PDA

View Full Version : What do Democrats have against Guns and Gun Rights?


BigDogatPlay
03-01-2012, 7:11 AM
Gun rights ARE civil rights. Yet still politicians on both sides of the aisle, but many on the Democrat side, continue to demonstrate their hostility and contempt for basic human freedom.

What do Democrats have against Guns and Gun Rights? (http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2012/02/29/what-do-democrats-have-against-guns-and-gun-rights/#more-439652)
AWR Hawkins
Big Government.com

When news broke that Democrat legislators in Iowa had stormed out in protest over pro-Second Amendment bills which Republicans in the Republican-controlled legislature had brought up for a vote, I wasn’t too surprised. After all, since when do Democrats approve of guns or support gun rights?

mag360
03-01-2012, 7:19 AM
could part of it be that they see the NRA as an evil right wing conservatory so they have a knee jerk reaction hate whatever they like?

I certainly dislike that the dems seem to hate guns as a collective, with a few holdouts.

CCWFacts
03-01-2012, 7:19 AM
What do Democrats have against Guns and Gun Rights?

I can answer that.

Democrats have lead us onto a path of spending TRILLIONS of dollars on various social programs to eliminate poverty, inequality, and disparity since the 1960s. These programs have FAILED UTTERLY but the trillions of dollars are now gone and our society has changed fundamentally.

When something like that happens, where someone made a colossally bad and expensive decision, they look for reasons to explain the failure that are something other than "we did something really dumb". Those reasons are "gun violence", "structural racism", and of course evil conservative white males.

Democrats aren't anti-gun, but they need to find some reason why, trillions of dollars later, their social programs have failed it's easier to blame guns or any other conveniently available target they can come up with rather than admit their programs were hopeless from the start.

ja308
03-01-2012, 7:36 AM
Message:

I see the democratic party embracing international law .

There is NO RKBA under international law.

International law or United nations charter believe the right to be free of "gun violence "

Do no take nmy word for it! Do your own research.

taperxz
03-01-2012, 7:39 AM
Having a gun equals lack of equality. Instead of making everyone get a gun it's easier to outlaw them. It's really a socialist equality thing. Love, peace and pot for all.

ScottB
03-01-2012, 7:49 AM
It's an urban vs rural thing. Also, they believe in all-encompassing government and their vision of government does not like obstacles to its goals. And, more simply, if their opponents are for it they are against it.

RP1911
03-01-2012, 7:52 AM
Gun control is people control.

NytWolf
03-01-2012, 7:53 AM
IMO, I don't believe it's that Democrats generally hate guns. There are Democrats out there who are gun fanatics.

I think the general consensus of the Democratic party believes it is the duty of the government to give the people what they "need", to "protect" the people from "evil" people, and to look to do "what's best for the future".

In their attempt to accomplish their beliefs, they trample on most of our Constitutional rights, including the RKBA. They are doing more than just slowly taking our gun rights away.

Wherryj
03-01-2012, 7:58 AM
Gun rights ARE civil rights. Yet still politicians on both sides of the aisle, but many on the Democrat side, continue to demonstrate their hostility and contempt for basic human freedom.

I don't find it that surprising that most Democrat Politicians are anti-gun/freedom/liberty. The reason that the founders wrote protections against the government for the people is because freedoms are inconvenient for government. Firearms are especially inconvenient because they give the peons a "fighting chance" should the government stray too far.

I think the more pertinent question is "Why are there some politicians who aren't against civil liberties?" These are the ones that are either following conscience or ethics at the possible expense of their exalted position of superiority over the masses.

j-rod
03-01-2012, 7:59 AM
@ NytWolf ^ this. And a lot of $1000 ideas for $100 problems.

therealnickb
03-01-2012, 8:01 AM
Gun control is people control.

It's no more complicated than this^

aklon
03-01-2012, 8:28 AM
This is an easy one: if you're trying to build a society based on the idea that no one is personally responsible for what they do (they do bad things 'cause other people make them), you cannot let people have something that puts a premium on exercising personal responsibility.

(It might give them "the wrong ideas.")

Vladimir
03-01-2012, 8:31 AM
Sometimes take dems on an individual basis. I know alot (Including my grandpa) who are more old school democrats and still believe in guns, just their left.

Newbius
03-01-2012, 8:32 AM
It isn't just Democrats (although they are the bulk of those opposed). It is also Progressive Republicans, too. I think Gene Hoffman's signature adequately explains it.

TheBest
03-01-2012, 8:37 AM
Yes, it is not "DEMOCRATS". It is certain people, who happen to be democrats.

I know dozens of democrat gun liberals.

vantec08
03-01-2012, 8:40 AM
Criminals are the constituency of the dem. party, and to hold them accountable for their behavior is to in-effect turn on your own constituency. Therefore, its much simpler and safer to demonize a tool. This denial is complicated by liberals need to smother us with control and regulation. Remember C.S. Lewis:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

curtisfong
03-01-2012, 8:42 AM
They "hate" gun rights because there is a perceived place in their platform that makes it strategically advantageous to pay lip service to safety and law and order in a way that distinguishes them from their opponents.

In addition, naive gun "rights" supporters insist on making it a left/right ideological issue because they don't know any better, thus re-enforcing the above perception.

DannyInSoCal
03-01-2012, 8:44 AM
Yes, it is not "DEMOCRATS". It is certain people, who happen to be democrats.

I know dozens of democrat gun liberals.

I personally know thousands of people -

Friends, family, clients -

And I know exactly 2.

Remove my sister-in-law from the equation -

And I know 1.

The answer is simple:

Liberals need to abolish the RKBA in order to have socialist rule.

A Republic with free gun owning citizens doesn't follow their agenda...

Californio
03-01-2012, 8:44 AM
The road to "Social Justice" requires an almost Totalitarian Government. They want control of the car you drive, the food you eat, the medicine you take, the money you make, the house you live in, they want to make your life choices, etc etc etc.

I don't think that most Democrats understand the end game of their Progressive Wing - they better wake up.

curtisfong
03-01-2012, 8:50 AM
Liberals need to abolish the RKBA in order to have socialist rule.

No liberal I know thinks this way. You are carefully erecting a caricature.

In order to win, you're going to need to understand the "enemy" better, IMO.

SilverTauron
03-01-2012, 8:52 AM
After living in the City of Chicago for quite some time, where Democrats own the politics lock stock and barrel, the reason that party despises legal gun ownership boils down to a fundamental difference on human behavior.

The 2nd Amendment serves to recognize that people have the right to self defense.This right exists because we are subject to attack from people who choose to do so as a matter of either career choice or emotional madness. Self defense from attack requires minimum two parties-the victim being attacked, and a person or persons doing the attack-'ing'.

To a Democrat this is an abhorrent concept, because no one *chooses* to attack anyone. Their philosophy holds that ALL human beings are fundamentally wise, intelligent people who seek to do good.Thus crime and suffering happen because of outside factors which influence good people to behave in not so good ways. Alcohol should be restricted ,because it causes people to do things without thinking. A national speed limit is good, because it saves gas and causes people to drive safe. Guns should be heavily regulated, because they *cause* violent crime.

This is why the Democratic party advances laws which seem to condone criminal behavior, because to such people the word "criminal" means something entirely different from the Old Testament use of the word. That classic & most basic definition of the word is someone who commits crime, thus implying that a choice and an event has taken place. When the mission changes from punishing people who have done wrong to removing the external "reasons" how someone could commit a crime, the term is redefined from someone who DOES wrong to someone who CAN commit wrong.

As applied to real-life situations, this is why a Democrat Party supporter considers the guy who breaks into a home at 3am with a knife as the victim ;he was just a good man who had access to a knife and therefore did wrong.It thus follows that the homeowner who shoots the invader down is the bad guy in this scenario, because that person had a gun and thus the influence to murder.

If it seems like ive had a good deal of time to consider the matter,it is because I indeed have.Moving out of Illinois to South Dakota begat a lot of questions about the nature of our government and why two members of what are supposed to be the United States of America have fundamentally opposite concepts of crime, punishment, and personal defense.

curtisfong
03-01-2012, 8:56 AM
Good analysis.

Two other factors that make Democrats anti gun are

1) hoplophobia (they are unfamiliar with firearms, and feel their mere existence adds "risk")
2) 60's peace movement - many of today's politicians were raised in an environment that idealized a peaceful utopia completely free of war and violence. They feel that guns (and all weapons) are a remnant of a "barbaric" past that humans should "grow" out of.

To them, the first step is global disarmament of all citizens.

sholling
03-01-2012, 9:01 AM
It boils down to control. The fundamental center and article of faith of the Progressive movement is that the average citizen isn't smart enough to be allowed to make their own choices. That the vast majority of us are too stupid to be trusted to make their own meal decisions, too dim to be allowed to chose their own light bulbs, too irresponsible to make our own healthcare decisions, and way too moronic to be allowed to make life and death self defense decisions or be trusted with the hardware. We see it all around us. In the Progressive world view we need a village to raise our children and over-educated elites in government to control us and make all of our choices for us and a militarized police to enforce that control. The only way to assure that control for all time is to disarm the public and make us dependent on our betters in government for our very survival.

BassNut
03-01-2012, 9:03 AM
Yes, it is not "DEMOCRATS". It is certain people, who happen to be democrats.

I know dozens of democrat gun liberals.

I'm a Registered Democrat. (it's a Union deal and my Fathers influence 27 years ago) and I LOVE guns. I own over 50 firearms, Hold a CCW and Hunt more than most hard core hunters hunt.

I need a party that believes in the 2A and also believes in a Women's right to abortion, and Cheaper Taxes and believes in NOT giving handouts to people that don't want to help themselves.

When one comes along I'm joining.

curtisfong
03-01-2012, 9:10 AM
It boils down to control. The fundamental center and article of faith of the Progressive movement is that the average citizen isn't smart enough to be allowed to make their own choices.

Disagree. The central idea is that people are often selfish sociopaths, and can only be trusted to act in their own self interest in many cases.

The idea is that the free market (which aims to harness self interest) is not sufficient. Regulation is required for the cases where harnessing self interest is ineffective or counter productive.

IMO that has nothing to do with guns, however. The guns issue really is as simple as hoplophobia and outdated "love not war" sentiment.

NotEnufGarage
03-01-2012, 9:10 AM
I'm a Registered Democrat. (it's a Union deal and my Fathers influence 27 years ago) and I LOVE guns. I own over 50 firearms, Hold a CCW and Hunt more than most hard core hunters hunt.

I need a party that believes in the 2A and also believes in a Women's right to abortion, and Cheaper Taxes and believes in NOT giving handouts to people that don't want to help themselves.

When one comes along I'm joining.

Interesting. Your belief in personal responsibility ties in nicely with 2A and lower taxes and handouts but is 180 degrees out of sync on abortion. Why can't women be held responsible to use some form of pre-conception birth control, keep their legs closed or live with the consequences of getting pregnant? I don't see that killing an innocent unborn child shows much personal responsibility.

gixxnrocket
03-01-2012, 9:15 AM
+1 Nyt

I would go a step further...

Liberals are in a constant state or terror where as (current era) Democrats represent a larger body, of liberals who live their lives in a state of fear. They fear being poor, helpless, dumb, and unloved. Subsequently they strive to pass laws to make sure everyone is "equal" in their eyes. Equally mediocre and that anything not provided by the government should be. Their mission is utopia. Until everyone thinks as they do, lives as they do, and is controlled as they are, Democrats will continue to live in that state of fear and legislate peoples' conformaty.

Conservatives believe in independance, personal accountability, and accept the fact that each person is allowed to succeed or fail in life without governmental interaction.

BlindRacer
03-01-2012, 9:16 AM
After living in the City of Chicago for quite some time, where Democrats own the politics lock stock and barrel, the reason that party despises legal gun ownership boils down to a fundamental difference on human behavior.

The 2nd Amendment serves to recognize that people have the right to self defense.This right exists because we are subject to attack from people who choose to do so as a matter of either career choice or emotional madness. Self defense from attack requires minimum two parties-the victim being attacked, and a person or persons doing the attack-'ing'.

To a Democrat this is an abhorrent concept, because no one *chooses* to attack anyone. Their philosophy holds that ALL human beings are fundamentally wise, intelligent people who seek to do good.Thus crime and suffering happen because of outside factors which influence good people to behave in not so good ways. Alcohol should be restricted ,because it causes people to do things without thinking. A national speed limit is good, because it saves gas and causes people to drive safe. Guns should be heavily regulated, because they *cause* violent crime.

This is why the Democratic party advances laws which seem to condone criminal behavior, because to such people the word "criminal" means something entirely different from the Old Testament use of the word. That classic & most basic definition of the word is someone who commits crime, thus implying that a choice and an event has taken place. When the mission changes from punishing people who have done wrong to removing the external "reasons" how someone could commit a crime, the term is redefined from someone who DOES wrong to someone who CAN commit wrong.

As applied to real-life situations, this is why a Democrat Party supporter considers the guy who breaks into a home at 3am with a knife as the victim ;he was just a good man who had access to a knife and therefore did wrong.It thus follows that the homeowner who shoots the invader down is the bad guy in this scenario, because that person had a gun and thus the influence to murder.

If it seems like ive had a good deal of time to consider the matter,it is because I indeed have.Moving out of Illinois to South Dakota begat a lot of questions about the nature of our government and why two members of what are supposed to be the United States of America have fundamentally opposite concepts of crime, punishment, and personal defense.

Absolutely Brilliant!

curtisfong
03-01-2012, 9:17 AM
Conservatives believe in independance, personal accountability, and accept the fact that each person is allowed to succeed or fail in life without governmental interaction.

No, that is a libertarian.

CC Gunsmithing
03-01-2012, 9:21 AM
The common sense party? Where do I sign up?

gatesbox
03-01-2012, 9:23 AM
While we are making broad generalizations it might be because pro 2a groups make it nearly impossible to be a pro 2a democrat. They embrace other conservative issues beside 2a.... Any given day in the OT forum is proof of this.

Pro 2a democrats are practically run out of any 2a group by a pike. No one wants to admit they exist, and if they do people as have posted in this thread continue their off topic conservative fiscal and social agendas mercilessly. I can't tell you the number of times I and other more liberal gun owners quietly suck it up at our monthly gun club meetings while some conservative rants on about liberal this and that. Start accepting, welcoming, and including Democrats in the 2a conversation without the other conservative baggage and maybe you would see more of them stick around to hear what you have to say.

cvc04
03-01-2012, 9:23 AM
The Democrat party has been taken over by progressives. Progressives want government control over every aspect of our lives. Gun control is indeed people control.

BassNut
03-01-2012, 9:33 AM
Interesting. Your belief in personal responsibility ties in nicely with 2A and lower taxes and handouts but is 180 degrees out of sync on abortion. Why can't women be held responsible to use some form of pre-conception birth control, keep their legs closed or live with the consequences of getting pregnant? I don't see that killing an innocent unborn child shows much personal responsibility.

Because, this Country is way over populated as it is. There are a lot of women that have no business being a parent. I work too damn hard for my money to pay welfare on all of these unwanted pregnancy's.

And to be quite honest, I'm just that callous and do not believe that a 1st trimester fetus is a person yet nor do I care.

gatesbox
03-01-2012, 9:37 AM
Yes, progressives, just like the first progressives which divided from the REPUBLICAn party during the time of the president likely most famous for being a gun packing president, the OG Rough Rider himself, Theodore Rosevelt. At that time early in the 20th century the platform was based upon the following initiatives:

"In the social sphere the platform called for
A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
Limited injunctions in strikes
A minimum wage law for women
An eight hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax
A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax."


Sound familiar........????

captn-tin
03-01-2012, 9:52 AM
when our fine reps, no matter which party get taxes up yo 60-70%, and fuel costs "as high as it is in europe", they do not want to deal with an armed society.

YubaRiver
03-01-2012, 9:55 AM
Bunch of ignorant stereotypes on this thread. If you really want to know,
rather than just be "right", start up a conversation with a "Democrat" and
listen.

tankarian
03-01-2012, 10:00 AM
Gun rights ARE civil rights. Yet still politicians on both sides of the aisle, but many on the Democrat side, continue to demonstrate their hostility and contempt for basic human freedom.

Gun control is 1% about guns and 99% about control.
Control of the liberal elite over the rest of us: the unenlightened, unwashed serfs.

Are there any pro-gun liberals? Yes, there are. But they are just an extremely small minority, the exception confirming the rule. And they are rather confused individuals because statism in all its forms (socialism, fascism, Nazism, communism) has always been and will always be incompatible with a free citizenry RKBA. This is why pro-gun liberals are often called "chicken voting for the KFC Party"

gixxnrocket
03-01-2012, 10:04 AM
No, that is a libertarian.

I can agree that these ideals are infacat Libertarian and do not fully incapsulate the Republican platform. However I would estimate the modern Republican party to be in the middle of the political spectum versus to the right. I believe as notioned above, there is a fundamental difference between political motivations and individuals' social and moral compass'. Though different, the two are congruent.

curtisfong
03-01-2012, 10:23 AM
However I would estimate the modern Republican party to be in the middle of the political spectum versus to the right.

Everybody thinks their own positions are in the middle.

SWalt
03-01-2012, 10:30 AM
Gun rights ARE civil rights. Yet still politicians on both sides of the aisle, but many on the Democrat side, continue to demonstrate their hostility and contempt for basic human freedom.

Absolutely! Gun rights are civil rights! I would go a step further and say that self defense IS the most basic human right. Without it, freedom of speech, religion, association, conscience, etc are worthless and can easily be taken away. A gun is the only true equalizer, all other methods fall short in many ways. A gun makes a 4' 9" 95 lb woman equal to a 6' 9" 220 lb man.

The contempt comes from guns do kill people. Drive bys, murder suicides, mass shootings, etc are easy to frame and point to for a need to rid the planet of them. These are single incidents committed by people. Its an easy sale politically. "If it bleeds it leads" is the medias mantra and re enforces guns only kill people. Politicians just take that and run with it.

But, the other side of the coin is ignored. 70,000,000+ gun owners didn't rob, shoot, murder, etc yesterday, last week, year ago or in their life times. The idea that a gun owner can get mad, pissed off, yell, scream, fight and not even think of using a gun is something that is never talked about and out of view. All the gun owners I have known don't have any propensity to pick a gun up because they got mad or upset. Zip, zero, none! Just normal everyday people, living their lives. That picture is rarely shown.

The only way to turn the tide is to show how the 70 mil + live. Take the evil out of self defense and the tools needed, keep pounding that home until the light bulb goes off.

Some political Dems are RKBA, but unfortunately for them their high profile leaders are not. I have never heard a high profile Dem leader stand up in congress and say gun ownership is a civil right. Its always "we need to pass this law so this will never happen again". Well guess what, there is evil in this world and nothing you can do can legislate that out of humans. I'd support a Dem who is RKBA, while holding my nose though and wondering in totality if I should.

safewaysecurity
03-01-2012, 10:37 AM
*in a thick german accent* Beecaws zey ar ay sret tou societee unt zeh seevul ohrdah!!

sholling
03-01-2012, 10:39 AM
Yes, progressives, just like the first progressives which divided from the REPUBLICAn party during the time of the president likely most famous for being a gun packing president, the OG Rough Rider himself, Theodore Rosevelt. At that time early in the 20th century the platform was based upon the following initiatives:
There have been Progressives in both parties since before the days of Teddy Roosevelt and there still are. It's just that the Democratic Party has been dominated by Progressives since the days of Woodrow Wilson. Wilson held the general public and civil rights in great disdain and like other Progressives of the era was a raging bigot. The Progressive movement had to relabel itself "Liberal" because it's fascist roots and support for eugenics and euthanasia were discredited by what happened in Germany during WWII. The difference today is that the hardcore Progressives still absolutely dominate the Democratic Party while a relative handful "Progressive-lite" and religious-Progressives types infest the Republican Establishment. Well meaning old fools like John McCain who firmly believe that the general public are to stupid and easily influenced to allow free speech to continue.

Disagree. The central idea is that people are often selfish sociopaths, and can only be trusted to act in their own self interest in many cases.

The idea is that the free market (which aims to harness self interest) is not sufficient. Regulation is required for the cases where harnessing self interest is ineffective or counter productive.
There is a certain schizophrenia within the Progressive movement but then it is a mental disorder. Progressives see people as fundamentally good (just not very bright) and desperately in need of a guiding hand to help them to do the right thing and in need of protection from making the wrong choices. That's where the "soft on crime" attitude and psychobabble "root causes of crime" theories come from. At the same time they see unfettered capitalism as a corrupting influence that causes one to put their own interests above those of the collective and they see it as a cause of financial equity imbalance which in their twisted minds is a "root cause" of social injustice and thus crime.

For whoever posted about gun sites not being friendly to liberals well I'm sure that here are some members that are offended when confronted with the reality that a loss of freedom in general (property rights, heath care choices, over regulation, punishing success etc) necessarily leads to a loss of 2nd Amendment rights. It's just an uncomfortable reality that socialism and an armed citizenry are incompatible and the bigger government gets the less tolerant they are of gun rights and voting for a statist is a vote for expanded gun control laws. Frankly I couldn't care less who sleeps with what sex or how many adults they sleep with or marry. I couldn't care less what someone smokes, drinks, ingests, or injects - it's not my business. I have no interest in what "dirty" things anyone wants to see on stage, video, or read. It's when someone actively seeks to take away my property rights, raise my taxes, infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights, and restrict my rights to do as I choose with my life and property that my back gets up and will promptly educate the leftist, just as I will educate the over zealous religious fanatic that tries to tell me that I can't go to a strip club should I choose.

bussda
03-01-2012, 10:46 AM
It is really simple. There is no money in being pro gun. Anti gun means campaign contribution and feeling good from an emotional viewpoint.

cfusionpm
03-01-2012, 11:05 AM
While we are making broad generalizations it might be because pro 2a groups make it nearly impossible to be a pro 2a democrat. They embrace other conservative issues beside 2a.... Any given day in the OT forum is proof of this.

Pro 2a democrats are practically run out of any 2a group by a pike. No one wants to admit they exist, and if they do people as have posted in this thread continue their off topic conservative fiscal and social agendas mercilessly. I can't tell you the number of times I and other more liberal gun owners quietly suck it up at our monthly gun club meetings while some conservative rants on about liberal this and that. Start accepting, welcoming, and including Democrats in the 2a conversation without the other conservative baggage and maybe you would see more of them stick around to hear what you have to say.

Hear hear! I nearly got banned because I didn't stick with the group think of demonizing Democrats and President Obama. Want to know why there aren't more vocal Democrat/Progressive/Liberal gun owners? Because they're ostricized and treated like crap. Maybe we should welcomed with open arms as an extension those who want to support 2A rights instead of shouted out as the enemy. If there were enough Liberal gun owners to have influence on their representatives, wouldn't that be good for everyone? I guess the community doesn't want more enthusiasts championing for gun rights or introducing friends to the world of firearms. But I suppose it's just black and white. Them vs us. Good vs evil. Red vs blue. There can be no common goals across party lines. :rolleyes: :facepalm:

ArcherDog
03-01-2012, 11:06 AM
How come no one is blaming the media?

I'm a pretty hardcore Liberal and I get a good chuckle out of all the right-wing ignorance displayed by the board. I usually keep my political leanings pretty tight to my chest though, because nothing ruins good friendships as quick as a political argument. I won't change your mind and you won't change my mind. And Barack Obama isn't going to take your guns, no matter how many times the NRA says you need to donate because he will.

That being said, I think the Democrat ignorance boils down to a lack of education about the reality of guns. I was anti-gun and all for more 2nd amendment restrictions until about a year ago. It was only after I started looking at it more closely, as well as a rise in violent crime near me and the fear for my family's safety, that the path to more civility isn't with less guns, it's with more. My epiphany probably won't be felt by the Left for a long time, but if we could focus on that aspect, and not constantly paint a group with such a broad brush all the time, perhaps we can make headway on the issue with the general population.

cfusionpm
03-01-2012, 11:11 AM
How come no one is blaming the media?

I'm a pretty hardcore Liberal and I get a good chuckle out of all the right-wing ignorance displayed by the board. I usually keep my political leanings pretty tight to my chest though, because nothing ruins good friendships as quick as a political argument. I won't change your mind and you won't change my mind. And Barack Obama isn't going to take your guns, no matter how many times the NRA says you need to donate because he will.

That being said, I think the Democrat ignorance boils down to a lack of education about the reality of guns. I was anti-gun and all for more 2nd amendment restrictions until about a year ago. It was only after I started looking at it more closely, as well as a rise in violent crime near me and the fear for my family's safety, that the path to more civility isn't with less guns, it's with more. My epiphany probably won't be felt by the Left for a long time, but if we could focus on that aspect, and not constantly paint a group with such a broad brush all the time, perhaps we can make headway on the issue with the general population.

