Another reason we are screwed in California

[Nopal]

For all you who got angry at me for saying there is a genetic factor in political orientation, and therefore importing a million third worlders is going to permanently change our politics, the evidence keeps on piling up that I am right.



source

Third world voters are not going to assimialte and start "voting white" (ie, GOP). Not in 100 years. Probably not in 1,000 years. The Democrats know this, which is why it's so urgent for Obama to grant some form of residence to millions of non-white poor Hispanics. The Democrats score > 95% of the black vote without expending any effort, and they know they can achieve similar results with millions of poor non-white Hispanics.

So, you quote a study that states the obvious as "support" for your agument? Yes, liberal and conservative brains tend to act a little different, which is why some are liberal and some conservatives. It's kind of like the way people with brains predisposed for "right brain" activities such as art tend to congregate in art galleries. Big whoop!! Now, kindly tell us how that "proves" that you are right in any way, and especially how that generic study ties in with your assertion that different races will "genetically" vote different?

[Clint Torres]

Obviously, the OP has not been to the Angeles Ranges here in the greater LA area.

Plenty of Hispanic representation there and it doesn't look like they're protesting gun ownership.

I think it would be a generalization to say that Hispanics, as a whole, are "anti-gun".

[randian]

Plenty of Hispanic representation there and it doesn't look like they're protesting gun ownership.

That's the same error a media talking head makes when they say they didn't know anybody who voted for Bush. Sure, there are hispanics and blacks that are pro-gun, but that's not the way to bet. Also, shooting at a range doesn't tell you anything. Plenty of people who shoot at ranges dislike and vote against ARs, concealed carry permits for civilians, stand your ground, etc.

[Watch Ryder]

More here[/URL]
In California the white population is dwindling while the hispanic is increasing.
You do the math.

A double whammy too, they are almost always Democrat voters too.

[tankarian]

Obviously, the OP has not been to the Angeles Ranges here in the greater LA area.

Plenty of Hispanic representation there and it doesn't look like they're protesting gun ownership.

I think it would be a generalization to say that Hispanics, as a whole, are "anti-gun".

Obviously, you don't have the slightest idea what the term "anecdotal evidence" means. Just because you see latinos shooting at Angeles Ranges doesn't mean a majority of latinos support gun rights. What it really means is simply this: you live in L.A. where latinos are the majority.

[kcbrown]

I think that's the wrong question to ask because it assumes that they don't oppose new laws. I see it as more of a passive opposition: If the law goes against your principles of freedom, it's simply not taken too seriously (that is sort of both the blessing and the curse of the way many Hispanics view laws).

I know of no way to empirically tell the difference. The end result is certainly the same.

If there is a correlation, it's weak at best. But there is even less there to argue causation (as you've implicitly stated by saying that because the culture is more focused on community, the people are more easily controlled).

The correlation is not between people who have a sense of community and degree of control. It's between the existence of community and existence of control. I'd argue that there is a logical connection between the average degree of devotion to the community and the degree of control that ultimately is imposed on its members, because people who are more devoted to the community will tend to think more in terms of benefits to the community, even when they come at the expense of the individual, and will thus be more supportive of such rules. Socialists are the logical extreme of that, as to them, the community is everything and the individual is nothing.


You may be right that Mexican immigrants are used to lower degrees of control than what exists here in the U.S., but if that's so, then where is their expression of opposition to that control once they're here? What is visible of their politics appears to be supportive of those controls.

In any case, I'm in agreement that this problem is not solely the fault of immigrants, but I've seen no evidence that their politics are more supportive of liberty than that of the indigenous population, so at the very least, they do not seem to be helping things.

[BlueRidge62]

Its post like this one that make me question my fellow pro guns peps..true what they say i guess..never talk politics with strangers 😃

[kcbrown]

Its post like this one that make me question my fellow pro guns peps..true what they say i guess..never talk politics with strangers ��

Heh. Admittedly, it can be a tense subject.

I try to go by the evidence when possible, and use logic to fill in the gaps. As relates to this subject, there are pretty severe limits on both. Both observation and logic suggest that people who come from some other part of the world will bring their worldviews with them, and their worldviews are shaped in large part by the culture they are coming from.

