News

Polls Demonstrate Gun Owner Distrust of Politicians

Hillary Clinton

The NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) has never been shy or an organization to mince words. That makes the following from the NRA-ILA, that much more important. Of course, the Second Amendment is well supported by voters from the Left and the Right. The politicians on the other hand, well, that is still up for some debate. However, as the candidates position themselves for the upcoming elections, the battle lines are being drawn.

Here is the full article from the NRA-ILA: NRA-ILA logo While the FBI might have let presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton off the hook for her alleged mishandling of classified information, recent Washington Post/ABC News and CBS/New York Times polls suggest that the American public is far less forgiving. Coupled with recent polls showing presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump leading, or within striking distance, in several swing states, some in the Clinton camp are beginning to panic.

On Monday, the Washington Post published the results of their poll, conducted July 6-7, which asked respondents several questions regarding the Clinton email scandal. When asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of [FBI Director James] Comey’s recommendation that Clinton should NOT be charged with a crime?”, a majority of 56 percent answered that they disapprove of his decision; this included a majority of independents. A mere 35 percent approved of FBI’s recommendation.

Another question asked those polled, “Does this issue make you worry about how Clinton might handle her responsibilities if she’s elected president, or do you think it’s NOT related to how she might handle her responsibilities if elected? IF WORRIED: Are you very worried about this, or somewhat worried.” 57 percent of individuals polled answered that they are either “very worried” or “somewhat worried.” According to the CBS/NYT poll, conducted July 8-12, Clinton’s statements regarding her handling of classified information, which were refuted by FBI, seem to have further eroded the minority of people that still considered her trustworthy. When asked, “Do you think Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy, or not?” 67 percent deemed her not honest and trustworthy, including 74 percent of independents. A CBSNews.com article on the recent poll noted that the 67 percent figure is “up from 62 percent last month and the highest percentage this election cycle.”

Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton has vowed to make new gun control legislation a top priority if elected.

On Thursday, The Hill reported that some poll-watching Senate Democrats are beginning to worry that Trump will defeat their candidate. The article describes a private meeting attended by Clinton and several Democratic senators. According to The Hill, a Democratic Senator who was on hand said of the meeting, “Some people were freaked out, they were looking down at the polls on Real Clear Politics and asking why it was so close.” Another individual, described as a “senior Senate Democratic aide,” told the news outlet that this wasn’t the first time senators had raised concerns about how close the polls are.

While Clinton supporters are “freaked out” about swing-state polls, there are some others that should send them right off the deep end. A February 2008 USA Today/Gallup poll reported that 73-percent of those polled believed that the Second Amendment protects “the rights of Americans to own guns,” rather than “members of state militias such as National Guard units.” A similar CNN poll from 2009 placed respect for the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment at 77 percent. A 2013 Rasmussen poll found that 74 percent of respondents understood that the U.S. Constitution protects the “right of an average citizen to own a gun.” Despite the fact that it has been repeatedly shown that the overwhelming majority of Americans understand that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, Clinton has time and again revealed that she intends to work to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized this right. During the course of her most recent presidential campaign, Clinton has said that “ the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment” and called Heller, “ a terrible decision.” Moreover, during a recent appearance on ABC’s This Week, Clinton repeatedly refused to acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, Clinton is wildly out-of-step with the American public. Clinton supporters, you have permission to freak out.

How do you interpret the meaning of the Second Amendment? Share you view in the comment section.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (30)

  1. They can’t and won’t protect us ! I don’t want them to protect ME or MINE ! They want our guns because of what the CONSTITUTION MEANS ! The Gov. runs afoul of the laws set by WE THE PEOPLE,We can rise up and defend OURSELVES and RIGHT is NOT TO BE INFRINGED ON !In a world in which we live , WHY do they want to take our guns AWAY ? Makes NO sense and is VERY DANGEROUS for EVERYONE EXCEPT THEM ! 24 hour BODYGUARDS ! I’ll take care of ME and MINE ! !

