This Democrat Doesn’t Want to Ban Assault Weapons. Republicans Are Attacking Him Anyway.

In the first major election after Parkland, the GOP isn’t backing off its pro-gun rhetoric.

Conor Lamb

Keith Srakocic/Associated Press

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Next month’s special election in Pennsylvania’s 18th district, between Republican state Sen. Rick Saccone and Democrat Conor Lamb, will be the first congressional election after last week’s school shooting in Parkland, Florida. While many Republicans, including President Donald Trump, have been put on the defensive by a series of massive student-led protests, the party hasn’t adjusted its rhetoric in the Trump-loving western Pennsylvania district. Here’s a campaign flyer distributed in an upscale neighborhood in the district by the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super-PAC associated with the House Republican leadership:

Lamb mailer
CLF mailer

It touts Saccone’s NRA endorsement and attacks Lamb as a puppet of Nancy Pelosi—and Hillary Clinton!—who wants more gun control.

The irony here is that Lamb, a former prosecutor, doesn’t actually want much more gun control, and he’s taken some heat from Democrats because of it. At a recent debate, Lamb said he would not support a ban on assault weapons like the AR-15 reportedly used by the Florida shooter. He echoed a statement he made after the Florida shooting, saying that Congress should shore up existing safeguards rather than drafting new laws. (He did say he supported efforts to close the so-called “gun show loophole,” which allows private sales of guns to be conducted without a background check.) For his part, Saccone also rejected the idea of an assault weapons ban and lamented that “the left’s first response is always to disarm law-abiding citizens whenever there’s an incident like this.”

The Republican attacks on Lamb are perhaps instructive for other Democratic candidates running in red districts. Even if you explicitly say you won’t support Nancy Pelosi, you’ll still be typecast as “Nancy’s little Lamb.” And you’ll be accused of grabbing guns even if you explicitly take gun control off the table.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend