Why do gun owners vote for anti gun candidates?

C

Corn dodger

New member
I have a question. Why is it, that so many gun owners vote for anti gun candidates? I would think that most folks on this forum own and shoot firearms. Yet I think that there are some that would vote for Hillary and other Dems that support gun control. I know a guy that is a big time shooter and collector of firearms. He supports the 2nd amendment fully, yet will vote for the most rabid anti gun Dems that run. Of course, there are a few anti gun Republicans as well. But why would anyone that loves guns support these politicians that would slowly chip away at gun rights until they are gone. WHY?
 
I don't know who I will vote for yet. But, I do know that gun control is one issue in a pool of many.

There is the Extremist Muslim issue. We are not safe, and I believe we will be hit by another attack or series thereof in the not-too-distant future.

There is the health insurance system. People want government-provided healthcare. We have seen how the govt. has HACKED the education system. I don't know why people thing Government running our insurance and healthcare would be a good idea.

There is the gun control issue.

There is the fallout of social security funding issues which will only snowball as time continues.

Illegal immigration. HOOORIBLE issue that our political leaders refuse to address and take action on, which adds to the issues listed above.

I believe Hillary is a very smart and very tactical cantidate. I think she is smarter than the rest of the folks running. But, I don't agree with most of her opinions, so I don't think I could vote for her. I don't know who I am left with. I believe Guliani is playing his 9/11 card. Just because he became popular from the fallout of that does not make him the right cantidate. He did clean up NYC pretty well, but stripped law-abiding citizens from their rights, and I believe that is wrong. Obama...pfft...not electing a Muslim in today's world. Sorry. I don't believe he is bad or believes as the extremists do. But, I don't believe he would be the strength against the extremists that we need. Call me a racist or religionist...but I am not. I have muslim friends. I just don't believe our country should have a Muslim for a leader during the situation we are in right now.

There are others, but I don't know how they will fair in the primaries, we shall see.

If I could have a wish, I would wish for a duo presidency between 2 people of opposite parties.
 
Corn dodger said:
I have a question. Why is it, that so many gun owners vote for anti gun candidates? I would think that most folks on this forum own and shoot firearms. Yet I think that there are some that would vote for Hillary and other Dems that support gun control. I know a guy that is a big time shooter and collector of firearms. He supports the 2nd amendment fully, yet will vote for the most rabid anti gun Dems that run. Of course, there are a few anti gun Republicans as well. But why would anyone that loves guns support these politicians that would slowly chip away at gun rights until they are gone. WHY?
Click to expand...

Gun owners are human beings, they will vote for what they percieve to be the best thing overall. Many fail to realize that both parties have said and done things that should have raised the warning flag. Also, while many people believe in national and social responsibility, how they believe it is best carried out differs. an important note; it is not that one loves guns, but the liberty that guns allow to exist that should be focused on. That is the intent of The Second Amendment in my opinion, you lose the armed population, you will lose freedom in pretty short order.
 
Maybe some people aren't willing to trade all the other rights in the BoR for their gun rights.

The Second Amendment is supposed to safeguard the Bill of Rights, not replace it. With the respect a lot of gun candidates show all the other amendments, I'm not surprised to see many gun owners reconsider the "who else are you gun nuts going to vote for?" automatic Republican vote.
 
But the second is the one that allows all the rest to be regained if they're taken away. It's the "break glass in case of tyranny" one.

When it was written, it was the Brown Bess over the mantle that could be taken down and used if needed. Today it's the AR or AK in the safe or closet, same intent, same purpose. If all else fails, if people have those, they can take the rest back.
 
If you're standing by idly while the rest are taken away, then you won't use your guns to regain them when they're all gone. Tyranny is not a guy in a funny hat suddenly declaring himself President For Life, it's the creeping usurpation and negation of our rights by power-hungry guys on both sides of the aisle, and the disgusting part is that too many gun owners are condoning and applauding it.

Like one of our members' sigline says: "I'm pro-rights...on gun issues."

Forgive me if I have less confidence in the constitutional fidelity of fellow gun owners who understand their right to a gun to be sacrosanct, but who have no problem seeing the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments incinerated in order to fight Wars on Nouns. But hey, if you're not a druggie or a terrorist, you have nothing to fear.
 
Because some of those pro-gun candidates stand against everything else we (and by "we" I mean those of us that don't vote on people solely based on their RKBA stance) believe in.

I voted for a Democrat as my Representative despite the fact that got a C from the GOA/JPFO over the A+ Republican because this guy has ridiculous beliefs that I can't support.
 
But the second is the one that allows all the rest to be regained if they're taken away. It's the "break glass in case of tyranny" one.
Click to expand...
It's also the only one that specifically refers to a tangible object. I've mentioned this before but I can hide my guns. I can't hide my freedom of speech.
 
If your willing to "hide your guns" in order to protect your freedom of speech, don't worry. The government will hide that freedom for you.

