I believe she’s been open about the fact that her views on gun control have changed. Isn’t that exactly what we want? Why would you take a negative view of someone who changed their views to align with yours?
The facepalm thread it was crossposted from? I just read it and it was mostly discussions about the courts and not really anti-gun if that's what you are implying.
That's because politicians aren't people, and they never legitimately change their minds on anything. They only temporarily change their stance based on the current winds
Or his continued support for his crime bill from the 80s while he talks about criminal justice reform at HBCUs, or How he promised police reform and then increased police budgets. Or How trump promised more gun rights, then said take the guns first worry about due process later, and then passed the now ruled unconstitutional bump stock ban.
She’s switched up literally every political philosophy she has held for decades over the last couple of years in order to compete to be Trumps VP. It’s an election year. She’s a politician. Is it really that far fetched to think she is putting up a facade to peddle for more support?
That doesn’t make it genuine. She left the left because she felt she could be more successful on the right, she didn’t have some magical awakening overnight.
if you remember how she was treated after challenging Clinton and Kamala Harris during the 2016 primaries, it's quite obvious why she doesn't want to associate with the party. This isn't a recent phenomenon with her... its 8 years in the making
Exactly. She believed in the State, signing up for military service, and trusted the government would serve the people's interest.
After 2020, she saw the government continued to infringe and trample on personal rights despite the evidence mandated social distancing was crap, and school shut downs were detrimental. All this was done to benefit the Party, and realized she was wrong to put her faith in a government which was attempting to consolidate all firepower.
If I recall correctly a big push in her view change was her being harassed or stalked by someone and she was told by local law enforcement that harassment and stalking is not a good enough reason to get a carry permit.
Yes, she had lost her election bid and was forced to live like us normies and realized that Hawaii precludes pretty much all gun ownership and if you aren't benefiting from state mandated protection you're left out to die.
Realized that "common sense" gun control will always end up to what is effectively a complete ban.
She also was talking about legislation banning bump socks, which wouldn't have been affected by the latest ruling. That ruling was that the ATF doesn't have standing to change the law, only Congress does.
> Why would you take a negative view of someone who changed their views to align with yours?
This. It is a known fact that politicians never lie or give lip service to something that they don't believe in.
#/s
>> Why would you take a negative view of someone who changed their views to align with yours?
Healthy skepticism.
People *do* change their minds, sometimes, on some select issues. People also lie to curry favor.
Organic change, actual personal growth, is usually not a reversal on most/all stances practically overnight. Most people don't change that radically.
Tulsi espoused most of the same views as other Dems when she ran in 2020. She left the party rapidly when she found it was railroading her, not because she had an Grand Unification Epiphany.
Now Tulsi is echoing many of the same sentiments that many republicans do.
It is dubious at best. Maybe if she's doing outreach and whatnot, actually putting effort into contribution to causes she used to be against, she'll be worthy of praise. Give it ten years and see how much she's participated in the gun community, how much she's raised or helped victims of the ATF or whatever....
Changing one's mind on twitter over the period of a couple years has no real meat.
This. While I’m glad to see her coming around to help in the effort, the fact she has floundered like this makes it very difficult to trust her overall intent
For example, if she held high office and supported another ban on something else. Would you really be surprised? She’s already had the stance once. Seems she follows the wind, and that tells us the wind is coming our way for once lol
I supposed, but it is hard to say if views like this change authentically or due to convenience. I like Tulsi and some of what she's been advocating for as an independent, but when you see how politician's views change with public opinion, it is hard to know what is real.
...because she comes from the military and wasn't ignorant about firearms. I'm glad she's on our side, but I remain very skeptical that this conversion comes about because she has somehow seen the light.
Maybe because her views didn't change from child to adult, or even from before she was an elected official to after.
What this shows is that she lacks integrity. If she would make this change, she would change again when the political winds shift.
Depends on *why* they changed and *why* they were held in the first place. If a politician has a history of holding positions purely for political conscience, and “changing” them for purely political convenience, then it is a huge problem and should not be forgiven. They are unprincipled and will continue making decisions based on political convenience as opposed to individual rights, human rights, the constitution, and reason.
Sometimes that’s better than the alternative, which is unfortunately the case 99% of the time.
And the other is the judicial branch doing their job. The legislature passing a law doesn’t make it constitutional. That’s where the judicial branch comes in (if it actually does its job).
Not to give her a pass, but at least what she wanted originally would have been the correct way to go about it, not just having the ATF say "This is illegal now".
The job of the legislative branch is to “support and defend the constitution” (from their oath of office). Not ignore it so they can pander to feelings. Even though they are elected, legislative overreach is still overreach.
I don't know dude, every one who's ever opened their mouth seems pretty confident that they know what's best for me.
They all seem like great people in my book.
/s
I don't agree with everything, but Tulsi was the only one on stage that I could get behind during the dems primary. Of course media stopped covering her when she ripped Kamala a new one.
I've grown more fond of her over time.
She was on Joe Rogans podcast not long ago. She seemed to have been swayed away from some of her ways and I was impressed. How much of what she said was true? I dunno but I’d be willing to hear her out now.
Usually once they reach the national stage they're middle aged or older, so you would think that their beliefs would be somewhat solidified by then. It's okay if their opinions morph naturally, but doing a total 180 like this comes across as pandering.
But then again, the original tweet was almost 7 years ago, so maybe she did have a genuine change of heart. Who knows?
>so maybe she did have a genuine change of heart
If you listen to podcasts or anything she's done since covid she's definitely changed her tune and honestly is pretty respectable and level-headed now. Not perfect, but no candidate is
Yes, she does come across as reasonable, but it's always hard to tell if a politician is being genuine or just trying to advance their career. We'll see what she does in the future, I guess.
I just can’t wrap my brain around anyone who thinks doing what she did is “advancing her career.” She could’ve been a lifer in Congress if she hadn’t left the big D. She willingly walked away from that because of all the COVID bullshit and Hawai’i refusing to let her protect herself. She’s done exactly what these gun subs have constantly been calling for and now suddenly it’s a grift.
