Gun Control

Democrats Reveal Their Hostility to the Second Amendment

Most of the party’s presidential contenders show little or no concern for the right to armed self-defense.

|

The New York Times recently asked 21 Democratic presidential contenders a question about firearms, and none of them advocated gun control. Instead they called for "common-sense gun safety," a euphemism that reflects a general caginess about how far they would go in restricting the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

"In an ideal world," the Times asked, "would anyone own handguns?" Many of the answers reinforce the impression that the Democratic Party is increasingly hostile to the Second Amendment.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who has made gun control a centerpiece of his campaign and seems to view armed self-defense as a privilege rather than a right, gave the longest response but managed to dodge the question entirely. In place of policy details, Booker offered outrage at gun violence, coupled with the snake-oil promise that "we will end this crisis by doing the kind of common-sense things that will make our nation safe."

Julián Castro, Barack Obama's secretary of housing and urban development, was more forthright, saying "people would not own handguns" in his ideal world and arguing that handgun bans have made other countries safer. Unfortunately, he said, the U.S. Supreme Court "has ruled that people do have a right to bear arms," so "for the time being" people who disagree with that decision will have to be satisfied with milder measures.

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) also was open to the idea of banning handguns, which would be plainly inconsistent with the Second Amendment as the Court has interpreted it. "The fact of the matter is that handguns cause a lot of deaths around the country," Moulton said, and "we can have a good debate about whether they should be allowed to be free."

Former Maryland congressman John Delaney seemed to share Castro and Moulton's distaste for the right to arms. "We don't live in an ideal world," he said. "We live in a country where we have the Second Amendment, which I support." Delaney simultaneously supports the Second Amendment and wishes it did not exist.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) also contradicted herself, insisting that "I have never come out for banning guns," even while bragging about her support for banning so-called assault weapons, which are distinguished from other firearms by arbitrarily selected features that do not affect their lethality. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) did her one better, saying he favored "banning and buying back"—i.e., confiscating—"15 million assault rifles."

Only five of the candidates—Swalwell, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg—acknowledged that people might legitimately want to own handguns for self-defense, which the Supreme Court has recognized as "the core lawful purpose" protected by the Second Amendment. Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper dismissed the idea that handguns are useful for that purpose, while Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) allowed only that handguns "would be acceptable" if they were "used in a sportsman-type way."

Showing a similar misunderstanding, Klobuchar said her test for any given gun control proposal is whether it will "hurt my Uncle Dick in the deer stand." With all due respect to Klobuchar's Uncle Dick, the fundamental human right of self-defense is more important than his hobby.

This fuzziness about what the Second Amendment means is especially disconcerting in light of the candidates' vague policy prescriptions. Entrepreneur Andrew Yang said guns should be "much, much more judiciously owned," for instance, while New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio declared that "we have to handle guns in an entirely different fashion."

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) rejected "a false choice which suggests you're either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone's guns away." In her view, then, you can be in favor of the Second Amendment and want to take everyone's guns away, which is hardly reassuring given all the Democrats who supposedly support the right to arms but do not understand what it entails.

© Copyright 2019 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: A Social Media Platform Has Banned Support of Trump 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Here’s a few gun law proposals:

    Issue concealed carry licenses to everyone who holds confidential, secret, and top secret clearance.

    Issue concealed carry licenses to everyone who works in state or federal law enforcement.

    Make all concealed carry licenses reciprocal over state lines.

    Make any gun safety classes or certification reimbursable through federal income tax filing.

    Provide all citizens who submit a request for a standard issue firearm with an approved firearm of their choice.

    I am sure I can come up with a few more.

    1. Here’s one: don’t require any permit ever. Let people carry or conceal whatever arms they choose, as the plain text of the Second Amendment requires.

    2. Provide all citizens who submit a request for a standard issue firearm with an approved firearm of their choice.

      Free college, free healthcare, and free guns??

      How about offering gun safety training in high school, or at churches?

      1. My dad DID take gun classes at school… In California. In the 70s/early 80s.

        America was a lot better place not that long ago.

      2. “You want to teach our children how to kill??? You belong in a boxcar.”

