Literally zero people on my Facebook are Trump fans, at least not vocally. But I’m not assuming the rest of the world is that way, it’s because I grew up in, if I’m reading correctly, the second most Democrat-partisan congressional district in the US, and also work in academia. So some certain perspectives, I can see why it looks like NRA = GOP. Incidentally, there are many people who think that the NRA is a bunch of liberal namby-pambys, and support much more partisan groups like the Gun Owners of America.
As I mentioned, there are many pro-gun people who normally vote D, but may vote R during presidential elections because that ends up being the least unappetizing option. And the shooters I know range from Bernie caucusers to somewhat right wing, though rather non-religious, but I’m not sure I have representative sample.
No - not against everything, but in principle I would always look skeptically at any new proposal because I want to send the message that gun control is not a winning issue. More responsible gun ownership is great, for my definition of responsible. More waiting time != more responsible, especially if I own 100 guns already. Those adjudicated mentally defective are already prohibited from possessing firearms, so making it extra illegal doesn’t seem like it would do much.
Many organizations that are pushing gun control would never have existed if not for Bloomberg money. If not for that, those statewide ballot initiatives in Nevada, Maine, and Washington probably don’t get off the ground. Bloomberg has the ability to outspend the NRA easily and has been throwing his money in certain areas to push his agenda. Those efforts should be resisted to convince him it’s not worth spending the money on losing issues.
I am very interested to see how the gun vote impacted some of those key states like North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. If it turns out that guns were the tipping point that could go a long way to signal that gun control is a losing issue (except in CA where the gun control ballot initiative easily passed).
Thank you very much for your reply, Bone. I appreciate it. And if you don’t mind and have time for one more question, I’d like to ask you something that I’ve been grappling with since this election… do you believe it’s important to cast a vote for president on the basis of a single issue? Not saying you (or anyone else) did this, but I know I have in the past and after this outcome, I’m rethinking my stance on that versus an overall policy of what I feel is best for the country. TIA.
Of course he did. When was the last time a Dem presidential candidate was endorsed by the NRA?
*"Before he was a presidential contender, he called out Republicans who “walk the NRA line” and “refuse even limited restrictions” on firearms laws, in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve.
“I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,” he wrote. "*
And, see- Hillary only said she was maybe in favor of optional gun buy back programs, not mandatory ones.
More or less, Trumps position was identical to Hillarys.
Does it surprise you that the LGBT community would give Hillary a second chance after her position “evolved”? If not, why would it surprise you that gun owners would give Trump a second chance after he underwent a similar evolution?
IIRC a judge struck down CA’s law. A “cooling off” period is one of those things that sounds good in theory, but if you already own a firearm, a second one doesn’t need a waiting period, and this only exists to make things unnecessarily difficult.
If it’s not one billionaire charlatan from NYC with thinning hair who used to be a Democrat than became a Republican, it’s another.
In NV, I didn’t hear hardly a peep about Question 1 in the news. It’s another one of those ballot questions that looks reasonable on paper to people who don’t really get the issues, but if you examine it it won’t solve any of the problems it purports to.
Not recently, but then none have earned it. They do endorse Democrats semi-often, even occasionally over Republicans. Sometimes it seems to be for realpolitik reasons - they’d rather help Democrats who have clout even if they are not the most reliable votes (Harry Reid in the past, and they didn’t endorse him or his Republican challenger in 2010 because she is batshit insane).
I don’t know about “identical,” but no argument here otherwise. Trump may be paying lip service, but I’ll bet people saw that as more palatable that Clinton’s position.
Maybe you’re right. We’ll see. I am very confident that Clinton didn’t harbor secret RKBA sympathies, so I chose to take my chances with the guy that used to oppose RKBA, says he support it now and might be lying vs the lady that has always hated gun ownership and thinks the Heller decision was “wrongly decided”. It wasn’t a hard decision either.
Trump supported an assault weapons ban after sandy hook. He is both ignorant and unsupportive of guns. But he was going to nominate justices who would probably upholds the seconds amendment while Hillary would probably not.
The NRA has gone from being an advocate for greater gun proficiency in our society to part of the Republican coalition.
Trump could very well have been pandering to whomever he felt like during the election season, but it’s not accurate to say that his position was more or less identical to Clinton’s. Clinton wants to repeal the PLCAA. That’s sufficient to differentiate the two.
I dont think Trump even knows what the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is.
When he wrote his book, he was in favor of “common sense” gun controls. No mention was made of that law.
But I have to say Hillary was wrong there.
Not that I love the industry but I hate that sort of bogus lawsuit.
Trump was pandering, no doubt in my mind. He could give two shits about your rights or mine but if it will win him elections he will suck both our cocks. And he was smart enough to realize that the gun issue could make a difference.
I think that a little pandering from hillary would have been enough to turn off the klaxons going off in minds of a lot of gun voters. A few shots of her having fun hunting with Bill would have gone a long way to even out the pandering.
We’ll never know for sure now of course, but I suspect that if that were to have happened it would have been counterproductive given her history and perceived position on gun control issues, as well as the perception that she was less than genuine.
What I think she should have said more often- and kept saying only that- is that the 2nd Ad is part of our Constitution, and she will support it and the rest of the Constitution.
I’m a Leftie. I’m also a gun-owner. I think there are much more pressing issues in this country than gun violence. Healthcare, education, civil rights, abortion rights, demilitarisation of law enforcement, climate change, environmental protection, tax reform, jobs, the economy… All of those have a higher priority (for me) than gun regulation.