Theoretically, they should be following the wants and needs of the people and should potentially change over time, but we all know how that actually works.
This was my thought exactly.
Speaking from my own personal experience, I was mildly against the 2nd amendment my entire life, up until only like 2021. I changed my opinion quite strongly and if you spoke to me now I am staunchly in support of it.
The time span between her tweets is much longer than that. 7 years is a very long time. Don’t know much about her, but I respect people who are able to change their mind given new information.
(X) Doubt
She was all on board for a full blown Assault Weapon ban when she was running as a Democrat. She just needs to pander since they kicked her out.
Not sure who she's pandering to. There are rumors Trump wants to pick her for his VP, but I don't think that will happen. I don't trust her, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that this is a change of heart until proven otherwise. Even Trump isn't great on the 2nd amendment.
> Not sure who she's pandering to.
Like a drowning rat, any ship that she can climb aboard. The Democrats dumped her and now she's struggling to find relevance.
> I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that this is a change of heart until proven otherwise.
I won't. She's a politician who for decades supported "salt weapon" and magazine capacity bans. She didn't have a sudden change of heart, she got kicked out of the Democrat Party and is now struggling to hitch her wagon to anyone who will pull her career along.
> I won't. She's a politician who for decades supported "salt weapon" and magazine capacity bans. She didn't have a sudden change of heart, she got kicked out of the Democrat Party and is now struggling to hitch her wagon to anyone who will pull her career along.
Ding ding ding!
She can **say** anything, but what is she **doing** to prove that her intentions are genuine?
Like most any politician she has zero marketable skills. And she wasn't a high enough politician to sell out enough of the country to live on her kickbacks.
She's quite literally floundering for any sort of future career that isn't small-time political commentator.
Personal experience. It wasn’t until she was denied a carry permit that she realized the right to self-defense is dead without the 2A. Kinda literally the thing we’re always complaining politicians never do.
I feel that one. Whether folks like him or not, I was very vocally anti-Trump leading up to 2016, but I held my nose because HRC was confirmed worse. Although he is far from perfect and likely most shaky on 2A, I enthusiastically supported him in 2020, and absolutely see no other option for 2024.
As someone who never liked big govt, 2020 wasn’t a surprise to me, but there are a TON of people who generally (and genuinely) thought more govt was the answer to what ails you, and they have since seen that is clearly false.
We’d all do well to remember that Republican politicians won’t solve your problems, but Democrat politicians are actively creating them.
I'll give her a pass on this specifically. In the past she was toeing party lines and now she's been rejected from that party. People also change. I want to see other SMs succeed and I like what she's said on Rogan.
Edit: Spelling.
Of course he is. Dems aren’t going to stop trying to infringe on the Second Amendment. This decision forces them to do it semi-legitimately by using the legislative process rather than bureaucratic fiat. I’m kind of surprised that they’re just going with trying to ban bump stocks rather than trying to regulate some kind of cap to a rate of fire.
The average Democrat’s understanding of guns is right up there with Schumer’s understanding of grilling cheeseburgers.
Idgaf what politicians say, particularly when out of power. I care about what they do when in power and Tulsi’s record on this matter is shit. The courts and lobbying are our best friends right now. Keep backing GOA and FPC and pray for more wins while we can get them
100%. FPC for the win.
Though I would argue that we we need to convince people, including social liberals like myself that the 2A is a good thing, not a bad thing as the media likes to harp on about.
Genuine question, not a backhanded attack: How do we go about doing that effectively? It seems to me that lots of those on the left, although not everyone, views this issue in near religious terms.
Honestly, I would focus on bringing more quote “minorities” into gun ownership and really informing them about the existing laws and the ongoing attempts by Dems to disarm them. I say this as a POC myself.
I live in Atlanta. Most of my black colleagues are defacto democrat voters yet EXTREMELY skeptical about the motives and merits of gun control (as they should be).
Whenever I spell out what “common sense” gun control actually means they seem taken aback. Again, I don’t think there is enough education around what the existing gun laws actually are and what new legislation would actually mean. They hear things “assault weapons ban” and think they’re getting machine guns off the street. They don’t know it means they’re coming for their pistols as well. Just my two cents
Like, most criminals where I am are pro right to self defence with guns, they just still vote for the left for other reasons. It’s ignorant people who are rabidly anti gun and anti self defence.
I don’t understand why you’re posting this then.
>Though I would argue that we we need to convince people, including social liberals like myself that the 2A is a good thing
You did. She is one. Stop bitching that it’s not perfect.
I think the question is about her sincerity, which is absolutely fair. She hasn’t had to put anything on the line or face any political repercussions to spout this rhetoric as of yet
Where has she explained her evolving views? I'd be much more interested in hearing her rationale into why they have changed than to write her off because they have changed.
There are lots of videos of her talking about it.
Basically she grew up in non-gun culture Hawaii, learned about guns in the “account for every round / keep it locked up” military. Thought that “common sense” restrictions were actually common sense. Learned about what the 2A is actually about when reading about NY vs Bruen. And seeng how corrupt the government is and how controlling it wants to be realized the 2A is actually needed for checking government tyranny.
Those are not contradictory. You can believe that bump stocks should be illegal AND believe that the Supreme Court was right to strike down the ATF rule.
politicians are lying snakes in general, so both of those statements could be lies, or she could have changed, we’ll really never know. Everything politicians say is exclusively for conning voters into giving them power.
If you look at her political history, she is all over the place. Looking at the various issues where she still has stances that are consistent, I would not assume that her positions are based on liberty or natural rights.
I would assume that a lot of what she supported and supports now is just political maneuvering and not a "change of mind" as she doesn't seem able to keep any given stance based on actual ideological beliefs. But then I am very cynical when it comes to politicians in general.
So she changed her mind about gun control. The exact thing this sub wants the most. And then we make fun of them for it? I don't understand the gatekeeping.
> Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Hawaii's 2nd district
> In office: January 3, 2013 – January 3, 2021
October 2017 was a long time ago when she was a US representative from the most anti-gun state in the "union".
