The Second Amendment and the Democratic Party

[44 AMP]

A few years back, the people controlling the Democrat party made gun control ("the gun problem") one of their party's political planks.

No registered Democrat is going to be allowed to reach the top level of the party and become a candidate unless they publicly support gun control.

Like a lot of other social issues, they have made it an US or THEM thing, when it really applies to everyone. AND also like a lot of other issues, if you don't support all of them to the degree the party does, the party won't support your political advancement.

Yes, a D who supports private gun ownership and the 2nd amendment would please a lot of people, but it would NOT please the Democratic party leadership, and they won't have it.

Until that changes, don't look for any 2A support from any Democrat seeking national office.

Which doesn't mean all Republicans are our friends, or supporters. Some are, but many simply respect political power, rather than political principles.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by American Man

There has been no better pitch man for firearms than Barack Hussein Obama. I doubt anyone will ever sell as many guns than him. lol

The fact that regular Americans go out and clear the shelves of every firearm after a highly publicized shooting, gives me a little faith that survivability hasn't been completely bred out of our country just yet... not that it is anything to celebrate.

People that otherwise might not have bought a firearm or additional firearms, felt compelled by the threat of the democrat party's repetitive gun control howls as well as the threat that violence could happen to them.

Cries of “Obama’s going to take your guns!” were so loud in conservative circles dating back a decade that very few people remember that the only two major gun bills Obama signed into law actually expanded the rights of gun owners.

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/1...esident-obama/

In debates during both the 2000 and the 2004 presidential campaign, Bush stated his support for background checks for gun buyers and for trigger locks. Additionally, he said on multiple occasions that the minimum age for carrying a handgun should be 21, not 18.

With the Assault Weapons Ban set to expire before the next presidential term was complete, Bush stated his support for the ban during the 2000 presidential campaign but stopped short of pledging to sign an extension.

As the 2004 expiration date neared, however, the Bush administration signaled its willingness to sign legislation that either extended the ban or made it permanent. “[Bush] supports reauthorization of the current law,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters in 2003, as the debate over the gun ban began to heat up.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet, citing Wolf's Op Ed

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/1...esident-obama/

The problem with citing someone else's opinion piece is that it can give the appearance that you endorse the point set forth.

Perhaps BHO himself provided his view of gun owners in 2008 when he derided people in the middle of the country as clinging to their guns. Of course, the implication that BHO hadn't any intention of restricting people's 2d Am. rights is false, and rests on mistaking BHO's political failure to overcome Senate resistance in 2013 for what he was "going to" do. In 2013, BHO pushed for and nearly obtained UBCs. His was so invested in new restrictions that within minutes of losing, he held a press conference to complain about it, blaming the "gun lobby", pressure from voters, republicans in the Senate and claiming that there were no arguments against the restrictions. He claimed it was a shameful day.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...f71_story.html

That this deception still shows up as an evaluation of BHO's 2d Am. record illustrates how difficult it can be to orient voters who aren't steeped in the issue.

[USNRet93]

Guess my point is that these notions that all of one party's rhetoric is always completely one way and the other's is always completely the 'other way', isn't accurate. Like President Obama's intent to 'grab yer guns', to Bush2, real friend of the second amendment..the truth is always somewhere in the middle. I'v said it before, 'absolutes' rankle me. Always, Never, Everybody, Nobody....

That this deception still shows up as an evaluation of BHO's 2d Am. record illustrates how difficult it can be to orient voters who aren't steeped in the issue.

The above may be an opinion piece(what news these days isn't??)but The fact remains that in actual signed legislation, President Obama signed more pro gun legislation than President Bush(2)...

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet

The above may be an opinion piece(what news these days isn't??)but The fact remains that in actual signed legislation, President Obama signed more pro gun legislation than President Bush(2)...

A fact detached from an understanding of its significance doesn't help to measure what BHO was "going to" do. Used as Wolf uses it is deceptive.

What BHO was offered to sign as exec isn't an indication of what he was "going to" do. Execs can only sign what could get through a Senate, which in 2013 was controlled by the republicans he blamed for killing UBCs. The facts of BHO's presidency don't work to support the thesis that the parties are fungible on 2d Am. issues. BHO didn't think that when he blamed those republicans in the press conference I linked.

Originally Posted by USNRet

Guess my point is that these notions that all of one party's rhetoric is always completely one way and the other's is always completely the 'other way', isn't accurate.