Now we have "hate crimes." Which means if you commit a certain crime against someone it will carry a penalty. If the same crime is committed against a certain minority, that crime carries a much more harsh penalty. In Europe, they have hate speech. The government will decide what speech is deemed "hateful" and then arrest you for a violation. I predict that same attitude will come to America.

If you have reached a place in your life where you are willing to give up your gun rights. You have already reached a point where you will get down on your knees and reluctantly give up all your rights....one at a time.

A Republican does not have to vote for Rudy (pro gun control) anymore than a Democrat has to vote for Hillary or Obama. (pro gun control) Sometimes the choices are hard, I know. And yes, you can live without freedom, like a dog chained to a tree, but why? If freedom is something we cherish, we had all better start acting like it....rapidly
 
If your willing to "hide your guns" in order to protect your freedom of speech, don't worry. The government will hide that freedom for you.
Click to expand...
Huh? :confused:

Now we have "hate crimes." Which means if you commit a certain crime against someone it will carry a penalty. If the same crime is committed against a certain minority, that crime carries a much more harsh penalty. In Europe, they have hate speech. The government will decide what speech is deemed "hateful" and then arrest you for a violation. I predict that same attitude will come to America.
Click to expand...
Which is why I also won't vote for candidates that support that. But then there are candidates that are all for having guns in every home but want to restrict dirty words on the radio and naughty shows on TV because it's obscene and offends jesus. Won't anyone think of the children and the jesuses?

If you have reached a place in your life where you are willing to give up your gun rights. You have already reached a point where you will get down on your knees and reluctantly give up all your rights....one at a time.
Click to expand...
I did not say I'm willing to give them up. I said I'm not willing to give up my other rights just to keep the RKBA.

However if the choice is between a candidate that supports the status quo on guns versus a candidate that's in full support of unrestricted ownership but supports suspending habeas corpus for "enemy combatants" or restricting "anti-american" speech or controlling what chemicals I can put into my body or saying who I can and cannot marry, I'm not going to place my guns above all those other freedoms.

The point is that regardless of what laws are written I'm not giving up my guns. I don't care if I have to break a thousand firearms regulations to keep my 1911, it's not leaving my possession.

A Republican does not have to vote for Rudy (pro gun control) anymore than a Democrat has to vote for Hillary or Obama. (pro gun control) Sometimes the choices are hard, I know. And yes, you can live without freedom, like a dog chained to a tree, but why? If freedom is something we cherish, we had all better start acting like it....rapidly
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Forgive me if I have less confidence in the constitutional fidelity of fellow gun owners who understand their right to a gun to be sacrosanct, but who have no problem seeing the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments incinerated in order to fight Wars on Nouns. But hey, if you're not a druggie or a terrorist, you have nothing to fear.
Click to expand...
Hallelujah and amen!
 
I don't see anybody on either side who I would vote for yet. There are a lot of issues on the plate with gun control:

Iraq
Illegal immigration
Health care and prescription drugs
Due process, warrant less searches and wiretaps, erosion of privacy, etc.
etc.

We have a Democratic Congress in place and out 2A rights havent dissapeared overnight. pro gun forces have won some votes for common sense in Congress.

Who ever the next President might be I dont think gun control is going to be the focal point of that person.
 
In some instances it may be only antis running, like in MA or CA. If for some God forsaken reason Guiliani or Romney get the (R) nomination, then the presidential race will be a choice between Bloodsucking Anti (R) and Bloodsucking Anti (D). What choice is that?
 
In some instances it may be only antis running, like in MA or CA. If for some God forsaken reason Guiliani or Romney get the (R) nomination, then the presidential race will be a choice between Bloodsucking Anti (R) and Bloodsucking Anti (D). What choice is that?
Click to expand...
Same choice we always get; Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich.
 
Maybe they are not one issue voters.
Click to expand...

I suppose this is possible. ;)

If you're standing by idly while the rest are taken away, then you won't use your guns to regain them when they're all gone.

...

Like one of our members' sigline says: "I'm pro-rights...on gun issues."
Click to expand...

This too. I've come to the conclusion that the second amendment does not magically protect the rest of the bill of rights (or any other freedoms). It does so only if gunowners choose to protect those freedoms. I've not been impressed. But MK put it better:

Forgive me if I have less confidence in the constitutional fidelity of fellow gun owners who understand their right to a gun to be sacrosanct, but who have no problem seeing the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments incinerated in order to fight Wars on Nouns. But hey, if you're not a druggie or a terrorist, you have nothing to fear.
Click to expand...

Unless you're up for running yourself, any election comes down to a choice. The earlier you get involved, the more chance you have to influence the choices offered, but eventually you have to choose. I've found that unless to you freedom really does simply mean the right to keep and bear arms, in many elections either (or any, if you have a third party/independent candidate that isn't stark raving crackers) choice is perfectly valid.

EDIT: Also, "Wars on Nouns." I'll have to remember that. Surprised I haven't heard it before, or that I forgot it if I did.
 
^ Won't matter if he's already been whisked off to Uzbekistan for a little "intensive" questioning at the behest of the government. Though at least he'll be safe from muggers, I suppose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top