        1. Another ignorant tool speaks.

    3. All gun control laws are unconstitutional violations of the People’s right to keep and bear Arms under the 2nd Amendment.

      This includes gun permits, concealed carry licenses, and requirements that Americans get permission to own weapons.

      1. … and registration lists.

      2. Agreed. And I don’t own any guns, and probably won’t. But if a politician has no respect for the Second Amendment, I don’t trust the rat to respect any of the rest of the Amendments, or the body of the Constitution, for that matter.

        And that’s really the core issue; most Democrat politicians and many Republicans are basically Statists. They believe, in spite of the many horrible object lessons in recent history, that an unfettered State is A Good Thing. They despise the Constitution because they despise the limits it puts on State power.

        1. “They despise the Constitution because they despise the limits it puts on State power.”

          This is the most accurate summation of American politicians ever.

        2. It’s progressives all the way down.

          The belief that, via government, society can be perfected or idealized.

          Piss on them all, regardless of whether they ride a donkey or an elephant.

        3. Sadly, I lost all my pistols and rifles in a boating accident.

          1. Me too. I also lost my memory of where I was went the boat capsized.

    4. “Issue concealed carry licenses to everyone who works in state or federal law enforcement.”

      Sure, because they currently don’t have enough special carve-out rights.

      1. The King’s men *always* get special privileges.

        1. The anti-gun crowd fail to understand that a freedom allowing the peasants to own guns is giving them a parity to the right of the ruling class to own them.

          Taking guns away from the peasants but not the ruling class establishes a disparity in self protection. Yet they claim to be about removing disparities.

          1. Oh, they understand it VERY well.
            Fucking jackbooted Fascist Progtards.

  2. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) rejected “a false choice which suggests you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away.” In her view, then, you can be in favor of the Second Amendment and want to take everyone’s guns away

    …or she hates the Second Amendment, but doesn’t want to take everyone’s guns away. It’s probably not what she meant, but it’s what Democrats think. They don’t like the fact that everyone has the right to own guns, but they don’t want to take everyone’s gun away. Their bodyguards need to carry, for one. If regular people want to defend themselves, they should just get a bodyguard!

    1. You’ll take her guns when you pry them from her bodyguard’s cool dead hand.

      1. She should not have bodyguards paid with our taxes.

    2. I think you’ve got it right. They don’t want an outright gun ban; they want laws so restrictive that those irritating commoners can’t have guns, but the bodyguards of important people can.

    3. I might give Kamala one of my .22s if she blew me, she is used to that kind of deal.

      This offer does not extend to the Kalifornia Kendoll Swallwell.

      1. I wouldn’t touch her with a rented penis.

    4. The Dems can take my pistols and rifles, but I’ll give them the bullets first…at a very high rate of speed.

  3. Democrats don’t like the Bill of Rights? What a surprise.

    1. Democrats, as the party of big government don’t like any part of the Constitution which limits the power of government. They do, though, like individual rights which don’t inconvenience big government and create opportunities to expand that big government.

  4. Well, the war on drugs was a failure, let’s try a war on guns! What could go wrong?

    1. pot dealers rarely if ever shoot back, gun dealers on the other hand?

      1. Dealers? Try gun owners. Some of those communists might not get the chance to fly Pinochet Air.

    2. “What could go wrong?”

      Just ask US Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

    3. If they ever tried mass confiscation in this country… Civil War 2.0 will happen immediately. Previously they’ve mostly grandfathered things in… If they even did that it might be enough to calm people, but outright confiscations and the fireworks would start immediately IMO.

      1. The “Red Flag” laws have yet to blow up in their faces.

        1. Yep. That is going to start piling up corpses right quick, even if it’s all just from accidents. These idiot cops need to realize that going in the middle of the day and knocking on the front door like a civilized human being is the way to do that shit without getting shot… No knock raids in the middle of the night are insane.

  5. You’d think if they are running against literal Hitler, they would want people to keep the means to fight back. Unless they have even worse tyranny in store, like Stalin or Mao.