Because people here think that all Democrats are as raving as the lead hosts of MSNBC. We are the enemy who cannot be reasoned with and clearly have no common grounds on which to agree with. :rolleyes:

But I totally agree that most of the issue is ignorance. An ex girlfriend of mine (now still good friend) has a huge fear of guns, but that comes from her and her mom being robbed at gun point late one night in an empty parking lot. The more I talk about my guns with her, the safe handling rules, and the more she sees me handle them with respect, the more comfortable she becomes. She's even gone out shooting with me a number of times after that. She said having a better understanding of the mechanics and mindset of firearm use gave her a lot more peace of mind and removed a lot of the fear associated with guns. Go figure.

Edit: btw, that's her with my AR in my signature.

kaligaran
03-01-2012, 11:21 AM
It's a pretty blanket statement saying that Dems hate guns.
It's kinda like saying that all Repubs are right wing religious fanatics. The problem is that the extreme few tend to be the vocal majority and taint the rest of the group.
Both sides have varied opinions and from coming from a very rural state, it definitely depends on the area/state/etc.

I found this on an article that I thought was rather interesting. It's basically saying that both sides are responsible for the attack on the 2nd.



It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.

Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation’s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.



http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm

Cfusionpm is absolutely correct. You aren't gonna hear Dems on this forum speak up much b/c the ones that are here, aren't going to want to stand up to the flame war that would be sure to follow.

I should also note, that I am not affiliating myself with any side anymore. I really hate them both.

curtisfong
03-01-2012, 11:26 AM
It's just an uncomfortable reality that socialism and an armed citizenry are incompatible and the bigger government gets the less tolerant they are of gun rights and voting for a statist is a vote for expanded gun control laws.

You aren't talking about socialism. You are talking about authoritarianism, which is a prequisite for (not equivalent to) socialism, communism, fascism, you name it. All the revisionism in the world isn't going to make fascism equivalent to communism, just like it isn't going to make authoritarianism equivalent to socialism.

The conservative "law and order" movement has always been about authoritarianism, whether it is increased police power, zero tolerance on crime, drug laws, reproductive laws, attacks on civil rights (and the many "technicalities" that criminals use to avoid conviction), warantless search and seizure expansion, warrantless wiretapping, TSA expansion, you name it, the list goes on and on. They are just as damaging as the attacks on "civil rights" that the "left" wages (affirmative action, onerous taxation, never ending regulation of every aspect of doing business, gun control). BOTH sides seek to pass as many laws as they can every year, in every state. They just want different laws *all* of which restrict your freedoms, in order to build a more authoritarian state.

This whole recasting of "OMG conservatives aren't fascists, liberals are" is a joke. A smoke screen. A con. It's the playground equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I". Equating conservatives to fascists was the old fad, equating liberals is the new one... it's all carefully designed to make you think the party you "like" isn't about to screw you over, because everybody likes a bit of the old "tit for tat".

Don't believe it for a second.


Frankly I couldn't care less who sleeps with what sex or how many adults they sleep with or marry. I couldn't care less what someone smokes, drinks, ingests, or injects - it's not my business. I have no interest in what "dirty" things anyone wants to see on stage, video, or read. It's when someone actively seeks to take away my property rights, raise my taxes, infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights, and restrict my rights to do as I choose with my life and property that my back gets up and will promptly educate the leftist, just as I will educate the over zealous religious fanatic that tries to tell me that I can't go to a strip club should I choose.

You are a libertarian, not a "law and order" conservative.

CessnaDriver
03-01-2012, 11:38 AM
Power. They want such a high level of it and firearms in the hands of Joe Citizen stand in the way of eventually achieving that.

curtisfong
03-01-2012, 11:45 AM
Power. They want such a high level of it

Who is "they", Cessna?

Hint: there are several "theys", many of whom you probably think are just great patriots.

And "they" all have different means of manipulating you into giving them power voluntarily. You know. For the children. Or security. Or for the war on terror.

The Tiger
03-01-2012, 11:52 AM
Who is "they", Cessna?

Hint: there are several "theys", many of whom you probably think are just great patriots.

And "they" all have different means of manipulating you into giving them power voluntarily. You know. For the children. Or security. Or for the war on terror.

No? They couldn't be one of them, could they?

curtisfong
03-01-2012, 12:09 PM
No? They couldn't be one of them, could they?

Oh no, of course not

RRL--XhamU0

M. D. Van Norman
03-01-2012, 12:11 PM
A lot of interesting answers have been presented in this thread, and many have touched on some aspect of the truth. A variety of historical factors have made the modern Democratic Party the primary political force behind the gun-control movement in the United States. Largely by default, this has left the Republican Party as the opposition to gun control.

In fact, as curtisfong has pointed out, both parties are ideologically inconsistent. They are predominantly authoritarian but hold certain freedoms as part of their platforms. Eventually, this inconsistency will reach a breaking point, and I suspect that the Republican Party is closest to such a point right now.

CHS
03-01-2012, 12:12 PM
Yes, it is not "DEMOCRATS". It is certain people, who happen to be democrats.


It isn't just Democrats

It's a pretty blanket statement saying that Dems hate guns.

I disagree with all of this.

The PARTY LINE for the official Democratic party, involves an anti-gun message. This is fundamental to the party. It doesn't matter that some democrats are pro-gun, the PARTY is officially anti-gun.

From the Democratic party official platform document:
Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

This is FUNDAMENTAL to the problem regarding Democrats vs. Republicans/Libertarians.

Democrats, as a group, DO want to infringe upon the 2nd amendment right. I don't care if SOME individual democrats don't, as a group you do. If you don't believe me, then go read your party platform again. If you don't agree with your party platform then change it! Until the platform is changed, it is easy AND FAIR to lump all democrats together as a group that is anti-2nd amendment.

It's really sad, too, because as the republican party is becoming more and more the party of anti-intellectualism and trying to shove church down everyone's throats and enact legislation based on religion, I find myself drifting further and further from them. The democratic party believes in a lot of good things and generally tries to keep a solid distance between church and state.

Guess that's why I'm a republican-voting registered libertarian.

1859sharps
03-01-2012, 12:18 PM
I can't tell you the number of times I and other more liberal gun owners quietly suck it up at our monthly gun club meetings while some conservative rants on about liberal this and that. Start accepting, welcoming, and including Democrats in the 2a conversation without the other conservative baggage and maybe you would see more of them stick around to hear what you have to say.

If it helps, I am not registered Democrat, I generally disagree with many stances that party takes (note party, not individuals)...I also get tired of the rants. personally, I have found that people (regardless of registered party) that get going on these type rants are generally full of hot air and very annoying. Not every ill in this country can be laid at the feel of "liberals" and Democrats. Republicans have/can/will do their share of "damage" too. And by the same token, not every gun control law can be blamed on Democrats and "liberals" I seem to remember Republicans signing their share of bills, 1989 Cal AWB ring any bells?

The only way out of the "hole" we are in 2nd amendment wise is to NOT make this a Republican cause. we need those to identify with Democrat ideals too.

sholling
03-01-2012, 12:19 PM
This whole recasting of "OMG conservatives aren't fascists, liberals are" is a joke. A smoke screen. A con. It's the playground equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I". Equating conservatives to fascists was the old fad, equating liberals is the new one... it's all carefully designed to make you think the party you "like" isn't about to screw you over, because everybody likes a bit of the old "tit for tat".
The progressive movement was and is the US answer to the European fascist movements and fascism is a kissing cousin to socialism because it's all about control of the individual and the means of production. About improving man and society by forcing people to act "responsibly". That said there have always been different flavors of Progressives. The temperance/prohibition/war on drugs movement was/is a branch of the Progressive movement meant to recruit the religious into the fold by using government to save people from themselves. You should read Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841)". He exposes the Progressive movement's nasty history including Progressives of the "religious right". The video below shatters the left-right myth but it doesn't change the fact that the Democratic Party is for now a creature of the Progressive movement. The reason that the TEA Party is so reviled by both the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party and the Progressive/Establishment wing of the Republican Party and the Progressive media is that it's at heart a (small L) libertarian movement focused solely on going back to a smaller constitutionally constrained government that spends far less of our money.

You are a libertarian, not a "law and order" conservative.
Exactly. ;)

DioQooFIcgE

M. D. Van Norman
03-01-2012, 12:19 PM
Until the platform is changed, it is easy AND FAIR to lump all democrats together as a group that is anti-2nd amendment.

This is a political truth. I have argued (as have some Democrats) that if the Democratic Party were to embrace or at least tolerate the right to arms, it could take the gun-control wedge away from the Republicans and make significant electoral gains.

Ripon83
03-01-2012, 12:22 PM
Now wait a second. President Obama has stated he supports the second amendment. He is the leader of the Democratic Party. So is it not his parties platform they support the second amendment?

Or do you think he's lying?

M. D. Van Norman
03-01-2012, 12:24 PM
CHS quoted the Democratic Party platform. The key word is but.

CHS
03-01-2012, 12:26 PM
Now wait a second. President Obama has stated he supports the second amendment. He is the leader of the Democratic Party. So is it not his parties platform they support the second amendment?

Or do you think he's lying?

Even the Brady's claim over and over again the support the 2nd amendment. They just support a translation that makes no sense.

Read the party platform again and YOU TELL ME if Obama truly supports the 2nd amendment:

Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

Just in case you didn't see it, they use the terms "preserve Americans' Second Amendment right" and "reinstate the [...] ban" in the same statement. How do you support a RIGHT and a ban at the same time?

sholling
03-01-2012, 12:28 PM
This is a political truth. I have argued (as have some Democrats) that if the Democratic Party were to embrace or at least tolerate the right to arms, it could take the gun-control wedge away from the Republicans and make significant electoral gains.

This is very true. The Democrats took such a beating at the polls after the Clinton Ban that they've learned to keep their gun grabbing "under the radar". Gun owning union and non-union blue collar Democrats crossed party lines in droves to vote in Republicans and the Democrat politicians don't want it to happen again. But that's only until they find enough political cover to vote in still more bans. That cover doesn't exist at the moment but Fast & Furious was a very serious effort to manufacture that political cover.

curtisfong
03-01-2012, 12:29 PM
You should read Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841)"

Seems like more one sided, confirmation biased propoganda to me, just like the "Republicans are fascists" propoganda. I don't buy any of it.

If you are an authoritarian, you're a statist, left or right.

M. D. Van Norman
03-01-2012, 12:29 PM
Even the Brady’s claim over and over again the support the 2nd amendment. They just support a translation that makes no sense.

It’s kind of like the law-and-order Republican who says: “I support the Fourth Amendment, but if you have nothing to hide …”

Okay. It’s exactly like that. ;)

sholling
03-01-2012, 12:33 PM
If you are an authoritarian, you're a statist, left or right.

I agree and he says so toward the end of the book. The last chapter could easily be subtitled Skewering Statist Republicans. ;)

The rest of the book is a very good history lesson and includes jabs at the prohibition movement. Remember if you don't know where you've been it's hard to avoid the mistakes of the past.

jwkincal
03-01-2012, 12:35 PM
What would the prevailing Democrat opinion say about the Reproductive Rights position of a legislator who purported to be pro-choice but wanted to make certain procedures illegal?

TomMcC
03-01-2012, 12:37 PM
Democrats are statists/marxists. Republicans to a lesser extent. The statist/marxist lives to enhance and grow the power of the state to the exclusion of all other authority and powers. This includes God, parents, elders in your church etc. As part of the statists lust for more and more power they must monopolize all use of force lest some free person notice the encroaching tyranny and resist.

kaligaran
03-01-2012, 1:01 PM
The PARTY LINE for the official Democratic party, involves an anti-gun message. This is fundamental to the party. It doesn't matter that some democrats are pro-gun, the PARTY is officially anti-gun.

IMO, party platforms are irrelevantif the voting records of it's representatives are not in alignment.
As pointed out in my previous post: Regan is the one to thank for starting the laws in CA that we can't carry guns in public. Even W was supportive of the ban on automatic weapons and the ban on high-cap mags (just to name a few).
What does it matter if the party platform is pro-2A?

Looking at both sides it's safe to say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Colt-45
03-01-2012, 1:03 PM
So much win in this thread.

One thing to take into consideration, don't separate yourselves by Democrats and Republicans but rather by Conservatives, liberals and Libertarians. Plenty of gun grabbing Republicans out there.

I personally believe the hippies movement was the worst thing that ever happened to America. Argue with me all you want but the "pussification" of America is not a positive thing.

One thing I just don't understand, someone enlighten me, Why do liberals like police so much but they hate the military?:confused: I didn't make this up, this is the mentality of most liberals I've come across, especially the anti-gun ones.

