Are you a gun owner and vote for Democrats?

B

Big Don

New member
First off, I would really like to avoid discussions about “third-party” candidates in this thread. Yes, I know there are some very good people out there who don’t have an “R” or a “D” after their names. I would be very, very happy to see someone of Ron Paul’s ilk in a serious race for the presidency. However, anyone who has spent time watching the political process knows that we have two very dominant parties and the others don’t have much of a chance. :(

The Democrats have a history of seeking to undermine/remove our Second Amendment rights. Yes, there are certainly some RINO’s out there (Lincoln Chaffee comes to mind immediately) who would do the same thing. But, the vast majority of the “gun grabbing” is pushed by those who have a “D” after their names. There are some Democrats who are major supporters of the Second Amendment. Trouble is, they're few and far between.

So, I’d like to know why gun owners vote for Democrats. Is it because you’re not a “single issue” voter? If so then what other issues rank as high as your right to keep and bear arms? Are you a union member and vote “D” because that’s who the union supports? What do you consider when you cast that ballot? I’m not knocking anything; I just want to know what your motivators are.

This is a serious question and one that has mystified me for years. I have been very active in the pro-Second Amendment battle in California for many years and have met a lot of people who profess to be concerned about their right to own firearms and then vote for a Democrat and haven’t been able to give me a good, cogent reason. What better place to posit this question than right here, with all these great thinkers. That being said, have at it, please! :)
 
Don you have to remember that a Democrat in California is not the same thing as a Democrat in the Southeast. Even the most "liberal" politician down here knows it would be political suicide to mess with RKBA. I think both parties are full of it and you should vote for whoever agrees with your interests. It is sad to note that in so many elections I feel like I am choosing the lesser of two evils instead of someone I really support.
 
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235160 made that a while ago concerning this issue


I don't vote for the party, I vote for the candidate. That being said I will not vote for a guy that says I can have all the guns I want if I have to accept creationism in school or a ban on gay marriage or more "obscene" words censored on TV or more money being spent on a stupid war or a new unnecessary aircraft carrier or just a stronger government in general.

The second amendment is useless if it doesn't have the other ones to protect. What's a gun gonna do for me if I no longer have the fourth amendment to protect me from an illegal search or NSA wiretap? What's a gun gonna do for me if all the media is censored and I'm shown as a cop killing drug dealer as opposed to a guy that was defending his home against a no-knock warrant being served at the wrong address? What good is a gun to me if the powers that be - and my neighbors, armed to the teeth - all say I'm an abomination, a sinner that doesn't deserve the same rights as others?
 
Look at it this way- If a politician can not understand the second amendment, or thinks that it is invalid , he either:
1. Is too stupid to serve the public, or
2. Has an agenda.
Either way I won't vote for him.
 
Don,

Unfortunately the kook-fringe left is more interested in advancing their social agenda, than they are about constitutional rights- particularly 2A. They simply don't care about anything else. And while I have known a lot of good Democrats, their party panders to the kook-fringe and so the good gets corrupted in the process.

I think the answer, if there is one, is to make the left understand that gun control is the single issue which we will throw them out of office over- without fail. We have actually begun to accomplish this, as evidenced by their call for restraint on the issue after VA Tech. So we need to keep reminding our federal legislators that when it comes to 2A issues, they can SAY whatever they want; we will hold them accountable for what they DO.
 
Unfortunately the kook-fringe left is more interested in advancing their social agenda, than they are about constitutional rights- particularly 2A.
Click to expand...

The same is true for the kook-fringe right, actually...it's just a different batch of constitutional rights they violate.
 
Quote:
Unfortunately the kook-fringe left is more interested in advancing their social agenda, than they are about constitutional rights- particularly 2A.

The same is true for the kook-fringe right, actually...it's just a different batch of constitutional rights they violate.
Click to expand...

Try reading it again, Marko. As usual you are blurring the subject matter to gain an audience for your 'world view' of how us poor dumb Americans ought to run our country.

I was under the impression we were talking about gun control. If we're talking about which 'brand of kooks' are more likely to support antigun politicians, that's a no-brainer. If we're talking wbout why- I just offered my opinion.

I don't really expect everyone here to see it my way, or intend to harangue anyone into changing their mind. It is possible to hold an opinion without trying to guilt-trip the rest of the country into seeing it your way. The rest of the country will figure it out, make a good or bad decision, and vote in exactly the government they deserve. What the rest of the world thinks, I couldn't give a sh_t less about.
 
