Why do gun owners vote for anti gun candidates?

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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that'll be more likely to happen than getting mugged, raped, or murdered here...:rolleyes:

I have more issues that I consider over the 2nd Amendment...but not many...
Most of the candidates that support my viewpoints usually already support the 2A to a great degree...
 
Yeah, that'll be more likely to happen than getting mugged, raped, or murdered here...
Click to expand...

Both are unlikely enough that I don't make my policy decisions based on them. I don't support gun rights because I'm afraid of muggers.
 
I don't support gun rights because I'm afraid of muggers.
Click to expand...

Really? I do. I support gun rights because I have the right of defending my life/well being. I support gun rights to protect myself and fellow citizens that are unable from tyranny of the government. Some candidates, IMNSHO, mow down the very basic rights individuals have...

What say you? I do ask in earnest even though I admit that I broke my own promise not to engage in conversation with you...
 
The gun owners I know that vote for socialists do so largely because their union tells them to. Not to flame union members, but this is the influence I've seen.

Also, there was a point about one issue voters. I don't buy this line of argumentation. The 2A is a critical litmus test of a candidate from any party. If they won't allow for power to rest in the hands of law abiding citizens and not government, then they do not deserve my trust or support.

Unfortunately, most of the time we are left with a choice between two evils. Electing a Socialist is never a choice I would be willing to make.
 
What say you? I do ask in earnest even though I admit that I broke my own promise not to engage in conversation with you...
Click to expand...

I support gun rights because I see guns as no more than a possession; useful for self-defense, common defense (including from our own government), hunting, and plain ol' recreation. I support gun rights because a loaded firearm sitting on my table (or in my holster) is nothing more than a chunk of metal, incapable of hurting anybody by itself. And I support gun rights because millions upon millions of people since their invention have managed to own and even use them responsibly without hurting anybody that didn't threaten them...or anybody at all.

I also support gun rights because as a realist I realize that, even assuming you could magically make every gun on the planet go away, people would just kill, rape, and rob using knives, baseball bats, chopsticks, those little corn-on-the-cob thingies, or broken beer bottles. So there's little point.

I don't support them because I'm afraid of criminals. Wanting to keep guns because you're afraid of criminals is only a few steps above wanting to ban them because you're afraid of criminals.

I'd like to think that even if murder and violent crime were nearly unheard of, and we had been at peace for a century, I'd probably still own guns. At that point you might ask why. Why not?

I will say that my reason for carrying a gun might be fear. But I support the right to choose to do so simply because I see no reason not to, and I generally favor individual rights. I support the right to carry even though I myself rarely bother to.

Also, what was that last? Some kind of thinly veiled attempt at a pre-emptive ad-hom attack?

Also, there was a point about one issue voters. I don't buy this line of argumentation. The 2A is a critical litmus test of a candidate from any party. If they won't allow for power to rest in the hands of law abiding citizens and not government, then they do not deserve my trust or support.
Click to expand...

See, I'd agree that the second amendment is a pretty good litmus test. Then again, I think the first is a pretty good one too. What do you do when each candidate fails one but passes the other?

Or do you have a rational explanation of why the second is a better litmus test? Because personally while I enjoy having the ability to vote from the rooftops, I'd much rather it not come to that.
 
Indeed, DNS, indeed.

See, a lot of people (including, based on what I can remember of his posting, the OP) who ask how a gun owner can vote for an anti-gun candidate also tend to agree with the pro-gun candidate on a majority of other issues (at least more so than the other guy). So of course it would make no sense to them how somebody could vote the other way; they'd never have voted for the other guy even if he was pro-gun.

It's not a matter of being single issue voters for them; it's a matter of them being multi-issue voters whose issues tend to line up primarily with the stereotypical pro-gun candidate.

Not that that's a bad thing; just don't act like it's a huge shocker when I don't want to vote for somebody whose only position I agree on is gun rights.
 
IMHO gunowners do themselves a disservice by playing the lesser of two evils game voting. Plus to many have this "you can take this type of gun any but please dont take mine" attitude.

Sometimes I wonder if the Gun lobby was so strong..one would think we would see the 1986 and 1968 laws gutted by now.......but now the standard seems to be that if there is no new gun laws....well then we really showed them didnt we.

(I dont concider the state issued CC permits as advancement) Vermont-style (one would think) would be the law of the land.
 
Because, as much as I hate to admit it, there are bigger issues than guns out there.

If the Republican on the ticket is a big ol' neoconservative that supports an indefinate series of "preventative" wars, I'm not going to vote for him.
 
Also, what was that last? Some kind of thinly veiled attempt at a pre-emptive ad-hom attack?
Click to expand...

A valid question that deserves an answer, but not on this thread. My apologies up front for leading. It was not an attempt to set up bait...
 
Hmm..

I haven't seen too many presidencies come and go in my short time but I think a major problem is only having a two party system.

As some of you pointed out, what does one do when one party is pro "x" freedom but is violating another "x"? It kind of seems that there really isn't a choice at all. To me, freedom is freedom. One shouldn't have to be content that a candidate is pro "x" freedom over "x" freedom, as there is no differentiation of freedom and a violation of one is the same as a violation of another.

That being the way it stands, I can't really say who is the best choice either.
 
I don't care what your party affiliation is but how can you tell me that outlawing guns will fix the problem. The logic escapes me given the examples of NY city and DC that doesn't permit hand guns there. Look at the violent crime rate, it doesn't work does it?
 
I don't care what your party affiliation is but how can you tell me that outlawing guns will fix the problem. The logic escapes me given the examples of NY city and DC that doesn't permit hand guns there. Look at the violent crime rate, it doesn't work does it?
Click to expand...

In fairness if handguns are legal and readily available twenty miles down the road you can't expect a localized ban to do much. The UK is a better example; nationwide ban, relatively geographically isolated, still had little to no effect on violent crime (and, as was suggested in another thread, may have had little effect on gun crime).

Basically DC an NY alone aren't great examples, yet even with better ones (taken as a whole or individually) there is little evidence that gun bans do much to reduce crime. But I think most of us agree on this, no? At least the premise of this thread is how somebody who is generally against gun control can stomach voting for somebody who's for it.
 
Yaryar

In fairness if handguns are legal and readily available twenty miles down the road you can't expect a localized ban to do much. The UK is a better example; nationwide ban, relatively geographically isolated, still had little to no effect on violent crime (and, as was suggested in another thread, may have had little effect on gun crime).
Click to expand...

Not to detract from the OP too much but the UK is similar in that most of the guns used there are more than likely from the former combloc countries where they are more easily obtained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top