Are we de facto in more danger from Republicans than Democrats in regard to 2nd Amendment?

[Middle Age Russ]

I seriously think we're being used and that we the people are more committed to principles than many of those representing us.

We, the People, need to do what we can to make sure that our representatives at all levels of Government are people of character, firmly rooted in principles we are committed to. This means being as involved as you can be -- being a squeaky wheel to your representatives so that they know your take on the issues (how can they represent YOU if you don't inform them?), voting EVERY TIME in primary elections for candidates who truly do appear to represent your views, and then voting EVERY TIME in general elections for the candidates that are closest to alignment with your views. All an individual can do may also include volunteering on a campaign, donating to a campaign, or even running for office -- everyone has different abilities and resources.

[The Annoyed Man]

You mean the point when Reagan, in effect, banned Machine Guns in 1986?
Looks like we are in for worse now with the way the party is going...including the President...and now Texas. (If we lose Texas via demographic change...we lose all of the states. America will be gone forever)

So I'll put my devil's advocate hat on and say that we are better than we have been for the Second Amendment. There are challenges and there will always be challenges but other than the bump stock mess, we haven't "officially" lost ground because no new restrictive laws have been passed at the Federal level.

Regarding the restrictive laws at the State level, there have been a few high profile cases where "they" tried to make an example of an individual for breaking one of those laws. Most of those have not gone the way that the gun grabbers wanted. There have been pardons and charges dropped. There were threats in Connecticut when the bans were passed there that the police would be kicking in doors at 6am. It hasn't happened. It is a standoff between the politicians and the gun owners. There has been a lot of fallout and the loss of jobs and firearm companies moved out. Places like Illinois and D.C. have had to capitulate on carry laws. Clearly there are hold-outs - NJ, NY, CA, HI but in all of those places, the Second Amendment is only part of the problem.

We need to look in a mirror. We have not grown the NRA and other gun support groups to the extent that we should have. We have not made the phones of those representing us at the State and Federal levels ring off the hook when they do and say stupid things. They will try to get away with all that they can, if we let them. I'm a citizen advocate (part of a group) who has called entire committees in the Texas House and Senate over specific pieces of legislation. We have gotten changes made. If half of the members of this forum had make similar phone calls about specific pieces of firearm related legislation, those bills would almost have certainly gone differently. I'm not here to defend any of our reps at the Federal or State levels. I've been furious without most of them more times than I can count. But this is a representative government and we get the representation that we allow.

It’s a standoff between politicians and the Constitution....and over the arc of the past 150 years, the politicians have won more than they’ve lost. We’ve seen favorable legislation only over the past 25 years or so, and now, thanks to the insane actions of a pitifully small number of individuals, the pendulum seems to be swinging back in the politicians' favor. I frame it as politicians v. Constitution, rather than politicians v. gun owners, because gun control laws infringe upon EVERYbody's rights....not just gun owners. It costs us more because we have a financial/property stake involved that non-gun owners don’t have, bit their RIGHTS are impacted the same. What if a gun controller changes their mind later, and decides they want to purchase a firearm for personal protection....and they can't? One could argue that they deserve to know that feeling, but that doesn’t change the fact that their rights have been abridged too. The RKBA is a human right that transcends political ideology. The foolish try to violate it, but it’s at their own peril.

[Robert*PPS]

Short answer = no.

I look at the demographics to which each group is beholden to. The Democrat constituency, for the most part, would applaud any and all "gun control" legislation. Those politicians could enact that type of legislation with no fear of reprisal. The Republican constituency, for the most part, would not look favorably, thus those politicians will be taking calculated risks with a very real possibility of losing their elections.

If all else is equal, I'll take the choice of the party who has something to lose.

[chasfm11]

Most of the Republicans who will appear on my ballot next year have gone out of their way to attack my constitutional rights. That makes them ineligible for my vote.

Their choice. Their consequences.

The problem is that their opponents have likely gone even further to attack your Constitutional rights. And now you (and I ) have a problem about what to do in the voting booth. I've often felt like it was a choice about the caliber of the gun that I use to shoot myself rather than my vote for an elected official.

[Doug.38PR]

...and now, Dan Crenshaw has betrayed us

[DynamicDan]

Well, the choices are fight back by telling them they aren't in charge of our rights and that we aren't going to obey unconstitutional laws or we can cry and do nothing.

[Doug.38PR]

Wow. This good ol’ boy hits the nail on the head:

[tbrown]

An enemy of the Constitution of the United States is an enemy of the United States.

It doesn't really matter if they're an elected official, law enforcement, military, veteran, or al qaeda.

An enemy of the Constitution of the United States is an enemy of the United States.