Why 2A Rights are now a Partisan Issue...

thallub

New member
It changed during the runup to the 1994 elections. The "assault weapons" ban passed the US Senate by two votes. The US House vote was 216-214. 177 Democrats, one Independent and 38 Republicans, including the House minority leader, voted for the ban.

137 Republicans voted against the ban along with 77 Democrats.

The NRA made the 1994 election a referendum on the Democrats, refusing admonish the Republicans who voted for the AWB.

The 1994 AWB passed due to a personal appeal to every US House member by Ronald Reagan.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1994/h156


https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkacz...ult-weapon-ban?utm_term=.ch7npJ8V0#.fl7kZ10A7
 

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
There is a strong position among minorities for gun rights. The current NRA messaging should adopt it and praise it. The defense against tyranny has a strong evidential base in the history of African-Americans and civil rights. While the NRA supported some of that in the past, it is missing now. Mr. Noir and the gentleman who destroyed Robert Reich on the Bill Maher show, should be on the cover of the American Rifleman instead of yapping about Ollie North.

The continued use of the word 'liberal' as a negative is a terrible messaging mistake, even if it is a good niche fund raiser.

No mention should be made of any issue not directly relevant to the RKBA.

Some of said this before, what else is new.

44 AMP is correct that folks are being trapped by the fringes of their parties. You either join the crotch police or the holster police to be a member in good standing of either fringe.
 

peterg7

New member
I believe 50% of the Dems would still support the NRA if we could get in the wayback machine to a time where owning a gun was about hunting and organized target shooting.

With the popularity of Self defense, CC and the firearms associated with it the opposition went militant, maybe because gun owners went militant about the guns they owned.

Take a trip back in time through the Gun Digests of the 50’s-60’s and see what guns were popular, check out the prevailing attitude about small concealable handguns it may surprise you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

5whiskey

New member
With the popularity of Self defense, CC and the firearms associated with it the opposition went militant, maybe because gun owners went militant about the guns they owned.

Take a trip back in time through the Gun Digests of the 50’s-60’s and see what guns were popular, check out the prevailing attitude about small concealable handguns it may surprise you.

I believe there is at least some truth to this. I too prefer wood and steel, lower capacity, hand assembled, classic firearms these days. Black rifles are all the same, and the dudes that have raid vests but have never been military, cop, private personal security, etc. annoy me to no end... but I also believe they deserve the freedom to do that as long as they don't hurt anyone. And I advocate for CC and own CC pistols. They are tools, however. And I am of the opinion that if a cop can carry a gun, so can a law-abiding citizen... and I've been a cop for years.

But consider this, where there are essentially only two effective political parties, and the people running one of them (NOT the rank and file, not the blue collar members) make gun control one of their party's political planks, I'd say they are the ones who made it a partisan issue.

When one party does this, where else can gun owners go but to the other party? And because there is no other choice, the other party takes our support for granted, by and large, because they know they are the "only game in town".

Gun owners and gun rights supporters in the Democrat party are trapped by their party elite, and either have to toe the party line, or lose support from the party (not the people).

Dems have always pushed gun control as one of their social "concerns", but not exclusively, and not in lockstep as part of party loyalty, until recent years. THAT, I put squarely on the shoulder of those people running the party. They decided that they were going to make it a political "us vs them" issue, and they succeeded.

I guess that's what I'm talking about. And the fact that the party elite get to make that decision, and sell it to their base over time, means that a very small minority is steering the regulation (and even attempted abolishment) of a constitutional right. It's kind of scary if you think about it. And yes, I understand this is not an issue exclusive to team Democrat.

There is a strong position among minorities for gun rights. The current NRA messaging should adopt it and praise it. The defense against tyranny has a strong evidential base in the history of African-Americans and civil rights. While the NRA supported some of that in the past, it is missing now. Mr. Noir and the gentleman who destroyed Robert Reich on the Bill Maher show, should be on the cover of the American Rifleman instead of yapping about Ollie North.

