Sen. McCaskill misrepresenting her stance on gun control to the public.

[Farmer Br0wn]

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/10/17/project-veritas-finds-claire-mccaskill-anti-gun-portrays/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/15/project-veritas-video-claire-mccaskill-hides-gun-c/

Senator McCaskill Talks Gun Bans on Tape

Senator McCaskill revealed her intention to vote on various gun control measures in undercover footage:

MCCASKILL: “Well if we elect enough Democrats we’ll get some gun safety stuff done. They won’t let us vote on it, we’ve got 60 votes for a number of measures that would help with gun safety, but McConnell won’t let ’em come to the floor.”

JOURNALIST: “Like bump stocks, ARs and high capacity mags…?”

MCCASKILL: “Universal background checks, all of that… But if we have the kind of year I think we might have I think we could actually be in a position to get votes on this stuff on the floor and we’d get 60 [votes]…”

JOURNALIST: “So you would be on board with the bump stocks and… high capacity mags.”

MCCASKILL: “Of course! Of course!”

Sen. McCaskill's response:


__________________________

This revelation has the potential to cost Senator McCaskill her senate seat.

She's a Democratic senator in a deeply red state that President Trump won handily in 2016.

I know some on this forum don't like the messenger delivering this message. That's largely Irrelevant in the face of statements made by the candidate themselves. Quotes by staffers can be easily explained away. The candidate plainly stating the difference between their public and private positions is another issue entirely.

What say you WarRoom? Do you think this revelation will help turn the tide in what is already a neck-and-neck race?

If she was the senator of my state, and I was planning on voting for her before this revelation, I would almost certainly change my support and my vote over this.

 

[luckyshot]

Lmao at background checks being painted as some extreme anti-2a measure.

Claire McCaskill Revealed to Be a Democrat in James O'Keefe's Boring 'Expose'
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/new...-be-a-democrat-in-james-okeefes-boring-expose

 

[second sight]

you can't read 5 sentences

 

[Islam Imamate]

Lmao at background checks being painted as some extreme anti-2a measure.

Banning "assault rifles" and "high capacity" magazines is retarded though.

Wish Dems would just drop this shit already.

 

[LMP]

Hawley is most likely going to win. You ought like him, he is going to follow party lines. I personally don't think he should, he promised not to just use AG position to move up politically, but here we are him not finishing a term. After knocking out Greitens I think he set his eyes on a much bigger prize.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Lmao at background checks being painted as some extreme anti-2a measure.

Claire McCaskill Revealed to Be a Democrat in James O'Keefe's Boring 'Expose'
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/new...-be-a-democrat-in-james-okeefes-boring-expose

She also supports bans on semi-automatic firearms, and standard capacity magazines.

How do you think that will affect her reelection campaign in a deeply red state that voted for President Trump?

 

[luckyshot]

She also supports bans on semi-automatic firearms, and standard capacity magazines.

How do you think that will affect her reelection campaign in a deeply red state that voted for President Trump?

The NRA was already spending millions of dollars against her, and gun nuts were voting for Hawley anyways.

Also, she didn't make some big platform statement; she "Yeah, sure"'-d some guy in a hallway.

Classic Project Veritas crap. Most people will see it for what it is.

People most likely to be "persuaded" by this were already hard R votes or leaning way in that direction anyways, I think.

 

[LMP]

She also supports bans on semi-automatic firearms, and standard capacity magazines.

How do you think that will affect her reelection campaign in a deeply red state that voted for President Trump?

LoL at "deeply red state" it has historically been a swing state. Look up Missouri bellwether.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

LoL at "deeply red state" it has historically been a swing state. Look up Missouri bellwether.

President Trump won that state by a very wide margin.

For all intents and purposes, Missouri is a red State with the potential for a few Democratic pickups for the foreseeable future.

Do you think her stance on gun control will harm her chances of winning reelection?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Banning "assault rifles" and "high capacity" magazines is retarded though.

Wish Dems would just drop this shit already.

They won't until (and probably even after) SCOTUS grows a pair and rules on the issue.

 

[LMP]

President Trump won that state by a very wide margin.

For all intents and purposes, Missouri is a red State with the potential for a few Democratic pickups for the foreseeable future.

Do you think her stance on gun control will harm her chances of winning reelection?

I don't think it will help or hurt her at this point. I do believe that Missouri is getting ready to swing back towards the blue. A lot of people that I know that voted for Trump arent super happy with him. If the Democrats can find a strong candidate that isnt black there is a decent chance they can win Missouri. STL and KC are locks for the blue, if Springfield and a few of the other larger town swing, the rural votes won't matter.

