When talking about political parties and gun rights, the term “Republican” is often shorthand for “pro-gun.” After all, the Republican Party has a reputation for supporting our Second Amendment rights, while the Democrats don’t.

That doesn’t mean you can let that shorthand blind you to the fact that, while there are a handful of ostensibly pro-gun Democrats, there are also anti-gun Republicans.

A prominent Republican donor said he is launching a group devoted to pushing for comprehensive gun safety legislation on a national level following last month’s deadly high school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Al Hoffman Jr., a real estate developer who served as Ambassador to Portugal under George W. Bush, plans to publicly announce the formation of the group, which will be called Americans for Gun Safety Now, on March 24, when he is in Washington D.C. to attend the March for Our Lives rally.

Hoffman drew headlines last month when he said that he would refrain from supporting politicians who did not support a ban on assault weapon sales in the wake of the Parkland shooting. The purpose of the group he is forming, he told TIME in an interview Monday, is to ensure that Congress passes a gun control package by the end of the year — that both contains and builds on provisions in the bill Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed into law last week — while maintaining support for the Second Amendment.

“This organization is dedicated to bringing together [people] to create a national strategy for bringing out real reform — protections and changes to our nations gun laws,” Hoffman said Monday. “If we can get this march to help solidify the sense of urgency to pass gun legislation now, to get it done before they go home for Christmas for Congress, we’d all be a much safer nation.”

I’m sorry, but you either get to pass gun control or you get to support the Second Amendment. One or the other.

Even if you’re not a Second Amendment absolutist, we already have something like 20,000 gun control laws on the books. If you think we need more at this point, then I can’t believe you support anything about the Second Amendment – at all.

At this point, the two positions are mutually exclusive. If you’re still calling for more regulations, then you have no justification for calling yourself a Second Amendment supporter.

Hoffman is simply a rich guy engaging in the social media hobby of “I support the Second Amendment but…” where whatever follows is completely against the Second Amendment. Because of his wealth, he’s able to play the game on a grander scale. That’s all.

I don’t care if raising the age on the purchase of long guns won’t affect me. It’ll affect my son who will be of legal age in just over a year and will be attending college. How is he supposed to protect himself if he lives off campus if he’s not allowed to own a firearm?

That’s just one example of the problems with raising the age and why I refuse to support any such call.

It’s not about what will impact me but what will impact other law-abiding Americans. Those are the people Hoffman wants to hurt with his misguided idealism, and why any Republican who accepts money from him deserves the loss of support they get.