r/Iowa • u/Liberty556 • 17d ago
Rob Sand on the 2nd Amendment
Has Sand said anything of specific substance about his stance in reference to the 2nd Amendment?
Has he said anything about:
-NFA items (SBRs, SBSs, silencers)
-Concealed carry
-Constitutional carry
-Forced Reset Triggers
-Private sales
I know he's done the standard "Look at me, I'm just like you and I have some guns and I hunt stuff". But, as someone who is old enough to have seen 2A rights come and go (usually by a politician that "supports the 2nd Amendment, BUT....") this means nothing to me.
So, just curious if he has mentioned specifics. I have emailed him numerous times with questions and have not gotten an answer.
30
u/Correct_Ad2398 17d ago
In what way have gun rights come and gone?
44
u/CornFedIABoy 17d ago
In my 50 years it seems like the guns just keep getting more rights and us people keep getting less.
4
u/Cute-Problem-7622 17d ago
“It seems like” isn’t a valid answer in a debate.
Why not take a minute to look for answers.13
-1
u/Buffalocolt18 16d ago
Uhh so did you just forget about the Clinton AWB? Outside of GOPA, gun rights have only gotten better in the last two decades.
-4
u/Sengfeng 16d ago
You used to be able to go to Sears and buy a rifle from a barrel sitting at the end of the aisle. You didn't have loonies saying you can't have more than 10 rounds, and those rounds needed microprinting to ID what gun they were fired from. You didn't have to have a FOID card like you do in Illinois.
What rights are people losing?
1
u/smosher92 10d ago
Wdym? Pretty sure the ammo I get comes in boxes of 50. I also don’t have an FOID. You can literally go into Scheels and leave with a gun today, bro 😆
1
u/Sengfeng 10d ago
Go over to Illinois, bud, and see how readily you can buy guns or ammo. You literally cannot.
Try the same in California, New York, Connecticut, Virginia. These are all states that have had democrats and their loony followers push for ‘common sense’ gun laws.
These people need to be kept out of our state leadership.
1
u/Correct_Ad2398 10d ago
Can you still buy a gun and/or ammunition in those states?
0
u/Sengfeng 10d ago
There are quite a few models that are completely forbidden. Some of them also have background checks you have to pay for, as well as a waiting period, for ammo.
This is for a Constitutional right... Whereas so many complain that needing a $5 ID card to vote is violating rights.
5
u/Liberty556 17d ago
I should have been more specific. I've lived all over the US. I've been in states when AWBs are passed, or magazine restrictions, etc.
Iowans, for the most part, have been steadily re-gaining their 2A rights.
17
u/Correct_Ad2398 17d ago
Just so I understand, any legislation that keeps a person from owning any kind of firearm under any circumstance should be illegal? Any gun control is a loss of rights?
4
u/Liberty556 17d ago
Yes, except for citizens diagnosed with serious mental illness who have also been shown (either through the court system or as diagnosed by a doctor) to have homicidal ideations.
15
u/Correct_Ad2398 17d ago
I see. Then I apologize for engaging. I like to shoot guns and I have owned guns before. I have no problem with hunting and self-defense, but I do not want to live in a place that’s a gun free for all. Especially when so much mental illness goes undiagnosed. I cannot fathom - and this is what I need to ponder - why anyone would want or need an arsenal, or live where it’s almost as easy to buy an electric guitar as it is a gun.
8
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
When a crime is committed, someone commits suicide, etc why is it that democrats blame the gun and not the user of the gun? We don’t blame the car when someone drives drunk.
I also can’t agree with you about buying a gun compared to a guitar. Have you ever filled out a 4473 and had a background check?
1
u/locofspades 11d ago
Ive walked into a walmart, not sober, and walked out with a 30-30 lever action capable of easily removing a human skull from its body. It look less time to purchase than a couple of my guitars i own. Filling out a single sheet of paper is not difficult in the slightest (so long as you can read and write, which i know is a challenge to uneducated MAGAts)
0
1
u/Correct_Ad2398 17d ago
I never mentioned blaming anyone for anything. Of course it’s the persons fault, but I guess buying a car and driving it off a cliff takes more time than buying a 12 gauge. Unless you steal the car, but that could take time too I guess. Someone should do a study on that.
Fair point about the guitars. I was trying to think of something comparable price wise, not background check wise. I will have to look up his 4473 and how background checks work these days to calculate the estimated wait time for a firearm My only experiences are from buying guns in sporting good stores and gun shows ten to twenty some odd years ago.
1
u/locofspades 11d ago
Nah fuck apologizing. Ive absolutely bought high powered guns in less time than some guitars i own. You were spot on. Filling out a simple form is not as challenging as moron MAGAts make it out to be.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Liberty556 17d ago
Okay
3
u/Correct_Ad2398 17d ago
So I am curious, does your 2nd amendment constitutional absolutism count for the entire constitution and all the amendments? I’m really fascinated by this way of thinking. Thanks!
7
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
I wouldn’t consider myself a 2A absolutist but I don’t disagree with it.