As Bart Roberts notes, that isn't his contention.

Do you contest American Man's idea that BHO's agitation [in concert with others in congress] for greater restriction of arms drove an increase in sales during his tenure?

[MTT TL]

The above may be an opinion piece(what news these days isn't??)but The fact remains that in actual signed legislation, President Obama signed more pro gun legislation than President Bush(2)...

And we care why? Last I checked nobody with the last name Obama was running for President. Before December 2012 Obama never went after guns nor said he would. The current crew running for POTUS have all said they are going after guns right at the starting gate.

This isn't a "lets see what he will do" type situation. This is "all they have to do is keep their word" situation.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

A fact detached from an understanding of its significance doesn't help to measure what BHO was "going to" do. Used as Wolf uses it is deceptive.

What BHO was offered to sign as exec isn't an indication of what he was "going to" do. Execs can only sign what could get through a Senate, which in 2013 was controlled by the republicans he blamed for killing UBCs. The facts of BHO's presidency don't work to support the thesis that the parties are fungible on 2d Am. issues. BHO didn't think that when he blamed those republicans in the press conference I linked.



As Bart Roberts notes, that isn't his contention.

Do you contest American Man's idea that BHO's agitation [in concert with others in congress] for greater restriction of arms drove an increase in sales during his tenure?

And DJT has said more than a few things he was 'going to get done'...yet, except for the bump stock ban, which is close to being made gone by trump's ATF, nothing has nor will 'happen'.

Yes, President Obama, either through actual words and deeds or things he 'said' or even implied, DID increase gun sales. Haven't seen that this pre election season, but it's early. But, so what? The 'media' is a biased, partisan arena these days and people look at things that reinforces what they already think, whether it's accurate or not.

Why hasn't DLT's rhetoric led to increased gun sales?

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

And we care why? Last I checked nobody with the last name Obama was running for President. Before December 2012 Obama never went after guns nor said he would. The current crew running for POTUS have all said they are going after guns right at the starting gate.

This isn't a "lets see what he will do" type situation. This is "all they have to do is keep their word" situation.

President Obama has more chance of being nominated than Beto does(meaning zero chance). Yet, many seem to care, A LOT, about what he says.

And once again, DLT has 'embraced UBC and RFL, as the presumptive GOP candidate for the 2020 election.

"All they have to do is keep their word"...That's all eh? Lots is said everyday, that strains the truth or reality, by both sides of the isle, to try to keep their 'base' loyal..been that way for a long, long,time.

BTW-this 3 days ago.

Several local families are suing the U.S. Department of Justice, claiming the federal government’s negligence allowed shooter Devin P. Kelley to purchase the firearm used in the massacre. Now, Trump administration lawyers are trying to shift some of the attention onto Academy Sports + Outdoors, writing in a motion filed Tuesday that the retailer is liable for the massacre because the shooter purchased his gun and high-capacity magazine at one of its stores.

https://www.bakersfield.com/ap/natio...5e2a61030.html

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet

President Obama has more chance of being nominated than Beto does(meaning zero chance). Yet, many seem to care, A LOT, about what he says.

That's the nature of that gaffe.

Which debate participant will protect my right to buy an AR pattern rifle in the future?

Do you think any of them would veto a UBC bill?

Originally Posted by me

Do you contest American Man's idea that BHO's agitation [in concert with others in congress] for greater restriction of arms drove an increase in sales during his tenure?

I don't believe either Roberts' observation or my question were so subtle that they can't be addressed. Neither were about DJT.

If you were in the AR market in 2013 and 2014, or followed BHO's efforts to have UBC passed into law, the market distortions were easily observed and profound.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

Do you think any of them would veto a UBC bill?

I don't believe either Roberts' observation or my question were so subtle that they can't be addressed. Neither were about DJT.

If you were in the AR market in 2013 and 2014, or followed BHO's efforts to have UBC passed into law, the market distortions were easily observed and profound.

President Obama rattled his anti gun saber and gun sales went up, ok, 10-4, and??

followed BHO's efforts to have UBC passed into law, the market distortions were easily observed and profound.

OK..Obama made gun sales go up...In this very partisan and contentious political environment..observing the rhetoric from both sides, I guess gun sales are spiking again?

Up about 4% compared to June 2018.

