Before anyone blames every Democrat everywhere for their party’s aggression against guns owners’ civil rights, we should remember that there are many Democrats who have a more realistic grasp of things.

Here is a case in point: http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/dear-democratic-gun-control-lobby-how-to-get-better/.

Thanks to Steve Harris for sending it along.

1 COMMENT

  1. Just as you may find a Good Weed among all the bad-ones in the yard, you MAY find a good Democrat among the 99% that’s not worth a D*M to our Freedom! Just look at their voting records when it comes to Guns and our Freedom, for God Sakes. To be Fair, some of the Rep. are no better, but that said, the odds are far better that a Rep. will fight for our rights (That So Many want to take away) when it comes to “Gun-Control”. People, this is NOT the Democrat-Party your Mom & Dad voted for! Most of the Democrat-Party are made up of soft & Hardcore Communism type people. Bottom Line; Do NOT trust any of them when it comes to your Right to own a Gun. Wishing all a Great Day!

  2. Well, I guess ALL liberals aren’t anti-gun.

    But, it sure seems hard to find a PRO-GUN LIBERAL, most of the time.

  3. Manchin: Gun bill to be reintroduced.

    One of the architects of failed gun control legislation says he’s bringing it back.

    Sen. Joe Manchin on Sunday said he would re-introduce a measure that would require criminal and mental health background checks for gun buyers at shows and online. The West Virginia Democrat says that if lawmakers read the bill, they will support it.

    Manchin sponsored a previous version of the measure with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. It failed.
    P.S. you can POST this one right-under the one REPLY I send to you about 6 hours ago (that I don’t see on here) about Why you don’t want to Trust any “Democrats”
    Wishing All a Great Day !

  4. If they see it hopefully they’ll understand it.
    I note with sadness (from Banes blog) Tom Knapp has passed.

  6. Interesting and well written post on the link given. It seems that there are issues we can agree on regardless of other issues. I will pass the link along to my circle if friends and would encourage others to do the same.

  7. Thank you for sharing that! It is extremely well written and I may even get one or two of my left wing (nut) friends to read it.

  8. There’s a simple test (for both Democrats and Republicans) to see if they truly do support out gun rights. If they statr out a statement with “I support the Second Amendment but…..” you know they don’t support the Second Amendment. There should NEVER be a “but” or “however” because adding that word wipes out the first 5 words.

  9. Thanks, this is excellent… and I plan to share it far and wide. This issue isn’t just divided along party lines… there is another division that is still un-named growing in the country.

    I kinda wish those in Congress (and the media) who say they support the 2nd, and oppose more gun laws, would have as cogent and complete an argument, as this author has put together.

  10. There is a few Democrats who support guns, I think mostly due to where they draw their voter base out of. In 1994 when the first major gun control legislation passed it was almost down party lines.

    I have hunted numerous times in the state of West Virginia it is a gun culture state for sure, for the life in me to see Senator Joe Manchin from WV standing along side anti gun Senator from NY Chuck Shumer the day after the gun bill was defeated and saying he will bring another bill to the floor is something. I certainly hope the folks in WV vote Sen. Manchin out next election and replace him with a real true gun supporter.

  11. Great article. I’ll have to pass it on.

    To add to Captain Bob’s comment, any politician who only talks about the Second Amendment in terms of hunting and sporting purposes is no believer in the Second Amendment.

  12. I have heard this debate before that there are left leaning voters who fully support gun rights and would “be on our side”, but the problem I see with this logic is you assume THIS issue is something that will change their vote.

    I don’t think that is the case. I think most left leaning voters that don’t want new gun control may let their representatives know this, but they aren’t willing to hold them accountable if vote to pass new gun control, i.e. they aren’t willing to help vote them out of office.

    On the other hand I WILL vote ANY politician, right, left, conservative, liberal etc. out of office for voting for new gun control. I don’t care what party they are from. If they vote for gun control I am voting them OUT!