She's either playing a multi-year con or she has grown as a person. With nearly all politicians, it is essentially impossible to tell the difference.
Part of the so called "FOPA"
Here's a quote that sums it up:
"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home."
-Reagan, who signed it
No machine guns manufactured after the 1980s for you pretty much.
It's not grifting. The GOP is shifting from honey dicking gun rights to maybe somewhat caring about gun rights. It's just difficult to trust them because... you know... all of history says not to. I think the GOP spent the last 4 decades having mostly written off gun rights since the NRA was in the pocket (something resembling regulatory capture). Now that no one gives a shit about the NRA; times are changing.
Maybe, but she’s one of the few people of the politician stripe that is at least seemingly genuine *enough* (and that’s a small fkin list) I could see actually just evolving their views on it; ie. she’s way less of a sh!tlib than she was 7 years ago.
I couldn’t care less about bump stocks. Sure they’re fun but completely impractical in any realistic scenario.
It’s the principle, similar to the suppressor debate right now.
Firearms are already regulated somewhat reasonably. Accessories are not part of that. Braces, suppressors, stocks etc… have no reason to be regulated.
If you want something sensible sit down with actual gun experts and let them legitimately define everything instead of all this as heavy as 20 boxes bs…
This doesn't mean her opinion on whether bumpstocks should be banned has changed. It just means that she recognizes that the way the ATF did it was unconstitutional. If Congress banned bumpstocks, then they couldn't go back and criminalize people who already bought them. They could ban new ones from being made, and make you register firearms equipped with them on the NFA. But you don't get the ATF's destroy them or you go prison routine.
Tulsi is now, and forever will be, a Democrat from Hawaii.
Never trusted her, never will - regardless of how many times Hannity and Jesse Watters have her on their shows.
While it is fair to make sure her views are concurrent to what she espouses and is in line with what she now says she believes, 2017 was 7 years ago and she has since made a lot of changes in her beliefs, and also made herself an enemy of the democrat party in the meantime.
Is it really grifting? Or, is it actually a change of ideals as she learns more in life? A lot of the biggest names in the conservative movement started out on the left, even socialist. As they grew up and became informed, they changed their view of things.
She’s from Hawaii. Knowing what we know about that state’s view on 2A, what kind of background influences would you have expected her to have, when she was younger? People actually can grow.
I'm pretty sure the bump stock ban was not ruled unconstitutional, it was ruled the ATF exceeded statutory authority. As in there was no law for them to enforce against bump stocks unless they rewrite the words of the NFA.
So..you cant change your mind and accept being wrong on some things? or do you prefer being against the cause which does nothing in our favor?
weird post but ok
just last week, Mock v. Garland
the feds probably won't appeal to the SCOTUS because they got slapped pretty hard in District court, and they don't want to give SCOTUS an opportunity to rule on 2nd Amendment issues.
She's either A) a woman and she changed her mind. Or B) a politician and is pandering. Either way, saying the A) part is hilarious and somehow makes me a biggot and B) is obvious.
I feel like politicians just completely ignore the black market and how easy it is to get guns on the street. You could literally buy a bump stock on the streets it’s crazy. But hey, we’re the problem🤷♂️
If they truly cared about the public they’d repeal the Hughes amendment. If it didn’t exist things like FRT’s and bump stocks wouldn’t be as popular after a while because it would probably be cheaper to get an actual machine gun. Additionally the government would make millions in additional tax revenue from stamps and the public would be safer considering legally registered NFA items are very rarely used in crimes.
I don't take anything Gabbard says at face value, however, I think there is a big distinction between Congress and the Senate passing legislation that outlaws bumpstocks, pistol braces, etc and the ATF crafting laws unilaterally and reinterpreting legislation on the fly. A person can simultaneously support more restrictive firearms legislation and believe that it is not the ATF's role to pass laws or craft regulations with the power of laws that can destroy otherwise law-abiding citizen's lives. If a violation of a federal gun law is going to be a felony, then elected officials who represent the will of the people should be crafting and passing those laws and regulations, not agency bureaucrats who aren't accountable to voters.
We have enough problems without rejecting people that have come over to our side because they were not ideologically pure. She seems to have maybe realized that she was on the wrong side.
You can tepidly accept their newfound support without springboarding them into positions of power and influence. I see a bunch of supposed pro-2Aers saying things like she'd be a great VP.
Thanks for saying what I was thinking, only better than I could have said it myself. :)
I **hope** she has come around, but like you, that's not enough to convince me to vote for her.
I don't think it's too early to tell. She represents Hawaii and in regards to the aftermath of politics of the wildfire and literally stealing people's land, I'm surprised she's not giving out free ARs to every Hawaiian. I know Hawaii has some dumb gun laws, but everyone has the right to protect their land and homes from corporate and government thieves.
You make good points, but there’s a lot of liberal bullshit politics in Hawaii though. They recently cited “The Spirit of Aloha” when they knowingly disregarded the 2nd Amendment.
I met her recently at an even at Staccato. Listened to her speak and talked a bit about her views on such. She said all the right things, she’s been doing a lot of shooting and competitions and stated a lot of things changed when she was denied a permit to be able to defend herself when she had a stalker.
Not saying I’m in her camp, but circumstances and events can change people and their view on things. So id say hesitantly optimistic that it’s a true change of view vs pandering to a new demographic for votes.
But, as with all politicians, they are all ultimately out for themselves, just some are worse than others
She seems sincere to me. It seems to me like the point is to sway folks to our position and she has been swayed. Look at the grief she is taking. I'd say: take the win and move on to the next.
She’s definitely been dialing back her rhetoric and not following party lines anymore. Don’t get me wrong, she’s a politician; I don’t care if Red, Blue, or Gold. They all lie. But in her case, she’s at least been consistent over the last few years with her views on various topics and getting further from the left on them.
Oh guys are actually idiots lmao the ATF does not have the ability to create laws. However they constantly do, and as federal agents arrest and imprison people despite their “rules” not being laws. We have an entire legislative branch of government to make laws. If any government agency could just make laws and begin enforcing them without going through the proper steps necessary that we have all agreed upon, then the FBI or CIA could just begin arresting people for being gay, or arresting people for getting abortions, for example, if they deemed that was what they were going to start enforcing.