  2. My government already has a great amount of background info about me. What it cannot be sure of is what I might do under certain circumstances. I am a Christian, but I know when to turn what cheek. As a vet, my government required me to obey orders. Now, they refuse to obey my orders. They refuse to do what they are told. What do you think should happen next? Is there still hope for a political correction? What are we supposed to do when we can’t even say what we think?

  3. The true liberals want to control speech with political correctness. Suspend due process of law And follow it up with gun control. So they have absolute power. People are wanting European style government . So vote and talk to others.

  4. ms clinton is a devout “progressive”. Look up the meaning of marxism for the truth.
    the rest is that “they” don’t trust us to have guns. too much power in our hands.

    1. “It’s not ‘Progressive’ as in ‘Progress’ but ‘Progressive’ as in ‘Cancer’.”
      —SteveInCO

  5. How can you trust LIARS and SKOFFLAWS such as the current adminsration and those supported by them? We must stick together and not just talk about it. Remember the Gun rights issue is only one of the things they will do thier best to get rid of, any and all freedom is at risk. Quit Bitching about it and DO something about it!

  6. I think the main thing is people do not want to register their firearms because this Administration is clearly untrustworthy and has no credibility because lying happens more often than telling the truth. I live in Colorado where we have background checks for purchases, transfers, gun shows and a 15 round magazine limit. In 2013 they passed a number of new gun control laws. I searched to see if they made any difference the other day and for the first full year of operation 2014 the laws passed made no difference whatsoever. I am against
    having to do anything special for the purchase of boxed ammo, I think that is ridiculous. When you have a Muslim Terrorist President and AG,
    and they are liberals on top of that forget logic and common sense because that has nothing to do with their agenda. Obama was challenged by the head of the NRA to debate and our candy ass President never even responded because he would have been eaten for breakfast.

    1. Every scumbag anti gun politician is voted out in November. Every pro muzzie terrorist supporter and open borders traitor too. We have to kick the traitors and go after them with class action lawsuits and also ban them from collection a pension as punishment for violating constitutional law.

    2. “All we ask for is registration, just like we do for cars.”
      –Congressman Charles Schumer (D-NY-9), Press conference, 1993

      “Waiting periods are only a step.
      Registration is only a step.
      The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”
      –Janet Reno, former U.S. Attorney General under Bill Clinton

  7. The First Ten amendments have a special place in our Constitution. They are named the “Bill of Rights.” They are a right of all citizens and not a something that government may or may not grant. With that said though I have no objection to requiring background checks on all firearm transfers, just like giving your son a car, the title has to be transferred. I also have no objection to requiring a license to purchase ammunition, Black powder, Ammonium Nitrate or any other explosive, dangerous, or precursor chemicals. Hey it is a strange world out there. Please keep in mind I am the same person that at 10 years of age I used to ride my bicycle to the gun shop and buy .22 LR ammunition for my Sears bolt action rifle. When I got to Florida at 18 then I needed a 21 year old to sign for this ammo as it “could” be used in a handgun. Never mind I was able to buy shotgun shells for my rifle !! The point is I think law abiding people won’t mind a few licenses, this seems reasonable to me.

    1. Good for you willing to sell out your rights! Sure if the founding father who paid the price in blood, pain and loss for freeing Americas future appreciate it.
      Nuff said

    2. I agree with David that just like I have to go through a background check when I purchase a firearm to make sure that I’m not mentally unstable or a criminal or a violent person (or haven’t become one since my last purchase); I would want and would feel safer if others who procure firearms had to go through the same. With that said, the process of clearing someone before one could transfer a firearm to them (be that a family member or a visitor at a gun show) must be made fully accessible to the public (not through a third party), must be transparent and must not constitute a burden (financial or otherwise) on either the transferring party or the receiving party. By burden, I mean anything that is more costly or complicated than what we normally have to do to receive a firearm that we purchased through an FFL. With so many lunatics out there giving the rest of us a bad name and so many hardcore extremists doing the same, I don’t see a problem with not having double standards. If we’re so afraid of the future and who might do what, then we should probably cease to elect jackasses to public office (such as the 2 running for the highest public office at present) and then cry foul. I do not approve of restrictions on buying ammo though because it’s like having to get a license or a permit to buy fuel for your car. It doesn’t make sense to me. This, in my opinion, is an undue burden. We can always imagine a bad version of what could happen if this or that were to be. However, if we’re awake and are responsible and involved citizens and we don’t spend our lives watching football and reality TV while politicians try to pass something that we disapprove of, then we’d be able to notice and catch whatever they may try to slide under our nose.