Look at it this way- If a politician can not understand the second amendment, or thinks that it is invalid , he either:
1. Is too stupid to serve the public, or
2. Has an agenda.
Either way I won't vote for him.
Click to expand...

Funny, I feel the same way about the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth, and fourteenth...along with others, of course, but it seems like many/most pro-second politicians are shaky at best on one or more of those specific ones.

At which point I have to try and make a tough decision based on more than a knee-jerk reaction to a single issue.

Try reading it again, Marko. As usual you are blurring the subject matter to gain an audience for your 'world view' of how us poor dumb Americans ought to run our country
Click to expand...

Yeah, no. It doesn't take a foreigner to realize that both ends of the political spectrum tend to crap on our rights and the Constitution in different ways.

I was under the impression we were talking about gun control. If we're talking about which 'brand of kooks' are more likely to support antigun politicians, that's a no-brainer. If we're talking wbout why- I just offered my opinion.
Click to expand...

Actually, this might be the issue. We aren't just talking about gun control. We're talking about why firearms enthusiasts might vote for a political party that generally favors gun control, which will by necessity require talking about issues beyond gun control.
 
"Don you have to remember that a Democrat in California is not the same thing as a Democrat in the Southeast. Even the most "liberal" politician down here knows it would be political suicide to mess with RKBA. I think both parties are full of it and you should vote for whoever agrees with your interests. It is sad to note that in so many elections I feel like I am choosing the lesser of two evils instead of someone I really support."

Check out Bill Nelson's (Senate Democrat Florida) record. He's as far southeast as you can get and he only thinks there's a right to keep and bear guns for hunting.
 
The Real Question!

Is there really any difference between most republicans and democrats today? It seems like having to decide a beauty contest between Rosie and a warthog. :D
 
Look at it this way- If a politician can not understand the second amendment, or thinks that it is invalid , he either:
1. Is too stupid to serve the public, or
2. Has an agenda.
Either way I won't vote for him.
Click to expand...
Agreed! :D But I feel the same way about the rest of the amendments...and evolution. :p
 
Marko Kloos said:
The same is true for the kook-fringe right, actually...it's just a different batch of constitutional rights they violate.
Click to expand...

Feel free to tell us which "rights" you think those would be. Keep in mind, abortion is NOT a right, it's a flawed SCOTUS decision; bad case law in short, nor is giving homosexuals special rights beyond those of others.

Sorry, no. The left seeks to marginalize and divide based on race and gender under the guise of concern for rights that either don't exist or they don't understand. As such, while I'd LIKE to be able to vote for the individual I can never allow myself to help the party of corruption, social engineering and wealth redistribution further its offensive goals by adding to their numbers.
 
Well, so far, we haven’t seen one post from a Democrat telling us why he/she votes for the Democrat candidates. (We’ve seen some interesting comments though.)

IMO, “Second Amendment” hit it on the head:
“As such, while I'd LIKE to be able to vote for the individual I can never allow myself to help the party …… further its offensive goals by adding to their numbers.”
Click to expand...

I have held my nose on several occasions and voted for people I really didn’t like but they didn’t have a “D” after their name on the ballot. In his book If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It, (http://www.amazon.com/Its-Close-They-Cant-Cheat/dp/0785263195) Hugh Hewitt explains why voting “the candidate” or for third parties doesn’t help us reach our goal (at least for some of us) of getting into power the party that will best further our goals. For gun owners, that, like it or not, is the Republican party.

How many of us liked having Bill Clinton in office? Was he our friend? :mad: Remember a gentleman named H. Ross Perot? How many votes did he drain away from the Republican party? While I’m at it, how many voters stay home and just don’t vote because they don’t like who’s running? Those votes cost us; they could have been cast for Republicans, the party that is considered to be much more pro-gun than the Democrats have shown themselves to be. (I like it when the other people don't bother to vote :D )

If you like the Democrats and really don’t think they’re after our guns then say so!
 
Feel free to tell us which "rights" you think those would be.
Click to expand...

How about all the Constitutionally enumerated rights that have taken it in the pants under Republican stewardship since 2001? Like the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, among others?

Ah, but that's OK. They're not really violating any rights by wiping their butts with those amendments, because we're at war, and because the guy in charge has a (R) after his name.

If you don't defend the entire Bill of Rights, you don't deserve to keep your rights under any of the Amendments.