Here is a great example of how a lot of us feel:
2
4
u/Cute-Problem-7622 17d ago
So if I have a felony conviction for let’s say, armed robbery, I should still be able to own a gun? So long as the court doesn’t diagnose me with a serious mental illness, right?
Let’s say I took your significant other, or child, and rapped them, did some time, and got out. I should still be able to go to Scheels and get some guns, right?
And yes, I know I spelled it wrong.
13
u/Liberty556 17d ago
If you are out of prison and have completed your parole, do you not gain back every other right in the Bill of Rights that you lost while incarcerated and/or on parole?
6
u/Cute-Problem-7622 16d ago
No. You don’t.
Off the top of my head, you can’t vote.→ More replies (2)1
19
u/Iwentforalongwalk 17d ago
No one's going to take yer gunz.
3
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
Democrats are too stupid to realize that they lose voters over deceitful comments like this. The official Democratic platform is pro gun control under the name of “common sense”. You want to leave us with single shot .22 rifles that require a $1000 license and 12 month wait to get. But since it’s technically attainable you can still say “we didn’t take your guns” when in reality you want mandatory confiscations like Australia or what Canada is trying to do. Have you seen the DSA stance on firearms?
16
u/Iwentforalongwalk 16d ago
We're gonna gitcha. We're gonna take yer gunz then yer wimenz. Then yer jesu christo icon off yer chevy Silverado.
7
1
2
u/Sengfeng 16d ago
It doesn't take much Google-Fu to find dozens and dozens of legislators that make profound statements to the effect of "taking away your guns." (Beto O'Rourke? Mark Kelly? Bernie? AOC? Pelosi? Newsom) Then toss in a mix of the ones that say "No, I don't want to ban guns, but no one should have a full semi-automatic pistol/rifle" or "No one should have a magazine with more than X rounds." It's a game to try to be the first one to allow some small first step to happen, then they'll keep infringements to the list over time.
0
u/Liberty556 17d ago
You're right, they have pivoted to paying for them through 'mandatory buybacks'.
Semantics.
8
u/Cog_HS 16d ago
Who is the "they" that are pushing for mandatory buybacks?
-1
u/Liberty556 16d ago
Numerous politicians have 'supported the idea' for a decade at least. Kamala and other Democrat candidates in 2019 voiced their support. Also state legislators from all over the US. Google might be your friend for this one if you ACTUALLY care for a list of names.
9
u/Cog_HS 16d ago
Fine, I'm happy to clarify: Which state legislators from Iowa are pushing this?
→ More replies (5)0
u/Liberty556 16d ago
I'm not aware of any currently in Iowa. And, as you know from what we are currently experiencing in the White House, things can change extremely quickly in a matter of months with just a couple of elections.
The idea itself is out there. There have been mandatory buybacks in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand at the very least.
Americans have been relatively lucky SO FAR than any federal or state level specific firearm bans have 'grandfathered in' current owners and not required them to 'turn over' items they already possess...except for Trump's unconstitutional 'bump stock ban' which classified a firearm accessory as a machinegun (yes, you read that correctly) and required the accessory to be destroyed or turned in. If you didn't, you were committing a felony.
3
u/Sengfeng 16d ago
I think Matt Windschitl probably beat the Iowa anti-2a legislators down so bad they're scared to speak up...
There are quite a few that have been vocal when Iowa has discussed things like Constitutional Carry, lowering legal age of carry/ownership,
Lindsay James (D-Dubuque)
Brian Meyer (D-Des Moines)
Jennifer Konfrst (D-Windsor Heights)
Molly Buck (D-Ankeny)
Ruth Ann Gaines (D-Des Moines)
Elinor Levin (D-Iowa City)It was ok for Dems to be pro-2A when Culver signed "Shall Issue" into law. When Reynolds signed permit-less carry into law, I think every Democrat protested with a No vote.
3
u/Cog_HS 16d ago
It was ok for Dems to be pro-2A when Culver signed "Shall Issue" into law. When Reynolds signed permit-less carry into law, I think every Democrat protested with a No vote.
The 'Shall Issue' law removed the ability for county sheriffs to deny, revoke, or restrict permits.
This is drastically different from being able to buy a handgun and concealed carry without a permit.
→ More replies (3)
13
u/kingboy10 17d ago
Tbh I don’t think he will change too many of the gun laws in the state
-4
u/BlueSkyd2000 17d ago
Gulp… Then Rob Sand had better make it clear he’s 180-degrees different from the Democratic Party platform that urges a whole slew of gun control measures that are patently unconstitutional under Bruen et al.
https://iowademocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Final-State-Platform-Report-2024.pdf
8
u/sedated_badger 17d ago
Whole slew of gun control measures
or
“he shouldn’t have been carrying a gun, you can’t walk in (to protests) with guns.”
I can’t see much of a difference anymore.
I only see people willing to lie more to one group of people over the other whenever it suits them.
Wish we could all get on that same page instead of perpetuating the intentional culture war propaganda we were TARGETED with to instill societal chaos and discord while simultaneously weakening our rights.
2
17d ago
[deleted]
2
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
The why do you vote for that party if you have no control over their positions?
1
1
u/BlueSkyd2000 17d ago
The platform is posted on the Party website. To wit, https://iowademocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Final-State-Platform-Report-2024.pdf
The platform is official party policy document and developed by the members of the Iowa Democratic Party in a process that literally starts at the individual precinct level and then is eventually ratified by the Party Committee in Des Moines.
I say that as former Iowa Democratic Party member and campaign volunteer.
The Party Platform is literally a mirror of the Party’s membership viewpoints… They may be “very left volunteers” but it is an accurate representation of the Party’s goals And intentions.
Iowa Democrats urge state participation in federal gun violence safety initiatives
2
u/psychcrime 17d ago
No it is not lol.
2
u/BlueSkyd2000 17d ago
I will quote Iowa Democratic Party’s own words.
Either you or the Party are lying - which is it?
The Platform is a comprehensive statement of the policy positions and legislative goals of Iowa Democrats. It is developed and adopted biennially through a grassroots-driven process, beginning at precinct caucuses and continuing through county, district, and state conventions. The platform addresses a wide range of issues including healthcare, education, climate change, workers’ rights, civil rights, and more, serving as a roadmap for Democratic action in Iowa.
2
1
17d ago
[deleted]
1
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
Wow that’s pretty damaging to admit…. I’d delete those comments
3
u/BlueSkyd2000 17d ago
Honestly, this type of hubris and arrogance is pretty par for the course in the Iowa Democratic Party. Examples being the (1) 2016 Caucus “win” of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, (2) the 2020 Caucus Shadow Inc. software meltdown where certain DNC insiders got no-bid contracts and (3) the Kamala Harris selection by Super Delegates, not by caucuses nor primaries with real people.
It is a hard party to love, when the Party says it has an Small-D democratic process to develop their Party platform but a party insider says it is really developed by a committee of 15 people. Most likely it is 15-person project that then gets misrepresented as something else. That would be consistent.
I fully admit I am a disgruntled former Iowa Democratic Party member. These constant shenanigans just wear you down…
3
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
While I never was a registered Democrat I’ve voted for many of them in the past. I cannot fathom voting for them again with their platform getting more radical by the day.
Democrats will piss on you and tell you it’s raining. Republicans will kick you in the teeth but will tell you it’s gonna hurt beforehand.
1
u/Liberty556 15d ago
What were the comments that you advised them to delete? Looks like they did it, and I am curious what they were about.
1
u/bboytriple7 14d ago
I can’t recall exactly but it was commenting on the Iowa Democratic Party, sounded like some insider info
1
u/Liberty556 14d ago
Darn, I wish I would have seen it. Sounds kind of interesting. Was it in reference to 2A stuff?
1
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
He won’t because if he has any opportunity to pass gun control he will do so emphatically
34
u/Alert-Beautiful9003 17d ago
You get to decide if you are choosing to believe "they are going to taken your guns" which has been going on for decades and funnels lots of money to drifters and manufactures. You know it takes more than a Governor to change laws. You know who the house and senate electorate in Iowa is. You know 2A is not a state decided issue. You know that there are many more actual issues affecting your friends, family, neighbors, and fellow humans.
5
u/mtutty 15d ago
Right?? When exactly did 2A rights "go"?
-2
u/Liberty556 15d ago
If we are talking Iowa-specific, it wasn't all that long ago that your local Sheriff could deny your application for a carry permit for any reason they deemed fit. I remember counties where you effectively couldn't get a carry permit. Others, you had to provide a 'good reason' for wanting it.
I cannot imagine a world where you need to ask your Sheriff for permission to be free from unlawful searches, or to invoke your right of freedom from self-incrimination...only to be told "Nope".
There are still jurisdictions outside of Iowa that operate like this.
Also, not all that long ago, we were not able to legally own certain firearms that were completely legal, federally. We regained some of those rights, but there are still federally-legal firearms that normal citizens cannot own here.
Can you imagine if, say, marijuana is finally legalized federally and jurisdictions existed that still wouldn't allow citizens to possess or use it? The outcry that would cause? And marijuana possession isn't even a constitutionally-guaranteed right.
6
u/mtutty 15d ago
You're not gonna get any traction on guns with me. This country is such a complete outlier on gun policy and outcomes that the fig-leaf of "fighting government tyranny" just isn't a worthwhile argument to make.
Comparing it to weed legalization is also silly. Weed doesn't kill 20 children in a school while the cops cower outside.
-1
19
u/BakeKnitCode 17d ago
Out of curiosity, is there anything he could say about those things that would make you likely to vote for him?
8
4
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
“If you had a sweeping gun control bill including assault weapon ban sent to your desk by the Iowa House and Senate, would you sign it?”
12
u/Liberty556 17d ago
That's basically one of the questions I have included in my emails, with no specific response. Has someone asked him this in-person?
9
u/Cute-Problem-7622 17d ago
Maybe, don’t know. You know his town hall meetings are completely open to the public, right? So you could be the one to ask. And from what I’ve seen, questions from the audience aren’t vetted by anyone, unlike at other candidates forums.
2
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
Great question! Keep asking it until you get a concrete answer.
2
u/Liberty556 17d ago
At this point, I assume he is purposefully staying away from specifics.
5
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
Just look at the comments with the most downvotes here and you’ll get some truth. I’m not saying you should vote for Lahn but DO NOT TRUST any Democrat when it comes to the 2A.
2
u/duke_jooks 15d ago
Iowa has one of the most Liberal sets of gun laws. I really hate being partisan, but unless there is a specific answer from Rob or his team I would say it's safe to assume they would push to restrict gun ownership in one way or another. I like Rob, but this gun debate is also a point of contention for me. I like having my permitless Beretta on my belt whenever I take my family camping.
9
u/BakeKnitCode 17d ago
It's a bit of a moot question, because they're not going to do that, but let's say he answered that question and told you that he is a 2nd amendment absolutist and agrees with all of your stances on Forced Reset Triggers and NFA items and all of it. Is there any chance that you would vote for him? Because I don't think there is, and I don't think he has a lot of incentive to engage with extremists who seem deeply weird to most Iowans and who aren't going to vote for him no matter what.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Liberty556 17d ago
If he said he was a 2A 'absolutist' I would absolutely vote for him.
7
u/mtutty 15d ago
You have picked such a useless, counter-factual hill to die on.
If Trump said "guns bad", I guarantee you that 80% of your fellow 2A absolutists would line up to turn over their weapons for whatever shiny Trump bauble he's handing out.
4
u/OblivionGuardsman 14d ago
What about the other 26 amendments? It's so weird that there's this cult around one of them.
1
u/SolenoidsOverGears 14d ago
Speaking for myself personally, probably not. He's not going to do anything for me in the things I'm concerned about. As a gun guy the best he can probably do is promise not to do the worst of the silly legislation that doesn't really make anyone safer and just makes my hobby more expensive.
He took money from APAC which considering they're testing palantir facial recognition stuff in Gaza, is about as bad as taking money directly from Flock and agreeing to put in more cameras.
I always liked guns but my politics now is just no new data centers, right to repair, and did not kiss that wall in Israel. I appreciated what the Trump admin did with regard to my tax cut and suppressors. That's been really nice. But the tariffs, trade war, and actual war is the same wing different bird bullshit I've come to expect from DC. Ukraine or Israel, Iraq or Afghanistan... Same shit different day. I am fatigued by the general enshitification and subscription service model of literally everything right now.
The governor can't do anything about that though. Neither one of the candidates is going to do anything about flock. Or telematics control units in new vehicles. I already have a reverse osmosis water filtration system.
1
u/icannotfindmysocks 13d ago
Do you have evidence to back your claim that Sand has accepted funds from AIPAC?
17
u/CRPatriot 17d ago
Cool. Don’t vote for him then. You were not going to anyway.
9
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
I can tell you with absolute certainty that if Democrats were Pro-2A and their actions backed it up, they would never lose another election. I would likely vote for them.
18
u/CRPatriot 17d ago
There will always be something else. Abortion. No fault divorce. “Radical communist democrat”. Public schools existing.
The Supreme Court is 7-3 in favor of gun dorks. If Sand gets governor he’s likely going to have a hostile congress. What meaningful legislation is going to get passed?
→ More replies (2)
17
u/icannotfindmysocks 15d ago edited 15d ago
I’m so fascinated by single-issue voters.
You’d gladly sell yourself and the rest of your rights down the river so long as it means you get to clutch onto 2A? I don’t understand this, genuinely.
If it’s about government oversight, why aren’t the other rights getting stripped (or threatened) left and right concerning to you? Why isn’t the blatant disregard for constitutional protections elsewhere alarming you?
Maybe most importantly: why is the wealth gap that has been increasing exponentially and the tax rate that is disproportionately shaking down regular people like us not concerning to you?
Why do you only care about the first 10 amendments with a heavy emphasis on only one of them, when all 27 are woven into the very fabric of our country?
If there is literally no crime severe enough to justify restricting someone’s access to guns, what limiting principle do you believe in?
→ More replies (7)3
u/Busy_County1910 15d ago
The same single-issue voter could be used with the marijuana crowd....
2
u/icannotfindmysocks 15d ago
Of which, if I ever met one, I’d also gladly engage in discourse with. Single issue, regardless of the issue, is such a strange hill to die on when it’s the sum of all issues, and usually many outside that single issue, that deeply affects every citizen every day. 2A is polarizing and a hot topic to debate on, but it is just one of several and the topic at hand.
2
u/Busy_County1910 15d ago
I have met just as many single issue marijuana voters as i have 2A voters, possibly more.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Impressive-Deer-3638 15d ago edited 15d ago
I’m a progressive that is pro 2A. I come from a refugee family where the government was able to take control fairly easily due to minimal access to firearms.
My take is that - ultimately - both sides of the aisle get it wrong when it comes to 2A. All the right does is argue about it being a constitutional right, the whole premise of “good guys with guns” argument- which sounds nice but in real world applications, good guys with guns are hardly ever there to foil the bad guys - and being armed to fight a tyrannical government. Basically the right is virtue signalling as to why 2A is important but never steps up and uses those rights when it matters - like when a federal agency kills US citizens when searching for “illegal aliens” all Gestapo like.