    3. @ Eddie and David Weston,

      Any form of delay, even to the slightest degree, is an infringement in violation of the Constitution. The more you succumb to their way of thinking the more you weaken your rights as enumerated in the Second Amendment.

      I implore you to see guns as they really are – an inanimate tool or item no different than a vehicle, hammer, or a knife. If a person has been adjudicated to be that dangerous then they shouldn’t be allowed to possess any of these items, or better yet, they should have remained behind bars.

      But instead they are lawfully allowed to possess such items, which should compel you to ask a simple question – why is the government only interested in prohibiting guns alone? Once you really give that some thought, you will have no choice but to realize it was never about safety, but instead all about controlling you as a law abiding citizen; because everyone knows a criminal by definition could care less about the law.

      If regulating guns out of crime were successful we’d have gun-free crimes by now. But instead let us now examine just how the NICS check really is. For that I refer you to another CTD article of posts by Ken, Gary, and myself (G-Man). Click the link below and read through our posts which should help you understand why the NICS background checks is not what the government has led you to believe it to be:

      http://dev-migrationctd6.pantheonsite.io/sen-murphy-reveals-anti-second-amendment-slippery-slope-strategy/comment-page-2/#comment-332627

    4. @G-Man

      I can only speak for myself and David can speak for himself if he wishes to respond. You seem to have assumed that I’m naive and trusting of big brother’s intentions which I assure you that I am not. I won’t try to convince you of my point of view because diversity in everything makes us better and stronger and the alternative is being one-flavored rubber-stamped zombies. Please know that my opinions don’t come from what others have said or have written. I formulate my own opinions based on my own life experiences. I wholeheartedly and irrevocably believe in every citizen’s right anywhere in the world to own guns at least for self-defense. We are blessed to be the citizens of a country which respects and guarantees this right. I don’t have this belief because the constitution or because someone told me that I should. I have this belief because when I was a kid, my grandfather’s business was mugged twice by the same delinquents and the police were never able to catch them. Because of the first 2 successful robberies, the thugs thought that they will repeat the routine and threaten my grandfather then rob his business a 3rd time. However, on that 3rd attempt, he greeted them with his then new .45 Beretta 1911. They never returned.

      I also believe in people undergoing a background check when purchasing a firearm because I know people who have either committed acts of domestic violence or have committed other crime (not felons) and I appreciate the fact that these individuals with their anger issues and their almost habit of making wrong choices cannot go to a gun store and purchase a firearm because they will constitute a threat to my safety and the safety of my loved ones and community. I don’t appreciate the fact that they could buy a firearm from an individual with being checked. I’m not talking about career criminals or felons because we all know, as you mentioned, that these types couldn’t care less about what’s on the books.

      I don’t know how things are where you live, but in my state the process of me filling out the background check paperwork and for the gun store clerk to run the check takes no about 10 minutes. I don’t see this as an unreasonable delay infringing upon my right to own the weapon which I purchased. Also, I live in a “will issue” state when it comes to concealed carry permits and I do my part in advocating for this to remain our way because I don’t believe that I need to justify my peace of mind and security to big brother because as well-intended as they are and as much as I appreciate their work and sacrifice; the police are not with me 24/7. I believe that my safety is first and foremost my responsibility. Part of that safety comes from known violent individuals with a record (again not felons because those don’t care about laws anyway) not being able to own a firearm that they can threaten my safety with.

