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.
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?
Marijuana users have been prohibited from owning firearms since 1970 when it was categorized as a Schedule I substance. Obama's ATF even added bold font to that question on the 4473 to remind people that marijuana is still illegal federally, so even if you use it for medical reasons, or use it legally in your state, you are still a prohibited person.
As far as the trans stuff, I am not aware of Tramp taking any actual action on this. Though it wouldn't surprise me since he is a lifelong anti-gun New York Liberal.
And don’t forget what I would consider the presidents scariest comments on firearms. Referring to anyone he declares dangerous, “take the firearms first, worry about due process later.”
Trump is a 90s-era Liberal. A lifelong anti-gun New York Democrat.
My feelings are, he was MUCH more honest about his stance on the 2nd Amendment in his first term. His horrible quotes about due process as you mentioned. How he reclassified a firearm accessory as a machinegun with the stroke of a pen (which was later found completely unconstitutional).
I think he really doesn't care THAT MUCH one way or the other...so when he and his 'advisors' saw how much criticism he got for these things...he cooled it off for this 2nd term, and is just letting things happen with respect to the 2nd Amendment...again, because he really doesn't care THAT MUCH. He just wants 'his people' to like him.
The original 4473 question about 'controlled substances' was edited to specifically include 'marijuana' in 2011 under Obama. It was question 11.e back then.
I was actually thinking of question 11e where it clarifies the note on marijuana still being federally illegal despite state law. I can’t find the revision where that note was added.
Congrats on being either (1) extremely uninformed or (2) willingly deceptive. Perhaps you can clarify you intention.
In fact, the Trump Administration has a very different approach, actually seeking to clarify the law on marijuana use.
Suggest that you review ATF’s Interim Final Rule (2025R-54T). The rule was Issued on January 22, 2026, this rule clarifies the definition of an "unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance". It excludes sporadic use, remote past use, and proper use of a lawfully prescribed controlled substance from automatic firearm disqualifications.
You're purposely being deceptive in your explanation. The Trump Administration was using the “habitual drunkards" angle to try and bar Marijuana users from gun ownership.
perhaps you can provide some evidence? maybe you are misremembering something from the past?
My post at least had the basic factually verifiable information that indicates what is going on in the Federal Register, which is diametrically different from what you are saying.
He's worried about the cliche "Dems are taking away our guns" propaganda line that comes around every election despite his guns not being taking away by Dems. Trump on the other hand is actively trying to take away people's guns/2nd Amendment rights. - It was spelled out pretty plainly in the comment. Not sure why I had to spell this out.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 principledoyou believe in?
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.
I simply view it as the most fundamental right within the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution in general. And it's the one that has the most legal limitations BY FAR.
I have yet to see another right be threatened to the extent that the 2nd Amendment has already been throttled.
It's interesting when a single sentence within an amendment can be so focused on and litigated, isn't it?
"...subject the the jurisdiction thereof..." is the 14th Amendment line that is being debated, as I recall.
2nd Amendment advocates are totally used to this. Ultimately, it took a SCOTUS decision in 2008 (Heller) to show that the 2nd Amendment IS, indeed, meant to be an individual right that has nothing to do with a prerequisite of Militia service. There was a ban on handguns in Washington DC for 32 years before the DC v. Heller decision. Imagine a constitutionally-guaranteed right being suspended for certain groups of people for over 3 decades before being found unconstitutional. And this is just one example.
I suspect something similar would happen IF birthright citizenship was suspended.
As far as freedom of speech, which specific threat are you most worried about?
You still haven’t answered any of my questions aside from confirming that you’re only interested in 2A. But to answer yours…
The 14th is under increasing fire. Sure, SCOTUS ruled the EO from last year upending birthright citizenship as unconstitutional, but now there is another one actually within the last 24 hours. And it’s not a stretch to imagine it’s under fire, it has been for years.
I would also argue that the use of EOs lately has been borderline abusive of Article II powers but we aren’t even touching the actual constitution yet.
I would also argue that disallowing members of press who report in ways you don’t agree with from participating in the presidential press pool is a very imminent and serious threat to the 1st amendment. I would argue that suing to silence anyone who disagrees, or withholding funding from institutions that allow peaceful protest or speech is also a threat. Using military and federal law enforcement to forcefully disperse peaceful protests also falls into this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Holy crap we have over 3000 years of philosophy built and you still think everybody is either all good or all bad. If you attended college, I would ask for a refund.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
92
u/UrbanSolace13 Aug 05 '26
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?