Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-23-2013, 7:27 AM
ccmc ccmc is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,761
iTrader: 0 / 0%

Originally Posted by ferretwithacheeseknife View Post
Say what? Source?

Mississippi Senate 31/21 Republican - House 63/57 Republican. Both houses are Republican controlled and there is a Republican governor.

Arkansas Senate 21/14 Republican - House 51/48 Republican and 1 Green (go Green!)

North Dakota Senate 33/14 Republican -- House 71/23 Republican Both houses Republican controlled and Republican governor.

Pesky things those "facts".
Sorry. You're right. As of the 2012 election MS and AR legislatures did indeed become majority republican. First time since Reconstruction. I believe the governor in AR is a democrat, but republicans have been governor in MS for a few years now. I think while Haley Barbour was governor the lt governor was a democrat, but I not sure. The MS legislature was solidly democrat during that time though. Of course all the staunch segregationists in MS during the Jim Crow era were democrats including the US Senators. My mom's family is from Neshoba and Lauderdale Counties and were among the few republicans in the area in those days.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2013, 3:12 PM
mtnhrdgr2 mtnhrdgr2 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 269
iTrader: 1 / 100%

Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Voting R is not an answer for those who feel they are D. The answer is to change D party from within and make sure the silly bit about AWB is stricken down from the national platform.
Thank you. I know I only said it once in this thread, but I said this many times on another thread. In that thread, most of us Ds that claimed this point were ridiculed. I took no offense, but I just thought it was odd.

Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Until then, those *voting D* are *responsible* for attacks on 2A, much like those *voting R* are responsible for all positions of the particular candidate.
Agreed. Since gun rights are being attacked so vehemently right now, I have no issue voting for R in the next election cycle or two.

With that said, looking through other threads, I saw someone else make a point that I thought was good. While I have been saying that trying to change the gun thinking from within the D party is one idea, there was another suggestion to try and get some rights to move left a little in terms of the other rights. This way, we can possibly get a bigger volume of people that are electable on both sides of the aisle.
Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 10:46 AM
hvengel hvengel is offline
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 440
iTrader: 0 / 0%

Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post

The gun issue is way down low on the list of most "liberals". Even if democratic voters say they want total confiscation and all guns outlawed, very few actually vote based on that or give any money to anti causes. Look at who funds pro gun groups, the grassroots, and who funds the antis, a few billionaires and a couple of foundations.

The only way to take back some ground in this war is to infultrate the other side starting low. We need to find some Democratic canidates who are pro gun or gun nutural and support them over the antis. We need to have groups who they own in this state, due to the current make up, show them that an anti gun vote hardly gains them any votes or money but a pro gun vote will pay dividends.

Examples. Nicki and Tboyer are very active in the LGBT fight and they are very active in the pro gun fight. Even though I believe in their rights, I am not gay so it doesn't hit home with me so I don't really do anything for that movement. When they attend other forums or write letters to a canidate, they should include facts about how few anti gun voters really use that as a voting or donating platform and how they have members who would like to vote for said canidate but the gun issue is too strong and they would rather sit out than support an anti canidate.

Gene Hoffman is a very successful, young silicon valley entrepunure. He was on the cover of Forbes Magazine while still in his 20s. Gene is known to us and he has stated that many other young rich movers and shakers in silicon valley who he works with are also gun nuts. That needs to be proven to candidates through those dinners and donations. Again, while emphasising the fact that anti votes don't get them the same amount of contributions or votes. They really don't, they are a byproduct of the other issues.

I am a union member ( let the flames be fanned ) while in a supervisory role at the largest company in my industry. According the the NRA and Zogby polling, union members have the highest percentage of NRA members of any group. Higher than even just gun owners! Many union members in this state hold their nose and vote or sit out the process all together. I am in the process of starting a group to steer our money and influence to pro gun canidates who also support other issues that we support. Don't tell me that that can't happen. Look at Alaska, Montana, Pennslyvania, Ohio, Michigan, Washington, Nevada. All of these states are very heavily influenced by union money and still have good gun laws.

Gun Lobby groups and individuals should be using the budget to express thier displeasure with pro gun votes. You are not going to change an anti's mind just as they won't change yours but you have a slim chance of getting through to them by stating that anti votes gain them little and take away a lot from the issues that actually get them votes and contributions. Emphasise the lawsuits that their vote will bring.

Those are just a few examples. Again, politicians need to be shown the fact that they will gain more money and votes by being pro gun than anti. If they turn on us, we should turn on them.

Very few voters actually vote SOLEY on anti gun issues. Say 10 special interest groups come to them and it is shown that many have large factions of pro gun voters, which is true, and none of those factions have those same numbers of anti voters who let that sway thier vote, which is also true, we may be able to win a few more seats. We need to hit them from all fronts as well as have an insurgency in thier own ranks.

Will this get Difi or Boxer unseated? No. Will it help bring up new politicians who are thinking of getting started or now on city counsels etc? I believe so.

Look at the recent wins in South San Francisco, Los Gatos and a few others.

Cambell had a chance of winning the seat. Too bad the republicans nominated someone who had views that were completely opposite of most middle of the road people.
However Cambell had his issues with regard to gun control. He had a long history of being an anti although he was not as extreme as Difi or Boxer. A "moderate" R who is an anti is only slightly better than a "far left" D who is an anti. Tweedledee/Tweedledum - in the end you get the same result with regard to gun control.

If, on the other hand, Cambell had a long record of being even moderately pro gun then I would have been a supporter. But his anti record made that impossible. My point being that voting for anti R's is no more productive than voting for anti D's.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host., the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.