Keep in mind, abortion is NOT a right, it's a flawed SCOTUS decision; bad case law in short, nor is giving homosexuals special rights beyond those of others.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about abortion or homosexual rights, but since you mention it, I feel compelled to point out the flaw in your particular perspective.

Whether those things are rights or not is immaterial. Not having them listed in the BoR or the Constitution does not mean that "they're not rights". The BoR and the Constitution are limitations on government, not the citizenry. It's not a list of things allowed to me, it's a list of things allowed to government...and in the case of the BoR, a list of things definitely NOT allowed to government.
Click to expand...
 
Marko is exactly right, the BOR is a short list of rights inherent to man. Government does not confer these rights, it can only repress them.

As for not voting for third party candidates to avoid diluting the main parties, how do you expect the third parties to gain credibility? Remember, the Republican Party was a minor group until Abe Lincoln won the election.

If you identify with the Libertarian Party candidate, then register Libertarian and support your party with money, and your vote. How else can we change things? I fell that both R and D are bankrupt organisations whose only interest is in gaining power. Over us. I am disgusted with the polarization of viewpoints that prevent any real change taking place. I am going to vote for Ron Paul because I think he has the most balanced viewpoint of all the candidates. I hope that millions of others take the same view and vote accordingly. We may not win this election, but we will become stronger, and there will be other elections.

Only by voting our conscience, can we do away with the system that keeps Hilary,Boxer, Bush etc. in power. Have faith that your viewpoint is correct and vote accordingly.
 
It's not always true to say:
Republicans = gun rights (Giuliani, R-NY, gun-hater)
Democrats = no gun rights (Tester D-MT, gun-toter)

It's not always false to say:
Republicans = anti-Constitution neo-fascists
Democrats = foreigner-kowtowing PC neo-socialists
 
Don;

I'm not a single issue voter, I vote for the candidate. I'm a Libertarian so I vote R or D most of the time. L is generally a "Horse that won't run".

At the local level (State and below) I vote D quite often. On the National level I have generally voted R and probably will do so in 2008. I did vote for Harry Reid and would do so again unless we can field a good Republican.
 
I'll try to answer the original question...

Because it's a good one. I have a pretty solid Democratic voting record. Mostly because the Republican party in Southern California hasn't put forward many candidates I can support. The Republican party apparatus in my area is controlled by a group of Evangelical "Christian Nation" theocrats whose stated policy goals are antithetical to my view of democracy, as well as to my personal interests as a non-Christian. So I can't in good conscience (yes, atheists have those, despite what you've heard) vote for the candidates they run in elections I can vote in.

If a socially moderate Republican were running against a Democrat I didn't like, they'd probably get my vote. It hasn't happened yet, and I don't think it's likely, given where I live.

There really isn't a party that fully aligns with my social-libertarian / economic non-socialist liberal capitalist views, so I have to go with what I've got. For the most part, that's led me to vote Democratic, and to try to change the policies of my party on things I don't agree with (mostly guns, but some others as well... I'm no pacifist for example, even though I think invading Iraq was the dumbest foreign policy decision this country has ever made). There are Democratic politicians I cannot vote for, like Dianne Feinstein. I've never checked a box for her, even though the candidates the Republicans run against her are, to my way of thinking, even worse. I've voted third-party in those elections, or left that race blank.

And, in the big gun-rights picture, the Democratic party is really where the fight is now. The Republicans are about as pro-gun as they're going to be, and there are about as many Republicans as there are going to be, so that well is dry. If I and people like me can finish the work we've begun, which won't happen until the rabidly anti-gun old guard have retired, gun rights will be secured for a long time to come. If you value our gun rights more than party advantage, you'll help, or at least give us your quiet support. Even if you're a die-hard Republican, as many here are, a Democratic party that supported gun rights would be to your advantage, at least on that issue. We're out here trying to make that happen. Don't throw us under the train merely to preserve an electoral advantage. Because if you do, and we fail, and that advantage isn't enough to restore Republicans to power and keep them there, you'll end up losing what you hope to preserve.

--Shannon
 
Now we're getting somewhere!

tube_ee (or not tube_ee?): great response. Well reasoned and expounded
Wild Horse: you answered part of the question quite well but I'm curious as to why you vote for a Democrat who has such an critical part in our legislative process (at the Federal level); I can understand at the local/state level.
jakeswensonmt: I agree and said so early on. Remember, this is a broad generalization and both parties are going to have their RINO and DINO members. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top