      Now allow me to quote you when you said “I implore you to see guns as they really are – an inanimate tool or item no different than a vehicle, hammer, or a knife.” I couldn’t agree with you more. However, because a driving a vehicle is a very serious responsibility because it affect the safety and well-being of not only the driver and his or her passengers, but also that of other people on the streets as well. This is why we are required to have a certain level of theoretical knowledge (road signs, laws, etc.) as well as practical knowledge of how to operate a motor vehicle before you are issued a permit (the driver’s license) which allows you to operate one on public. Gun ownership comes with as much responsibility because while inanimate, like the car, guns in the wrong, poorly trained, or ignorant hands are a risk to the owner’s and the community’s safety. I should hope that nobody will ever call for gun ownership to become like motor vehicle ownership because that would be a citizen’s nightmare and a big brother paradise. Having the least level of certainty that a non-felon non-career criminal person who intends to own a firearm is neither a deranged, violent, or irresponsible individual is something that I would like to have for my protection and for the protection of those I care for to minimize the likelihood of that one person who shouldn’t have been able to get his or her hands on a gun having one.

      I’m not trying to convince you of my point of view, but I thought I’d clarify where I stood because it seemed to me that yo u misunderstood what I said.

    5. @ Eddie,

      There were no assumptions or misunderstandings regarding your naiveties at all. You were quite clear throughout your post. Basically you want “big brother” involved only to a point and think that once you’ve opened Pandora’s box, you can control it. But in reality you can’t, which makes you naïve on the topic no matter how much you try to explain yourself.

      Our views will never be compatible due to our two extremely distinct and fundamental differences – I am dealing in facts and realism whereas you are dealing in opinions and idealism. Given that facts and realism always win the day, that makes my commentary more relevant for others truly seeking real solutions or a proper course of action that matters right now as our gun rights fall increasingly under attack.

      You can opine all day long but that will never change my pointed facts that NICS checks regularly fail miserably at its intended purpose. Given their proven to be more pointless than useful in preventing prohibited possessors that leaves one purpose, which is – government control over the law abiding purchasers, not criminals. Anything else is simply a misnomer which you chose to falsely believe offers you protection.

      With respect to what is or is not an “unreasonable delay”, any delay caused by the government NICS check is in-fact an infringement of our rights regardless of what you’ve decided is okay for the rest of us. I know you’ve stated you don’t form your opinions based on the Constitution, but most of the rest of us do, and thus we have a right and expectation to be protected by it; so the Constitution wins on those grounds alone.

      Your vehicle licensure example is irrelevant given citizens are not required to apply for, nor possess, a license in order to operate, purchase or own vehicles on their own lands. They can own such property without any kind of background check and use it to drive and work every day on any private lands. A gun is merely a piece of property as well, yet it does require a background check prior to ownership – even when used on private land. A serious hypocrisy given there is no Constitutional right to operate vehicles un-infringed.

      Federal NICS checks, State background checks, State concealed carry permits, State gun owner permits, State gun registrations, along with the variously Federal and State gun zoning laws, tax stamps, magazine limits and various gun bans are all very separate matters which have been applied inconsistently and to extremely confusing degrees across this entire Country. Yet we all fall under one Second Amendment Right that strictly forbids the government from infringing upon this right. There is simply nothing more you could say to refute such a fact or justify more infringements.

    6. You’ve misinterpreted what I said yet again. I wasn’t explaining myself to you; you sir are not that important to me. I was merely clarifying to others who may have missed what I intended with my comment because of yours. You and your fellow far right extremists are the yin to the extreme left’s gun-grabbing yang. Together you form a perfect brake system which has brought this country to a screeching halt on a variety of issues. When I give examples form my experience in real life, this is hardly idealism; look up the word in a dictionary. You, on the other hand, mention that “NICS checks regularly fail miserably”. Give one real life example from your own experience, not one that you read about somewhere or heard about in Rush Limbaugh’s show. According to your logic (or rather the lack thereof) let’s let criminals have a field day and get rid of all metal detectors because they sometimes fail to go off. As to your countering my countering of your vehicle example; you should probably re-read what you wrote because it doesn’t sound like it passed anywhere near your information processor Mr. Facts. Research the number of cars operated solely on private lands versus those operated on public roads/lands, and when you find these figures, count toothpicks and put them in neat piles to represent these figures in order for you to comprehend the result. I would like to see what you and your likes who claim to be “law-abiding citizens” would do in alternate universe if a constitutional amendment which repealed the 2nd amendment were to pass. I bet that you’d go straight to your gun safe, pick-up all your guns and ammo and hand them over to the nearest police station, right? You sir, and others like you are a big part of the problem that we face because you push those who either have no opinion on gun ownership and gun control, as well as those who are borderline with or against to become completely against. These people too vote and we cannot afford to lose them to the other side, because if they become majority and vote for more gun control then you will have messed it up for everyone until we can undo the damage that you will have done.

