Even if you believe in gun rights, trying to compare them to trans rights or gay rights or anything else like that is a bad analogy. Those are about people. Guns are things. Trans rights is about giving trans people the same rights as everyone else. Gay rights is about giving gay people the same rights as everyone else. Gun rights IS NOT about giving guns the same rights as everyone else.
Gun rights are about granting people the rights to use guns. That is a fundamentally different concept. Ownership is not the same thing as equality. Trans rights is not about owning and using trans people.
I’m not even going to take a side. This should be something all sides can agree on. You cannot argue that the rights of an object are the same as those of a person.
It’s just a quirk of language that we can use the same syntax to describe these different concepts.
More or less no. Each state or city was free to do whatever they wanted. Chicago, DC and SF all banned handguns. Altho the SF law was overturned just because CA state has authority over gun laws, not locals, Chicago and DC felt free to ban handguns. Up until then, no one had tried really widespread guns bans, only “nibbles”.
McCain should have been rated “F-“ on every issue. He frequently talked out of both sides of his mouth and wasn’t dependable on any of his stances which he was subject to change. He cast some pro-gun owner votes, then he would talk about supporting gun bans. Some were dumb enough to find his Maverick title endearing when in fact it was disingenuous and dangerous to our Republic.
If one cannot distinguish between the Second Amendment views of John McCain and Nancy Pelosi – two politicians whom the GOA rates identically – I would submit that ratings are merely frivolous expressions of grudges and other subjective criteria. Which was my point: the GOA ratings are nothing for anyone but a fringe to pay attention to.
I can’t even tell from their ratings if they are based on votes or actual positions, as opposed to mere feeeeeelings about particular people. Like, the GOA opposes Trump’s pick to head ATF because he doesn’t want to abolish the current system for background checks on gun buyers. So, he’s terrible.
You didn’t read my post, did you? McCain couldn’t be trusted to maintain a steady platform of being pro-gun rights because of statements he made even in the face of pro-gun votes he made. He was unbalanced and couldn’t be counted on. Just because he happened to make more pro-gun votes than Pelosi doesn’t mean he deserved a better grade than her. He knocked his rating down doing and saying other things. There are several factors that are considered in those ratings. He simply wasn’t the 2nd Amendment defender the left paints him as. GOA exposed him for what he was and it pisses you off. So you label GOA owners as extremists and fringe. Oh, yeah? At least we didn’t roll over and play dead like the NRA does when it comes to compromising on our civil liberties.
The OP asked about governors and members of Congress. The thread title asks about Democrats.
Wikipedia tells me there are 23 Dem governors, 235 Dem house representatives, and 45 Dem senators. It would be tedious, but one could, as bordelond suggested, check each one’s individual stance to see if they self-identify as “pro-gun” or not. I suspect the end result would be a very short list of Dems elected to statewide or federal offices that self-identify as “pro-gun”.
I think any organization that cared enough to actually rate politicians, like NRA / GOA / Everytown is going to be partisan enough on the issue to not really be trusted by the other side or moderates.
We’ve had the law for 3 years now and no increase in violence, no even anecdotal. The NRA just likes to pad their stats by backing winners. GOA actually goes behind the platitudes.
I always laugh when I see those folks salivating at the thought of “beating” the NRA or putting them out of the influence business. If everyone who is an NRA member switched to GOA, the debate would take a significantly different direction.
Yes, I read your post. And this one. And you haven’t actually contested my central point: that GOA ratings are so subjective that John McCain and Nancy Pelosi get the same rating, based on the organization’s grudge against McCain.
There’s no objective standard in which McCain and Pelosi can be considered interchangeable on voting on gun laws. Is there overlap? Sure, on a few issues. But just a few. But they are far more different than they are similar, and yet the most radical gun organization rates them identically.
Why do you think I’m angry about this? You seem really bent out of shape by my challenge to your assertion that GOA issues accurate ratings of politicians. I don’t really care about McCain’s political positions. I’m just saying it’s silly for anyone but the most extreme fringes of the pro-gun side to listen to GOA on anything.
Actually it’s ludicrous not to listen to GOA. We’re the only no compromise gun rights organization. While groups like the NRA roll over on issues we stand up and fight.
Do you compromise on your civil liberties? I didn’t think so. Refusing to give up your rights is not fringe or extreme.
1st Ad: I think making and selling Kiddie porn with live underage kids should be illegal, and seriously penalized. I am Ok with laws against Libel, slander, plagiarism and copyright abuse. I dont think that *your *religion should make me do anything.
4th: Privacy- you only have a right to privacy when you have a legitimate expectation of privacy.
And so forth. Just like the 2nd Ad, as set out in Heller: *2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. *
No Right is absolute.
But again, we are getting away from which Dem candidates have which gun policies/programs/platforms/