    Until every left leaning person that doesn’t want new gun control is willing to do this then I am not sure their simple objection to the issue is enough to try and woo their support.

  13. I think I’ll try to get this in front of one of my Senators, the very same Mark Kirk mentioned…. although he has yet to respond to any of my numerous polite emails and phone calls. Perhaps he’s too busy on the yacht?

  14. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) introduced today legislation to ban pressure cookers. The bill exempts certain models, but seems intent upon categorizing a wide array of the culinary tools as “weapons of mass destruction.”

    “We’ve seen how dangerous these devices can be,” said the Senator. “My legislation seeks to outlaw any model whose pressure exceeds 10 pounds per square inch.”

    Questioned further about the efficacy of such a ban, Senator Feinstein went on to say, “Look, some of these models allow the user to cook with up to 15 PSI. No one needs to cook with 15 PSI. Most models used in the home or while hunting have an 8 PSI setting. That’s plenty of pressure for anyone. The only thing additional pressure will do is allow someone to cook food faster. Furthermore, any model with the little weight on top, you know, the thing that causes the cooker to make that ‘chhhh-chhhh-chhhh-chhhh’ sound is exempted from the bill.”

    Asked about different sizes of pressure cookers, Feinstein said, “Eight quarts is plenty to make a meal for a family of four. Anything beyond 8 quarts is simply motivation for someone to cook more meat, meat which was killed at some point in time. There is a clear and unambiguous link between pressure cookers and death. In addition, there are no exemptions for canners in my bill.”

    Senator Feinstein also said she was asking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to appoint a special committee to look into the inherent dangers surrounding crock pots.

    Senators Manchin (D-WV) and Toomey (R-PA) announced immediately their bi-partisan effort to offer an amendment to the Pressure Cooker Ban which would require anyone who owns, uses, borrows, lends, or has eaten food prepared in a pressure cooker to undergo an extensive background check to include a colonoscopy.

    The CIA (Culinary Institute of America) began an extensive ad campaign to lobby against the pending legislation.

    Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) issued an Executive Order limiting New York pressure cookers to 7 PSI.

    New York mayor Michael Bloomberg announced his intention to personally finance public service messages in support of the ban. Bloomberg said, “Pressure cookers are used to prepare food, the intake of which leads to obesity. I’m against anything that people can eat without government oversight.”

    Representatives for Hamilton-Beach and every other pressure cooker manufacturer were too stunned to provide a statement for this report.

  15. To make headway the journalism schools need to be shut down. A bunch of old hippie professors making brain washed ideological clones of themselves. And doing anything to hurt gun rights is tops on their list. If journalists were retired cops, firemen, nurses, flight attendants, plumbers, managers, what ever, they’d have come from a real, not a made up, reality. BS detectors would work better too. Reporting on everything would be better. That TV show Myth Busters could spend the next ten seasons debunking news room myths. Black Rhino was a fraud. Filing down a firing pin does not make a machine gun, it makes a non-gun. No human alive can fire 700 rounds a minute, or whatever, from anything short of a minigun. Dealers at gun shows make you fill out the forms and do background checks, same for “Internet” purchases. 50 BMG is not an anti tank round. The “more likely to be hurt by your gun than saved by it” so-called study had a disastrously flawed premise. Etc.

    Since the media is the propaganda arm of the Democratic party, if the party is to get some sense of reason, journalists are the one’s to start with. Right now all the back ground research they need is guns bad, bans good.

  16. there’s some absurdity with the bipolar politics, so much that when someone’s associated to a party, it’s expected for them to 100% uphold that party’s ideology/stereotype. in reality i think most people are somewhere in the middle.
    part of this absurdity is in order to gain support on 1 issue, one needs to side with a political party that believes in multiple other ridiculous issues that one disagrees with; or otherwise one ends up disagreeing with democrats/liberals on gun-rights and ends up with a dislike for their group in its entirety – which i don’t think is all right.