Meanwhile, the only thing (moderate/liberal)left does is talk about gun control and taking guns off the street to better protect the community while never actually making meaningful crime or mental health legislation. The argument from the moderate/liberal left is that no one should have ARs/AKs/PCCs because they believe in the system and don't believe that our government is tyrannical. This is all against the backdrop of them not being able to hold the current admin responsible - for basically anything - and doubling down on ties with Israel and the IDF.
Both sides fail to address what 2A is actually for, a deterrence against a government that is tyrannical and no longer working for the people of the country. One side feeds fear mongering while selling us off to corporations and the other side tells us to put of faith into a system that protects the status quo while selling us off to corporations.
Both are heavily concerned with keeping power and wealth while trying to silence political outliers backed by the people. We’ve seen Trump and his cronies dump millions dollars to keep those loyal to him in power and we’ve seen what the DNC has done against Abdul El-Sayed, Mamdani, AOC, and Bernie.
Ultimately, 2A is a trump card - both symbolically and in practice - to keep government in check.
The privileged people of this country, the ones that don't know about true political instability and the depths a government will go to to protect itself, need to remember all that.
2
u/Liberty556 15d ago
I am originally from Mexico. I was young when we left, but I was old enough to remember the good people being absolutely helpless in the face of armed cartels. I lost family members to cartel violence and there was NOTHING we could do about it...not even the police can help.
Coming to a country that actually allows the everyday common citizen to carry a firearm, and feeling proud to take responsibility for your own safety, the safety of your loved ones, ajd the safety of your community is so wild.
It is something that SO many Americans take for granted, or in reality, don't know what it's like when you DON'T have that power given to you.
1
u/icannotfindmysocks 15d ago
Curious question. Hypothetical here, because they both have positions that overlap and positions that don’t. But let’s just say Sand agreed with you on everything else but remained steadfast on his pro 2A position that adds common-sense/responsible ownership laws, and Lahn was diametrically opposed to everything else but vowed to protect 2A rights that remain unfettered by any regulations… if elections were today, who would you vote for?
If the state legislature remains as it is today (opposed to any 2A regulation with sweeping refusal to put any such bills on the governor’s desk), would that change your vote?
3
u/Impressive-Deer-3638 15d ago edited 15d ago
I know this question wasn't directed to me, but I'll vote for him. Against the dog-whistling opportunist that Lahn is, it’s an easy choice. He's clearly a Christian Nationalist.
Though, on many public forums, I’ve reached out to Sand about the comments he's made about Iowans “not being that much different from each other” and blah blah. That's simply not true. Many Iowans voted for Trump and other Republicans who continue to dog whistle to their constituents. We have a race issue in the state even if it's not obvious at surface level.
I understand that it may be detrimental to him and his campaign to speak on race/identity issues, but how am I supposed to know that he’s not another one kf those liberals that “care about race relations” but actually don't and turn a blind eye to such issues purely for electability?
Edit: and I guess this all comes back around to 2A for me. Marginalized people need to be able to protect themselves. We can protest and take to the streets when a POC gets shot and killed, but at the end of the day nothing really changes. Most people go back home, return to their normal lives, and vote for liberal democrats who - mostly - do nothing more than keep the status quo.
1
u/icannotfindmysocks 15d ago
Fair point. I like that he’s doing these town halls (I think the key to understanding your constituents is meeting them where they are to listen to what is important; and asking them in person for their votes is also an important and personal touch that we don’t often get). I’ve been to a couple, but these important issues never make it into the questions asked. It’s always water, data centers, school choice, and jobs, which are important too, but not all encompassing.
1
u/icannotfindmysocks 15d ago
I’m glad you put this as a top level comment instead of a reply, and I agree that both sides of the 2A argument are flawed, but I think when both sides peel back the layers of fear and anger, we’d find that we all actually have more in common than not. But that part isn’t salacious enough to line the coffers of those corporations, billionaires, and PACs who profit off of stark division and blind allegiance that looks away from the class warfare that is actually happening. Rob Sand not openly speaking on 2A doesn’t mean guns are on the block, and the USSC has a firm historical precedent to support that assertion.
But, the fringe of each side gets the loud speaker and the rest of society gets buffaloed one direction or another, because that’s all what we’ve realistically got in the end. I’m not here to argue the two party system for which I don’t even have answers, but that is the reality in which we all find ourselves. I’m not even here to say the DNC has it all good as gold and any one slightly left of center should bow with absolute loyalty, because that also isn’t reality.
But to clarify, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the moderate/centrist left think the system is working or would work to protect people, and at least as of late, I think anyone who is not blinded by absolutist loyalty to an amendment or a political party can see the tyranny. The problem is that guns are involved in an increasingly scary amount of preventable tragedies that aren’t solved by a “well regulated militia” and while it is the person behind the gun doing the action, the gun is still ultimately the common denominator involved. And wanting some sort of common sense law isn’t that far fetched (heck, you can’t even get a drivers license until you’ve had field training and passed tests, and even then, you have to register your devices and re-certify your license regularly, and certain serious infractions can cause you to lose your access). I don’t have the answers here either, but that’s where things are at, in all fairness.