 

[HomerThompson]

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/10/17/project-veritas-finds-claire-mccaskill-anti-gun-portrays/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/15/project-veritas-video-claire-mccaskill-hides-gun-c/

Senator McCaskill Talks Gun Bans on Tape

Senator McCaskill revealed her intention to vote on various gun control measures in undercover footage:

MCCASKILL: “Well if we elect enough Democrats we’ll get some gun safety stuff done. They won’t let us vote on it, we’ve got 60 votes for a number of measures that would help with gun safety, but McConnell won’t let ’em come to the floor.”

JOURNALIST: “Like bump stocks, ARs and high capacity mags…?”

MCCASKILL: “Universal background checks, all of that… But if we have the kind of year I think we might have I think we could actually be in a position to get votes on this stuff on the floor and we’d get 60 [votes]…”

JOURNALIST: “So you would be on board with the bump stocks and… high capacity mags.”

MCCASKILL: “Of course! Of course!”

Sen. McCaskill's response:


__________________________

This revelation has the potential to cost Senator McCaskill her senate seat.

She's a Democratic senator in a deeply red state that President Trump won handily in 2016.

I know some on this forum don't like the messenger delivering this message. That's largely Irrelevant in the face of statements made by the candidate themselves. Quotes by staffers can be easily explained away. The candidate plainly stating the difference between their public and private positions is another issue entirely.

What say you WarRoom? Do you think this revelation will help turn the tide in what is already a neck-and-neck race?

If she was the senator of my state, and I was planning on voting for her before this revelation, I would almost certainly change my support and my vote over this.

 

[58miles]

I thought She already publicly came out in support of the measures already?

 

[Islam Imamate]

They won't until (and probably even after) SCOTUS grows a pair and rules on the issue.

I guess so.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

The NRA was already spending millions of dollars against her, and gun nuts were voting for Hawley anyways.

Quite possible. I disagree, but I'll get into that disagreement a little more later in this post.

Also, she didn't make some big platform statement; she "Yeah, sure"'-d some guy in a hallway.

Classic Project Veritas crap. Most people will see it for what it is.

In regards to people "seeing it for what it is", attempts to minimize the Senators statements are not going to prove to be very persuasive.

People most likely to be "persuaded" by this were already hard R votes or leaning way in that direction anyways, I think.

I disagree. When politicians are exposed as having contradictory public and private positions, that's a turnoff to your every day, salt-of-the-earth voter.

It shows the voters that their elected official sees them as "dumb rubes" that need to be deceived in order to achieve that politicians actual hidden agenda.

I honestly think this could cost the senator her reelection bid.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I guess so.

Not sure there's any guessing involved. SCOTUS already ruled that commonly held firearms can't be banned, and that's exactly what an "assault weapons" ban would be doing. Feinstein grilling Kavanaugh on the matter goes to show the level of dishonesty gun-grabbers are willing to go to in order to rationalize these 2nd Amendment violations. To say the most popular firearms don't qualify as being in common use is a stance that defies reason.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Not sure there's any guessing involved. SCOTUS already ruled that commonly held firearms can't be banned, and that's exactly what an "assault weapons" ban would be doing. Feinstein grilling Kavanaugh on the matter goes to show the level of dishonesty gun-grabbers are willing to go to in order to rationalize these 2nd Amendment violations. To say the most popular firearms don't qualify as being in common use is a stance that defies reason.

Honestly, Second Amendment advocates aren't in the clear yet when it comes to Supreme Court decisions.

Chief Justice John Roberts occasionally can be counted on as a Swing Vote if it will get him enough positive headlines (see: Obamacare vote).

The Supreme Court is now finally in the configuration that it was sold as for years.

4 conservative justices

4 liberal justices

And a Swing Vote in Chief Justice John Roberts.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Honestly, Second Amendment advocates aren't in the clear yet when it comes to Supreme Court decisions.

I'm not taking anything for granted.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Not sure there's any guessing involved. SCOTUS already ruled that commonly held firearms can't be banned, and that's exactly what an "assault weapons" ban would be doing. Feinstein grilling Kavanaugh on the matter goes to show the level of dishonesty gun-grabbers are willing to go to in order to rationalize these 2nd Amendment violations. To say the most popular firearms don't qualify as being in common use is a stance that defies reason.

Man you really have to nitpick even my "meh" posts?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Man you really have to nitpick even my "meh" posts?

I thought about responding with "Okay", but figured something constructive would be better. I'm sorry if you feel attacked.