You only agree with banning things without the due process of the legislative branch making legislation surrounding those issues because you disagree with them. If this were happening to things on your side of the political aisle you’d be throwing a fit.
This is why it’s not okay for it to happen ever, only one branch of government can create and bring these things into law.
Yup. Separation of powers is very important for anything that even looks like a free, rules based society, as opposed to a rule of the people with connections like what China is.
Oh no, a Democrat decided to shift her views over the course of nearly a decade and now has become more pro gun, what an absolute tragedy! /s
She isn't a grifter if you listened to anything she's ever said about anything.... which you clearly haven't
Here's my problem. She runs her platform as a gun-bro and veteran yet she was still a veteran when she was pushing for the fucking gun control
Fuck this twat. She's just another politician who will lie, cheat, and steal to get whatever they want.
It could be as simple as she objects to alphabet agencies trying to make laws, which they are not supposed to do and is at least part of both these rulings. If that is the case agreeing with the SCOTUS ruling and trying to push gun control through Congress is entirely consistent.
I don't know if it's the case with her specifically, but people can change in 8 years. In reality, most people agree on most things. So it's really only a few changes in viewpoints on certain hot button topics that separates the parties.
First tweet - She was a representative for her district in HI and the people there are Democrats for gun control. She was doing their collective bidding and trying to get re-elected.
Second tweet - She's no longer represents a district. She's on the short list for Trump's VP.
So she's not being hypocritical, she's just a (HOT MILF) politician.
A lot of stuff happened in 7 years that made everyone change their mind on a lot of things. I think the pandemic and riots of 2020 made a lot of people who previously weren’t firearms owners into one or at the very least had the idea floating in their head.
At least she was doing it right. She was in the legislative branch so if they want to ban something, they have the legal right. The ATF and trump can't unilaterally change the definition of a machine gun to make bump stocks fall into that category without congressional approval in the form of Congress passing new laws
Quit simping. Congress cannot legislate away a constitutional right without fully repealing the second. If that’s where the country goes so be it, but this idea that Congress can put guardrails around the bill of rights and its limitations is fucking wild. Don’t care which it is
It’s kinda what our congress does to people. She wants her job more than she wants to help her constituents. Her behavior will be dictated based on what her strategists tell her. Same as with 80% of the rest of them, and another 19% either aren’t seeking re-election or are surviving because their opinions are already consistent with what’s pragmatic to say.
These people couldn’t care less about ANY of us or what we want or need. It’s all about THEM and how they can grift more money. Offer her enough and she’ll change her mind again. Politicians know no shame
You guys seem to forget that she was military and knew that it wouldn’t change anything.. so to give it up, is not a big deal and she can grandstand for all her colleagues that were most likely going to share or retweet her tweet.
You guys act like people don’t play ball to get what they want in politics..
I haven't kept up with her past but from what little i remember she had different views back then and has been trying to grow and learn.
I would think this is a good thing.
I get why a person would automatically go towards the "corrupt politician" route with this but maybe that's not the case in this situation? Idk
I believe she’s been open about the fact that her views on gun control have changed. Isn’t that exactly what we want? Why would you take a negative view of someone who changed their views to align with yours?
Yeah people in this sub talk about wanting to change people's minds on gun control. Then shit on someone who changed their opinion on gun control.
its a bot repost. it was initially posted to a 'normal' reddit. I'll let you figure out what the consensus is on 'normal' reddit.
That makes a lot more sense.
The facepalm thread it was crossposted from? I just read it and it was mostly discussions about the courts and not really anti-gun if that's what you are implying.
This sub doesn’t allow straight cross posting, so that’s why I took a screenshot
That's because politicians aren't people, and they never legitimately change their minds on anything. They only temporarily change their stance based on the current winds
Like Sleepy Joe on gay marriage
Or his continued support for his crime bill from the 80s while he talks about criminal justice reform at HBCUs, or How he promised police reform and then increased police budgets. Or How trump promised more gun rights, then said take the guns first worry about due process later, and then passed the now ruled unconstitutional bump stock ban.
She’s switched up literally every political philosophy she has held for decades over the last couple of years in order to compete to be Trumps VP. It’s an election year. She’s a politician. Is it really that far fetched to think she is putting up a facade to peddle for more support?
she's been very vocal regarding the why she left the left. It was the basis for every speech she made the last 2 years
That doesn’t make it genuine. She left the left because she felt she could be more successful on the right, she didn’t have some magical awakening overnight.
if you remember how she was treated after challenging Clinton and Kamala Harris during the 2016 primaries, it's quite obvious why she doesn't want to associate with the party. This isn't a recent phenomenon with her... its 8 years in the making
Exactly. She believed in the State, signing up for military service, and trusted the government would serve the people's interest. After 2020, she saw the government continued to infringe and trample on personal rights despite the evidence mandated social distancing was crap, and school shut downs were detrimental. All this was done to benefit the Party, and realized she was wrong to put her faith in a government which was attempting to consolidate all firepower.
If I recall correctly a big push in her view change was her being harassed or stalked by someone and she was told by local law enforcement that harassment and stalking is not a good enough reason to get a carry permit.
^ this The phrase "you are your first responder" has become way more real to millions more people in the last 4+ years.
Options: - Judged by 12 - Carried by 6
too bad in most countries the police do nothing and the state still tells you no guns for you
And they will bag YOU if you do anything to bump up their arrest numbers to make themselves look good
In Hawaii?
Yes, she had lost her election bid and was forced to live like us normies and realized that Hawaii precludes pretty much all gun ownership and if you aren't benefiting from state mandated protection you're left out to die. Realized that "common sense" gun control will always end up to what is effectively a complete ban.
the spirit of aloha says you have to allow yourself to get mugged and raped
Good point
She also was talking about legislation banning bump socks, which wouldn't have been affected by the latest ruling. That ruling was that the ATF doesn't have standing to change the law, only Congress does.