YES! I like Colin Noir, but he does have some "angry rant" syndrome sometimes. I am a proponent of civility. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr proved that a firm unwavering position, coupled with a civil and courteous attitude, is far more effective than hostile and angry militants.
 
Last edited:

5whiskey

New member
It changed during the runup to the 1994 elections. The "assault weapons" ban passed the US Senate by two votes. The US House vote was 216-214. 177 Democrats, one Independent and 38 Republicans, including the House minority leader, voted for the ban.

137 Republicans voted against the ban along with 77 Democrats.

The NRA made the 1994 election a referendum on the Democrats, refusing admonish the Republicans who voted for the AWB.

The 1994 AWB passed due to a personal appeal to every US House member by Ronald Reagan.

That's what I'm talking about. That was far from a straight party line vote like we see so often today. Of note, I would prefer the NRA to elevate itself from the partisan political fray. I understand they will likely appear to be siding with the Republican party no matter what. And... coincidentally the NRA still gives A ratings to Democrats so we can't accuse them of being exclusively partisan.
 

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
Angry Rant
is a common output of some NRA's prominent supporters. Wayne and Ted's Excellent Adventures might be an example.

The antigun folks love to do that also.

I would like a return to civility but the hyperpartisan tribal focus has washed that away.

When an issue becomes totemic of tribal membership, rational discussion suffers.
 

44 AMP

Staff
The 1994 AWB passed due to a personal appeal to every US House member by Ronald Reagan.
Perhaps my memory is faulty, (again :eek:) but I don't remember hearing Reagan support the AWB. Clinton pushed it to the hilt.


With the popularity of Self defense, CC and the firearms associated with it the opposition went militant, maybe because gun owners went militant about the guns they owned.

Take a trip back in time through the Gun Digests of the 50’s-60’s and see what guns were popular, check out the prevailing attitude about small concealable handguns it may surprise you.

It doesn't surprise me, I watched it happen. We (gun owners) went "militant" as a REACTION to the laws and restrictions pushed by a few powerful legislators (and all belonged to the same party) while we were "peacefully" enjoying our blued steel and wood.

You could buy an AR-15 or an FAL in those days, too. Few people did. They were expensive, and not well suited for hunting, and so were a niche market, and not even anywhere on the gun banner's radar at the time.

What the ant-gun forces (led by Dodd, Metzenbaum and a few others -and where Schumer got on the bandwagon -note, all the same party...) were focused on, primarily was the "Saturday night special". (which to them meant any handgun in general, but cheap easily concealed pistols in particular). And they took their shot at our "blued steel and wood" too, with the ending of direct mail order sales and the establishment of other restrictions that previously did not exist. (National age restrictions, the FFL system, and creations of prohibited persons as a general class, not as individuals which was what had been the law, previously).

It was later discovered (and only publicized in the gun press) that Dodd had gotten a copy and translation of a 1933 (34?) Nazi gun control law, and large parts of the 68 GCA that he sponsored was virtually a word for word reproduction of that law!!

So here we were, basically living our lives "fat, dumb, and happy", until they essentially bushwacked us in 68. The political unrest of the times, (including the murders of Kennedy, Kennedy, and King, and our own "domestic terrorists, such as the SDS, the Weather Underground and others who were actually exploding BOMBS in public places :eek:) gave the public support push needed to "do something". And they did, do something.

Another little remembered fact is that, at the time, our domestic firearms industry SUPPORTED the proposed GCA 68, because of the import restrictions. The bill was sold to gunmakers as a trade protection measure, and the other parts were downplayed. Not exactly a lie, but far from the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. :mad:

The current cycle of demonization of semi autos (and gun ownership, lawful self defense and etc.) began in 1986. With Patrick Purdey's mass murder in the Stockton schoolyard, all the elements came together. Mass murder, Children!!! at a school!!, the killer killing himself at the end, and leaving only grief, frustration, ANGER, and a semi auto AK-47 variant to focus on. and, boy did they focus on that!!

