by Pink Pistols, Log Cabin Republicans,
TTAG IT guy: Arghhh. Hate the no edit function, and how this wont display properly on Kindle tablet.
“Americans, gun-owning or otherwise, also broadly oppose allowing the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit.”
Whoa. That one shattered my Bullshit Meter.