      Don’t bother responding, I unsubscribed from this post because I don’t see the point of taking this further with you. You and your likes who use cliches like “the rest of us” and “the American people” to make it sound as though you represent a majority believe that it’s your mission in life to make people think like you think because you are under a very false and misguided impression that you are smarter beings. I think you dropped your tinfoil hat.

    7. @ Eddie

      Again, everything I’ve stated is factual, accurate and documented reality, but somehow you once again escape into some unrealistic fantasy world that somehow involves a toothpick counting game that does nothing at all to address issues with hard facts. Regardless of the number of cars on public or private roads, the simple fact is that people do not have to pass background checks to own cars… so deal with it.

      My 33 years as a federal law enforcement agent speaks for my experiences. And even though you don’t have the same access that I have to see all the NICS failures first hand, a simple Google search could have easily shown you how incompetent NICS checks are. I know liberals don’t do research before they talk crap, but you really should try to educate yourself just a bit before looking the fool.

      Regardless of your liberal ineptitudes there is no excuse for you to have overlooked one of the largest publicly reported NICS failures which occurred just two months ago – when a guy on the terrorist watch list, investigated by the FBI, still passed a NICS check to buy guns and was still able to kill 49 people at an Orlando nightclub. You asked for “one real life example” so there you go.

      What I enjoy is knowing you will still have to read this but can’t respond because you pretended to unsubscribed. That ought to get your goat. So what was that about your tinfoil hat again?

    8. Strangely, I find my self in agreement with David Weston. Licensing sounds like a great idea. People should have to get a license before purchasing dangerous items like “Mein Kampf” or “The Communist Manifesto,” and before giving speeches in public. Not to mention joining crazy cults like Christian churches or Jewish Temples. Sure, there’s a First Amendment protecting religion, speech, publishing, etc. But the fact that the Constitution protects unalienable rights shouldn’t deter us from infringing on those rights if we can find a way of justifying it in the name of “Public Safety” or “The Greater Good.”

    9. David Weston wrote:

      “With that said though I have no objection to requiring background checks on all firearm transfers (irrelevant ‘car title’ misdirect omitted)…I also have no objection to requiring a license to purchase ammunition”

      Then you should have no problem with a requirement for a criminal and mental health background check being completed each and every time you pull into a gas station to make a purchase.

      After all, Dave, you just MIGHT be planning a ‘Happy Land Social Club’-type mass murder.

      [FYI: ‘Happy Land’ was the largest mass murder committed in U.S. history (87 dead) – other than Wounded Knee, that is – and it was committed with a single plastic container of gasoline and a match.]

  8. ell reinterpreting the Constitution as you note would effectively make it unconstitutional for all non law enforcement to own a gun. So how do you rationalize that is not the same thing as declaring it unconstitutional for you and me to possess a firearm. The fact that they only permit law enforcement to have guns is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Law enforcement is not referenced as The People anywhere???????? Also note i referenced de facto methods of circumventing the Constitution.

  9. If we are to carry on in a free constitutional republic then we must move with the winds of war sought by brainwashed fools who are set out to destroy us. No matter how anyone looks at this there is one thing we must never compromise. Our freedom… We must fight every way possible as it was envisioned by our forefathers. This is the reality of freedom brothers and sisters. They are importing chaos to undermine our American culture and this alone is unconstitutional. Our enemies are being allowed into our country by our own government and this is a fact. They are creating a vaccum within the country and this is treason! They are allowing the enemy to operate on our own soil and I believe this was designed by a perverted CIA think tank or some other anti American brain trust. Our government is to blame directly!