Do you think DJT would sign a UBC bill if it ever got through the senate and ended up on his desk? It won't tho..Mitch won't make GOP senators go on the record on UBC, nor would he embarrass DJT by putting it on his desk.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by USNRet

President Obama rattled his anti gun saber and gun sales went up, ok, 10-4, and??

If at the time of that market distortion people perceived the effort at restriction, BHO's efforts aren't accurately described by what he was able to sign.

Originally Posted by USNRet

OK..Obama made gun sales go up...In this very partisan and contentious political environment..observing the rhetoric from both sides, I guess gun sales are spiking again?

Up about 4% compared to June 2018.

That they aren't spiking may speak to the absence of a substantial regulatory threat at the moment.

My sentiments aside, I don't think most people consider the bumpstock reg a substantial new threat.

Originally Posted by USNRet

Do you think DJT would sign a UBC bill if it ever got through the senate and ended up on his desk?

I think he has no conviction on the topic, and that what he would sign would depend on the prevailing winds.

I don't mind answering your questions. Would you mind answering mine?

Originally Posted by me

Which [democrat] debate participant will protect my right to buy an AR pattern rifle in the future?

Do you think any of them would veto a UBC bill?

[NJgunowner]

This is why I hate political debates, and make no mistake that's what this whole thread is.

Here's the danger that hasn't been discussed. Many gun owners don't want their guns confiscated or bought back, but they also aren't one issue voters.

Things like environment, income inequality, healthcare, and social issues weight heavier in their voting than guns. This is where the GOP falls flat. They'll happily cut down a forest for $$, they don't care that CEO's are making 100 times what they did 30 years ago while the average workers are making less. Don't get me started on healthcare.

My grandfather was very pro-gun, but very anti GOP until he passed away for these very reasons.

Our only protection in the long term is the Supreme court, but sometime over the next 20 years don't be surprised if that swings the other way and we lose even that small defense.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by NJgunowner

This is why I hate political debates, and make no mistake that's what this whole thread is.

Do you really hate them, or are you engaging in one broadly?

(Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, but the theme of the thread is somewhat more narrow.)

Originally Posted by NJgunowner

Here's the danger that hasn't been discussed. Many gun owners don't want their guns confiscated or bought back, but they also aren't one issue voters.

I agree that many voters aren't single issue voters, and would add that there are social and ideological alignments that can influence a voter. In the environment of the last decade at the national level, there has been some ideological alignment of those who see the COTUS as an important limit on federal power generally and those who seek protection of 2d Am. rights.

That doesn't mean the alignment is perfect, but the pattern is discernible.

Originally Posted by NJgunowner

Our only protection in the long term is the Supreme court, but sometime over the next 20 years don't be surprised if that swings the other way and we lose even that small defense.

I think the Court is very important and encourage nomination and confirmation of justices who read the COTUS as an important legal document. I would not suggest that it is the only protection. It's only a bump in the road if a solid majority want to disregard constitutional protections. Nothing beats strong political organization and wide support.

[American Man]

Quote: Cries of “Obama’s going to take your guns!” were so loud in conservative circles dating back a decade that very few people remember that the only two major gun bills Obama signed into law actually expanded the rights of gun owners.
End Quote:

Does the above account for how Veterans and ONLY VETERANS who use a fiduciary were prohibited from owning a gun... which was one of his first executive orders in March 2009. Was that one of his campaign promises?... he acted pretty fast on that... faster than he did on health care... only a month and a half in office. But if you are retired FBI, IRS, DOJ, CIA, ABC,etc... you could use a fiduciary and not have your guns taken away.

Anyone think this was a carefully planned gun grabbed devised on the hard drives at the Center For American Progress? I have a feeling a lot more was to come if this went smooth... oh yeah... he tried it at the very end with SSN recipients... just trying to make America more safe I guess. Fast and Furious was another great thing to come... all devious anti American ideology... all 8 years of him.

But apparently Obama expanded our rights... especially for our veterans right?

[zxcvbob]

I've said this before but I'll be more explicit this time. The Democratic Party (there might be a few exceptions but they are exceptional) hates the 2nd amendment, and aren't all that fond of the 1st, 9th, and 10th. They also don't like the Takings Clause in the 5th. The Republicans hate the 4th, and don't really like any of the others except they sometimes give lip service to supporting to the 2nd. Collectively, both parties undermine all the Bill of Rights, they just take turns eroding different parts as they come into power for a time. I almost think it's coordinated.