Following copycat, and near copycat shootings, certain politicians decided that this was a stalking horse that they could ride until it foundered, and then beat votes out of its dead carcass for years to come. Since the bulk of these politicians were all from the same party, when they rose to full leadership of that party, its no surprise that they made the issue a political plank of the party they now controlled.

If you want the answer to why gun control has become not just a social, but a political partisan issue to the degree that now exists, the answer is simple. Certain people in one political party worked very hard, and very successfully to make it so.

or that's how I see it, anyway.

Why are "assault weapons" so much in demand today, when they weren't back then? The answer is simple. Ban anything (and fail to make it all inclusive, complete and permanent) and you create a desire in the people to own them. call it forbidden fruit, or anything else, but if you want to make something MORE popular, just get the government to try and outlaw it.
 

thallub

New member
Perhaps my memory is faulty, (again ) but I don't remember hearing Reagan support the AWB.

Reagan stood with Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and supported the AWB.

Refresh your memory here:

On May 3, 1994, Ronald Reagan and two other former presidents sent a letter to House members, urging them to support a controversial ban on lethal, military-style assault weapons. At the time, President Clinton was battling Republicans, conservative Democrats and the NRA to pass a bill barring many semiautomatic rifles.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...took-on-the-gun-lobby/?utm_term=.6c716f25cf95

It was later discovered (and only publicized in the gun press) that Dodd had gotten a copy and translation of a 1933 (34?) Nazi gun control law, and large parts of the 68 GCA that he sponsored was virtually a word for word reproduction of that law!!

There was no 1933-34 Nazi gun control law.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...en-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
 
Last edited:

zukiphile

New member
44AMP said:
Perhaps my memory is faulty, (again ) but I don't remember hearing Reagan support the AWB. Clinton pushed it to the hilt.

That's because RWR didn't push the AWB during his political career, the part of his life for which he is noted. RWR was also an enthusiast for expanding federal power when he was in his 20s and 30s, but not during the notable part of his life, but it is true the same way saying that Abraham Lincoln was only three feet tall is true. (Lincoln was undoubtedly three feet tall at some point in his life).

BHO asserted after Newtown that

BHO said:
A majority of Americans agree with us on this. And, by the way, so did Ronald Reagan, one of the staunchest defenders of the Second Amendment, who wrote to Congress in 1994, urging them -- this is Ronald Reagan speaking -- urging them to listen to the American public and to the law-enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of military-style assault weapons.

What BHO knew but did not include was that although RWR was formally diagnosed with alzheimers in 1994, the year of that ban, RWR had suffered deterioration even before leaving office five years before. Now, having alzheimer's doesn't mean one isn't responsible for what he says, and RWR certainly engaged in compromise on a number of issues while in office, but the assertion that the AWB was something the substance of which is palatable to the staunchest defenders of the 2d Am. is false.
 
Last edited:

Mainah

New member
Reagan was a Goldwater Republican when he signed the Mulford Act, and Trump was writing checks to Hillary’s Senate campaign not too long ago. I suspect that at some point people will start to question the logic behind having a pro-gun control bumper sticker next to a Resist one on their Subaru wagons. The tide can turn again.
 

2damnold4this

New member
This is a very good thread with lots of informative posts.


I'd like my NRA to focus exclusively on gun rights and not get involved in aspects of the culture wars that have nothing to do with guns. President Brownell's columns seemed to be an effort to be more inclusive which is the direction I would like the NRA to go.
 

LogicMan

New member
I am a huge fan of Ronald Reagan, but the guy wasn't perfect, and when it comes to gun rights, for all we know, if he had been able to have a sit-down with some of us and really discuss the issue, he might have completely changed his opinion on things like "assault weapons." Regarding his saying to "listen to law enforcement," both the anti and pro-gun forces (NRA) do that, and to me it's nonsense, because it depends on the law enforcement. If you are talking big city police chiefs and departments, they heavily support hard gun control. If you are talking rural sheriffs, they heavily resist it. Because the police chiefs answer to big-city councils which are dominated by leftists, and the Sheriffs answer to rural populations that are more right-wing.

