PDA

View Full Version : Why pro-CCW CA liberals and Dems MUST vote for pro-gun Repubs for several CA election


Paladin
04-21-2007, 12:27 PM
This morning I was thinking about how even Harry Reid was saying something like the Dems in control of the House and Senate shouldn't move too fast w/anti-gun legislation after VA Tech, let all the facts come out, etc. Some newpaper articles were saying how any new anti-gun legis was unlikely to come out of the US House of Reps since many of the new Dems who replaced Repubs come from very pro-gun areas and if they try to pass anti-gun bills, they'll be replaced by Repubs at the next election and the Repubs will regain control of the House.

That got me to thinking as to why we don't have a similar situation in the CA Assembly or Senate. The conclusion I came to is that too many CA pro-gun liberals/libertarians/Dems are not "one issue" enough. The whole reason the US House is now the way it is (relatively safely pro-gun) is because of the trouncing that the Dems experienced in 1994 after they and Clinton passed Feinstein's AWB. The Democratic "solid South" became "one issue" voters and voted for their guns and against the Dem candidates. Pelosi realized that and ran a bunch of pro-gun Dems in 2006. Now, on the fed level, we pro-gun people (whether Dem/Repub/other) find ourselves in the happy position of having both parties "pro-gun" (or at least very afraid to be anti-gun).

Since CA pro-gun Dems are unlikely to embrace all that the Repub party represents, what they need to do is to become "one issue" voters for awhile. IMO, the only thing that gets thru to either party is losing elections, and especially losing majorities in chambers (i.e., losing power and control). If CA pro-gun liberal/libertarian/Dems spent time, money and effort campaigning and then vote solidly Repub in campaigns where there was an anti-gun Dem vs pro-gun Repub and the pro-gun Repub won, that would send a message to the CA Dem party the same way that happened at the nation level after 1994. But note well: CA liberals/Dems will have to "hold their noses" (from their point of view) and do this for several election cycles. Why? The Dems lost the House in 1994 and it took them losses in another 5 election cycles ('96, '98, '00, '02, '04) before they realized they'd have to field pro-gun Dems to win enough elections to take back the House in '06. CA pro-CCW liberals/Dems will probably have to be "one issue" voters in '08, '10, and '12 at minimum before the CA Dem leadership sees this isn't a temporary aberration and that they'll have to change strategy to remain in control of the CA legislature.

Then, hopefully, we'll be in the extremely happy situation where both major parties realize they have to field pro-gun candidates to win sufficient elections to control either the CA state legislature or the US Congress. Then, and only then, will we have a chance of pushing for a "Shall Issue" Right-to-Carry law in CA. The sooner pro-gun CA liberals and Dems start doing this, the sooner we all will win.

*****
I should also warn any liberals/Dems who agree w/me and want to organize to implement what I suggest, that they should NOT post in this thread if there is any way of them being identified. I can tell you that you will be considered a traitor and treated as such (just short of being shot). Any organized effort will have to be done in a way that maintains anonymity of both the organizers and the members, if there are to be "members." Perhaps a website/forum for gathering and disseminating information on candidates and figuring out where you can have the greatest leverage given your resources would be best.

Wish you the best since you're our best hope for eventually passing Shall Issue in CA!

Matt C
04-21-2007, 12:41 PM
If you go back and read though some of the threads you will find that a significant portion(still a minority I hope) of this boards members are actually closeted gun control advocates. The "ant burners" have a point when they say it's our own fault, the CA mentality is pretty ingrained. If that's how things are on a gun board, I don't have much hope for the population in gereral putting a scare into the anti-gunners. Our best option is to fight these laws by calling/emailing/faxing when they are in the assembly, and fighting them in court. And finding loopholes...

Paladin
09-09-2007, 11:43 PM
bump

aplinker
09-09-2007, 11:47 PM
For a second there I almost thought BWO was back & posting.

Tears, sadness.

dfletcher
09-09-2007, 11:58 PM
The only constraints the Democrats in Congress currently have would be removed if a Democrat is elected President in 2008. Anything they do from now until Nov 2008 is a holding pattern and merely cover to protect them against the "you'll take our guns" charge which dogged them in 2000. Bill Richardson may be the exception, anyone else and you'll see an all out assault on gun ownership.

CalNRA
09-10-2007, 12:06 AM
The only constraints the Democrats in Congress currently have would be removed if a Democrat is elected President in 2008. Anything they do from now until Nov 2008 is a holding pattern and merely cover to protect them against the "you'll take our guns" charge which dogged them in 2000. Bill Richardson may be the exception, anyone else and you'll see an all out assault on gun ownership.

meanwhile much of Calguns is contemplating reasons to not vote for Fred and why Spanish is not such a bad official language.


hmm.....