Why else do you think people who come from places like the UK find some of our ways to be disagreeable? How many of them do you really think support the right to keep and bear arms (to use but one, though forum-relevant, example)? How many of them do you really think support liberty and the necessary tradeoffs that go with it? Their beliefs are largely the result of the environment they grew up in (but, of course, there are notable variations as you'd expect in any population of individuals). That is logical, because we learn from our environment and from those around us.

If people are immigrating here for economic reasons and not political ones, then it means that the chances are great indeed that they will be importing the prevailing political beliefs of their culture. Those beliefs are observable to some degree, because the political environment of the country they are coming from is at least in part the result of those political beliefs.


Much of what I've said on this topic is derived from logic applied to the situation. And since I've seen no evidence that contradicts those derived implications, I have to stand by that logic until contradictory evidence presents itself.


I don't think the real question is whether or not immigrants (in particular, those immigrating for non-political reasons) tend to bring the politics of the country they came from with them. Rather, I think the question is what to do about it. Some here believe the answer is to more tightly control immigration. I think the answer is to convince those immigrants of the rightness of supporting liberty. The latter is, of course, a much more difficult task, but it would have the benefit of being applicable to the indigenous population as well.

ETA: That said, you sometimes need room to work with. If the influx of non-political immigrants from authoritarian/socialist countries is too high, it'll overwhelm any efforts to reach out to the population. So a workable approach may have to involve both immigration control and communications efforts.

[chris]

Obviously, the OP has not been to the Angeles Ranges here in the greater LA area.

Plenty of Hispanic representation there and it doesn't look like they're protesting gun ownership.

I think it would be a generalization to say that Hispanics, as a whole, are "anti-gun".

problem is that they may own guns and that's good and all but if they vote for anti gun candidates that is the problem.

[jesse]

I will tell you as a fact most Hispanics like guns An d the fact that that we can defend ourselves with them. As you know most latin countries have very tight laws against civilian ownership, the reason alot of latinos dont vote Republican is because we see the party as mostly racist members as the op has proved, if pisses me off that you got to make it a race issue, an illegal immigration issue when infact this is a gun forum, we should try to educate people as to why guns are a good idea.

[1CavScout]

^^^ If you think "guns are a good idea" you should stop supporting the party that has gun control as one of it's national platforms.

[Wherryj]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/res...s/#val=USH00p1

Basically shows exactly what all other data shows: At the really poorly educated end of no HS diploma, it tends to be democrats. At the highly educated end, Post-graduate, it tends to be democrats (lords of the manor watching over the slaves and livestock?).

To say that the dems have a higher average education level? That just doesn't hold water if you look over the entire range of education. What the key here is at what point is some one educated. Probably a college degree I would guess.

But if you look at "educated" people (At least a college degree), then Democrats do edge out republicans overall (College degrees plus graduate degrees).

If you suddenly throw in "Semi" educated (Some college) then Republicans outnumber Democrats. Throw in people who only have a HS diploma and up, then Republicans win hands down.

Now if you go the other way, and look at "uneducated" as anyone that doesn't have at least a HS diploma then the dems are the big winners of the uneducated group. If you expand uneducated to mean anyone without at least some college, then the republicans creep into the lead.

I think it is clear to say, that democrats own higher education slots, and least educated slots fairly consistently. The Republicans seem to make up the "every day" of America more in the middle range, from HS graduates to College degrees. What do you know about that?

What really throws the numbers is that "education" level has been held out as a sign of intelligence. This isn't necessarily true. How much exposure one has to education is directly related to how much exposure to radical liberal ideas the student has had, however. Universities tend to be hot beds of radical indoctrination.

[tankarian]

^^^ If you think "guns are a good idea" you should stop supporting the party that has gun control as one of it's national platforms.

Wait, do you mean if liberal gun owners will stop voting for gun grabbing Democrat politicians, the result will be less and less anti-gun laws passed in California???

[randian]

Wait, do you mean if liberal gun owners will stop voting for gun grabbing Democrat politicians, the result will be less and less anti-gun laws passed in California???

Even if they did that the weight of existing gun laws makes repealing them difficult at best.