  10. Gee, I don’t know where to start after reading all of the comments. I’m from VT. Now I cannot say what Vermonters think today because back in the 60s we had an influx of the hippies that were kicked out of the San Francisco area in CA and unfortunately they had a knack for government so the Vt legislature is riddled with them. But when I grew up in the 50s and 60s everyone in the state knew exactly what the 2nd Amendment said and stood for. As to my political affiliation, since I am from VT and my parents were such, I am a registered Republican. A proud republican? Hell No! For the last three presidential elections the Republican Party has fielded candidates that the Party thought were good for the country not its constituents. So yeah, I’m a Trumper. Do I agree with his shooting himself in the foot half of the time. Heck no. But I guess that he does it to stir up his followers as much as anything else. There are two things that bother me the most about this election: number one is the fact that it is common knowledge of the multitude of criminal acts perpetuated by the Clintons as far back as when Bill was governor in Arkansas so why the faithful Democrats still back Hillary is beyond me except that it is obvious THAT THEY DON’T CARE! Number two is all of the bull behind the attempts to derail Mr. Trump. Has not ANYONE figured out that he would be better than O’Bama at fixing the economy? After all O’Bama had absolutely NO EXPERIENCE in running the goverment of a nation when he was elected. He was a state senator whose only experience was that of a community organizer! Trump”s experience could fill whole volumes while O’bama’s would fill half a page. Where is Hillary’s experience except in screwing up everything that she has put her hand to except, perhaps, some children programs which she initiated for the political exposure. People in this country REALLY need to read Bill Morris’s book Armageddon as Mr. Morris was an advisor to the Clinton’s for several years and knows a lot of their “dirty” secrets. I found the book worth every cent that i paid Amazon for it!

  11. Well if Trump is an idiot what are you? No idiot could run the businesses and do all the things he has done in life successfully. What is your claim to fame besides your exercise of free speech?

  12. As a child I could not fathom my God fearing mother’s words in which she warned us kids there will be times in our future where evil and corruption would so confuse the world that even the most innocent would be deceived and blind to the simplest of truths before them.

    There can be no greater evil and corruption upon us than when the top criminal investigative agency in our Country so brazenly refuses their sworn duty to bring as guilty a person as Hillary Clinton to justice.

    Such wicked facts notwithstanding – despite all of this woman’s treachery and treasonous acts, she still commands the support of so many blind citizens willing to carry her all the way to the highest office in the land. Only pure evil could be at hand to accomplish such a barbarous feat. I understand now my mother’s words are more clear now than ever.

  13. There seems to be great concern that somehow the Supreme Court will declare the 2nd Amendment null and void. Allow me to outline a strategy that might be employed to preempt any effort to even try to do that.

    1. Can the Supreme Court Rule any Constitutional Amendment Unconstitutional

    Cliff Gilley, Studied Constitutional Law at Seattle University

    No, for the simple fact that any amendment becomes part of the Constitution itself, upon its passing. Any contradictions between content or intent within the Constitution might require interpretation and holdings of the Court, but it would be impossible to declare a part of the Constitution “unconstitutional”.

    2. When you consider that from the time of our creation as a Country our people have legally been able to bear arms for the purposes of hunting and self protection of self and Country. It would be rather difficult for the Supreme Court to explain how 150 million people in this Country acquired over 300 million firearms. During Obama’s Administration the average number of background checks alone averaged 2.4 million per month for the past 7 years.