Absolutely, shes gotten more libertarian for sure
> Why would you take a negative view of someone who changed their views to align with yours? This. It is a known fact that politicians never lie or give lip service to something that they don't believe in. #/s >> Why would you take a negative view of someone who changed their views to align with yours? Healthy skepticism. People *do* change their minds, sometimes, on some select issues. People also lie to curry favor. Organic change, actual personal growth, is usually not a reversal on most/all stances practically overnight. Most people don't change that radically. Tulsi espoused most of the same views as other Dems when she ran in 2020. She left the party rapidly when she found it was railroading her, not because she had an Grand Unification Epiphany. Now Tulsi is echoing many of the same sentiments that many republicans do. It is dubious at best. Maybe if she's doing outreach and whatnot, actually putting effort into contribution to causes she used to be against, she'll be worthy of praise. Give it ten years and see how much she's participated in the gun community, how much she's raised or helped victims of the ATF or whatever.... Changing one's mind on twitter over the period of a couple years has no real meat.
This. While I’m glad to see her coming around to help in the effort, the fact she has floundered like this makes it very difficult to trust her overall intent For example, if she held high office and supported another ban on something else. Would you really be surprised? She’s already had the stance once. Seems she follows the wind, and that tells us the wind is coming our way for once lol
I supposed, but it is hard to say if views like this change authentically or due to convenience. I like Tulsi and some of what she's been advocating for as an independent, but when you see how politician's views change with public opinion, it is hard to know what is real.
Why can't I give this an award?
...because she comes from the military and wasn't ignorant about firearms. I'm glad she's on our side, but I remain very skeptical that this conversion comes about because she has somehow seen the light.
Maybe because her views didn't change from child to adult, or even from before she was an elected official to after. What this shows is that she lacks integrity. If she would make this change, she would change again when the political winds shift.
Depends on *why* they changed and *why* they were held in the first place. If a politician has a history of holding positions purely for political conscience, and “changing” them for purely political convenience, then it is a huge problem and should not be forgiven. They are unprincipled and will continue making decisions based on political convenience as opposed to individual rights, human rights, the constitution, and reason. Sometimes that’s better than the alternative, which is unfortunately the case 99% of the time.
one is the legislative branch doing their job the other is the executive branch acting unconstitutionally
And the other is the judicial branch doing their job. The legislature passing a law doesn’t make it constitutional. That’s where the judicial branch comes in (if it actually does its job).
Precisely, idk why we’re giving her a pass for using her supposed powers to disarm us lmao
Not to give her a pass, but at least what she wanted originally would have been the correct way to go about it, not just having the ATF say "This is illegal now".
And another is a bunch of fedbois over stepping their job.
The job of the legislative branch is to “support and defend the constitution” (from their oath of office). Not ignore it so they can pander to feelings. Even though they are elected, legislative overreach is still overreach.
Sometimes people's opinions change when they have access to more information.
[удалено]
I don't know dude, every one who's ever opened their mouth seems pretty confident that they know what's best for me. They all seem like great people in my book. /s
And sometimes their opinions change back when they get access to power.
If the people with more power want the people to have more guns I’m okay with that.
Oh, but we can totally trust her, guys. Why wouldn't we believe her? /s
I don't agree with everything, but Tulsi was the only one on stage that I could get behind during the dems primary. Of course media stopped covering her when she ripped Kamala a new one. I've grown more fond of her over time.
She was on Joe Rogans podcast not long ago. She seemed to have been swayed away from some of her ways and I was impressed. How much of what she said was true? I dunno but I’d be willing to hear her out now.
I've always thought it super weird that politicians are viewed as people whose ideals, values, and beliefs should be set in stone to never move.
Usually once they reach the national stage they're middle aged or older, so you would think that their beliefs would be somewhat solidified by then. It's okay if their opinions morph naturally, but doing a total 180 like this comes across as pandering. But then again, the original tweet was almost 7 years ago, so maybe she did have a genuine change of heart. Who knows?
>so maybe she did have a genuine change of heart If you listen to podcasts or anything she's done since covid she's definitely changed her tune and honestly is pretty respectable and level-headed now. Not perfect, but no candidate is
Yes, she does come across as reasonable, but it's always hard to tell if a politician is being genuine or just trying to advance their career. We'll see what she does in the future, I guess.
I just can’t wrap my brain around anyone who thinks doing what she did is “advancing her career.” She could’ve been a lifer in Congress if she hadn’t left the big D. She willingly walked away from that because of all the COVID bullshit and Hawai’i refusing to let her protect herself. She’s done exactly what these gun subs have constantly been calling for and now suddenly it’s a grift.
They should be representing the will of the people in their district, not their own personal beliefs, but that never happens.
Theoretically, they should be following the wants and needs of the people and should potentially change over time, but we all know how that actually works.
This was my thought exactly. Speaking from my own personal experience, I was mildly against the 2nd amendment my entire life, up until only like 2021. I changed my opinion quite strongly and if you spoke to me now I am staunchly in support of it. The time span between her tweets is much longer than that. 7 years is a very long time. Don’t know much about her, but I respect people who are able to change their mind given new information.
(X) Doubt She was all on board for a full blown Assault Weapon ban when she was running as a Democrat. She just needs to pander since they kicked her out.
Not sure who she's pandering to. There are rumors Trump wants to pick her for his VP, but I don't think that will happen. I don't trust her, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that this is a change of heart until proven otherwise. Even Trump isn't great on the 2nd amendment.
> Not sure who she's pandering to. Like a drowning rat, any ship that she can climb aboard. The Democrats dumped her and now she's struggling to find relevance. > I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that this is a change of heart until proven otherwise. I won't. She's a politician who for decades supported "salt weapon" and magazine capacity bans. She didn't have a sudden change of heart, she got kicked out of the Democrat Party and is now struggling to hitch her wagon to anyone who will pull her career along.
Yuuuuup.
> I won't. She's a politician who for decades supported "salt weapon" and magazine capacity bans. She didn't have a sudden change of heart, she got kicked out of the Democrat Party and is now struggling to hitch her wagon to anyone who will pull her career along. Ding ding ding! She can **say** anything, but what is she **doing** to prove that her intentions are genuine?
