Democrats like to tell us that the United States is decidedly pro-gun control, that they’re thirsting for it as never before. They’ll claim it’s because Americans have realized we have an epidemic of violence that doesn’t exist. We, on the other hand, claim that those polls are the result of an American public that’s been lied to and doesn’t realize what laws are actually on the books already.

However, if gun control is the future, why is a long-time anti-gunner now trying to run as pro-gun?

Montana Democratic Senate nominee Steve Bullock is campaigning as a fighter for gun rights despite his past support for strict new gun-control laws—a record that earned him an “F” rating from the National Rifle Association.

“I believe in our individual right to bear arms,” Bullock said in a recent ad, which featured pictures of him hunting. “I took on Democrats in Washington to defend it.”

Bullock, a two-term governor, expressed support for universal background checks in the ad. He failed to mention his past support for a range of other gun-control proposals—including a ban on the sale of so-called assault weapons. Bullock has flip-flopped on gun issues over the years. Though he previously opposed new gun-control measures like universal background checks during his 2016 gubernatorial reelection campaign, he embraced restrictions when he launched his failed presidential campaign.

…

The Bullock campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the ad or the candidate’s shift on the issue.

Either Bullock has had a real conversion or he’s an opportunistic candidate who will shift to whatever he believes will get him the most votes. Now, universal background checks–which, as noted above, he supported in the ad–are supported by some on the right. Often, it’s because they’re not up on Second Amendment issues and don’t realize what kind of a clusterflop universal background checks actually are. Yet because of that limited support, Bullock figured he could embrace it safely.

That’s not particularly pro-gun, though, now is it?

I suspect Bullock doesn’t actually care about anyone’s rights. He only cares about what can get him elected to another office. After his presidential bid went completely off the rails–I’d forgotten he even ran, he made that little impression on anyone–he had to look somewhere else. While gun control would play well with the liberal base for a presidential election, it wouldn’t do well with the good people of Montana.

So, he decided to flip flop yet again and pretend to be pro-gun. That’s my guess, anyway.

Personally, I’ll side with anyone who will defend our right to keep and bear arms. I don’t care what their political ideology is otherwise, if they support the right to keep and bear arms, I’ll back them. However, I have to actually believe them, and with Bullock, he’s flipped back and forth so much, I don’t see how anyone can believe him about anything at all.

If you want to back Bullock, be my guest, but don’t be surprised if he gets to Washington and ends up voting with the rest of his party.