  17. Good read. Unfortunately, no one on the left will either read it or attempt to understand the points being made, much less implement them. Future emphasis will be on better packaging of the messege. Also on selection and election of cantidates further to the left and/or more pliable.

  18. the trouble is that their party WILL disarm us, so even if a couple are on our side… Manchen comes to mind.. dems need to be defeated

  19. There not reading message Mass. Here my proof with Joe Biden.

    Joe Biden hasn’t told Obama about new gun plans

    Biden said he ‘hasn’t really discussed’ his plans with the president yet. | Reuters

    Vice President Joe Biden is planning a new gun control offensive — he just hasn’t told the president yet.

    Biden told a group of law enforcement officials Thursday that he is planning even more travel, with trips around the country to stump for a renewed push on expanded background checks and gun-trafficking laws that failed to pass the Senate last month.

    Biden planning fresh gun control push – Mike Allen reports

    Biden: Politicians need ‘courage’ on gun control

    But Biden volunteered that he “hasn’t really discussed” his plans with President Barack Obama and plans to lead the gun control charge on his own, according to two law enforcement officials who attended the meeting. The 90-minute meeting in Biden’s office was an attempt to move forward after the failed effort on background checks.

    (Also on POLITICO: Poll: Hagan, Landrieu benefit from gun vote)

    Biden will appear Friday night at a South Carolina Democratic dinner that’s his first stop in a key 2016 primary state. He told the law enforcement officials Thursday that he is planning even more travel, with trips around the country to stump for a renewed push on the failed gun measures.

    The vice president rattled off poll numbers of senators the White House and its gun control allies think they can win over and said he’ll lead the effort to tweak legislation to give recalcitrant senators the cover to vote for expanded background checks.

    “He was talking like he was going to be leading it,” a person who was at the meeting said. “He didn’t mention any other senators in terms of leading the charge.”

    Biden’s suggestion that he hasn’t informed Obama of his plans echoes statements he made in December and January when he held a series of meetings with advocates interested in curbing gun violence. At that time, Biden said he would gather gun control proposals and determine which ones to take to the president.

    (PODCAST: Obama’s second term setbacks and gun control backlash)

    Biden, of course, also has a history of getting himself ahead of Obama on issues, most notably on gay marriage. Biden last year told “Meet the Press” that he supported gay marriage before Obama had himself announced he supported it.

    Days later, after a frenzy of criticism, Obama announced that he too supported gay marriage, but not without signaling his frustration with Biden, who he said got “a little bit over his skis.”

    White House officials said Obama had planned to finish his “evolution” — as he famously described his gay marriage position in 2010 — on the issue later in the year but said Biden forced his hand.

    The meeting in Biden’s ceremonial office followed a similar session last week for leading gun control groups. Like that meeting, Thursday’s gathering focused more on what will happen next than what mistakes led to the failure of the background checks bill offered by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).

    (PHOTOS: Politicians speak out on gun control)

    “His candid request was for us to tell him what can be done differently,” said Jon Adler, national president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. “His sense was not to go back to the drawing board with the same thing that just lost.”

    Adler added: “You bet on a horse and lose, you’re not going to bet on the same exact horse in the same race.”

    People who attended the meeting also said Biden agreed with a characterization that the White House and gun control allies failed to properly educate the public about what was in the Manchin-Toomey bill.

    The White House referred questions to Biden’s office, which declined to comment on the meeting. During the meeting, Biden and an aide ticked through polling data for a handful of senators targeted by gun control groups after the background checks vote failed. To the law enforcement officials, he cited polling that shows Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have seen precipitous drops in their approval ratings since last month’s vote.

    Biden also told the group that he plans to travel to those senators’ home states to push for background checks.
    Continue Reading

    Text Size
    –
    +
    reset

    “He’s going to go on a road trip,” said Aaron Kennard, the executive director of the National Sheriffs Association. “He’s going to meet with the constituents in the states that voted against it and see if he can rally some support.”