Behind the anti-gun crowd hide those that believe guns should be banned because in their mind they believe only they can be trusted with guns and if guns are banned they'll have them anyway. These are the most dangerous people in the anti-gun crowd and I guarantee you a vast percentage of these people are that way, "you're too stupid to have a gun, but I'm not ";)

NoJoke
03-01-2012, 1:07 PM
They buy into the misguided perception of "safety at all costs" thinking that eventually there will be NO guns anywhere in the world and we'll all be safe and happy.

Delusional.

curtisfong
03-01-2012, 1:08 PM
Why do liberals like police so much but they hate the military?

I thought the liberal/commie/socialist/authoritarian/statist/anti-establishment/big-government ACLU hates cops?

curtisfong
03-01-2012, 1:09 PM
Democrats are statists/marxists. Republicans to a lesser extent.

Not lesser. They're just as statist, but not in the exact same way Democrats are.

The difference? They use their epithets differently.

curtisfong
03-01-2012, 1:11 PM
They buy into the misguided perception of "safety at all costs".

Think of the children. We're just going to have to accept fewer freedoms if we want to fight terror. Don't worry, only the criminals will get interrogated and incarcerated without trial.

TomMcC
03-01-2012, 1:17 PM
Not lesser. They're just as statist, but not in the exact same way Democrats are.

The difference? They use their epithets differently.

I would respectfully disagree. I think there is a distinction in at least intensity of action. Democrats are mad dogs, Republicans mad mice.

gatesbox
03-01-2012, 1:19 PM
Now wait a second. President Obama has stated he supports the second amendment. He is the leader of the Democratic Party. So is it not his parties platform they support the second amendment?

Or do you think he's lying?

Patty Murray (Washington) I believe is the head of the Democratic Party. president Obama holds a rather obvious elected position as President of the United States of America.

Rossi357
03-01-2012, 1:19 PM
I don't have anything against guns. Everyone should own a few.

jwkincal
03-01-2012, 1:19 PM
I would respectfully disagree. I think there is a distinction in at least intensity of action. Democrats are mad dogs, Republicans mad mice.

One party is a big shark. The other is a school of piranha... any guesses?

jwkincal
03-01-2012, 1:22 PM
Patty Murray (Washington) I believe is the head of the Democratic Party. president Obama holds a rather obvious elected position as President of the United States of America.

I thought that POTUS was not just de facto but actually the formal chairperson of his or her party as specified?

ETA he's at the top of their "Leaders" page (http://www.democrats.org/about/our_leaders); the DNC chairperson (D.W. Schultz, chair of the national committee -- not the party) is at the bottom, in 5th place?

Curley Red
03-01-2012, 1:26 PM
Democrats are mad dogs, Republicans mad mice.

Republicans like cheese?

gatesbox
03-01-2012, 1:28 PM
I thought that POTUS was not just de facto but actually the formal chairperson of his or her party as specified?

Looks like it is Debbie Wasserman now.... I could be proven wrong but there is a difference between leaders who are democrats, and the leader or Chair of the DNC. Of course this is an academic distinction and it is easy to make an argument that Obama and Pelosi are the decision makers at this time. My point would be that they don't represent the party itself....I have yet to find a 2A platform statement on the DNC website.

If the DNC is not the party what is?

Irish Gunner
03-01-2012, 1:29 PM
It isn't simple. I know a number of Democrats that are hunters just as I know republicans that support gay-marriage. Neither of the big 2 parties represent the public that well and I believe that they each represent to 10% of people at the extremes.

The more fundamental problem is of perception. Nobody on either side of the aisle is proposing a life-time driving ban for an individual convicted of felony DUI or street racing. Activities that kill more people than bullets do. Guns are just an easy and misunderstood target.

CessnaDriver
03-01-2012, 1:30 PM
Who is "they", Cessna?

Hint: there are several "theys", many of whom you probably think are just great patriots.

And "they" all have different means of manipulating you into giving them power voluntarily. You know. For the children. Or security. Or for the war on terror.


In this instance we are discussing democrats.
I think that group is leading the attack best.

Colt-45
03-01-2012, 1:35 PM
They buy into the misguided perception of "safety at all costs" thinking that eventually there will be NO guns anywhere in the world and we'll all be safe and happy.

Delusional.

"Peace at any price"

"Better red than dead"

and

"I rather live on my knees than die on my feet"

Appy here.

DVIII
03-01-2012, 1:36 PM
Anyone seen this? May explain why people think that dems and reps are polar opposites, when in fact that is not true, but a result of the voting system:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&sns=em

(how to embed video?)

kaligaran
03-01-2012, 1:46 PM
Anyone seen this? May explain why people think that dems and reps are polar opposites, when in fact that is not true, but a result of the voting system:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&sns=em

(how to embed video?)
There's youtube link on the post markup. :) But it didn't work... edited to remove...
BTW, I'm only haflway through this video and it is AWESOME so far.

Thanks for posting!

DVIII
03-01-2012, 1:49 PM
There's youtube link on the post markup. :) But it didn't work... edited to remove...
BTW, I'm only haflway through this video and it is AWESOME so far.

Thanks for posting!
Np, check out the other videos bythe same guy. I especially liked the kill the penny video.

vantec08
03-01-2012, 1:51 PM
POTUS is the titular head of his/her party, though not the head of the party national committee. On the basis of F&F alone, he/they are a clear and present danger. Repubs frequently "compromise" on gun control matters which doesnt endear them but is substantially different. I see only one non-lawyer candidate who understands that a lot of existing government needs to be REMOVED -- as in caio, sayonara, au revoire, dasvidanya, keep-yer-knees-together.

CHS
03-01-2012, 1:52 PM
Looks like it is Debbie Wasserman now.... I could be proven wrong but there is a difference between leaders who are democrats, and the leader or Chair of the DNC. Of course this is an academic distinction and it is easy to make an argument that Obama and Pelosi are the decision makers at this time. My point would be that they don't represent the party itself....I have yet to find a 2A platform statement on the DNC website.

If the DNC is not the party what is?

Did you not read my earlier posts?

http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform
Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, wecan both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

gatesbox
03-01-2012, 1:54 PM
Did you not read my earlier posts?

http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform

Great, I was looking but could not find it and you did not post a link or source in your previous post.... So to answer your question, yes I can read....

The War Wagon
03-01-2012, 1:56 PM
The self-reliant have no need for DEMOCRAPS. The DEMOCRAPS need a gummint-dependent underclass to keep them in power: gun ownership indicates a modicum of self-sufficiency - therefore, you are a THREAT to THEIR politcal power.:eek:

Fudge 'em. http://www.getsmileyface.com/sm/fingers/fing07.gif

YubaRiver
03-01-2012, 2:15 PM
"The self-reliant have no need for DEMOCRAPS. The DEMOCRAPS need a gummint-dependent underclass to keep them in power: gun ownership indicates a modicum of self-sufficiency - therefore, you are a THREAT to THEIR politcal power."

If Republicans are so self-reliant, how come red states do most of the feeding
at the public trough.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/mapstatestaxes.gif

m03
03-01-2012, 2:26 PM
If Republicans are so self-reliant, how come red states do most of the feeding
at the public trough.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/mapstatestaxes.gif

Because that's the way that the colors on the graph are configured :)

Or are you trying to say that Hawaii is a stronghold of Republican ideals?

TomMcC
03-01-2012, 2:28 PM
"The self-reliant have no need for DEMOCRAPS. The DEMOCRAPS need a gummint-dependent underclass to keep them in power: gun ownership indicates a modicum of self-sufficiency - therefore, you are a THREAT to THEIR politcal power."

If Republicans are so self-reliant, how come red states do most of the feeding
at the public trough.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/mapstatestaxes.gif

Seriously....who put this out and are they truthful? I am no friend of either party so you know.

I do put stock in what people say but I also watch what they do. "You will know them by their fruit". Democrats say they are for self defense......but......

YubaRiver
03-01-2012, 2:41 PM
Seriously....who put this out and are they truthful? I am no friend of either party so you know.

I do put stock in what people say but I also watch what they do. "You will know them by their fruit". Democrats say they are for self defense......but......


Find it in several places. The bottom of this chart lists a source.

http://www.thestand.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/red-blue-state-spending.jpg

http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/blog/jeff_frankels_weblog/2010/03/31/red-states-blue-states-and-the-distribution-of-federal-spending/

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/92.html

http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-redblue-paradox

Sort of twisted to use a quote about the fruits of the spirit for violent
action.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

SilverTauron
03-01-2012, 2:42 PM
It seems there is a great deal of confusion regarding our political system.

There are no such things as a distinct "Democrat" and "Republican". Indeed, both parties have distinct websites and sit on opposite corners of the legislative room, but the only distinction Republican Party electoral representatives have compared to Democrats is that they are more vocal when it comes to supporting gun rights. Quite a few people with a (D) in front of their name were in favor of H.R. 822, and more than a few people with the (R) in front of their titles were against national reciprocity.

The critical difference is that Democrats in pro gun districts keep mum about gun rights, because such a stance opposes the party doctrine versus the Republicans who can bellow all day on CNN that they are for the 2nd Amendment.

Bottom line, if enough people in a Republican county, city, district, or State wish for more gun regulations they will gladly get them on a silver platter regardless of their rep's party affiliation.Politicians for the most part care only for their own hides, as a Republican President benefits from a disarmed population just as much as a Democrat will. For those skeptical of my words here, look up Mitt Romney's record vs Barrak Obama's.

Hopalong
03-01-2012, 3:07 PM
Politicians care about one thing, and only one thing.

Getting elected, and re-elected.

They are spineless, and flap in the breeze, to see which way the wind is blowing.

They love power and celebrity, and are bought and paid for.

Maybe if they could only serve one term, and no money was involved

You might get someone decent to run

SWalt
03-01-2012, 3:24 PM
Find it in several places. The bottom of this chart lists a source.

http://www.thestand.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/red-blue-state-spending.jpg

http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/blog/jeff_frankels_weblog/2010/03/31/red-states-blue-states-and-the-distribution-of-federal-spending/

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/92.html

http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-redblue-paradox

Sort of twisted to use a quote about the fruits of the spirit for violent
action.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

The chart I believe falls with in Mark Twain's "There are 3 types of lies..." You just have to be alert and notice that most of the states that get a $1+ are states with low population. They will get more money per dollar taxed since that dollar is spread out over less people. A multimillion dollar highway built in a low populated state will return more money to that state than the same highway in a high population state.

Stats are always based upon....if, if, if ,if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if......THEN. Too much room for manipulation. Not saying this chart as been, but the impression it gives is false if you are thinking "self reliance"

dave_cg
03-01-2012, 6:08 PM
The whole "stormed out in protest" thing by the Iowa Dems was just grandstanding and a test of the gullibility of the Iowa press. There is a debate calendar posted days or even weeks in advance that shows when bills are going to come up for debate in the Iowa house. That's just good floor management. Anyway, the Dems pretended to be shocked when the bill came up for discussion and paraded out -- it was all just play-acting. If you read Iowa newspapers you'll be able to tell which ones are carrying water for the Democrats and which ones are still appropriately cynical by how they report this.

Gray Peterson
03-01-2012, 6:43 PM
It's not a matter of "Democrat" versus "Republican". It's a matter of authoritarianism versus anti-authoritarianism.

That being said, several things here:

1) In the late 1950's, the support for a handgun ban as over 50 percent. It has steadily declined since then.

2) The Democratic Party started slanting really anti-gun after two of their people were killed: JFK and RFK.

3) It was conservative Republicans who supported California gun control measures in the 1920's and 1960's... In fact, some of the most oppressive sheriff's who refuse to issue LTC's are Republicans in the state of California.

4) Richard Nixon was not friendly to gun rights either. The first Republican to be friendly to "gun rights" in any real measure in modern times is Ronald Reagan (before it was Bingham of Ohio and Sumner of Massachusetts in the 1867 Congress).

5) Do not let party labels blind you to the idea of voting for someone. Republicans should not take your vote for granted, and pull the "who else are you going to vote for" card. If they think that, they will never do anything for you. When a few Republicans in the state Senate in New York voted for that marriage bill last year, a LOT of donations came their way to protect their seats versus the Democrats who were stringing them along for years and voting yes begrudgingly. Pain and Pain Avoidance counts.

6) It'll take a few years post-carry case and narrowing down many of these gun restrictions that things will be taken out of the Democratic Party platform. There was an attempt to rewrite the platform in Denver to eliminate all anti-gun language, and I believe it got a 40 percent vote. They're plugging away at it.