The 3rd amendment is the only one neither side seems to care about, but I suspect that's only because there have been no 3rd amendment Supreme Court cases.

[44 AMP]

Does the above account for how Veterans and ONLY VETERANS who use a fiduciary were prohibited from owning a gun..... But if you are retired FBI, IRS, DOJ, CIA, ABC,etc... you could use a fiduciary and not have your guns taken away.
... oh yeah... he tried it at the very end with SSN recipients...

Much as I detest having to defend Obama's actions, this statement leaves out vitally important information and creates an impression of deliberate malice that reality (using all the relevant facts) does not support.

Those Veterans, and SSI recipients who were (wrongly) classed as prohibited persons were not just using a fiduciary arrangement, they were ALSO seeking govt. assistance DUE TO MENTAL ILLNESS. Any, and all, DOJ, FBI, IRS, CIA, or OGA retirees who both used a 3rd party fiduciary and were seeking govt compensation for mental problems would have been treated the same way.

Obama didn't sign anything to turn those people into prohibited persons. The government bureaucracy did that, by misinterpreting already existing rules. What Obama's administration did was NOT to make any new rule about being a prohibited person, what they did was make a change to govt. policies, to ensure, and improve the transfer and sharing of information between the various govt. agencies.

I doubt anyone in Obama's administration shed any tears or lost sleep over the situation that "improved efficient" resulted in, since no one did anything to fix it, until Trump was elected, but there is ZERO evidence that it was done with evil intent or malice aforethought.

What happened resulted from the fact that different govt agencies have different standards for what is "mentally ill" enough to meet their requirements for compensation/benefits. AND these standards are different from the process in law for determining if a person is not mentally competent to possess firearms and becomes a prohibited person.

Of course, the press mentioned about none of this...

Literally, the system denied those people due process, because of the limitations of the systems used.

The Obama administration said "all you guys must do a better job talking to each other and sharing information" The various agencies then did that, or tried. But what happened was that DOJ (NICS system) got told "JSMITH xxx-xx-xxxx address has been ruled mentally unfit and is receiving benefits from SSI (or the VA).." NICS now has information JSMITH is mentally unfit, and has only one box for "mentally unfit" and that was PROHIBITED PERSON

NCIS does NOT know (or care) that SSI's or the VA's classification of mentally impaired does NOT meet the legal standard specified in law. ON THEIR OWN, they have only one place to put someone who is mentally impaired, so they put them there, making them prohibited persons in their system.

The law is very clear, and has been the law since 1968. You must be adjudicated mentally unfit before you are classed as a prohibited person for mental reasons. That means a JUDGE has to rule it, after a court hearing, where both sides make arguments and present evidence. And, it applies to each individual case. The ruling is for each individual person, and is not a blanket thing.

NO Doctor's opinion, or some clerk checking a box on a form makes you a legally prohibited person (though they can be presented as evidence), only a Judge's ruling does so. Win or lose, the law gives you your "day in court" on the matter.

This did not happen to those Vets and SSI applicants, their legal rights were not so much denied as not recognized as existing by the various agency systems, and that resulted in their becoming prohibited persons.

This was one of the first things the Trump administration changed after taking office. Of course, all the press saw was "Trump repeals law preventing mentally ill from having guns!!!"

What Trump did was to stop agency A from classing someone as prohibited solely on the information provided from agency B or C, and to comply with the law as it has existed since 1968.

The Obama administration could have done that, as the screwup they created was recognized during their administration, but they chose not to.

Perhaps it was just another one of those things that, as VP Biden said, "we don't have time for that.."

Seems Trump did have time for that...

Neither party is our friend or advocate for 2nd A rights. Some individuals are, but the parties aren't. Republicans seem to pay a bit more attention to the rule of law than Dems do on this matter, but that may be an illusion, or just a level of realpolitik the Dems don't bother with.

One candidate says "Hell yes we're going to take your AR15!!" and none of the others even seriously OBJECT. Only ONE says something like "I'm not sure that's Constitutional..".
The rest just kind of nod and go on...

and this is where we are at, today...

[American Man]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Much as I detest having to defend Obama's actions, this statement leaves out vitally important information and creates an impression of deliberate malice that reality (using all the relevant facts) does not support.

Those Veterans, and SSI recipients who were (wrongly) classed as prohibited persons were not just using a fiduciary arrangement, they were ALSO seeking govt. assistance DUE TO MENTAL ILLNESS. Any, and all, DOJ, FBI, IRS, CIA, or OGA retirees who both used a 3rd party fiduciary and were seeking govt compensation for mental problems would have been treated the same way.