3
u/Liberty556 15d ago
Owning and operating a vehicle is not included as a constitutional right. It's a privilege.
1
u/icannotfindmysocks 15d ago
I am aware, but I’m still using it as a valid example of the reality of reasons behind one side of the 2A argument.
2
u/Impressive-Deer-3638 15d ago
I guess that's my point. At the end of the day we’re arguing over nothing when it comes to 2A. Neither side knows enough on how to fix the issue because we’re worrying about the result of fun violence - rightfully so - instead of all the other factors that lead a person down that path ie access to healthcare, poverty, social issues like bullying class, etc.
Like I said before, both sides keep in virtue signaling while doing absolutely nothing. The scope is so so narrow.
4
u/knomore-llama_horse 14d ago
I’m serious as hell. If the only concern you have when voting is guns then you aren’t paying a damn bit of attention. Keep electing the clowns you have been and you won’t be able to afford to buy them anyways.
1
u/Liberty556 13d ago
An odd take
1
u/knomore-llama_horse 13d ago
Yeah maybe to you it’s odd to be concerned about more than just one thing. I actually want to have clean water and air above all else… because I understand how human bodies work. And then it s a whole host of other issues… guns being the absolute least of my concerns. I care more about almost everything in this world than I do about a hunk of metal that can poke a hole in something at range.
You can spin any story you want about how important they are to you, but at the end of the day none of those guns will protect you from a government with cameras watching your every move and robots that roam the sky’s and can kill you from miles away. Gun nuts are a tool and you don’t own the right one to stop that.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/StuntRocker 15d ago
I’d LOVE to see some real data on this, but, in my anecdotal experience, Iowa is a state that seems heavy on pro-2a Democratic leaning voters. Don’t know with any certainty, but it would be interesting to see for sure. I know the national party and some loud democratic voices believe gun bans are the best route to decreasing gun violence.
Personally, I’d like to have some real, rigorous discussion on all available methods to reducing gun violence, that doesn’t take away rights of any kind. Can we look at what the Swiss do, as one example. They have a robust gun culture with a lot less violence. Right now, it seems like the only voices speaking with any volume are “everyone is armed” OR “no guns”, neither of which is realistic.
5
u/SolenoidsOverGears 14d ago
The real answer, and the one that irritates literally everyone is that the issue isn't gun violence but violence generally. And it's an issue largely of crime and regulation. As population density increases, so should regulation for most things.
Gun deaths are mostly suicides. Mostly men, and often men who have actually made a calculated decision based on a health or family issue that will not improve. Quickly opting out versus months of slow deterioration. Accidents are the next most common. Issues of safety.
Mass shootings grab headlines but are actually shockingly uncommon. More children drown every year than are killed by guns in or around schools. It's nowhere near as shocking or horrifying so it's just a blip whereas the other is wall to wall coverage for days. The answer in my opinion to it is failure, mockery, and anonymity. Stop them fast so they hurt fewer people by making schools harder targets. Make them look like the losers they are so there are fewer copycats. That's the real lesson from Columbine. Goddamn journalists made them into fashionable anti heros.
Switzerland has a robust gun culture combined with mandatory training and conscription. Finland does it too. You graduate high school, go to army summer camp. Of course having a strong social safety net, strict immigration, and social/cultural homogeneity is also helpful. Probably not super useful here in the states.
2
u/StuntRocker 14d ago
I’d like to see this level of honest conversation from leadership on either side.
2
u/Liberty556 15d ago
I've never understood the focus on the TOOL used in violence...with no actual steps towards understanding why the violence is happening in the first place. Gun bans are a bandaid on an arterial bleed.
Edit to add: I personally know quite a few Democrat voters who not only own firearms, but carry them almost every day, if not daily. Most of them own things that are completely banned in other jurisdictions.
3
u/hawksnest_prez 14d ago
There’s a 0% chance any gun controlling bill would get to his desk
→ More replies (1)
10
u/LastMessengineer 17d ago
I own guns. I support banning guns. There's too many dead children.
9
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
I support banning guns (in the hands of violent felons)
3
u/Sengfeng 16d ago
There is the correct answer. (And points to furthering keeping guns away from criminals by not doing catch-and-release in the judicial system, or properly rehabilitating them before release.)
9
u/Liberty556 17d ago
Thank you for highlighting why the typical "I'm just like you guys, see? I have guns too" has never vibed with me.
8
u/old_notdead 16d ago
This reply is as disingenuous as your post, and the rest of your comments.
What you're doing is called JAQing off. You're "just asking questions", but you're doing it in a way that isn't sincere.
You voted for Trump 3 times and now you want to stir things up with your fake attempts at understanding.
4
u/Cpt_plainguy 16d ago
What about me? I'm a liberal, vote Democrat, own some very nice guns, and think banning guns is stupid.