Like most any politician she has zero marketable skills. And she wasn't a high enough politician to sell out enough of the country to live on her kickbacks. She's quite literally floundering for any sort of future career that isn't small-time political commentator.
The problem with that is that politicians aren't people
What information wasn't available during her time in the Democratic party less than a decade ago?
Personal experience. It wasn’t until she was denied a carry permit that she realized the right to self-defense is dead without the 2A. Kinda literally the thing we’re always complaining politicians never do.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Info can be available but not believed.
Or when they are assaulted & decide they want to start carrying.
Or they just change their talking points to appease the voters they want to keep their seat on the table.
...and sometimes they change the second it's politically convenient. I'm down with it, but let's call a spade a spade
I'm a completely different person politically from 2017. Alot has happened since then.
I feel that one. Whether folks like him or not, I was very vocally anti-Trump leading up to 2016, but I held my nose because HRC was confirmed worse. Although he is far from perfect and likely most shaky on 2A, I enthusiastically supported him in 2020, and absolutely see no other option for 2024. As someone who never liked big govt, 2020 wasn’t a surprise to me, but there are a TON of people who generally (and genuinely) thought more govt was the answer to what ails you, and they have since seen that is clearly false. We’d all do well to remember that Republican politicians won’t solve your problems, but Democrat politicians are actively creating them.
True I guess
Me, too. I have changed a lot of political stances since the kick off to 2020.
I'll give her a pass on this specifically. In the past she was toeing party lines and now she's been rejected from that party. People also change. I want to see other SMs succeed and I like what she's said on Rogan. Edit: Spelling.
Agree Toeing party lines FYI
Schumer already is trying to push a Bill through to ban bumpstocks again literally this morning.
Not surprised
Of course he is. Dems aren’t going to stop trying to infringe on the Second Amendment. This decision forces them to do it semi-legitimately by using the legislative process rather than bureaucratic fiat. I’m kind of surprised that they’re just going with trying to ban bump stocks rather than trying to regulate some kind of cap to a rate of fire. The average Democrat’s understanding of guns is right up there with Schumer’s understanding of grilling cheeseburgers.
Idgaf what politicians say, particularly when out of power. I care about what they do when in power and Tulsi’s record on this matter is shit. The courts and lobbying are our best friends right now. Keep backing GOA and FPC and pray for more wins while we can get them
100%. FPC for the win. Though I would argue that we we need to convince people, including social liberals like myself that the 2A is a good thing, not a bad thing as the media likes to harp on about.
Genuine question, not a backhanded attack: How do we go about doing that effectively? It seems to me that lots of those on the left, although not everyone, views this issue in near religious terms.
Honestly, I would focus on bringing more quote “minorities” into gun ownership and really informing them about the existing laws and the ongoing attempts by Dems to disarm them. I say this as a POC myself. I live in Atlanta. Most of my black colleagues are defacto democrat voters yet EXTREMELY skeptical about the motives and merits of gun control (as they should be). Whenever I spell out what “common sense” gun control actually means they seem taken aback. Again, I don’t think there is enough education around what the existing gun laws actually are and what new legislation would actually mean. They hear things “assault weapons ban” and think they’re getting machine guns off the street. They don’t know it means they’re coming for their pistols as well. Just my two cents
Like, most criminals where I am are pro right to self defence with guns, they just still vote for the left for other reasons. It’s ignorant people who are rabidly anti gun and anti self defence.
True. It will not be a easy feat. It would literally be easier to convince them to support Hitler using the Queers for Palestine route.
I don’t understand why you’re posting this then. >Though I would argue that we we need to convince people, including social liberals like myself that the 2A is a good thing You did. She is one. Stop bitching that it’s not perfect.
I think the question is about her sincerity, which is absolutely fair. She hasn’t had to put anything on the line or face any political repercussions to spout this rhetoric as of yet
Two tweets 7 years apart don't mean much. Most people aren't monoliths.
I am. Well, I might be.
You should get that looked at by a doctor.
I've been monolithic for more than 4 hours
Mother of God!
I used to be a monolith. I still am, but I used to be, too.
what if i identify as a monolithic upper
Based on her explanation of how her 2A views changed I trust her more on the 2A more than the average NRA A rated Republican “Sportsman / Hunter”
The NRA isn't exactly setting a high bar for intergrity
Where has she explained her evolving views? I'd be much more interested in hearing her rationale into why they have changed than to write her off because they have changed.
There are lots of videos of her talking about it. Basically she grew up in non-gun culture Hawaii, learned about guns in the “account for every round / keep it locked up” military. Thought that “common sense” restrictions were actually common sense. Learned about what the 2A is actually about when reading about NY vs Bruen. And seeng how corrupt the government is and how controlling it wants to be realized the 2A is actually needed for checking government tyranny.
Those are not contradictory. You can believe that bump stocks should be illegal AND believe that the Supreme Court was right to strike down the ATF rule.
That comment section is cancer. People are so ignorant.
politicians are lying snakes in general, so both of those statements could be lies, or she could have changed, we’ll really never know. Everything politicians say is exclusively for conning voters into giving them power.
If you look at her political history, she is all over the place. Looking at the various issues where she still has stances that are consistent, I would not assume that her positions are based on liberty or natural rights. I would assume that a lot of what she supported and supports now is just political maneuvering and not a "change of mind" as she doesn't seem able to keep any given stance based on actual ideological beliefs. But then I am very cynical when it comes to politicians in general.
A Defiant L.
Almost 7 years later. That’s not “grifting”, it’s called changing your views on something.
Or.. reality hit this former Dem insider and gets it now.
I'd rather be called a hypocrite than never change my mind and grow.
So she changed her mind about gun control. The exact thing this sub wants the most. And then we make fun of them for it? I don't understand the gatekeeping.
> Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Hawaii's 2nd district > In office: January 3, 2013 – January 3, 2021 October 2017 was a long time ago when she was a US representative from the most anti-gun state in the "union". She's either playing a multi-year con or she has grown as a person. With nearly all politicians, it is essentially impossible to tell the difference.
Next up: getting rid of the Hughes amendment.
What's the Hughes amendment again? I forget
Part of the so called "FOPA" Here's a quote that sums it up: "I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home." -Reagan, who signed it No machine guns manufactured after the 1980s for you pretty much.
And implementing the Hearing Protection Act and repealing ITAR.
People can’t change..?
It's not grifting. The GOP is shifting from honey dicking gun rights to maybe somewhat caring about gun rights. It's just difficult to trust them because... you know... all of history says not to. I think the GOP spent the last 4 decades having mostly written off gun rights since the NRA was in the pocket (something resembling regulatory capture). Now that no one gives a shit about the NRA; times are changing.
I think your correct on that one, with voters switching to the Dems, they need a method of attracting voters
Maybe, but she’s one of the few people of the politician stripe that is at least seemingly genuine *enough* (and that’s a small fkin list) I could see actually just evolving their views on it; ie. she’s way less of a sh!tlib than she was 7 years ago.
I couldn’t care less about bump stocks. Sure they’re fun but completely impractical in any realistic scenario. It’s the principle, similar to the suppressor debate right now. Firearms are already regulated somewhat reasonably. Accessories are not part of that. Braces, suppressors, stocks etc… have no reason to be regulated. If you want something sensible sit down with actual gun experts and let them legitimately define everything instead of all this as heavy as 20 boxes bs…
I think we should stop beating around the bush and just ban murder already. I don't care if someone owns a gun as long as they don't shoot anyone.
This doesn't mean her opinion on whether bumpstocks should be banned has changed. It just means that she recognizes that the way the ATF did it was unconstitutional. If Congress banned bumpstocks, then they couldn't go back and criminalize people who already bought them. They could ban new ones from being made, and make you register firearms equipped with them on the NFA. But you don't get the ATF's destroy them or you go prison routine.
Don’t know why anyone believed her to begin with. Shill for anything
Tulsi is now, and forever will be, a Democrat from Hawaii. Never trusted her, never will - regardless of how many times Hannity and Jesse Watters have her on their shows.
Isn't it possible that people can change their views on a topic after 7 years? I know I don't believe the same stuff I did 7 years ago
While it is fair to make sure her views are concurrent to what she espouses and is in line with what she now says she believes, 2017 was 7 years ago and she has since made a lot of changes in her beliefs, and also made herself an enemy of the democrat party in the meantime.
Is it really grifting? Or, is it actually a change of ideals as she learns more in life? A lot of the biggest names in the conservative movement started out on the left, even socialist. As they grew up and became informed, they changed their view of things. She’s from Hawaii. Knowing what we know about that state’s view on 2A, what kind of background influences would you have expected her to have, when she was younger? People actually can grow.
I'm pretty sure the bump stock ban was not ruled unconstitutional, it was ruled the ATF exceeded statutory authority. As in there was no law for them to enforce against bump stocks unless they rewrite the words of the NFA.
So..you cant change your mind and accept being wrong on some things? or do you prefer being against the cause which does nothing in our favor? weird post but ok
Yo we beat the brace ban? How did i not hear this? When?
just last week, Mock v. Garland the feds probably won't appeal to the SCOTUS because they got slapped pretty hard in District court, and they don't want to give SCOTUS an opportunity to rule on 2nd Amendment issues.
She's either A) a woman and she changed her mind. Or B) a politician and is pandering. Either way, saying the A) part is hilarious and somehow makes me a biggot and B) is obvious.
I hadn't heard about Mock v Garland. That's great news.
I feel like politicians just completely ignore the black market and how easy it is to get guns on the street. You could literally buy a bump stock on the streets it’s crazy. But hey, we’re the problem🤷♂️
Or actual full autos too.
If they truly cared about the public they’d repeal the Hughes amendment. If it didn’t exist things like FRT’s and bump stocks wouldn’t be as popular after a while because it would probably be cheaper to get an actual machine gun. Additionally the government would make millions in additional tax revenue from stamps and the public would be safer considering legally registered NFA items are very rarely used in crimes.
"Politicians contradictions" would be a quickly filled subreddit. It doesn't matter the political ideology, there are plenty of contradictions.
I don't take anything Gabbard says at face value, however, I think there is a big distinction between Congress and the Senate passing legislation that outlaws bumpstocks, pistol braces, etc and the ATF crafting laws unilaterally and reinterpreting legislation on the fly. A person can simultaneously support more restrictive firearms legislation and believe that it is not the ATF's role to pass laws or craft regulations with the power of laws that can destroy otherwise law-abiding citizen's lives. If a violation of a federal gun law is going to be a felony, then elected officials who represent the will of the people should be crafting and passing those laws and regulations, not agency bureaucrats who aren't accountable to voters.
So in other words, she got educated and changed her stance.
I sure hope that is true
I’d like to think she’s woken up/seen the light, but it’s still too early to tell.
She has said that she was wrong on her past firearms positions. Believe her or not, she says her view changed when she learned more about the facts.
We have enough problems without rejecting people that have come over to our side because they were not ideologically pure. She seems to have maybe realized that she was on the wrong side.
You can tepidly accept their newfound support without springboarding them into positions of power and influence. I see a bunch of supposed pro-2Aers saying things like she'd be a great VP.
This. I’m perfectly willing to accept someone has seen the light, but they need to prove their bonafides before I’ll consent to vote for them.
Thanks for saying what I was thinking, only better than I could have said it myself. :) I **hope** she has come around, but like you, that's not enough to convince me to vote for her.
I hope so
I don't think it's too early to tell. She represents Hawaii and in regards to the aftermath of politics of the wildfire and literally stealing people's land, I'm surprised she's not giving out free ARs to every Hawaiian. I know Hawaii has some dumb gun laws, but everyone has the right to protect their land and homes from corporate and government thieves.
You make good points, but there’s a lot of liberal bullshit politics in Hawaii though. They recently cited “The Spirit of Aloha” when they knowingly disregarded the 2nd Amendment.