    3. When the issue of confiscation comes up no one seems to answer the question of who and how will they be confiscated? There are only around 6 million law enforcement and military in the Country and at this time probably around 150 million firearm owners. Furthermore, most folks in the Military and in Law Enforcement hate Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The military and law enforcement take an oath to uphold the Constitution They also tend to be people along with their friends, families and relatives to be gun owners. So confronted with the dangerous job of collecting firearms ( residents of NY and CT refused to register their firearms and both States backed away from enforcing those laws) they are unlikely to agree to collect firearms for two reasons. First, they want to go home to their families at night and many of them will not make it if they go door to door trying to collect 300 million firearms from 150 million people. Second, they will have to consider that if they are taking our guns who is breaking down the doors of their families, friends and relatives to do the same task. Recently in the State of Washington over a 1000 “armed” citizens openly protested new gun control laws at the State Capitol without incident. The numbers are on our side if they ever tried that they could not even contend with the loss of 1 person for every 10 citizens as we outnumber them by over 25 to 1. Consider the difficulty they have containing a riot when no one is shooting at them and consider what has happened recently when they have been ambushed, They are more likely to turn on the people who are trying to confiscate firearms than on those of us who own them. It is a far too dangerous and illegal an act to risk one’s life. You know as well as I do that Obama, Lynch, and Clinton and all their big mouth liberal anti gun friends certainly are not going to do it.

    4. There is no provision in the Constitution for Supreme Court Decisions to be enforced except by the Executive Branch which can in fact ignore doing so and there is precedent for that although it has rarely happened in our Country’s history.

    5. Certainly if they tried there would be civil war and I believe the military and law enforcement will mostly side with the Citizens of this Country and stand down. Confiscating them from criminals is a different situation entirely.

    Therefore, I would suggest to start promoting these talking points now to start letting people know how gun owners feel and let them know that under no circumstances will we obey, by force if necessary, any infringement on our right to bear arms or any de facto efforts to circumvent the intent of the Constitution. Remember one thing when the argument comes up. When militia’s first came into existence before you could join a militia you had to furnish your own firearm. There were no provisions for anyone to furnish them for you. So militia members had their firearms before a militia could be formed.

    1. dprato,

      I agree with all but your first point. At least among gun owners I know, the concern is not that the Supreme Court will declare the 2nd Amendment unconstitutional, but that they will re-interpret it to mean that only members of LE, and the military (including National Guard) can possess firearms. Should that happen, and under a President Hillary Clinton, I believe it would, then the rest of your post is spot on, and the response of the 150 million American gun owners will be much the same as the gun owners of Connecticut in 2013.

  14. The liberal agenda and ultimate goal is to disarm law abiding citizens. Of course at the time that actually happens, family self defense will be more difficult and place the individual at a terrible disadvantage because an intruder will more than likely be armed. The police will respond to a breakin, but they will only be there to fill in the paperwork listing the names of the family killed in the break in. With that type of home invasion, if will force more law abiding citizen over to the criminal side. This actually works against the liberal agenda, making more criminals in a larger part of society.

  15. One should be allowed to own any small arms in use in his time period.
    That is what a well regulated militia needs to be armed with.
    There is nothing about hunting in the Second Amendment.
    If you disagree then go argue with our founding fathers. That is waht they expected the people to be armed with.

  16. It would have made the NRA-ILA more believable had they been less 250% behind anything Republican, even if that was an idiot called Trump. Polls are worthless without detailed information about the sampled individuals. For example, my district, thanks to Gerrymandering, is heavily democratic. So if you run a poll in my district, and you’re dishonest in your study or want to prove a certain point, you would say that the majority of Americans in a recent poll support this or that item on the Democratic agenda. While this would probably be true for the hardcore democrats with tribal mentality who don’t think but only vote for their party’s agenda; it would not represent the entire country’s opinion. The same applies to a poll taken in heavily Republican or Libertarian district.

    Typical of both dictatorship parties’ inclination in the recent past, only the morons are put forth as nominees to make sure that whichever puppet ends up in charge will obey his or her masters. While the lying Clinton is openly opposed to anything related to guns, we have absolutely no guarantee that the other moron Trump will not screw us over as he flip-flops through his term and as his advisers or VP tell him what to do. At the end of the day, to them, it is all about interests and favors. They couldn’t care less about your rights or mine. As one Republican Senator so eloquently put it a few weeks ago “we are guaranteed a dumpster election”.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.