    Adler said Biden was optimistic throughout the meeting.

    “The point he was trying to illustrate was we shouldn’t despair,” Adler said. “He said the outcome shouldn’t be a disincentive for us to move forward.”

    Biden also boasted that he won the vote of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), a red-state Democrat facing reelection in 2014, thanks to longstanding family relationships.

    “He took credit for Landrieu,” said one law enforcement official who attended the meeting. “He said, ‘I used my long relationship with her father and her brother and her to get her to vote with us.’”

    Landrieu’s father, Moon Landrieu, served in Congress, as New Orleans mayor and as secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Her brother, Mitch Landrieu, is now the mayor of New Orleans. Biden headlined a New Orleans fundraiser for Mary Landrieu in January.

    Biden didn’t suggest when a new White House gun control push might begin, but officials with gun control groups and aides to senators working on the issue said no action is likely until after the Senate is finished working on comprehensive immigration reform.

    Baltimore County Police Chief Jim Johnson, who attended the session, said Biden is “not inclined to weaken” the Manchin-Toomey expanded background checks proposal.

    But Johnson said Biden did make it clear he is trying to find ways to win enough votes to pass a background checks bill.

    “The vice president made it clear that he is, that many are trying, to understand why certain elected officials voted no,” said Johnson, who is also chairman of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence. “And he has, as well as many of us, reached out to these individuals and are trying to understand, ‘Why did you vote no?’ And that effort is under way.”

    People who attended the meeting also said Biden told the group that he didn’t want to hear criticism from them in the news media if he hadn’t heard it first in person.

    “He said he wanted everybody to know there or privately later whether they were with him,” said a person who attended the meeting. “He said he didn’t want to be surprised. He said he wouldn’t take it personally, but he didn’t want to find out after the fact.”

    And while Biden asked the law enforcement officials for input, one who attended said the meeting was more of a request from the vice president for support than a discussion about what to do next.

    “It was a typical dog-and-pony show,” Kennard said. “He does all the talking. We do all the listening.”

  20. FYI: This proposed Federal Regulation is no more than a thinly disguised version of the Pat Toomey, and Joe Manchin, “See a Shrink, Lose Your Guns” bill that was defeated in Congress, so now Obama is trying a “Backdoor” method of implementing the same thing, via a Federal Regulation.

    You may go to this website, and submit your comments on this propose regulation at http://www.regulations.gov. Search on: HIPAA Privacy Rule and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (Document ID HHS-OCR-2013-0002-0001), in order to find the rule to comment on.

    I have included a copy of our comment on this abomination of a “Get around the Constitution” regulation, for your review, and usage should you choice to do so.

    If you try to simply type in your comments, you will be limited in the size and length of the comment, so I highly suggest that you write up your comment in a word processor, save it, and then up load it, instead of trying to compose it manually on the website form.

    Our Comment:

    “We are contacting you regarding the PROPOSED HIPAA Privacy Rule and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (Document ID HHS-OCR-2013-0002-0001), which is nothing more than a thinly disguised version of the failed Toomey – Manchin Bill.

    This so-called Federal Rule is in violation of the Constitution’s Second Amendment, and solely intended only to totally illegally dis-arm as many American Citizens as possible, via a backdoor method.

    The proposal will allow a doctor to add a patient to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without ever telling the patient he or she has been added, violating that person’s right to Due Process of Law, and a Trial by a Jury of their Peers.

    This would preempt the Constitutional process, and appoint all Doctors as Judge, Jury, and Executioners. Not all doctors will be able to do it with the same ease, but many will.

    Knowing a doctor could add him/her to a federal database as mentally ill without his knowledge could potentially dissuade a patient from going to the doctor in the first place to get help.