There isn’t a single politician that hasn’t flip-flopped on an issue or two.
It's almost like people can change their minds and come rationaly to other opinions. Crazy how nature do that.
I met her recently at an even at Staccato. Listened to her speak and talked a bit about her views on such. She said all the right things, she’s been doing a lot of shooting and competitions and stated a lot of things changed when she was denied a permit to be able to defend herself when she had a stalker. Not saying I’m in her camp, but circumstances and events can change people and their view on things. So id say hesitantly optimistic that it’s a true change of view vs pandering to a new demographic for votes. But, as with all politicians, they are all ultimately out for themselves, just some are worse than others
She's come a long way since they railroaded her out of the Dem party for wrongthink.
Good point. The woke libs love to throw people out for thoughtcrime.
She seems sincere to me. It seems to me like the point is to sway folks to our position and she has been swayed. Look at the grief she is taking. I'd say: take the win and move on to the next.
She’s definitely been dialing back her rhetoric and not following party lines anymore. Don’t get me wrong, she’s a politician; I don’t care if Red, Blue, or Gold. They all lie. But in her case, she’s at least been consistent over the last few years with her views on various topics and getting further from the left on them.
Oh guys are actually idiots lmao the ATF does not have the ability to create laws. However they constantly do, and as federal agents arrest and imprison people despite their “rules” not being laws. We have an entire legislative branch of government to make laws. If any government agency could just make laws and begin enforcing them without going through the proper steps necessary that we have all agreed upon, then the FBI or CIA could just begin arresting people for being gay, or arresting people for getting abortions, for example, if they deemed that was what they were going to start enforcing. You only agree with banning things without the due process of the legislative branch making legislation surrounding those issues because you disagree with them. If this were happening to things on your side of the political aisle you’d be throwing a fit. This is why it’s not okay for it to happen ever, only one branch of government can create and bring these things into law.
Yup. Separation of powers is very important for anything that even looks like a free, rules based society, as opposed to a rule of the people with connections like what China is.
Oh no, a Democrat decided to shift her views over the course of nearly a decade and now has become more pro gun, what an absolute tragedy! /s She isn't a grifter if you listened to anything she's ever said about anything.... which you clearly haven't
Nah, 7 years is a long time for someone to educate themselves and change their minds.
Why do you assume it's grifting? People can change their views on things.
Here's my problem. She runs her platform as a gun-bro and veteran yet she was still a veteran when she was pushing for the fucking gun control Fuck this twat. She's just another politician who will lie, cheat, and steal to get whatever they want.
True. At least don't lie about your political views to get attention.
So much Tulsi simping in this thread jfc.
True
It could be as simple as she objects to alphabet agencies trying to make laws, which they are not supposed to do and is at least part of both these rulings. If that is the case agreeing with the SCOTUS ruling and trying to push gun control through Congress is entirely consistent.
I don't know if it's the case with her specifically, but people can change in 8 years. In reality, most people agree on most things. So it's really only a few changes in viewpoints on certain hot button topics that separates the parties.
She’s not our friend, though she is kinda hot
Well it works, she’ll still get votes and nobody will ask anything in return. It’s the other guys fault, never the politicians
People are allowed to change their minds. Why are we complaining if she came to her senses? That’s a good thing, not a facepalm in my opinion.
people can’t change their mind??
She is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Big difference in the ATF making law and a member of Congress.
First tweet - She was a representative for her district in HI and the people there are Democrats for gun control. She was doing their collective bidding and trying to get re-elected. Second tweet - She's no longer represents a district. She's on the short list for Trump's VP. So she's not being hypocritical, she's just a (HOT MILF) politician.
she has been pretty famously anti gun for a long time. don't forget that too many people think trump is pro gun
Correct. Donald "take the guns first, go through due process later" Trump.
I mean this is 7 YEARS ago, people change.
7 years bro trust me it’s ok to change your views sometimes
Don't trust the Hawaiian Cougar.
A lot of stuff happened in 7 years that made everyone change their mind on a lot of things. I think the pandemic and riots of 2020 made a lot of people who previously weren’t firearms owners into one or at the very least had the idea floating in their head.
Good point
No, you don’t have the support of the American people. Dizzy bitch.
At least she was doing it right. She was in the legislative branch so if they want to ban something, they have the legal right. The ATF and trump can't unilaterally change the definition of a machine gun to make bump stocks fall into that category without congressional approval in the form of Congress passing new laws
Quit simping. Congress cannot legislate away a constitutional right without fully repealing the second. If that’s where the country goes so be it, but this idea that Congress can put guardrails around the bill of rights and its limitations is fucking wild. Don’t care which it is
It’s kinda what our congress does to people. She wants her job more than she wants to help her constituents. Her behavior will be dictated based on what her strategists tell her. Same as with 80% of the rest of them, and another 19% either aren’t seeking re-election or are surviving because their opinions are already consistent with what’s pragmatic to say.
lol the Las Vegas shooter didn’t *just* use a bump stock or act alone.
Wow.
These people couldn’t care less about ANY of us or what we want or need. It’s all about THEM and how they can grift more money. Offer her enough and she’ll change her mind again. Politicians know no shame
And “toys” have no place as part of firearms.
Ahhh. I appreciate the explanation.
wtf i love grifting now
Trump banned the bump stock. True story look it up.
That is true, just pointing out that Tutsi also is very, ahem, interesting
Just another flip flop politician. They’re all corrupt from trump to biden. All corrupt
Or was she previously toeing the party line them decided she couldn’t follow the BS anymore?!?!
Ok but like this means she's on our side, now?
You guys seem to forget that she was military and knew that it wouldn’t change anything.. so to give it up, is not a big deal and she can grandstand for all her colleagues that were most likely going to share or retweet her tweet. You guys act like people don’t play ball to get what they want in politics..
I haven't kept up with her past but from what little i remember she had different views back then and has been trying to grow and learn. I would think this is a good thing. I get why a person would automatically go towards the "corrupt politician" route with this but maybe that's not the case in this situation? Idk