    1. Democrats are still hoping that their Hitler wins in 2020.

      Then they definitely don’t want Americans to be able to fight back with guns.

    2. I’ve made this argument to left leaning idiots… Some of them a light bulb went off. Others were so retarded they didn’t even get it still.

    3. I was promised Death Camps if Trump won the election.

      Where are the Death Camps?

  6. “In an ideal world would anyone anyone own handguns?”

    An interesting question but a trick.

    There is no definition of ideal world. It is a concept not a reality. Individuals differ as to what it might mean to them.

    Handguns are a physical thing. They can cause or prevent harm. So can a hammer, knife, or radiation. They are tools which can be used for good or evil.

    we shall beat our swords into plowshares. So said the prophet and on the wall at the UN, heh.

    It is not the sword it is how we interact and treat each other.

    The gun is not the issue.

    1. Its a completely pointless question for a presidential debate. We are electing someone to lead this country in the REAL world, not an idealized fantasy land

      1. ” We are electing someone to lead this country in the REAL world, not an idealized fantasy land” said no Donk ever.

  7. “Reveal their hostility?” “Increasingly hostile?”

    I realize there might have been a time when Democrats didn’t openly despise the Second Amendment and want to ban all guns owned by anyone other than their hired thugs and themselves. However, I don’t think there’s anyone alive today old enough to remember that time.

    1. That was my reaction. The Democratic party has despised the 2nd amendment since, roughly speaking, the 14th amendment was adopted. No coincidence: They turned on the 2nd amendment as soon as it would arm the freed slaves.

      They’ve been hostile to it ever since, the only things that change are who they mean to render defenseless, (Almost everybody at this point!) and how much they think they have to lie about it.

    2. There used to be legit pro 2A Dems. They were the conservative or moderate ones, mostly from rural areas. My moms side of the family are largely the kind of people who might have been their target demographic. Hard working blue collar folks, who liked guns, but weren’t completely against a few social safety nets and other dumb shit.

      Of course now they’ve been pushed far to the right of where they used to be because the Dems are too crazy to contemplate. But back in the 90s even when there were sane Dems…

    3. JFK was President.

  8. Quote: InSen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) – her view, then, you can be in favor of the Second Amendment and want to take everyone’s guns away,
    Typical Democrat double think. You can legally own guns, as long as you don’t own any guns.

  9. The Second Amendment is about keeping those in power in check. Of course those seeking that power are opposed to it.

    1. +10

    2. As are those that want to be ruled more and more.

      1. To be fair, many of them just want you to be ruled more and more. They don’t understand oppressive state power isn’t all that selective.

  10. I think if the dems win in 2020, they will feel embolden by Trump’s shenanigans and abuse of power to ban many things using executive authority if they don’t also have a majority in Congress. They can’t completely ban guns per 2A, but will try to get as close as they can. Other things they will try to ban:

    E-cigarettes (see what happened in SF yesterday). And ultimately all tobacco

    Anything that uses fossil fuels (except private jets used by A-list celebs and Al Gore)

    Toy guns

    Heteronormative toys

    home schooling

    1. What abuse of power?

      1. The one that comes with being president for both parties

      2. I can think of vanishingly few presidents who have not abused their power. Trump is definitely not one of those.

        1. But he certainly isn’t plumbing the depths; Complies with court orders, for instance, that puts him ahead of several I could think of.

          1. By telling everyone who receives subpoenas to ignore them, and asserting “blanket immunity” over testimony?

            Coincidentally, I’ve never seen the term “blanket immunity” or “executive privilege” in the Constitution as methods by which to obstruct Congressional oversight.

    2. Those last two have to go!

  11. Democrats are also opposed to individual freedom.
    Not news as such, but then neither is their opposition to the constitution.

  12. I figure as the campaign goes on, they’ll start up again spouting that oxymoronic nonsense that the Second Amendment protects a “collective right”. And none of our “journalists” will think to ask them “what the fuck is a ‘collective right’?”

    1. Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit likes to say, “Just think of the media as Democratic party operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.”

      That’s how they think of themselves at this point. Democrats first, journalists second.

  13. According to longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn, there are plenty of common sense gun safety proposals that are perfectly Constitutional. It’s encouraging to see Democrats fight the epidemic of gun fetishism that plagues our country.

    #BanAssaultWeapons
    #UnbanMichaelHihn

    1. There’s no such thing as a constitutional common sense gun safety proposal.

      All gun safety proposals, laws, and regulations, by definition and by default, violate the Second Amendment.

      1. I haven’t seen any gun safety proposals. All I’ve seen are onerous rights restrictions being labeled as “gun safety”.

    2. According to longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn

      You invoke the devil and this parody bullshit is gonna get seriously un-funny real quick.

      1. This thread is just begging for a Hihnfection.

    3. plenty of common sense gun safety proposals that are perfectly Constitutional.

      Such as only “allowing” (funny term for a captial-L Libertarian) the ownership of guns in common use in 1789.

  14. “for the time being”

    Translation: Until we have sufficient power to pack the court with justices who will rule according to our politics.

    1. That’s the thing that has to be remembered: There is basically never going to come a point where the Democratic party makes its peace with private gun ownership, they’ve been hostile to it for well over a century, and only been getting worse.

      And there WILL come a time when they control both chambers of Congress, if only by a small majority, and the White House, too. Might be 2021, might be 2025 or 2029, but eventually? It will happen. Because they do control almost all the channels of cultural transmission, that gives them almost unlimited respawns.

      And when it happens they WILL pack the Court. They’re psychologically incapable of admitting that any institution they don’t control is legitimate.

      And once they’ve packed the Court, they WILL overturn Heller, and Citizens United, because no court decision that stands in their way can be admitted to be legitimate.

      And then they’ll set out to make sure they never lose power again. They’ll make the territories into states. They’ll naturalize all the illegal aliens. They’ll mandate pro-Democratic gerrymandering in the name of prohibiting gerrymandering.

      I think civil war is inevitably in our future, because things have gone too far to avoid it, and the Democratic party is now more of a revolutionary socialist party than a normal party in a democracy. They simply won’t be able to resist doing the things that would provoke one.

      1. they will pack the court even if a few existing justices happen to fall asleep with pillows over their heads.

      2. Very Kurt Schlichter like [I’m guessing you’ve read his books, if not you may want to as it parallels your argument to a “t”]; no sane person would wish for such a thing as a civil war, but I believe your narrative is spot on. It is like a cancer that will never stop growing unless it is eradicated; even then it will always try to come back at any opportunity.

        I honestly do not understand why anyone would want to live in such a state, whereby the government takes so much control over everyone’s life. Is it wanting to remain in a state of dependency, or is it an innate desire to see authority as in loco parentis and making everyone dance to your particular tune and be forced to follow your rules? This goes beyond urban vs. rural, socioeconomic, or educational backgrounds [in spite of what Reverend Gall Bladders would exhort us to believe]; it is something very basic to a person and their make up that determines this.

      3. It is not just Heller andCitizens United that they want to overturn.

        https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2019/06/oberlin-college-administrators-and-students-just-learned-that-actions-have-consequences-ted-diadiun.html

        Replete with the “isms” of liberalspeak, the document called the institution unethical, saying it “functions on the premises of imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and a cissexist heteropatriarchy,” and demanded such things as hirings, firings, promotions, renamed buildings, black-only “safe spaces,” and a wide variety of increased financial commitments from the school, including an $8.20-per-hour stipend to be paid to black leaders for their time spent in campus activism.

        1. They’ve been raised to expect nothing less than total accommodation of their wants, and anything less gets an “ism”

  15. Imagine my shock

  16. Klobuchar seems far too obsessed with her Uncles Dick

    1. “This is his rifle, this is his gun. This is for hunting, this is for…”

  17. “The fact of the matter is that handguns cause a lot of deaths around the country,” Moulton said, and “we can have a good debate about whether they should be allowed to be free.”

    Where do I go to get my free gun???

    1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRLVgFNTnIg

      i’ve had it up to here with your rules.

    2. Where do I go to get my free gun???

      TANSTAAFG!

  18. bodyguards, all.

  19. Democrats have always been the party to oppose civil rights.

    As my longtime Usenet ally, Chris Morton, put it

    http://acecomments.mu.nu/?blog=86&post=338763#c20400431

    The history of gun control in North America is the history of violent White supremacism and the efforts of its proponents to achieve a “safe working environment” for themselves. After all, where’s the fun in a lynching or race riot if there’s no guarantee of who’s going to end up dead when things shake out?

    Remember that the 1994 Crime Bill was supported by a large majority of Democrats, and they only came to oppose it after a backlash from the mass incarcerations of young black men that followed.

  20. If they really wanted to lower gun deaths they would end drug prohibition.

  21. “If I could, I would erase the Second Amendment and confiscate guns….but I can’t because stupid Constitution that doesn’t evolve and stupid people who take it literal.”

    Run of the mill standard prog/Dem.

  22. Pretend the 2nd amendment doesn’t exist and defend whatever gun liberalism you find contains merit, on its merits. Reasonable?

    I find it instructive to compare our country’s policies to those of other civilized countries that don’t have mass gun deaths every year, and the same goes for other issues on which we fall woefully behind. But I realize that a lot of you think America is “special,” meaning “slow.”

    1. Pretend the 2nd amendment doesn’t exist and defend whatever gun liberalism you find contains merit, on its merits. Reasonable?

      Pretend the 14th amendment doesn’t exist and defend whatever equality before the law you find contains merit, on its merits. Reasonable?

      1. Why was McDonald even necessary when Heller states the 2A applies to all citizens of America? And why did the justices in Cruikshank not know that the 2A was the one amendment in the BoR not limited to the federal government? Such a head scratcher…

      2. Sure. I’m pretty consistent about preferring to defend policies on their merits with respect to human well-being.

        1. You struggle with consistency across single posts, let alone two. So you probably shouldn’t falsely advertise about topics so large as equality before the law.

          Or can we presume your “Sure.” to indicate that you would broadly favor repeal of the 14th? Or does your ideological consistency extend all the way from the hypothetical to the abstract?

        2. So, self-defense is anathema to ‘human well being’?

          1. Look at how other civilized countries do this.

            They are not without problems, but neither are they Orwellian nightmares, and they have tens of thousands fewer gun deaths per year.

            I am asking this question in good faith and you’re making a mockery of human carnage because some ratfucking asshole on TV told you how to think.

            1. Look at how other civilized countries do this.

              I don’t know that I’d call a society where the only way to prevent people from shooting each other is by taking away their guns civilized.

              They are not without problems, but neither are they Orwellian nightmares, and they have tens of thousands fewer gun deaths per year.

              You’re being exceedingly narrow. There are plenty with more control and more problems. There are plenty that are Orwellian and other worse nightmares. There are plenty with fewer guns more control and fewer gun deaths, but they tend to be on the small, isolated, and ethnic nationalist side of that spectrum. All of which you overlook in your ‘consistent’ quest to better others by taking away their ability to defend themselves.

            2. You raise a fair point, deserving of being addressed.

              Setting aside that a lot of the “civilized” countries actually ARE on their way to becoming Orwellian nightmares, why do we have a higher murder rate than SOME, (But only some!) of the ‘civilized’ countries?

              Well, we do, and we don’t. America is a very heterogenous country, and most of the country is actually quite peaceful.

              Murders in US very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders

              “he United States can really be divided up into three types of places. Places where there are no murders, places where there are a few murders, and places where murders are very common.

              In 2014, the most recent year that a county-level breakdown is available, 54% of counties (with 11% of the population) have no murders. 69% of counties have no more than one murder, and about 20% of the population. These counties account for only 4% of all murders in the country.

              The worst 1% of counties have 19% of the population and 37% of the murders. The worst 2% of counties contain 28% of the population and 51% of the murders. The worst 5% of counties contain 47% of the population and account for 68% of murders. But even within those counties the murders are very heavily concentrated in small areas.”

              So, if you really want to know why we have such a high murder rate, (“What you mean ‘we’, kemo sabe?”) you don’t want to look at the nation as a whole. You want to look at that 1-5%.

