How the AR-15 became a powerful political, cultural symbol in America

You do realize that is exactly what Democratic elites said in 2016. Never underestimate Trump. He is a good public speaker, and he was a good maybe even great President.

Also do not misunderstand my politics. I would vote for almost anyone in the next election rather than vote Democratic. The Democratic Party, as it is currently constituted, is antithetical to my beliefs. Which is sad. I always voted for the best candidate, and if both major parties didn’t align with my views, I would write someone in. Can’t do that anymore. As it seems elections are to close to not vote for your core beliefs.

Now, as a Constitutional Absolutist Libertarian, unless Democrats take their Party back from the Progressive Left, I will vote for a Goldfish before a Democrat.

6 Likes

CA has had the same AWB in place since the federal AWB expired. ARs have remained hugely popular here. It’s very rare that I’ve come across a fellow gun owner who didn’t own at least one AR. And if there was a way to track ammo sales, I bet you’d find people in CA also consume quite a bit of 7.62x39mm. But that doesn’t stop Newsom and other Dems from patting themselves on the back when the cameras are rolling, claiming that they’ve “taken assault weapons of the streets” and crime has dropped dramatically as a result. They even make that argument in the courts while trying to keep the AWB in place.

2 Likes

This is actually one of my biggest fears. Along with banning bump stocks which has opened the door for all of Biden’s current ATF moves, Trump threatened on more than one occasion to use executive action to ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines. He likely only backed off of that position when his advisors told him it would cost him a ton of votes. If he gets in power again with no concerns about re-election I can only imagine the damage he could do to the 2A. Pro self defense people on the right will do all they can to stand up to Biden. I’m not so sure they all will stick their necks out against Trump’s anti self defense moves.

I don’t think Trump is the spawn of Satan as many seem to. He did some OK things as president. But I firmly believe he is not pro 2A and not a man of high moral character deserving of the office. The two people I am proud to say I have never voted for and will never vote for are Trump and Biden. I sincerely hope the Republicans or Democrats give me a semi viable alternative to both in 2024. If not I will likely have to give Goldfish a second vote;)

2 Likes

I agree that he did not appear to be a good 2A president, and hope that the parties can source better candidates. As to the high moral character, that is a tall order in today’s world. There are a few, but could they win a presidential race? The parties are too fractured to allow such a person to get that much power.

Even with all of his personal flaws, and hard attacks from both sides of the aisle, Trump was still able to get some good things done. A person of the quality you seek, I believe, would have a Herculean task to do better as the parties would seek to tear that person apart, too. They can’t allow the swamp to drain.

5 Likes

I never thought of Trump as a moral leader. That’s why the Stormy Daniels thing was such a yawner. Oh, a New York billionaire and a porn star? Who would have thought???

I never thought of presidents as religious leaders, though. I don’t want them to be evil people, but I’m not going to sweat it if they have some character flaws. I hate it when they ask presidential candidates religious questions; there is a constitutional ban on religious tests for the presidency, we aren’t electing a pope.

I forget the saying, something about… sometimes you want an a-hole fighting on your side.

4 Likes

I truly wish at the height of his popularity (or notoriety), Trump made reciprocity happen.

Someone extremely popular and with political will has the best chance.

4 Likes

Didn’t Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House for the first two years of Trump’s presidency? They could have accomplished anything they really wanted to do. If they didn’t do it during those two years, it’s not really a priority for them.

6 Likes

:point_up_2::point_up::point_up_2::point_up::point_up_2::point_up:

2 Likes

Not exactly. Congress was run by McConnell and Tim Ryan. It seemed like they did everything in their power to be an obstacle. …with the exception of judicial appointments.

3 Likes

Agreed, with another thought. Could a man of high principles and morals be effective in the political swamp that is DC, even assuming they could be elected at all? The spectrum of corruption/personal interest has so thoroughly permeated all levels of government as to make it nigh impossible to navigate using the guiding lights of integrity, morals, and true public service.

4 Likes

If I’m remembering my history right, President Grant had a lot of issues with this. He certainly had his moral weak points but seemed to be a man who wanted to do the right things for the country. Unfortunately he believed that everyone else in his administration had the same goal and the corruption ended up running rampant due to his misplaced trust.

@Ouade5 I’m not seeking piety and perfection. Just someone who puts the duties of the office and of serving all the people over their own personal agendas.

@Dave17 I agree that the system is designed to weed out the truly good people. There aren’t likely many in DC and few of their big money backers who want someone who might succeed in taking apart the gravy train. Greedy people and people with significant character flaws are far easier to manipulate than people who just want to do the right thing.

4 Likes

Who was it that voted to put Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan in charge? It wasn’t Democrats.

I don’t get why dye-in-the-wool Republicans complain about McConnell all the time. The Republicans have named him as their leader in the Senate consistently, without pause, since 2007. I don’t see how you can elect someone as your party’s leader for over 15 years and then claim he doesn’t represent your party. Mitch McConnell isn’t an obstacle to the GOP; Mitch Mcconnell is the GOP. If you don’t like what he stands for, maybe you’re not a Republican.

EDIT: Don’t take offense to this. I don’t consider being a loyal Republican as something to aspire to.

2 Likes

My starting point when it comes to politics is that they’re all corrupt no matter what team they claim to play for. I usually tell people I’m a member of the Cynic Party, “but I caucus with the Republicans”.

But while I get to hold my nose and vote for my specific representatives, I don’t get to choose who rules over each chamber. That’s all determined by trading favors behind closed doors. Pelosi isn’t the brightest bulb in the Democrat party, but she brings in a ton of money for her party so they rewarded her with a leadership role. McConnell is the same way. Look at his petty antics in the last election where he withheld campaign funding from anyone who dared to criticize his actions in public. I’m not sure what kind of influence Tim Ryan had, to be able to get the gavel, but he clearly wasn’t a leader and had no interest in getting anything done for Trump. He got tax reform through. But how much time was wasted, blathering about repealing Obamacare, only to go in circles without a plan on how to go about it once they actually got the chance? He couldn’t get House Republicans unified on anything and then quit and spent his time criticizing Trump. I think too many Bush loyalists in the House were more interested in seeing Trump fail than they were in making things happen. It’s not as if Trump would have vetoed any of it.

I don’t take offense to any of it. I spent 25 years in ultra Liberal Silicorn Valley where they’re intolerant and incapable of having a rational conversation about anything political if you’re a Conservative. It has to be ratcheted up pretty high before I take offense. :slight_smile:

7 Likes