7) MAIG, CSGV, Brady, LCAV, all of them stand at the precipice of total defeat.

LoadedM333
03-01-2012, 6:59 PM
Gun control is people control.
But they can't control me!

nizmo559
03-01-2012, 7:09 PM
To say that one party is always right on a particular issue is ridiculous.

I have republican friends that hate guns and democrats friends that love them. This party affliation crap is ridiculous, they both have folks lie, cheat, and steal, and both have found ways to not follow the constitution. They both have great leaders that are strong and stand up for us.

I say, if you can follow the constitution liberal or republican, you have my support.

While we sit here and argue about birth control, and which party is "better" the folks in office have the best health care, and enough money to burn. Our family and friends are off in war dying or struggling here to make ends meet.

Dont be blinded by party lines.

Meplat
03-01-2012, 7:30 PM
I'm a Registered Democrat. (it's a Union deal and my Fathers influence 27 years ago) and I LOVE guns. I own over 50 firearms, Hold a CCW and Hunt more than most hard core hunters hunt.

I need a party that believes in the 2A and also believes in a Women's right to abortion, and Cheaper Taxes and believes in NOT giving handouts to people that don't want to help themselves.

When one comes along I'm joining.

So, why are you not a Libertarian?

Meplat
03-01-2012, 7:49 PM
Everybody thinks their own positions are in the middle.


"Everybody" is an all encompassing statement. I am part of 'everybody' and I don't think my position is in the middle. But then I see extremism in defense of liberty to be a virtue.:43:

cfusionpm
03-01-2012, 8:14 PM
So, why are you not a Libertarian?

Because unfortunately, voting for Tiger is a waste of a vote. :/

s7tWHJfhiyo

CalBear
03-01-2012, 8:56 PM
SilverTauron state it very eloquently earlier in the thread. Most modern liberals believe people are compelled to action by a cocktail of external forces, more than they compel themselves to action internally. That's why people who believe this philosophy tend to focus on the failures of government, society, and the availability of external catalysts (like guns) more than on the actions of the individual. The buck never stops with the individual -- the analysis is always shifted back to how society failed.

The other aspect is a difference in belief of what the government's role is in our lives. Modern liberals tend to strongly support "rights" that guarantee quality of life, employment, income, healthcare, well being, and peace of mind. Guns are widely viewed as a source of low quality of life and no peace of mind. They are cast as evil, deadly objects with no legitimate purpose. As such, they tend to be disliked.

I love that this thread came up, because I think it asks a very important question. The question is not important because we need to dump on progressives. The question is important because understanding progressives better equips us to change their opinions on gun rights.

So what do our understands teach us? Well, for one, the 2nd Amendment says _____ argument should be tabled. We all know what it says. They know what it says. Debates about the militia exist only to serve a pre-existing purpose.

Progressives tend to focus on quality of life / welfare, and trying to help the downtrodden through government action. So the path of least resistance is showing them that guns improve social welfare:

- Lower crime rates with concealed carry (or at least no higher)
- Guns help the weak and defenseless protect themselves
---- Otherwise, the most physically advantaged inevitably prevail
- Guns don't belong solely in the hands of governments -- they tend to go despotic
- Gun control finds its roots in racism -- gun control works against minorities, because they tend to have fewer police resources and live in areas with more crime

If anyone else has points to add, please do add them. Let's get the positives out of this discussion. Understanding anti gun people should better prepare us to convert them.

chuckdc
03-02-2012, 6:58 AM
The chart I believe falls with in Mark Twain's "There are 3 types of lies..." You just have to be alert and notice that most of the states that get a $1+ are states with low population. They will get more money per dollar taxed since that dollar is spread out over less people. A multimillion dollar highway built in a low populated state will return more money to that state than the same highway in a high population state.

Stats are always based upon....if, if, if ,if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if......THEN. Too much room for manipulation. Not saying this chart as been, but the impression it gives is false if you are thinking "self reliance"

Not to mention, how much of those states consists of Federal lands that generate (effectively) no taxes, but require considerable Federal spending. A prime example of this is Alaska. Minimal population, massive Federal land-holding, plus VERY high spending on a small minority (i.e. natives/Inuits/Aleuts, etc)

hammerhead_77
03-02-2012, 7:31 AM
There have been some great statements in this thread. The one constant theme is that the wacko Christian Fundamentalist Wing of the Republican party is just as dangerous as the wacko Socialist Progressive Wing of the Democratic party.

The problem we face, is that the small minority radical elements are the really, really noisy elements...hence they get pandered to. Take the whole "occupy" movement. Unemployed, neo-hippy, world government, socialist types are NOT representative of 99% of the population! More accurately their signs should read "We are the 0.1% at the other extreme"...or, if any of them actually went to school "We are beyond 3 sigma".

I think MOST of america would actually back a party that took a true centrist, small-L libertarian stance...but all the big money comes from the fringes with extreme agenda.

Potentially the best statement in the whole discussion comes from Colt 45:
"Argue with me all you want but the "pussification" of America is not a positive thing."

YubaRiver
03-02-2012, 9:14 AM
Not saying this chart as been, but the impression it gives is false if you are thinking "self reliance"

Your explanation doesn't show it false it just shows your opinion and a hypothesis about data. The money really does move from blue states to
red states. Highways get built by workers in the red states and get that income.

IVC
03-02-2012, 9:45 AM
If Republicans are so self-reliant, how come red states do most of the feeding
at the public trough.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/mapstatestaxes.gif

The problem with your analysis is assuming that the asset-generators in blue states are also blue and that liability-generators in the red states are also red.

For example, take CA. Those who suck the resources tend to be blue (inner cities of large urban areas). Those who generate the income tend to be red (business owners and executives). If you looked at the political affiliation of those from CA who actually contribute to the federal coffers, you might get a different picture.

A map like this is a convenient mechanism to fudge the issue since it (like most statistics of this type) implies causality where only a correlation exists. For example, lump law abiding gun owners with gang bangers, add red/blue color and you can easily "prove" that "democrats kill people" (clarification: "prove" is sarcasm).

YubaRiver
03-02-2012, 11:32 AM
For example, take CA. Those who suck the resources tend to be blue (inner cities of large urban areas). Those who generate the income tend to be red (business owners and executives). If you looked at the political affiliation of those from CA who actually contribute to the federal coffers, you might get a different picture.

.

Let's see your data?

IVC
03-02-2012, 11:55 AM
Let's see your data?

Nobody has that data since political affiliation is not logged with tax returns. That is why I used the construct with "might", not "will". The analysis you present is still wrong, even if your conclusion were to be confirmed with correct mathematics. Using valid data and applying invalid analysis makes the whole process invalid regardless of the conclusion.

This is a general problem with all anti groups (not implying that you are one of them), where they use invalid analysis to confirm their conclusions. If you go to Brady's site you will notice that all of their arguments are about "percentages". We argue with them validity of data (how it was collected, who it represents, etc.) instead of arguing validity of the approach which is where they really cheat.

Again, it is the analysis that is wrong.

SilverTauron
03-02-2012, 12:02 PM
Since people are slinging numbers around, I am going to wade into the crossfire to offer perhaps a much more relevant measure of the effectiveness of one party vs another in terms of state government.

Using Federal dollars as a guideline is a misnomer, as the Federal Government sends different amounts of money to different states for different purposes. South Dakota on paper may spend more Federal dollars than New Jersey as an absolute, but South Dakota is an agricultural state with a lot of farmland that nets much more money from the Federal government in terms of food growth and management than New Jersey ever would. Comparing Texas to Wisconsin isn't much better of a , because Wisconsin does not have the expense to maintain borders with a foreign country, Illinois excepted ;).

Returning to topic,a more accurate measurement of a state's worth is examining their debt to citizen ratio, as the more money the state borrows to fund its operations that the politicians authorize the more out of whack tax revenue becomes to state expenses. If a government is spending money it doesn't have on welfare and entitlement programs, this should be reflected in the bottom line.
Using a handful of states ,one can observe an interesting connection in the financial status & political affiliation of Blue & Red States.

California
Debt to GDP ratio: 18.2 %
Debt:$362,000,000,000
GDP: $1,900,000,000,000
Debt per citizen:$9,667
Source page:http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-california-debt-clock.html#

South Dakota
Debt to GDP ratio:14%
Debt:$5,000,000,000
GDP:$41,000,000,000
Debt per citizen:$6995

Source: http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-south-dakota-debt-clock.html

Illinois:

Debt to GDP Ratio:19%
GDP:$677,000,000,000
Debt:$128,000,000,000
Debt Per Citizen:$10,000
http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-illinois-debt-clock.html


Arizona

Debt to GDP ratio:16.5%
GDP:$261,000,000,000
Debt:$42,000,000,000
Debt Per citizen:$6719
http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-arizona-debt-clock.html

New Jersey

Debt to GDP ratio: 18.3%
GDP:$507,000,000,000
Debt:$92,000,000,000
Debt Per Citizen:$10,529

http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-new-jersey-debt-clock.html

Causation may not equal correlation, but I find it interesting that red states maintain lower debt levels then their blue-state bretheren.

smallshot13
03-02-2012, 12:35 PM
It isn't just Democrats (although they are the bulk of those opposed). It is also Progressive Republicans, too. I think Gene Hoffman's signature adequately explains it.

I think his sig line conveys his alignment with the non-gun hating left. I am on the right and am for personal and civil rights, not against them. Yes, there are many on the right that oppose issues surrounding abortion, but there are few if any that oppose other personal freedoms, like the food your kid eats, the medical care you can get, etc., etc., etc.. I am happy for his commitment and efforts toward gun rights, but I worry over this not-quite-thought-out statement in his sig line.

SWalt
03-02-2012, 9:03 PM
Your explanation doesn't show it false it just shows your opinion and a hypothesis about data. The money really does move from blue states to
red states. Highways get built by workers in the red states and get that income.

You're right it is my opinion based on my analysis, but so is saying red states which are usually more conservative in their view, crow about the need to be self reliant, but then they get more Fed tax dollars and thus more dependent on Fed largess is opinion too (I'm assuming that is what you meant). Mine is its spread out among fewer people. Yours appears to be just based on the dollar amount without going further. Different ways of looking at info. Depends on what the money goes to. If a lot of the money goes to the military located in those states doesn't that money benefit everyone in every state, blue and red?

Getting back to the thread, as for me being a christian and conservative (been called many other things also :eek:), Dems have no worry about me not caring about their RKBA, self defense. If there is 1 thing I would agree with is that. I still believe in the old adage "I might not believe in what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it". I just wish the left thought the same. ;) I know a lot of Dems do care about RKBA. I would blame their party leadership rather than an individual for the extreme gun control views. People are more simple (or complicated) on a personal level and labels don't always apply.

2009_gunner
03-02-2012, 11:08 PM
I think it comes down to an unrealistic and naive view of the world by progressives:

People with guns have killed other people. Therefore guns are bad. Therefore guns should be banned.

I don't think most ordinary (non gov official) liberals are thinking in terms of controlling people or government power. They simply think guns are bad, bad, bad. (or maybe I just think they are incredibly simple people).

HBrebel
03-03-2012, 8:00 AM
I try to look at things like this. I have what is known as a 'natural right' to protect myself. This means that I am not given this right by any authority figure. These tools spend their entire careers in attempts to rule us. To decide behind closed doors what is best for you and I. There are common sense laws like it is illegal to rob a bank or steal a car. And there are laws made so that a minority feel safe while the rest get hosed. I for one am over it. I am tired of asking some jackass for permission to save my own life and protect my loved ones and my property. I do believe in the right to keep and bear arms, but even without that right, I would still do it. I own myself and make my own decisions.

FairfaxCA
03-03-2012, 8:11 AM
I vote Democrat, I'm a social liberal, but I have guns and have many "Hippy" friends that have guns. It's not all black and white.

M. D. Van Norman
03-03-2012, 8:56 AM
Yes, there are many on the right that oppose issues surrounding abortion, but there are few if any that oppose other personal freedoms, like the food your kid eats, the medical care you can get, etc., etc., etc.

Except for the freedom to love whom you want, the freedom to put certain chemicals into your own body, the freedom to read/watch/listen to what you enjoy, the freedom to believe what you want, the freedom to say what you believe, etc., etc. Take the blinders off.

You have to be ideologically consistent or else be willing to accept that your inconsistency will always threaten some of the things you value.

Tarn_Helm
03-03-2012, 9:11 AM
Gun rights ARE civil rights. Yet still politicians on both sides of the aisle, but many on the Democrat side, continue to demonstrate their hostility and contempt for basic human freedom.