DedEye
09-10-2007, 12:28 AM
For a second there I almost thought BWO was back & posting.

Tears, sadness.

Same. I'm hoping Matt is reading but not posting on the advice of counsel. Good luck Matt, we're rooting for you.


As for the idea put forth, I see merit too it but I have trouble being one issue. It would depend on the race and candidate, but there are many issues that are equally important to me.

JohnJW
09-10-2007, 1:06 AM
Maybe we can setup a legal fund for the single purpose of challenging anti-firearms laws in California. . . .

Paladin
09-10-2007, 12:42 PM
The only constraints the Democrats in Congress currently have would be removed if a Democrat is elected President in 2008. Anything they do from now until Nov 2008 is a holding pattern and merely cover to protect them against the "you'll take our guns" charge which dogged them in 2000. Bill Richardson may be the exception, anyone else and you'll see an all out assault on gun ownership.I share your concerns. See my thread, "Anti-Gun Dems Will Lay Low for 2 Years to Win the Presidency Too" at:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=43951

But, if pro-gun Dem voters remain single issue, they'll call/email/fax/write to their representatives/senators when the bills come up for votes to urge votes against them. If that doesn't work, they'll vote for the pro-gun Republican at the next election and it will be 1994 all over again. :D

Remember, the NRA and we pro-RKBA people have gotten stronger, more organized, and savvy w/the internet since 1994.

The real threat is that the Dems (and here I'm referring to the anti RKBA senior Dem leadership (e.g., Feinstein, Schumner, Kennedy, Leahy et al)), packs SCOTUS w/anti RKBA justices before pushing for new anti RKBA legislation. That would not rile up the RKBA voters until a case is decided and would hurt our cause for decades! (see the article re Bush and SCOTUS at: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=61710).

I could see a Dem presidential candidate say he/she is pro-RKBA and then after another nutcase/terrorist attack they'd show their true colors saying, "In these extraordinary times, I feel I must change my position re RKBA, blah, blah, blah." In general, unless the Dem had a loooong history of supporting RKBA, I'd feel more confident w/another pro-RKBA Repub than pro-RKBA Dem president.

dfletcher
09-10-2007, 1:02 PM
Although Richardson is pro - gun, he is a Democrat and will have to bring on and pay favors to other Democrats. Think of all the back door ways gun control can be executed - through OSHA, on BLM & national parks, the UN or AG office. Instead of pro - gunners toss in clowns like Abner Mikva, or (if they retire) Diane Feinstein, John Conyers or Kerry.

I have no problem with a voter who is anti - gun. I disagree with them, but at least I know what to expect. What concerns me is the great number of "casual" gun owners who see Kerry holding a shotgun and fall for the photo op and vote for him.

Creeping Incrementalism
09-10-2007, 6:18 PM
The "ant burners" have a point when they say it's our own fault, the CA mentality is pretty ingrained.

What exactly is an "ant burner" in this sense of the phrase?

dfletcher
09-10-2007, 8:06 PM
What exactly is an "ant burner" in this sense of the phrase?

I think it's related to the "boiling frogs" analogy - the heat starts low & we don't realize we're being cooked until it's too late.

Paladin
01-05-2008, 1:37 PM
Final day to register (or re-register) as a Republican is Tuesday, 22 Jan 2008 in order to vote in the Feb primary.

Annie Oakley
01-05-2008, 3:49 PM
If I may insert my opinion for a moment, I think alot of people in urban and suburban areas of California are just afraid of guns because they hear and see the "evil" side of guns on tv. I think it's especially unnerving to people when all you hear on the news is how a "gunman" robbed the local Circle K or gangmembers shot at someone from another gang and an innocent child was shot. Or tv shows like CSI or Law and Order talk about criminals shooting people, but rarely does the average person hear about honest law abiding citizens defending themselves or their families. And the anti-gun politicians are just terrible when they talk about "guns killing people", placing the blame on the inanimate object instead of the criminal that used it. And because of the negative publicity given to guns, and the average person in California not knowing about the relaxed laws in other states, the average Californian is totally unaware of how isolated and uninformed they are. And politicians take advantage of that and continue to spread that kind of disinformation to people.

MrTuffPaws
01-05-2008, 5:24 PM
I happen to live in a very conservative area, and guns are the great evil here. Hell, last year or so the city counsel passed an ordnance banning carrying of paint ball or air soft guns in public unless they are in a case.