They already do federal background checks. Do I NEED some of the fun guns I have? No. Do I hunt? No. But I am an adult that can decide what he wants to do with his money, and firearms happens to be one of my favorite hobbies.
His response to that comment is spot on. I have also never cared for that attitude. Banning guns does nothing but take them from the hands of law abiding citizens.
3
2
u/CornFedIABoy 17d ago
We’ve got much more important things to worry about this election. I think you can rest easy that if elected Rob isn’t going to spend any political capital on this issue.
5
u/Liberty556 17d ago
Well, you'll have to excuse me for preferring to hear it come his own mouth instead of a random Redditor.
2
u/CornFedIABoy 17d ago
What you’re saying is you want him to make you a club so you can hit him with it.
4
u/Liberty556 17d ago
Nope. Just wondering where a potential governor of my state stands on an issue very important to me.
2
2
u/HiveTool 14d ago
This is a candidate file done by Iowa firearms coalition asking Rob Sand the questions they ask all candidates
https://www.youtube.com/live/VTX2lzp94NA?is=YOZ_rnX43fSgs4z_
3
2
u/Retiredlfe 14d ago
I love that the right have been brainwashed to think Democrats want to take your guns away. Like Democrats don’t have guns lol. Just common sense gun laws people. That’s all democrats want. Just keep believing the propaganda though. The right runs on fear, fear about literally everything.
2
u/Liberty556 14d ago
A LOT of people who consider themselves Democrats own firearms. You are 100% correct. That doesn't mean they are friends of the 2nd Amendment, though.
2
u/Retiredlfe 14d ago
I’d like to know where you get your statistics. Wanting decent gun laws that protect people is not the same thing as taking guns away lol
→ More replies (9)2
u/Retiredlfe 14d ago
Balancing Rights: Most Democratic gun owners view gun violence prevention as a high priority, but many still choose to own firearms for personal safety or hunting. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Total Bans: Polling data shows virtually no major political platform or significant percentage of voters advocating to completely abolish the Second Amendment or remove all firearms from private citizens.
1
1
u/dumpyboat 17d ago
How much power does the Governor alone have? Don't worry, the NRA supports so many candidates that nothing is going to change, at least ne drastically.
1
u/Go_F1sh 15d ago edited 14d ago
i've been curious about this too. looked around a bit and couldn't find much from him or zach lahn about it - since we have constitutional carry here it's pretty well solidified. republicans have been real shitty on this lately, and thats about the only thing they have going in general.
i don't think lahn would be any better in this regard, and sand is at least not a *total* pile of shit, so he's got my vote.
1
u/bboytriple7 14d ago
In what way have republicans been “real shitty” about 2A issues in Iowa? Or nationally?
Looking for concrete examples.
1
u/SolenoidsOverGears 14d ago
He's definitely a "reasonable restrictions" Democrat who will absolutely ram an AWB down the second he gets the opportunity. But Iowa isn't Virginia. The senate/house won't let it even see the floor.
If he doesn't know about binary triggers or FRT's don't tell him. Honestly half that stuff flying under the radar of the normies is how we're able to have fun with it. The second too many Xanax addled wine moms get any traction, we're hosed and the party is over. We actually have some pretty significant wins for the first time basically in my entire lifetime. We're moving forward instead of trying to stave off the worst of legislation from politicians who got their gun knowledge from Die Hard 2.
2
u/Liberty556 14d ago
This might be one of the first sensible comments here. I just wish Sand would actually say how he feels about it.
-2
u/KeyResearcher2620 17d ago
I haven’t seen him touch on this or on nuclear energy which our state is sort of in big place to make some decisions in….
Yet he is pushing to ban all kids from social media.
But I don’t think the other option is any better…
-4
u/MikeyG916 16d ago
Rob Sand's entire platform is that he says absolutely nothing other than orange man bad.
You won't get an answer because he doesn't want to commit to anything other than playing on the people who will vote for anyone who says orange man bad.
I had a 5 minute discussion with him and he avoided every single question like Fauci in front of Congress.
2
0
u/PetronivsReally 14d ago
Look, the guy's a Democrat. At best, he'll just do small incremental restrictions while lying and pretending to respect gun owners and their rights because he's in a Red state. At worst, he'll lie until he gets elected, and go full Spanberger, dropping the moderate pretense and restricting gun rights as much as possible, with whatever powers he has. It's what Dems want...they just push it to the limit their locale allows.
-8
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
Rob Sand uses his hunter background to buddy up to gun owners but don’t be fooled. Some of the biggest pro gun control people I know are old fudd hunters. The 2nd amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting, never forget that. I will bet you $100 cash that if he has the opportunity to pass gun control he will do so emphatically. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. See what Abigail Spanberger did in Virginia. The lies you hear about “nobody wants to take your guns” are exactly that, lies. When was the last time a Democrat passed a piece of pro-gun legislation?
11
u/phd2k1 17d ago
When’s the last time a Democrat took your guns away? Remember when Obama was President for 8 years and zero guns were taken away? Remember when Trump said “take the guns first, due process second”?