"Rights," in our Bill of Rights, are restrictions on government.

That is what they hate about "guns."

"Guns" are a concrete, non-ideological target the seek to destroy because a man's experience of them can permanently alter his understanding of concrete political reality in a permanent way, a way that forever converts him an understanding of their necessary role in popular sovereignty.

Statists oppose popular sovereignty.

Statists seek to replace popular sovereignty with effective population management (by them!).

Read this: The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0837156785/sr=1-4/qid=1330798707/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1330798707&sr=1-4&seller=) by James Burnham.

"Gun control" is not about guns; it's about control.

It is not a cause, it is an effect of their deeper, broader philosophical underpinnings in the political philosophy of statism.

The Democrat party is filled with wannabe British Statists who feel culturally inferior to present-day Europeans.

The Democrat party platform, societal agenda, and strategy are all aimed at destroying "American Exceptionalism."

Read about American Exceptionalism here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/obama_and_the_end_of_american_exceptionalism.html

Click this and read about the philosophico-political doctrine of “statism” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/statism.html

Read this CATO Policy Report from March/April 2004, Vol. XXVI No. 2, if you want to see how statism triumphed in the United Kingdom as part of the global, socialist/statist agenda.

Self-Defense: An Endangered Right by Joyce Lee Malcolm

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v26n2/cpr-26n2-1.pdf

Here is a more detailed account focused on the U.S.:

Fighting Statism By Justin Blackman April 25, 2010

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/fighting_statism.html

Individual rights must be the rallying point for reclaiming liberty.

The Founders of the United States hoped to create a society of free individuals, but for at least a century, the nation has been marching ever more quickly in the direction of tyranny. The independent Tea Party movement represents a renewed desire to roll back the tide of government expansion, but this cause will fail unless its participants take an uncompromising stand in favor of individual rights. A building, no matter how rigid, cannot stand upon a weak and cracked foundation. In the same vein, errors and inconsistencies in a society's philosophical foundation will cause its downfall -- even in one as great as ours.

The Republican Party inadvertently teaches this lesson. Even though its leaders have mostly advocated free markets and individual responsibility, they have failed to defend the proper moral foundation of a free society. This failure has led us to imminent crisis, and their actions illustrate perfectly why an unyielding adherence to the correct moral principles is so vitally important. For example, many Republicans argue for a return to constitutional limits on government, which is a good idea. But if they do not understand the moral context the Founders used to write the Constitution -- individual rights -- then they will misinterpret "Constitutional limits." The wrong moral context might lead someone to conclude that "promoting the general welfare" is a Constitutional sanction for some species of statism, which is absurd. . . . (article continues--click link above)

Final thought:

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."

-- James Madison (Federalist No. 58, 1788) Reference: Madison, Federalist No. 48

We the People are the largest and most forceful check on despotism, thanks to the Second Amendment.

Let's keep it that way.

:rant:

Tarn_Helm
03-03-2012, 9:41 AM
I vote Democrat, I'm a social liberal, but I have guns and have many "Hippy" friends that have guns. It's not all black and white.

Look at the voting records of lawmakers if you want to get unconfused.

By and large, Republicans, as disgusting as they might be to many of you for many reasons, are the ones who typically uphold the right to keep and bear arms in its fullest and freest form most often BY A HUGE MARGIN.

As a legislative and policy bloc, Democrat legislators and appointees are most consistently and virulently opposed to upholding and/or defending the right to keep and bear arms in its fullest and freest form.

The legislators are the "Democrats" I care about--not the Democrat voters.

I care far less about the little special interest groups (marijuana rights, sex rights, etc.) who have gone running to them for protection of their right to smoke pot, have certain kinds of sex, and other nonsense.

I prioritize.

Then I hold my nose and vote--for the party which, AS A PARTY, most consistently upholds and/or defends the right to keep and bear arms in its fullest and freest form.

You see, in the end, with a well-preserved right to keep and bear arms, we can take back any and all of the other rights which have been infringed.

The Second Amendment is the only right you can exercise to physically establish, support, and defend all the other rights.

That is my priority.

Focusing on a tiny number of ideologically defensible short term "pleasures"--marijuana, certain kinds of sex, etc.--instead of adopting a realistic, pragmatic, concrete focus on supporting and defending long term "necessities"--namely the right of fullest and freest exercise of arms-bearing-- is an adolescent, sophomoric mistake in political thinking as well as in tactical and strategic prioritizing.

I personally don't care what people want to smoke, inject, or insert into their bodies.

I don't care how anyone wants to have sex with a consenting adult.

(Abortion is a thorny issue--it pretty clearly seems like murder of an unborn human for the sake of convenience in most cases.)

If I have to protect my right to keep and bear arms by voting for a party that does not promote values I care nothing about, then I will vote for that party--BECAUSE IT PROTECTS THE SECOND AMENDMENT MOST CONSISTENTLY.

That is my criterion.

I am a "one-issue" voter.

You all would be wise to become one-issue voters also, if you want to solidify support for the right that is more important than all the rest for practical and long term reasons.
:cool:

Tarn_Helm
03-03-2012, 9:54 AM
I can agree that these ideals are infacat Libertarian and do not fully incapsulate the Republican platform. However I would estimate the modern Republican party to be in the middle of the political spectum versus to the right. I believe as notioned above, there is a fundamental difference between political motivations and individuals' social and moral compass'. Though different, the two are congruent.

There is no "LEFT/RIGHT Political Spectrum."

That whole conceptual metaphor of the "LEFT vs. RIGHT Political Spectrum" is a misnomer and a cognitive trap which confuses millions of people and prevents them from understanding how power is exercised.

Watch this (I don't agree with all of it, but it succinctly shows why the "LEFT vs. RIGHT Political Spectrum" model is both confused and confusing):

DioQooFIcgE

dustoff31
03-03-2012, 10:02 AM
Look at the voting records of lawmakers if you want to get unconfused.

By and large, Republicans, as disgusting as they might be to many of you for many reasons, are the ones who typically uphold the right to keep and bear arms in its fullest and freest form most often BY A HUGE MARGIN.

As a legislative and policy bloc, Democrat legislators and appointees are most consistently and virulently opposed to upholding and/or defending the right to keep and bear arms in its fullest and freest form.

The legislators are the "Democrats" I care about--not the Democrat voters.

I care far less about the little special interest groups (marijuana rights, sex rights, etc.) who have gone running to them for protection of their right to smoke pot, have certain kinds of sex, and other nonsense.

I prioritize.

Then I hold my nose and vote--for the party which, AS A PARTY, most consistently upholds and/or defends the right to keep and bear arms in its fullest and freest form.

You see, in the end, with a well-preserved right to keep and bear arms, we can take back any and all of the other rights which have been infringed.

The Second Amendment is the only right you can exercise to physically establish, support, and defend all the other rights.

That is my priority.

Focusing on a tiny number of ideologically defensible short term "pleasures"--marijuana, certain kinds of sex, etc.--instead of adopting a realistic, pragmatic, concrete focus on supporting and defending long term "necessities"--namely the right of fullest and freest exercise of arms-bearing-- is an adolescent, sophomoric mistake in political thinking as well as in tactical and strategic prioritizing.

I personally don't care what people want to smoke, inject, or insert into their bodies.

I don't care how anyone wants to have sex with a consenting adult.

(Abortion is a thorny issue--it pretty clearly seems like murder of an unborn human for the sake of convenience in most cases.)

If I have to protect my right to keep and bear arms by voting for a party that does not promote values I care nothing about, then I will vote for that party--BECAUSE IT PROTECTS THE SECOND AMENDMENT MOST CONSISTENTLY.

That is my criterion.

I am a "one-issue" voter.

You all would be wise to become one-issue voters also, if you want to solidify support for the right that is more important than all the rest for practical and long term reasons.
:cool:

Well done, Tarn Helm. It really is that simple. Post of the Year.

SpoonKiller
03-03-2012, 10:11 AM
While we are making broad generalizations it might be because pro 2a groups make it nearly impossible to be a pro 2a democrat. They embrace other conservative issues beside 2a.... Any given day in the OT forum is proof of this.

Pro 2a democrats are practically run out of any 2a group by a pike. No one wants to admit they exist, and if they do people as have posted in this thread continue their off topic conservative fiscal and social agendas mercilessly. I can't tell you the number of times I and other more liberal gun owners quietly suck it up at our monthly gun club meetings while some conservative rants on about liberal this and that. Start accepting, welcoming, and including Democrats in the 2a conversation without the other conservative baggage and maybe you would see more of them stick around to hear what you have to say.
This! Vote on issues not some implied team membership. I work with many people who I know are Democrat, gun-o-phobes or just new to this country and don't understand the concept of private gun ownership, the way to win them over isn't to bring in all the other political bagages that come from towing the conservative line but to invite them to the gun range and show them how firearms actually work, show them what responsible gun owners look like, demystify firearms.

Old_Bald_Guy
03-03-2012, 10:20 AM
I have nothing against guns or gun rights. I'm licensed to carry 3 of 'em.

IVC
03-03-2012, 10:44 AM
Start accepting, welcoming, and including Democrats in the 2a conversation without the other conservative baggage and maybe you would see more of them stick around to hear what you have to say.

Well said - democrats have to be told what to do. They also like to return the favor.

What's the big deal about hearing different opinions? Just because someone says something you don't like or agree with doesn't make it so. Now we have to have groups where everybody thinks alike and whoever thinks differently must leave the room? After all, the liberal gun owners should be leading the fight for more freedom, rather than having to be led into it.

ccmc
03-03-2012, 11:48 AM
Look at the voting records of lawmakers if you want to get unconfused.

By and large, Republicans, as disgusting as they might be to many of you for many reasons, are the ones who typically uphold the right to keep and bear arms in its fullest and freest form most often BY A HUGE MARGIN.

As a legislative and policy bloc, Democrat legislators and appointees are most consistently and virulently opposed to upholding and/or defending the right to keep and bear arms in its fullest and freest form.

The legislators are the "Democrats" I care about--not the Democrat voters.

I care far less about the little special interest groups (marijuana rights, sex rights, etc.) who have gone running to them for protection of their right to smoke pot, have certain kinds of sex, and other nonsense.

I prioritize.

Then I hold my nose and vote--for the party which, AS A PARTY, most consistently upholds and/or defends the right to keep and bear arms in its fullest and freest form.

You see, in the end, with a well-preserved right to keep and bear arms, we can take back any and all of the other rights which have been infringed.

The Second Amendment is the only right you can exercise to physically establish, support, and defend all the other rights.

That is my priority.

Focusing on a tiny number of ideologically defensible short term "pleasures"--marijuana, certain kinds of sex, etc.--instead of adopting a realistic, pragmatic, concrete focus on supporting and defending long term "necessities"--namely the right of fullest and freest exercise of arms-bearing-- is an adolescent, sophomoric mistake in political thinking as well as in tactical and strategic prioritizing.

I personally don't care what people want to smoke, inject, or insert into their bodies.

I don't care how anyone wants to have sex with a consenting adult.

(Abortion is a thorny issue--it pretty clearly seems like murder of an unborn human for the sake of convenience in most cases.)

If I have to protect my right to keep and bear arms by voting for a party that does not promote values I care nothing about, then I will vote for that party--BECAUSE IT PROTECTS THE SECOND AMENDMENT MOST CONSISTENTLY.

That is my criterion.

I am a "one-issue" voter.

You all would be wise to become one-issue voters also, if you want to solidify support for the right that is more important than all the rest for practical and long term reasons.
:cool:

This is perhaps the best 2A post I've ever read on any gun forum. Thank you for saying exactly what I've wanted to say many times, and for so succinctly explaining why the 2A is the right from which all other rights flow. Very elegantly written.

JAGACIDA
03-03-2012, 1:18 PM
The democrats decided to swing wide left to make up for their parties disparities in treating people of color and other ethnicities wrongly. Too far left waving the banner that they could help and save all. I think both parties have morphed into something that protects and enrichens corporations and neccesarily has to find issues to separate and divide on bogus topics just to get your damn vote.
Neither party is your friend and will sell you out whenever the opportunity arises. They are not all that different. Republicans are generally considered to be the party of the wealthy, but Al Gore, Bill Clinton and soon B. Obama will be fat rich millionaires and you'll still scratching your heads wondering how and why the party of the people's leaders got so damn rich.