              Oh, by the way: Guess which party has been in charge of it for decades?

    2. “”I find it instructive to compare our country’s policies to those of other civilized countries that don’t have mass gun deaths every year,””

      How many of those countries depend on the guns of America for defense? We had to bailout some counties in Europe twice.

      1. None of them depend on Bubba’s arsenal, you idiot.

        1. But they do depend on reasonable, rational, well-trained, expert, people to bear arms in their defense.

          People who have engineered the destruction of several nations without any benefit. Iraq, for example, destroyed on the orders of these people – in the name of ‘self-defense’ – or Libya.

          So, you think Bubba isn’t safe enough to have weapons – but your precious state has shown its a damn sight worse. Bubba’s only had a couple negligent discharges this year. The states’ murdered thousands of civilians who got in between the US and other combatants.

        2. Bubba’s arsenal holds granpappy’s M1. I know Bubba, Bubba is a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Bubba.

    3. We think you’re “special” too, Tony.

    4. So most Latin American countries are uncivilized? Your racism is shining through quite nicely.

      1. “Latin American” is a race?

        Only to La Raza.

        1. Wut.

      2. How many brass plaques commemorating the assassination of a President does the Ecuadorian White House have?

    5. What’s the point in having a Constitution if you’re not allowed to use it?

      “I find it instructive to compare our country’s policies to those of other civilized countries that don’t have mass gun deaths every year,”

      You mean, the imaginary ones in your head? Yes, they’re remarkably peaceful.

      1. Tony doesn’t has time for your racist, sexist “facts”. He has feelings to advertise, fears to voice, and bigotry to practice.

        1. Seriously though Tony, here’s another person who’s trying to educate you out of your fears. Won’t you even click on the link?

      2. Who mentioned mass shootings?

        Get Sevo in here. We need a logical fallacy stat.

        1. Who mentioned mass shootings?

          Tony
          June.26.2019 at 12:02 pm

          …mass gun deaths every year…

          Mr. Consistency and you can fuck right the hell off with any notions of semantic ‘summed mass suicides count as mass gun deaths but not as mass shootings’ goalpost shifting bullshit.

    6. Pretend the 2nd amendment doesn’t exist and defend whatever gun liberalism you find contains merit, on its merits. Reasonable?

      Yes.

      I don’t understand what you’re thinking here Tony. State’s can bear arms for protection. States are composed of individuals. Collectives do not have rights that individuals don’t. So why wouldn’t individuals have the right to self-defense – including access to the tools of self-defense?

      So, imagining there is no second amendment – defend whatever anti-gun liberalism you find contains merit, on its merits. Reasonable?

    7. So you want to compare America to Singapore?

      What legal protections do you suppose exist in Singapore?

    8. Reasonable?

      No. The constitution exists and is the founding charter of the government(s) in our republican system of government. Ergo the only thing that matters is what the government is actually allowed to do. 2A of the federal constitution is very clear, as are several equivalents in the constitutions of the states, such as article 1 section 13 of the constitution of the commonwealth of Va. That reads: “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Clear enough for you?

      1. So let’s do a compromise and require people to be trained and conscripted to service before they can have guns. Deal?

        1. So that the population can be disarmed by simply neglecting to train people and conscript them to service? No, that’s exactly why the 2nd amendment was written to guarantee the right to the people, not the militia: To rule out that kind of nonsense.

        2. Per my earlier statement would you suggest we round up all the black people, conscript them and teach them how to be black before we issue them their protected minority card(s)?

          It’s a rhetorical question. I know your answer is ‘Yes’. I’m just wondering when you’ll finally say so out loud and if you’ll hear it when you do.

    9. “Pretend the 2nd amendment doesn’t exist and defend whatever gun liberalism you find contains merit, on its merits.”

      OK.

      Some people are rich and white enough to live in places that avoid crime, and call the police when crimes do occur. They live in gated communities, have security guards at work, and aren’t scared to call the police. We call this priviledge.

      Other people can’t afford nice places or security guards or are targeted so much by police that they can’t call them. We call this discrimination, and it’s bad.

      Therefore, we allow everyone a right to bear arms for self-defense, both against other citizens and the state. We call this equality.

      If Democrats want to embrace the privileged perspective of wealthy upper-class WASPs, it’s their prerogative. They shouldn’t be surprised when that loses votes. For some people, the reality isn’t as peachy keen as that.

    10. See demographic statistics for murders.

      The murder rate in the USA for white Americans is comparable to lower than any European or Asian country that is totally disarmed. ~85% of the murders in the USA are blacks and Hispanics, mostly gang related.

      If Europe had our ethnic issues, they’d have our murder rates. As it stands, white Americans are as unlikely to murder people with their piles of guns they own as disarmed Europeans.

  23. “people would not own handguns”

    They do and they will regardless of any totalitarian, unconstitutional laws/policies.

    In her view, then, you can be in favor of the Second Amendment and want to take everyone’s guns away, which is hardly reassuring given all the Democrats who supposedly support the right to arms but do not understand what it entails.

    Gun grabbers lie.

  24. Most of the party’s presidential contenders show little or no concern for the right to armed self-defense.

    1. Which ones are not for more gun control?

    2. Its worse than that – they’ve little or no concern for the right to *self-defense* – period. These people don’t think you should defend yourself, that that is the state’s prerogative. Not the state’s *responsibility*, just a privilege exclusive to it that it is free to exercise or not as it sees fit.

  25. Meh. Why should it be any different than their open hostility to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth?

  26. Very telling about the Democrats that none of them offered an actual legitimate, anti-gun proposal: “I don’t like 2A, so I will support a Constitutional amendment so that my desired restrictions will be legal.”

    Sure, it won’t ever pass, but at least they’re doing it properly.

  27. “Reveal their hostility”? Have you been living under a rock for the past century?

  28. The democrats want to confiscate everyone’s guns, except for their bodyguards’ guns.
    But that’s different.

  29. And whoever the democrat nominee is will start saying, “Nobody wants to take your guns away.”

  30. Anyone surprised at all by the Democrats’ hostility to the natural right of every human to own a means of self defense from their government actually deserves the gulag waiting for them.

    I for one will either live a free man, or die as one.

  31. Any suggestions for the next process of getting a new article in business

  32. [Insert Charlton Heston Quote Here]

    (You know the one I’m talkin’ ’bout!)

  33. […] who has proposed the most ambitious gun control program of anyone in the Democratic field, once again eschewed policy substance in favor of an emotional appeal, declaring that the issue is personal for […]

  34. […] who has proposed the most ambitious gun control program of anyone in the Democratic field, once again eschewed policy substance in favor of an emotional appeal, declaring that the issue is personal for […]

  35. […] who has proposed the most ambitious gun control program of anyone in the Democratic field, once again eschewed policy substance in favor of an emotional appeal, declaring that the issue is personal for […]

  36. …New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio declared that “we have to handle guns in an entirely different fashion.”

    Point away from face.

  37. […] who has proposed the most ambitious gun control program of anyone in the Democratic field, once again eschewed policy substance in favor of an emotional appeal, declaring that the issue is personal for […]

  38. […] powerful tides trying to take down not just our freedoms, but those who defend them. How powerful? According to Reason.com, of 21 Democratic presidential contenders, only five even grant the possibility of self-defense as […]

  39. […] powerful tides trying to take down not just our freedoms, but those who defend them. How powerful? According to Reason.com, of 21 Democratic presidential contenders, only five even grant the possibility of self-defense as […]

  40. […] powerful tides trying to take down not just our freedoms, but those who defend them. How powerful? According to Reason.com, of 21 Democratic presidential contenders, only five even grant the possibility of self-defense as […]

  41. […] powerful tides trying to take down not just our freedoms, but those who defend them. How powerful? According to Reason.com, of 21 Democratic presidential contenders, only five even grant the possibility of self-defense as […]

  42. It’s quite easy to ban guns when you have an armed security detail 24/7. Here’s the offer…we give up our guns when you give up your armed security. Sound good?…I didn’t think so hypocrites!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.