Otherwise-leftist blogger Kontra lives in Virginia and owns guns. Kontra offers gun-control Democrats 6 ways to make a better argument:
Allow me this humble suggestion: The best way to convince the American public that you’re not interested in taking guns away is to stop talking about taking guns away.
Firstly, when your politicians are asked, “Do you support state legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” as Obama was in his 1996 Senate campaign, you should never answer “Yes,” as Obama did. Publicly advocating a ban on all handguns is not the way to convince people that you’re not interested in banning guns. Furthermore, when you are campaigning for president, never say the phrase “I continue to support a [federal] ban on concealed carry,” as Obama did in 2004. This gives people the impression that your intention is to prevent the states from setting reasonable guidelines on who can defend themselves outside of their home.
If you then win the election, do not go on to fully support gun bans in two US cities — Chicago and D.C. — in which law-abiding citizens are disarmed, citing them as models for gun policy while trying to convince the rest of the country that you really aren’t interested in banning their guns. (Guess which two US cities you’re most likely to be killed by a gun in.)
It has become almost cliché for smirking Democrats to attempt to ridicule people like myself by crooning, “Obama wants to take our guns!” in a stereotyped hillbilly drawl — something particularly offensive to some folks here in the south — when in fact, Obama has said exactly that.
A friend of mine on Facebook asserted that the NRA was against background checks because the NRA will do anything to help gun manufacturers sell more guns.
But the fact is that all new gun sales, being handled via FFL holders, are already subject to background checks.
I’ve been telling FB anti-gun friends that they sound like Todd Aiken on this issue.