SpoonKiller
03-03-2012, 2:03 PM
My wife is a Democrat, we have differing viewpoints on quite a few things, biggest probably being the death penalty, but she enjoys shooting and sees the importance of the 2nd Amendment. I think there are plenty of people who get scared away because the most vocal defenders of the 2nd also seem to be the most paranoid and they play right into the stereotypical unhinged right winger caricature. I think the fight to keep the 2nd amendment in its true and pure form would benefit from distancing it from all other social issues and politicking that divide us.

Gray Peterson
03-03-2012, 2:51 PM
Look at the voting records of lawmakers if you want to get unconfused.

By and large, Republicans, as disgusting as they might be to many of you for many reasons, are the ones who typically uphold the right to keep and bear arms in its fullest and freest form most often BY A HUGE MARGIN.

As a legislative and policy bloc, Democrat legislators and appointees are most consistently and virulently opposed to upholding and/or defending the right to keep and bear arms in its fullest and freest form.

The legislators are the "Democrats" I care about--not the Democrat voters.

I care far less about the little special interest groups (marijuana rights, sex rights, etc.) who have gone running to them for protection of their right to smoke pot, have certain kinds of sex, and other nonsense.

I prioritize.

Then I hold my nose and vote--for the party which, AS A PARTY, most consistently upholds and/or defends the right to keep and bear arms in its fullest and freest form.

You see, in the end, with a well-preserved right to keep and bear arms, we can take back any and all of the other rights which have been infringed.

The Second Amendment is the only right you can exercise to physically establish, support, and defend all the other rights.

That is my priority.

Focusing on a tiny number of ideologically defensible short term "pleasures"--marijuana, certain kinds of sex, etc.--instead of adopting a realistic, pragmatic, concrete focus on supporting and defending long term "necessities"--namely the right of fullest and freest exercise of arms-bearing-- is an adolescent, sophomoric mistake in political thinking as well as in tactical and strategic prioritizing.

I personally don't care what people want to smoke, inject, or insert into their bodies.

I don't care how anyone wants to have sex with a consenting adult

Gay people generally are not going to vote for a candidate who will vote to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who wants to overturn Lawrence v. Texas.

They are being terrorized in a similar fashion in an opposite direction from gun owners. They were being told they are 1 vote away from the states being able to recriminalize their activities in private. What good is the RKBA to them if the states can felonize their acts & take their guns based in that felony?

You can excoriate some of these voters all you want, but the onus isn't on then to vote your way, the onus is on the so called "RKBA PARTY" to stop being authoritarian & illogical on that issue. It's easy for you to say "one issue". You're not (insofar as I can see) a hated minority in most of the geographic area of this country.

tankarian
03-03-2012, 3:34 PM
Both pro-gun liberals and anti-gun conservatives are, as the Latin said "rara avis (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rara+avis)" - the exceptions confirming the rule.
No matter how much the liberals on this forum try to twist, turn and say there is no difference between the left and the right, the simple truth is the conservatives proved time and again they are the defenders and the advocates of the 2nd Amendment. Just as the liberals proved they are in overwhelming majority the ones who always tried and will keep trying to disarm America.
Now go ahead and call me a simple minded person and that I see everything in black and white. I would be really surprised not to be preached by an sneering liberal about how how I'm not smart enough to understand subtle nuances :rolleyes:

Tarn_Helm
03-03-2012, 3:37 PM
Gay people generally are not going to vote for a candidate who will vote to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who wants to overturn Lawrence v. Texas.

They are being terrorized in a similar fashion in an opposite direction from gun owners. They were being told they are 1 vote away from the states being able to recriminalize their activities in private. What good is the RKBA to them if the states can felonize their acts & take their guns based in that felony?

You can excoriate some of these voters all you want, but the onus isn't on then to vote your way, the onus is on the so called "RKBA PARTY" to stop being authoritarian & illogical on that issue. It's easy for you to say "one issue". You're not (insofar as I can see) a hated minority in most of the geographic area of this country.

First, please correct me by adducing evidence if I am wrong, but the likelihood of any Supreme Court appointee today voting to overturn Lawrence v. Texas is virtually nonexistent.

Second, "terrorized" is a bit much. Irritated is probably more like it. Please don't exaggerate.
Third, if their "fear" (or terror, as you put it) is a real fear, then lesbians, gays, bisexuals & transgendered people need to prove that their fear is real by starting their own LGBT PRO-CCW lobbying program which is equal in size, power, and effectiveness to the AIDS lobbying PACs.

Fourth, "What good is the RKBA . . ." to someone who is being, as you put it, "terrorized?" Are you serious? Have you ever fired a gun? The RKBA is designed for people who are being terrorized and who do not want to continue to be terrorized.

Fifth, the issue is priorities not "onus." Which civil right can protect all the others? The Second Amendment. If you are gay and want to stay that way, vote for someone who will recognize your RIGHT TO CARRY A CONCEALED LOADED FIREARM FOR PURPOSES OF LAWFUL SELF-DEFENSE NO MATTER WHAT YOUR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. And if some homophobe hassles you, shoot his butt! (With your gun, that is.)

Think about it like this.

If I vote for some Democrat who respects your right to be gay (or whatever), I basically lose a necessity so that you can feel accepted by society.

So its really all about your feelings.

Your feelings trump my safety.

If you vote for some homophobic redneck who respects your right to a shall-issue CCW, you can use that CCW to blast any gay-basher who accosts you. (How do I benefit if I vote for your rights?)

Which is more important?

Feeling accepted?

Or being able to carry concealed weapon for purposes of lawful self-defense so that you can shoot the first gaybasher who lays a hand on your or your loved one(s)?

I regard having a shall-issue right to carry a concealed weapon for purposes of lawful self-defense to be equal in importance to being able to wear a seatbelt.

Would you ask me to forfeit my right to wear a seatbelt in order to vote for your right to be gay?

I don't think so.

But the main point is this: Homosexuality will never be outlawed or regulated in this country again in the near future.

As a culture, we have already crossed that line and we are never going back.

Christianity has been weakening since the Renaissance and it is not going to suddenly revert to medieval-like strength if you vote for a pro-gun Republican who talks crap about gays.

He might talk crap about gays, but no significant number of high level public figures will ever band together to infringe your rights.

However, mine are already infringed.

I have to vote for my rights since your voting bloc votes against them and refuses to fight for the right to defend itself with a CCW, even though it allegedly feels "terrorized."

Sorry, I am not buying your story or your logic.

Nothing personal to gays.

I wish you all the best.

And I wish you were all armed to protect yourselves.

Take care.
:cool:

SpoonKiller
03-03-2012, 5:07 PM
Not knowing anything about Lawrence v. Texas I looked it up... I could see how a gay person might be a little nervous about the Supreme Court getting stacked with "conservatives" when this decision was passed less than 10 years ago in a relatively divided decision, change two judges and what two gays do in the privacy of their own homes can get them charged and convicted.... what's the point of the RKBA if the State stacks the laws to turn you into a felon. Faced with this gays who might be amiable to voting in support of the 2nd, and I know there are quite a few out there, I've taken some to the range, are now more worried about keeping the State from turning them into felons.

Threats to the RKBA are more often than not used to further socially conservative causes by scaring gun owners to vote for them. This country would be in much better shape if people voted on issues as opposed to one of the two teams.

Gray Peterson
03-03-2012, 7:29 PM
Fourth, "What good is the RKBA . . ." to someone who is being, as you put it, "terrorized?" Are you serious? Have you ever fired a gun? The RKBA is designed for people who are being terrorized and who do not want to continue to be terrorized.
...
So its really all about your feelings.

Your feelings trump my safety.

If you vote for some homophobic redneck who respects your right to a shall-issue CCW, you can use that CCW to blast any gay-basher who accosts you. (How do I benefit if I vote for your rights?)
....
As a culture, we have already crossed that line and we are never going back.

Christianity has been weakening since the Renaissance and it is not going to suddenly revert to medieval-like strength if you vote for a pro-gun Republican who talks crap about gays.

He might talk crap about gays, but no significant number of high level public figures will ever band together to infringe your rights.

Sorry, I am not buying your story or your logic.

Loving the stereotyping you're doing here, Tarn, especially of me. Do you have any idea what my personal feelings are, or are you just assuming how I vote because I happen to be gay? Are you speaking to me, or are you attempting, in a rather poor fashion, trying to speak to the rest of the gay community through me? It's not often I get talked down to with question of "Have I ever fired a gun"?

bulgron
03-03-2012, 7:46 PM
Gay people generally are not going to vote for a candidate who will vote to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who wants to overturn Lawrence v. Texas.

They are being terrorized in a similar fashion in an opposite direction from gun owners. They were being told they are 1 vote away from the states being able to recriminalize their activities in private.

If the Supreme Court is unwilling to overturn Slaughter-House, which is widely regarded as having been wrongly decided by conservatives and liberals alike, I can't believe that they're going to overturn anything else. This is like women's rights advocates who are convinced that the Supreme Court is going to overturn Roe one of these days. It just isn't going to happen.

Fear of a conservative majority on the court overturning some much-beloved decision which protects certain rights and/or actions is just fear-mongering designed to herd voters into a straight-ticket Democratic vote.

Tarn_Helm
03-03-2012, 8:15 PM
Loving the stereotyping you're doing here, Tarn, especially of me. Do you have any idea what my personal feelings are, or are you just assuming how I vote because I happen to be gay? Are you speaking to me, or are you attempting, in a rather poor fashion, trying to speak to the rest of the gay community through me? It's not often I get talked down to with question of "Have I ever fired a gun"?

Ok.

I'm sorry.

In answer to the questions:

I don't know what your personal feelings are. I have never met you.

I don't even know if you're gay.

And in a certain sense, for the sake of discussion, I am treating you like a spokesman for the voting bloc that eschews Republicans out of fear of an overturning of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), since you in fact brought it up. If you object to that, I will stop.

As for being talked down to, I was being a little facetious.

Sorry.

But can you answer my question about feeling "terrorized" and still not being willing to vote for the bloc of legislators who would typically be most likely to defend EVERYONE's shall-issue right to keep and bear arms for purposes of lawful self-defense?

And can you really adduce any evidence, based on recent state or federal court rulings, that Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) is in any way in danger?

Can you name one judge who is likely to be nominated if Romney is elected who already has a proven track record of voting against any gay rights issue?

Seriously, all facetiousness aside and no harm meant in previous posts.

You can call me a bald-headed, hairy, pot-bellied, sweaty redneck if you want.

(But I am not a gaybasher. I stick up for the underdog even if he is no kith or kin of mine.)

Feel free to stereotype me though.

I earned it.

Mea culpa.

Tarn_Helm
03-04-2012, 11:54 AM
After living in the City of Chicago for quite some time, where Democrats own the politics lock stock and barrel, the reason that party despises legal gun ownership boils down to a fundamental difference on human behavior.

The 2nd Amendment serves to recognize that people have the right to self defense.This right exists because we are subject to attack from people who choose to do so as a matter of either career choice or emotional madness. Self defense from attack requires minimum two parties-the victim being attacked, and a person or persons doing the attack-'ing'.

To a Democrat this is an abhorrent concept, because no one *chooses* to attack anyone. Their philosophy holds that ALL human beings are fundamentally wise, intelligent people who seek to do good.Thus crime and suffering happen because of outside factors which influence good people to behave in not so good ways. Alcohol should be restricted ,because it causes people to do things without thinking. A national speed limit is good, because it saves gas and causes people to drive safe. Guns should be heavily regulated, because they *cause* violent crime.This is why the Democratic party advances laws which seem to condone criminal behavior, because to such people the word "criminal" means something entirely different from the Old Testament use of the word. That classic & most basic definition of the word is someone who commits crime, thus implying that a choice and an event has taken place. When the mission changes from punishing people who have done wrong to removing the external "reasons" how someone could commit a crime, the term is redefined from someone who DOES wrong to someone who CAN commit wrong.

As applied to real-life situations, this is why a Democrat Party supporter considers the guy who breaks into a home at 3am with a knife as the victim ;he was just a good man who had access to a knife and therefore did wrong.It thus follows that the homeowner who shoots the invader down is the bad guy in this scenario, because that person had a gun and thus the influence to murder.

If it seems like ive had a good deal of time to consider the matter,it is because I indeed have.Moving out of Illinois to South Dakota begat a lot of questions about the nature of our government and why two members of what are supposed to be the United States of America have fundamentally opposite concepts of crime, punishment, and personal defense.

(Emphasis in red added by me.)

Karl Marx and company bequeathed a vision of the universe that is materialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism) in essence.

Material--meaning "of or related to originating in matter"--is all that world consists in, according to Marxists (though perhaps not Marx himself).