Regarding why weapons like AR-15s weren't popular until the last few decades, there are a few reasons this changed:

Historically, from what I understand, almost all firearms used by American soldiers in war then became highly popular with them for self-defense and hunting use when they came home. The AR-15/M-16 was the first occasion where this changed, for a couple of reasons: For one, the original AR-15 and M-16 had some major flaws, flaws that in the form of the M-16, got a lot of soldiers killed in Vietnam. Two, due to the nasty politics and way that war split the country, and the horrible treatment many soldiers received upon coming home, many veterans just wanted to put the war behind them when they got home. Purchasing the crappy plastic shoddy rifle that got a lot of their buddies killed in the war that they were called "Babykillers" in and spat on when they got home, was not high on the list.

By the 1980s, the design flaws of the AR-15/M-16 had been mostly worked out. Then I believe a few coalescing things happened that increased their popularity.

One, the 1994 ban. Since the government decided they were going to ban such weapons, people suddenly decided they wanted them and tons were purchased in the run-up to the ban. In addition, the ban didn't actually ban them, it just banned the ones that possessed two or more "Evil Features."

Two, video games and military action movies. Unlike the old cowboy movie days with the lever-actions and six-shooters, now you had the Hollywood action movies with the popularization of Special Operations and soldiers using M-16s, MP-5s, etc...plus you had the various similarly-themed video games where the same weapons were being used. So a generation of kids grew up being exposed on Hollywood and in video games to the "tactical" weapons as opposed to the more conventional weapons.

Three, because lots were purchased in the run-up to the ban and due to their increasing popularity overall due to the new media, people began to become far more familiar with them, realizing that they are quite ideal weapons ergonomically and for a range of uses.

Four, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers returning home from those wars have continued in the tradition historically of returning soldiers adopting the weapon they were issued in the military for civilian use. Unlike with Vietnam, the soldiers have been treated well for the most part, the wars didn't split the country to the degree that Vietnam did, and the modern M-16s/AR-15s are far better quality in both design and materials than the original 1960s versions.
 

LogicMan

New member
Mainah said:
Reagan was a Goldwater Republican when he signed the Mulford Act, and Trump was writing checks to Hillary’s Senate campaign not too long ago. I suspect that at some point people will start to question the logic behind having a pro-gun control bumper sticker next to a Resist one on their Subaru wagons. The tide can turn again.

Many of the same people who accuse Trump of trying to become or start a tyranny also want to ban all the guns.
 

ROCK6

New member
The NRA did it to themselves. They tied the organization to extreme conservative positions. It might have been a marketing decision to increase revenue from true believers. However, it was not a good decision for the USA in general.

I don't think the NRA had much of a choice. Even many closet, moderate Democrat gun-owners fear the demonization by the media and gun-confiscation crowd. I do agree though that the NRA could really make headway by reaching out to them. My only issue is that I don't trust "moderate" gun-owners. Many don't see the 2A the same way as those more strictly focused the Constitution. I no longer believe in compromise when it comes the 2A and it's no longer a "moderate" debate. You are either for the 2A or you are for its elimination.

The Democratic-socialists party is so extreme I can't understand how any gunowner could vote for a Democrat at the state or federal level. That said, the Republican party isn't much better and it really requires homework to identify the RINOs verse more Constitutionally-dedicated conservatives.

The Democratic party is no longer pushing the whole "common sense gun-control"; they are now pushing for absolute confiscation and elimination of the 2A. I can understand the more social-issue-oriented Democratic voters, but if they own firearms and believe in the intent of the 2A, whichever party is in power after the castration or elimination of the 2A, tyranny is soon to follow.

We lose the 2A, we lose civil liberties, the 1A, and other Amendments will lose their government-restraining efficacy. You want Socialist-Democrats in power? Take a good look at Venezuela...

Until the conservative Democrats and conservative Republicans can come together for libertarian candidates, the only vote for saving the 2A is with the GOP right now...and I don't have much faith in them either, but they're far more the lesser evil than the current Democratic party.

Firearms ownership/CCW laws and the 2A are very much partisan issues for the foreseeable future, and (unfortunately) makes me pretty much a single-issue voter.

ROCK6
 

KY_blkout

New member
I don't think the NRA had much of a choice. Even many closet, moderate Democrat gun-owners fear the demonization by the media and gun-confiscation crowd. I do agree though that the NRA could really make headway by reaching out to them. My only issue is that I don't trust "moderate" gun-owners. Many don't see the 2A the same way as those more strictly focused the Constitution. I no longer believe in compromise when it comes the 2A and it's no longer a "moderate" debate. You are either for the 2A or you are for its elimination.

The Democratic-socialists party is so extreme I can't understand how any gunowner could vote for a Democrat at the state or federal level. That said, the Republican party isn't much better and it really requires homework to identify the RINOs verse more Constitutionally-dedicated conservatives.

The Democratic party is no longer pushing the whole "common sense gun-control"; they are now pushing for absolute confiscation and elimination of the 2A. I can understand the more social-issue-oriented Democratic voters, but if they own firearms and believe in the intent of the 2A, whichever party is in power after the castration or elimination of the 2A, tyranny is soon to follow.

We lose the 2A, we lose civil liberties, the 1A, and other Amendments will lose their government-restraining efficacy. You want Socialist-Democrats in power? Take a good look at Venezuela...

Until the conservative Democrats and conservative Republicans can come together for libertarian candidates, the only vote for saving the 2A is with the GOP right now...and I don't have much faith in them either, but they're far more the lesser evil than the current Democratic party.

Firearms ownership/CCW laws and the 2A are very much partisan issues for the foreseeable future, and (unfortunately) makes me pretty much a single-issue voter.

ROCK6
Couldn't agree more, compromise isnt an option anymore on 2A. If we let them have this or that, 2 years later it will be more and more. The crazy thing is alot of the lefties have openly admitted the goal is one law change at a time until guns are down right outlawed. Then they wonder why the NRA and 2A supporters dont want any change or compromise in any gun laws.
 

Mike38

New member
What? Are you implying that Democrats don't own guns? Or they're somehow deprived or forbidden from owning them? Maybe Dems only have hunting weapons? Do they have to turn in their handguns in order to comply with the party line? If I change my registration to Dem do I have to destroy all my guns? Or can I sell them to recoup some cost?

The post you are replying to is not singling out one person, or a small group, it's looking at the "Big Picture". Sure, people that are registered Democrats own guns. But when you look at the big picture, as a percentage of gun owners, you'll see what he means. A majority of Republicans (55%) say they have a gun in their home, compared with 32% of Democrats. See Gallup poll:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/21496/gun-ownership-higher-among-republicans-than-democrats.aspx

Now just because a person doesn't own a gun, it doesn't make them anti-gun. But, if you looked at percentages of people that would fit into the anti-gun group, there would be a higher percentage of Democrats. And yes, there are anti-gun Republicans.

Not that an anti-gun person is a bad person, I just happen to disagree with them on that subject.
 
Last edited:

44 AMP

Staff
Now just because a person doesn't own a gun, it doesn't make them anti-gun.

Don't overlook the fact that there are people who own guns that are anti-gun!
One prominent anti-gun politician made a big deal of turning in her pistol when she got a law requiring that passed in "her" city. And, she did surrender ONE.

Turned out that she owned 2!! One got turned in, for show, the other was kept!!! now, this particular person is politically left/liberal, but in this case, its not a right/left or liberal/conservative matter.

It's a matter of elitism. And that can be found in people of both parties.
 
i know for sure everything in this planet has been politicized. politicians want to control everything and that's not possible. everything sane person has the right to protect him/herself...that's a right a freedom all was born with. the Politicians can't take or give it because its not theirs to give or take. This right here is the issue.
 
Top