    Worse yet, if the doctor does so and makes a mistake, the patient would have to actively work through the system to get him-self removed as being guilty, before being proven innocent. In some states, should a doctor flag you as having mental illness without your knowledge, you may very well see the state come to seize your previously purchased guns, before a trial is even held.

    Activist mental health providers, or Doctors in fear of prosecution, will probably be overly aggressive in adding people to the list. Given five years, in liberal areas, and people who believe in the physical resurrection of Christ, or any Religion, will probably get automatic entry onto the list.

    Mental health is a serious issue and this disguised version of the Toomey-Manchin legislation, will have massive negative consequences.

    Worse yet, it will still not stop a Columbine, a Newtown, a Boston Marathon Bombing, or the daily massacres in Chicago.

    This proposed regulation, is only half way thought through, and the result, if codified, it will VIOLATE ALL AMERICAN CITIZEN’S GOD GIVEN, AND CONSTITUTIONALLY (FEDERAL & MONTANA) PROTECTED RIGHTS, BECAUSE IT WOULD TURN LAW ABIDING, INNOCENT, CITIZENS INTO CRIMINALS, WHO ARE GUILTY, UNTIL, AND UNLESS, THEY CAN PROVE THEMSELVES INNOCENT, AND WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, OR A TRIAL AND CONVICTION!”

    Your Name(s)
    Address
    City, State and ZIP Code

  23. When you vote fore your member of congress, you are actually casting two votes, one for your representative and another for the speaker of the house. If you vote for any democrat, pro-gun or otherwise, you are voting to make Nancy Pelosi the speaker. I don’t care how pro-gun your democrat is, if Nacy Pelosi is speaker, you can kiss your Second Amendment rights goodbye.

  25. Arizona Creates A State Militia

    When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer poked President Obama in the chest on the runway in Phoenix, it was clear that the working relationship between the the Copper State and Uncle Sam was about as fruitful as Marlin’s hook-up with The Freedom Group. Uncle Sam is ending the “surge” of National Guard troops from border patrol duty, with no end in sight to illegal immigration and drug thuggery. Amidst fears that the feds want to enforce unconstitutional gun laws on Arizonans, Governor Brewer has signed SB1495, a bill establishing an Arizona militia. Aside from drug mules and human traffickers, the new Arizona state militia has scared a few folks . . .

    This is dangerous…..and are we taxpayers going to be footing the bill? Membership to exclude anyone but white supremacists? And how is this going to create jobs, maintain laws and how do we stop a bunch of zealots running rampant?

    Good questions all, from a commentator underneath the post at arizonacapitoltimes.com. Still, same as it ever was. As the not entirely pro-federal government militia man at arizonastateguard.com points out . . .

    Under Title 32 of the USC, those State Defense Forces, or “SDFs”, *cannot* be forced into federal service. Unlike the National Guard forces, SDFs are intended to remain within the boundaries of their own state, and to remain under the exclusive command and control of each state’s Governor.

    Title 32 State Defense Forces already exist in 23 states (plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico). Those states that have activated their State Defense Forces include California, New Mexico, and Texas. The fact is, Arizona is the only southern border state that does *not* have an active State Defense Force.

    Only now it does. Which adds to the law enforcement bunfight on the border; a farrago of law enforcement agencies that includes the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (And Really Big Fires); Tribal and State police; local Sheriffs, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, the U.S Army, the National Guard and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (for investigating the ATF when a cartel member murders a CPB agent with one of the guns the ATF helped smuggle into Mexico.)

    Anyway, the Arizona State Defense Force is a game changer on many levels. Watch this space, as your humble reporter will join them for some training in the fall.

  26. When you have a barrel full of rotten apples is it worth your time to go through the entire thing to find the one or two that may not be?

    Just throw out the barrel and start over.

    I’d like to throw out the entire 535 plus the entire executive branch and the public school system.

    All rotten to the core. (Or is that “corps”?)

  27. Never met a politician I liked . . . good or bad one, they will all bow to the god of re-election and say and do whatever it takes to remain in office