Rush by ‘Liberals’ to Buy Guns Raises Hypocrisy Questions

• Main
• 
  
• 
  

Rush by ‘Liberals’ to Buy Guns Refutes ‘Progressive’ Narrative and Raises Hypocrisy Questions

by David Codrea , December 26, 2016 

 

A “pro-gun Democrat”?

 This is Sen. Joe Manchin back when he had NRA’s endorsement and before he betrayed his gun owner constituents by turning his back on his oath and tryng to ram a registraiton-enabling “universal background check” bill down everybody’s throats.

 (Joe Manchin You Tube video screenshot)

“American gun ownership drops to lowest in nearly 40 years,” Christopher Ingraham wrote last summer in The Washington Post. He was basing that bit of wishful thinking, a.k.a. “fake news,” on a CBS News poll of “1,001 Americans in the aftermath of the Orlando nightclub shooting” to conclude “[t]he percent of American households owning guns is at a near-40 year low in the latest.”
This was pre-Trump’s November wipeout of Hillary, back when Democrats and establishment media cheerleaders were trying to convince each other that “gun control” was a winning issue. The narrative being promulgated was that while gun sales were going through the roof (ending the year with record sales numbers), they were all being bought up by a limited demographic of hard core extremists.  And all the major polls agreed.

Just like they all were astounded to see Hillary crash and burn.
The citizen disarmament lobby hasn’t had time to adjust their talking points to cover another phenomenon that directly refutes two previously accepted “truisms”: “Progressives” buying guns for purposes other than “sport shooting,” and doing so for the express purpose of defending against what they see as a potentially tyrannical government and the chance of civil unrest. Likewise, minorities are also buying guns, and for the same reason.

That’s given increased media attention to an outfit calling itself The Liberal Gun Club, a group of unknown size and backing, nonetheless reaching out to “moderates” and calling for “solidarity.”
Finding out more – like if there are hidden hands pulling strings as has been  so often the case with new “third way” gun groups – is a bit like pulling teeth. There’s not a lot of information for a group that registers its website domain through a proxy and it hasn’t been around long enough for Guidestar to report much. Likewise, most of what we learn from doing a corporate entity search through the Massachusetts Secretary of State registry is that one person holds all corporate officer positions, and the address shows up on Google maps as a residential neighborhood.

You have to wonder if the number of Google News feed hits indicates somebody wants this to be news.

“We serve as a national forum for all people, irrespective of their personal political beliefs, to discuss firearms ownership, firearms use, and the enjoyment of firearms-related activities free from the destructive elements of political extremism that dominate this subject on the national scale,” they claim. Whether they believe “shall not be infringed” is “destructive” and not settling for anything less is “political extremism” remains unsaid, but it does open the door to a fair question about priorities.
The same question came up about 10 years ago, with a group calling itself
“Amendment II Democrats.”
When asked, they answered they would favor purported “pro-gun” Democrats in primaries, but when it came time for the general election:

We are Democrats, and as such we will support our party’s nominees for local, state, and federal office.

That means if it’s a choice between the Second Amendment and Hillary, guess which one loses.
It’s fair to ask one more question in regards to “pro-gun Democrats” already in office, such as NRA/NSSF darling Sen. Jon Tester of Montana.  Where the guy lives means he can’t overtly embrace gun grabs or he couldn’t get elected . The party views that as a necessary concession so he can help it achieve the rest of its agenda, such as supporting Hillary and helping with its “pathway to citizenship” agenda to transform the electorate into an unchallengeable Democrat (and anti-gun) majority.
Besides which, Tester showed his true colors when given a chance to make a difference with Post Office carry. Just like the other “pro-gun” Democrats, such as “true champion of the Second Amendment” Harry Reid, or Kirsten Gillibrand, or any of a host of Democrat politicians that have gotten gun owner support and then done an about-face.
Note the party platform and what it says about guns in particular:

With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM’s)—off our streets. We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.

Here’s the question: Is it truly possible to be a “pro-gun Democrat”?