I.e., there is nothing in the world that is "spiritual"--since their is no "spirit," only physical matter; hence, Marxism's doctrine of atheism and antipathy toward religion.

This means that the behavior of material objects in purely material processes is the place where causes must be sought for.

That is why Marxists identify objects as "causes" (in an almost Aristotelian sense!) of phenomena, behavior, processes.

Some Democrats are very intellectually shallow and do not know the deeper roots of the ideas and lines of reasoning I am explaining here.

Other Democrats, however, are fully aware that they and their party espouse Marx's materialist dialectic, albeit cloaked in the garb of statistics cobbled together by sociologists, who fondly assert that abstract "physical" forces, functioning in a manner similar to gravity, cause events at the level of societal classes.

Poverty is one such "force."

It "causes" crime; and it "causes" failure to succeed in school (a common ailment amongst the poor of America's urban settings), they allege.

Taking this logic one step further, physical objects, and not merely physical "forces" cause phenomena, behaviors, events: guns, alcohol, rock music, rap music, all sorts of "things" cause or program people to enact behaviors, as if humans have no freedom of will and are merely blown around by "forces" like leaves blown around by wind.

Another person in this thread commented to this effect, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

These deeper, philosophical, historically rooted aspects of the reasoning and ideology espoused by certain (though perhaps not all) Democrats contribute greatly to our understanding of the questions asked by the OP.

Namely, "What do Democrats have against Guns and Gun Rights?"

I hope this helps.
:cool:

(Footnote: Perhaps Marx would object to our posthumous attribution of the "materialist dialectic" to his system of thought. Too bad. His followers have connected it to his thought in many ways and that is a legacy of Marxism and Marxist Socialism even if Marx himself would have disavowed the connection.)

Tarn_Helm
03-04-2012, 1:38 PM
Loving the stereotyping you're doing here, Tarn, especially of me. Do you have any idea what my personal feelings are, or are you just assuming how I vote because I happen to be gay? Are you speaking to me, or are you attempting, in a rather poor fashion, trying to speak to the rest of the gay community through me? It's not often I get talked down to with question of "Have I ever fired a gun"?

You know what?

I have been thinking about this a lot.

I don't want to promote dissension amongst our ranks--our ranks are too small and powerless and cannot afford to bicker!

We need to join ranks and not allow ourselves to be entrapped in these cognitive traps--these either/or discussions.

We non-gay 2AMers here in CA (and other states) need to add members to our ranks by any means necessary.

We can begin by engaging in crossover events.

A minimum of a dozen of us (or more) need to show up at gay pride parades or whatever and do the following:

1. Very conspicuously wear shirts, hats, etc. that identify us as Calgunners, CRPA members, NRA members, GOA members, JPFO members--or all of the above--so that we stand out from the rest of the crowd, which will presumably appear visibly distinct from us insofar as it is likely to be wearing clothes which do not mark them as "gun rights" supporters.

2. Carry large easy to read signs that say IN HUGE BOLD LETTERS: (side A) "True Second Amendment Supporters Support All Rights, INCLUDING GAY RIGHTS! (side B) We support Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) AND McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010)!"

3. Attend the event with a gay CalGuns member (or members) in order to have a member of the demographic we seek to include serve as a mediator in the event that any kind of personal friction or misunderstanding begins to bubble up.

4. Make sure we get interviewed by the mainstream media. Here is what we want it to look and sound like:
Interviewer: Hello, what are you doing here? You don't look like the rest of the crowd?

Crossover CalGunner: I'm John Q. Gunnut. I believe in supporting ALL civil rights, not only the right to keep and bear arms. So I am here to show that "gun rights" [make finger quotes] supporters also support and defend the legal rights of the gay community."

5. Distribute literature for our respective organizations (CalGuns, CRPA, NRA, GOA, JPFO, Second Amendment Foundation, etc.) while we are there.

6. Make sure we get this all well publicized: newspaper, magazine, radio, television, youtube, blogs, podcast, webcast, etc.--and make it go "viral."

I am not trying to take any credit for "originality."

I seem to recall a CGer named Andrew Mendez trying to organize something along similar lines.

Well, I agree with him.

We really need to cross over and pick up supporters from other demographics--and stop letting the demagogues divide us along issues that don't matter to us.

I don't give a good godd@mn if anyone is gay or whatever.

However, I do want as many gays as possible to support the Second Amendment as strongly as they support gay rights issues.

THAT is what I want.

Because I want to see change in this state for the better--sooner rather than later.

If I have to join "Pink Pistols" and wear their shirt, so be it!

Perhaps we can get a calendar of events going in various parts of CA--gays rights events, minority rights, illegal immigrant "rights" events, etc.--and keep it going. We could be on the look out for public events where we can show up and make our presence known.

We 2AMers cannot continue to be a fractured splinter group of subcultural pariahs living on the fringe of the grassroots political horizon of this state--and still imagine that we can succeed with expanding our right to keep and bear arms without first expanding our base of support.

There simply isn't enough crotchety old vanilla-flavored, heterosexual, "white," gun nuts in CA to push our agenda through.

We have to branch out, swallow the bitter pill of compromise, and find common ground.

For example: I am opposed to illegal immigration. But we CGers could still show up at rallies or whatever and carry supportive signs (and do the other stuff mentioned above) advocating creation of means of allowing the (otherwise) law-abiding "undocumented" immigrants to stay legally. On side of the sign, their agenda; on the other side of the sign, the Second Amendment agenda.

We don't need to go into detail during the demonstration, such as talking about penalties or fines or other aspects of a plan for allowing illegal immigrants to become legally documented resident aliens.

All we have to do is show up, support their demand for rights and link it to our demand for rights.

For example: We can carry signs that denounce Patsone v. Pennsylvania (1914) (http://gunlaws.com/Supreme%20Court%20Summaries.htm).

I think you get the point.

We need to aggregate not isolate.

I hope this idea makes sense to people.
:cool:

ArcherDog
03-04-2012, 2:05 PM
Tarn.

Great post. I was originally drawn to this thread by the one sided and prejudicial tone of the title. I get that many Democrats are anti-2A but by focusing your ire only on Democrats loses sight of the ultimate goal of everyone here. Sure we can point fingers and set blame but in the big picture that does nothing but compartmentalize us as a group and water down the overall message.

hammerhead_77
03-04-2012, 4:33 PM
Christianity has been weakening since the Renaissance and it is not going to suddenly revert to medieval-like strength if you vote for a pro-gun Republican who talks crap about gays.


It occurs to me that so many of the most rabid (good term) of they anti-gay pols are the ones caught snorting coke with male prostitutes...

Just sayin'...the anti-gay bark is simply the sound of ignorance and intolerance being exploited for gain. If there were such a ruling, congress would simply pass a new law adding "...or sexual orientation..." language to plug the gap. yes, there would be noise, but it would pass and be signed.

On the other hand, protecting the rights normal people (with the exception of ACT OUT) who happen to be gay is going to draw a lot more bi-partisan support than protecting the rights of normal people arm themselves in public.

Pro-gun Dem is like a Pro-Sex virgin...not likely to be very dedicated to that standpoint, or one of those descriptors is gonna have to change.

hammerhead_77
03-07-2012, 7:52 AM
...and here we see a little bit more support for the assertions made above:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=544416

strong bipartisan support in both houses, and a governor pandering to police unions and his own liberal bias vetos a solid rights bill.

ja308
03-07-2012, 11:48 AM
Hear hear! I nearly got banned because I didn't stick with the group think of demonizing Democrats and President Obama. Want to know why there aren't more vocal Democrat/Progressive/Liberal gun owners? Because they're ostricized and treated like crap. Maybe we should welcomed with open arms as an extension those who want to support 2A rights instead of shouted out as the enemy. If there were enough Liberal gun owners to have influence on their representatives, wouldn't that be good for everyone? I guess the community doesn't want more enthusiasts championing for gun rights or introducing friends to the world of firearms. But I suppose it's just black and white. Them vs us. Good vs evil. Red vs blue. There can be no common goals across party lines. :rolleyes: :facepalm:

Would you kindly tell us what positions or platforms make you identify with the democratic party?

Gray Peterson
03-07-2012, 12:01 PM
Don't take the bait

bulgron
03-07-2012, 12:32 PM
Would you kindly tell us what positions or platforms make you identify with the democratic party?

Don't bother. There's a lot of people around here looking for an excuse to not vote Republican this fall, and still somehow retain their self-respect when the Democrats finish off our economy while putting together a court that will overturn Heller/McDonald. The bottom line is that for people like that, guns aren't the main thing. Other stuff is the main thing. They just don't want to admit it on this board where guns are the main thing.

wolfstar
03-07-2012, 1:02 PM
Almost every politician hates and fears free and armed populace. Democrats and republicans both worked very hard to ban guns. The real change up was the NRA. Despite being accused of being a GOP only organization, they reached out to both sides and punished politicians who took money from them and then stabbed them in the back. The NRA's simple formula of being a 1 issue group who would punish people who voted against them is a very winning political strategy.

This naturally had a much bigger effect with GOP voters and the GOP is much rural in scope and thus more comfortable with firearms. Dems tend to hate and demagog rural people in general and thus it's a cultural divide between the cities and the countryside. Dems have a secondary problem that the black community blames almost all of their crime problems on firearms.

The America people are becoming more and more pro gun/pro self defense. Given another generation I wouldn't be surprised if full gun rights are restored to the American public. Unfortunately every vote for a Dem is a vote for judges who will take away your gun rights because the older generate of Democrats hate guns just as much as ever. And Obama will take away your gun rights if he gets a chance to appoint one more supreme court justice.

M. D. Van Norman
03-07-2012, 1:48 PM
[sigh] The average voter cares far more about eating, drinking, and copulating than she does about guns or self-defense, and guess what? The Republicans have largely ceded those personal liberties to the Democrats. Some local Republican parties (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/sc_county_gop_if_youve_had_pre-marital_sex_you_can.php?ref=fpnewsfeed) even want to keep anyone who has had premarital sex out of their ranks.

And yet Republicans are surprised when they lose elections. :rolleyes:

dustoff31
03-07-2012, 2:20 PM
[sigh] The average voter cares far more about eating, drinking, and copulating than she does about guns or self-defense, and guess what? The Republicans have largely ceded those personal liberties to the Democrats. Some local Republican parties (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/sc_county_gop_if_youve_had_pre-marital_sex_you_can.php?ref=fpnewsfeed) even want to keep anyone who has had premarital sex out of their ranks.

And yet Republicans are surprised when they lose elections. :rolleyes:

That may be true. Particulary in CA.

But your theory doesn't seem to be borne out in SC, where your link refers.

From Wikipedia:

South Carolina has voted for a Republican in every presidential election from 1964 to 2008, with the exception of 1976 when Jimmy Carter, from neighboring Georgia, won the state over Gerald Ford. John McCain won the state in 2008 with 54% of the statewide vote over Barack Obama. Republicans now hold the governor's office and all other statewide offices, control both chambers of legislature, and include both U.S. Senators, and five of six members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

hammerhead_77
03-09-2012, 7:44 AM
Here you go... Dems oppose stamping out discrimination when it applies to people "choosing" to own a gun.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=545625

I refer you to my own earlier statement above about the mythical "pro-gun" democrat...

tankarian
03-09-2012, 7:57 AM
Here you go... Dems oppose stamping out discrimination when it applies to people "choosing" to own a gun.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=545625

I refer you to my own earlier statement above about the mythical "pro-gun" democrat...

There are a couple of pro-gun Democrats. Problem is they are pro-gun because of political convenience. In other words, they say they are -only for as long as their pro-gun stance can gain them political points with their electorate. But when the push comes to shove they always fall in line with the directives coming from the Party leadership (Pelosi, Feinstein, Schumer) and will always vote for more gun control.

dfletcher
03-09-2012, 8:36 AM
The first concern of any politician is getting elected, that is quickly replaced with being re-elected. Democrats in the north and on each coast efficiently draw voters from the big cities (makes sense, why travel the boonies for a few votes when you can hit the city) and people in cities tend to view guns differently than those who live in a rural enviornment. So Democrats in those areas tend to craft their message for those folks. I think this is important because we seem intent on changing politicians on guns. Instead, we need to change the people and the whores ... sorry, politicians - will follow.

Democrats from the south tend are more often pro-gun. Geography counts more than party affiliation. If a Democrat says "y'all" and punctuates his sentences with "sheeeaat" I'm pretty sure he's going to be OK on guns. The problem for now is nearly none of those folks run the Democratic Party.

BTW, I know not everyone from the south talks like that - just using a little dramatic license, no offense.