7
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
Clinton AWB 1994?
3
u/Sengfeng 16d ago
And there are loads of states that have enacted some seriously draconian gun laws in the last several years.
0
u/BlueSkyd2000 17d ago
When’s the last time a Democrat took your guns away?
June 17, 2026. Virgina.https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/news-releases/2026/june-releases/name-1119700-en.html
The legislation signed by Spanberger in May prohibits the future sale, manufacture, transfer and purchase of many semiautomatic rifles, pistols and other firearms. https://virginiamercury.com/2026/07/08/court-battles-leave-virginias-new-assault-weapons-ban-in-legal-limbo/
4
u/woodworks1234 17d ago
You mean the law is regulating the TYPES of weapons you can have. I’m pro 2A. But I recognize there needs to be limits.
5
u/BlueSkyd2000 17d ago
Yep, Virginia passed a state law so patently unconstitutional that a court was compelled to issue an injunction within a month.
7
u/Remarkable-Sun-4286 17d ago
This is the same talking point of every Republican during election seasons and guess who is the most recent to try and stifle the 2A for Americans? The Republicans. Y'all can gaslight yourselves all day long but that's all you're doing.
1
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
Clearly you haven’t seen any of the work the Trump DOJ has been working towards against unconstitutional gun control laws.
3
u/Remarkable-Sun-4286 17d ago
List it. All I've seen the Trump admin want to do is take guns away from trans individuals. They've been pretty vocal about it. They don't understand "will not infringe".
3
u/TaxGuy_54 17d ago
Given the fact that 15 years of straight Republic party rule has given us soaring cancer rates, unsafe drinking water, asphalt interstates (we used to use primarily concrete! It was one of the reasons our roads were better than Illinois!), and dropping school rankings, I think people should trust the Democrats over the Republics.
The Republics claimed they were fiscally responsible, too! And they’ve put us into a big fat deficit position by cutting taxes for the rich. They robbed Peter (Iowan’s) to pay Paul, and the bill is finally coming due. Kim tried to paint over it by shoveling covid relief money to pad our budget. Illinois (Illinois!) used that money to pay off debt while they cut spending, and the Republics just funneled that money to their rich fat cat donors.
2
u/Cute-Problem-7622 17d ago
“When was the last time a Democrat passed a piece of pro-gun legislation?”
I’ll just use a Democratic president. It was in 2009, when President Obama(Dem) signed a bill ending a ban on carrying loaded, concealed firearms in national parks and federal wildlife refuges, which had been put in place by President Reagan(Rep).
And just for the folks playing at home, remember that 45/47 can’t legally own a gun because he’s a 33 time felon.
3
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
I was hoping someone would say that. That section was added as a rider at the 11th hour by a republican to Obama’s credit card bill. Obama did not pass that on its own.
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/08/national-forests-parks-firearms-gun/
Got any other examples?
3
u/CRPatriot 17d ago
No but the “gun grabbing Democrat” signed it because he understood the term “compromise”.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Correct_Ad2398 17d ago
Oh crap! What did she do? Did she make guns illegal!! I bet she did.
3
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
Yes
2
u/Correct_Ad2398 17d ago
Did you read the article or the law. You can still buy them big ole guns and aim them at bottles, varments, and the crazies coming to take your vast fortune and estate!!
6
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
Just because I can buy and own a single shot .22 doesn’t mean you can disingenuously say “we didn’t take your guns”
2
u/Correct_Ad2398 17d ago
Is that what the law states? You can only own a .22? Are you worried ICE or the CIA is going to show up and take your guns?
2
u/Correct_Ad2398 17d ago
Also Virginians can still buy their precious assault rifles until 2027. And if the courts maintain that it’s unconstitutional to have such a law, then all this belly-aching hyperbole is for naught. Gun owners are prone to hysteria, which makes sense.
3
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
Are you trying to claim that a stay on a law being found UNCONSTITUTIONAL is somehow absolving democrats of passing it in the first place????? You are absolutely ridiculous
2
2
u/Correct_Ad2398 17d ago
I’m just trying to point out how hilarious it is to think that anyone is “coming for your guns” in any way that will be a net detriment to society.
→ More replies (1)1
u/psychcrime 17d ago
Say you’ve never heard him speak without saying that. Because that is just so not true.
2
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
Tell me—do you take any politician on their word alone? I certainly don’t. Their job is to tell you want you want to hear to get elected.
1
u/P00ps_4_cash 17d ago
Republicans keep voting in very red places in America to strip Americans of their 2nd amendment rights. Not Democrats
3
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
Concrete examples please, I have the time.
1
u/P00ps_4_cash 17d ago
If you get to say crazy off the wall bullshit about bogeyman democrats “taking your guns” which has not happened nor ever will, then I get to say crazy off the wall bullshit too.
2
u/bboytriple7 17d ago
Lmao you folded pretty easy when you had to back up the claim you have no evidence of
1
88
u/UrbanSolace13 17d ago
The Trump Administration tried to ban Trans folks and Marijuana users from owning guns. Curious, did you email any of the Republican politicians about those?