Obama didn't sign anything to turn those people into prohibited persons. The government bureaucracy did that, by misinterpreting already existing rules. What Obama's administration did was NOT to make any new rule about being a prohibited person, what they did was make a change to govt. policies, to ensure, and improve the transfer and sharing of information between the various govt. agencies.

I doubt anyone in Obama's administration shed any tears or lost sleep over the situation that "improved efficient" resulted in, since no one did anything to fix it, until Trump was elected, but there is ZERO evidence that it was done with evil intent or malice aforethought.

What happened resulted from the fact that different govt agencies have different standards for what is "mentally ill" enough to meet their requirements for compensation/benefits. AND these standards are different from the process in law for determining if a person is not mentally competent to possess firearms and becomes a prohibited person.

Of course, the press mentioned about none of this...

Literally, the system denied those people due process, because of the limitations of the systems used.

The Obama administration said "all you guys must do a better job talking to each other and sharing information" The various agencies then did that, or tried. But what happened was that DOJ (NICS system) got told "JSMITH xxx-xx-xxxx address has been ruled mentally unfit and is receiving benefits from SSI (or the VA).." NICS now has information JSMITH is mentally unfit, and has only one box for "mentally unfit" and that was PROHIBITED PERSON

NCIS does NOT know (or care) that SSI's or the VA's classification of mentally impaired does NOT meet the legal standard specified in law. ON THEIR OWN, they have only one place to put someone who is mentally impaired, so they put them there, making them prohibited persons in their system.

The law is very clear, and has been the law since 1968. You must be adjudicated mentally unfit before you are classed as a prohibited person for mental reasons. That means a JUDGE has to rule it, after a court hearing, where both sides make arguments and present evidence. And, it applies to each individual case. The ruling is for each individual person, and is not a blanket thing.

NO Doctor's opinion, or some clerk checking a box on a form makes you a legally prohibited person (though they can be presented as evidence), only a Judge's ruling does so. Win or lose, the law gives you your "day in court" on the matter.

This did not happen to those Vets and SSI applicants, their legal rights were not so much denied as not recognized as existing by the various agency systems, and that resulted in their becoming prohibited persons.

This was one of the first things the Trump administration changed after taking office. Of course, all the press saw was "Trump repeals law preventing mentally ill from having guns!!!"

What Trump did was to stop agency A from classing someone as prohibited solely on the information provided from agency B or C, and to comply with the law as it has existed since 1968.

The Obama administration could have done that, as the screwup they created was recognized during their administration, but they chose not to.

Perhaps it was just another one of those things that, as VP Biden said, "we don't have time for that.."

Seems Trump did have time for that...

Neither party is our friend or advocate for 2nd A rights. Some individuals are, but the parties aren't. Republicans seem to pay a bit more attention to the rule of law than Dems do on this matter, but that may be an illusion, or just a level of realpolitik the Dems don't bother with.

One candidate says "Hell yes we're going to take your AR15!!" and none of the others even seriously OBJECT. Only ONE says something like "I'm not sure that's Constitutional..".
The rest just kind of nod and go on...

and this is where we are at, today...

You are right.

I remember outrage about the veteran's being targets of this so I pulled up this.

From Chuck Grassley, "Roughly 99 percent of all names submitted to the list’s “mental defective” category were reported by the VA even though every federal agency is required to report."
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news...endment-rights

The rest seems to discuss a lot of what you wrote. But I don't think these unintended consequences were indeed unintended. I saw afterwards they started providing an appeals process and I think they did that reluctantly... probably cause of that pesky U.S. Constitution.

I remember many vets started to get worried. I know 60 plus vets with PTSD and TBIs and none were on this list that was entered into the NCIS, but thought that they would soon be on some list.

The democrats in the past, and i guess now it is worse, had this idea of getting anything passed... no matter how little. The day after Sandy Hook, Nadler got behind a microphone at a press conference and went through this list of laws "we can pass right now that would make this country safer from attacks like these". And one of them was to repeal the concealed carry in National Parks and Forests and BLM Lands that G.W. Bush signed into law in 2005. And a few others that were just as unrelated to what Adam Lanza did in that classroom. So some mentally ill kid murders a bunch of little kids in a classroom and Nadler is out there blathering about stopping people from carrying in the National Parks, etc... that is a kind of mental illness all to itself if you ask me... not name calling, I just think there has to be some screws loose to think that way.

Anyway, I'm having a hard time looking at what republicans do and what democrats do and seeing any similarities.... despite what some others on this forum who seem to be trying very hard to make them look like they are the same.

Also, your post helped clear up a lot of things for me. Thanks.

[rickyrick]

In a free country such as ours, it is my opinion that the federal government should be the protector and guardian of our civil rights. The government of the people should protect the rights of the people from other entities. Any laws and regulations that restrict those rights are attempts by the authorities to protect us from our own rights.
The rights aren’t granted to us by the government, we were born with them. The Bill of Rights doesn’t give us anything, it’s a list of things the government can’t touch without due process. I often wonder how it would go if some bureaucrats changed the definition of a word now all of the sudden property owners are forced to house and feed troops unwillingly; I don’t think that would go over to well.
This candidate and that candidate make outlandish statements about violating our rights. Some citizens become alarmed but then told by other gun owners, “don’t worry, the 2nd amendment will protect us” or that there’s nothing to worry about because a republican is in the White House. But we should worry, more and more extremist legislators are in office, there’s extremist judges and extremists candidates are inching closer and closer to occupying the White House. President Obama is a right leaning moderate by today’s standards (my opinion).

Of topic question: did anyone else here notice Speaker Pelosi’s bullet bracelet?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by NJgunowner

This is why I hate political debates, and make no mistake that's what this whole thread is.

For someone who hates political debates, you sure seem to be trying to take this one off Second Amendment topics and get the thread locked.

My grandfather was very pro-gun, but very anti GOP until he passed away for these very reasons.

And how are gun rights in NJ these days?

[Mike38]

Cries of “Obama’s going to take your guns!” were so loud in conservative circles dating back a decade that very few people remember that the only two major gun bills Obama signed into law actually expanded the rights of gun owners.

Not necessarily true. By Executive Order, Obama banned the importation of all firearms manufactured by the Russian company Kalashnikov Concern and it's Sister companies. This includes Kalashnikov, Izhmash, Saiga, and others. At the time, I owned two .22LR target pistols made by Izhmash. Both needed a "tune up" new springs etc. I dropped the ball and didn't buy the parts, and got stuck with two paper weights. I sold both pistols, valued at ~$1500.00 (if repair parts were available) for $800 and felt damn lucky to get that. So it's not true that Obama was neutral on gun control. Not true at all.

[TomNJVA]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Much as I detest having to defend Obama's actions, this statement leaves out vitally important information and creates an impression of deliberate malice that reality (using all the relevant facts) does not support......

Excellent summary! Thanks!

[L2R]

According to this article,

http://thegunfeed.com/democratic-deb...o-one-noticed/

Many questions and answers swirled around who, how, what and when they would confiscate ARs and AKs.

But not one question was asked nor did no candidate give one suggestion as to how they would get guns out of the criminals hands.

Disheartening to see that the hottest topics are the least important.

[American Man]

Originally Posted by L2R

According to this article,

http://thegunfeed.com/democratic-deb...o-one-noticed/

Many questions and answers swirled around who, how, what and when they would confiscate ARs and AKs.

But not one question was asked nor did no candidate give one suggestion as to how they would get guns out of the criminals hands.

Disheartening to see that the hottest topics are the least important.

They never have anything to say about the criminals. All they do is blame the southern states and other midwestern states for all of the woes in their inner city cesspools. Like banning guns will somehow uncorrupt the lowlife minds of the criminal element. All of a sudden if guns were inaccessible, they will sign up for night classes and get that degree they always wanted.

What is worse, is that the democrats make excuses for the criminals.

[Aguila Blanca]

The NSSF has issued a statement about the debate and the gun control issue:

https://www.nssf.org/democratic-deba...content=govrel

[Tom Servo]

Neither party are our friends when it comes to the RKBA. The current Democratic platform is openly hostile to it, as we've all seen. The Republican party isn't agressively anti-gun, but they're not going out of their way to help us either.

The difference is, we can still exert some political pressure on the latter, and they'll feel at least some obligation to play ball when the voters are watching.

If you think anybody in Washington gives a rat's patootey about civil rights (beyond statements that make for good soundbites), let me disabuse you of that notion. It's all about money, influence, and tenure.