Why do gun owners vote for anti gun candidates?

This is a tough one. Although most of us support gun rights, we also have other concerns about other rights and which side of the fence we sit. That is all well and good, as all of us think a bit differently than the next. Yet I think that gun control really comes down to people control. The gun grabbers think that if you control the gun....you control the bad guy. All other factors are overlooked or disregarded. Silly things that keep getting in the way like self defense, the 2nd amendment, other implements like knives, crow bars, etc. and the fact that the authorities cannot control inmates that are locked inside prisons from committing murder, rape, robbery and other crimes.

The simple truth is that the Democrats are the head of the spear when it comes to gun control. If your on this site and your a Democrat you know that I am right. (I'm gonna get called an egg sucker for this) And I'm not saying throw the whole dang party out the widow either. A lot of you are right about the stupid things the Republicans have been doing as well. Someone else pointed out that we get so wrapped up in our gun rights, we forget what is happening to other rights,such as the 1st, 5th and 14th amendments and more.

Common sense goes a long way. One person said, and he hated to admit it, but that there are other things more important than gun rights. WHAT WOULD THAT BE? If gun rights equal freedom. If the right of free speech, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness equates to freedom, then what other issues are more important?

So if you don't want to be a single issue voter, then which freedom would you be willing to give up first? In the name of being "well rounded." A person can be a Democrat without voting for a gun grabber. (although I know it's a tall hill to climb) We don't have to vote for any Republican we don't like either.

I am not suggesting that anyone vote for a Democrat or Republican. But why do we have to "compromise" on the right to keep and bear arms or any of our freedoms guaranteed us in the Constitution?
 
Guns are a great litmus test on how someone thinks about liberty
Click to expand...

So too are the issues of abortion and the death penalty.

As in so many other places where there are elections, people often vote based on a very narrow spectrum of considerations. There are many single issue voters out there. There are also racist voters, those who vote based on the looks of the people running, etc. As a black friend of mine said who lived down in southern Louisiana, he would have voted for David Duke had David Duke promised to fix the roads. My friend had a large client base down there and drove across south LA and positively hated the roads.
 
Guns are a great litmus test on how someone thinks about liberty
__________________
Click to expand...

No, they aren't. All you can say with certainty about a 2A supporter is that they like guns. There are a ton of candidates (and people in general--just read L&P from the last five years) that fully support my right to own a gun, but who also fully support the State's right to nanny me around in just about every other aspect of my life.
 
Marko said it. I would add that a subset of gun rights crowd is quite happy with the extreme violation of other liberties.

Also, gun rights positions does not excuse the staggering incompetence we see in some progun candidates.
 
An interesting view of this argument.

http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html
Click to expand...

Well, if you go by L.Neil Smith's standard, there's not a single politician on the national level who passes it, with the possible exception of Ron Paul.

None of them support the right of anyone to go into a gun store or hardware store and walk out with any kind of firearm they desire, with no age restrictions, no background checks, and no limit on the capabilities of the weapon.

In that respect, he's correct: if the RKBA is a litmus test, then there's no politician alive who supports an unrestricted right to own weapons, so there's no politician who trusts their constituents, period.
 
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...

I'm glad the statistics support gun owners/carriers, but I see danger in relying on pragmatic arguments. If NYC and DC turned into gun-free gardens of Eden, I'd still support the RKBA based on priciple. As soon as you tie the extension of a right to the consequences of having that right, it really becomes just a privilege.

Is she a member of the Socialist Party?
Who was the last Socialist elected to a major office??
Click to expand...

To end any possible confusion: yes the Democratic party was being derisively referred to as the Socialist Party.:D

There are indeed some good Democrats. But, when painting with a broad brush, Socialist Party works. I'll put the burden on others to prove otherwise. A cursory look at the the Democratic platform and the definition of socialism told me everything I needed. Don't worry, I throw spears at the (hijacked) Republican party, too.
 
Last edited:
A lot dont go by just gun control. A lot go by otehr issues....

Myself... Gun control is the only thing they actually do as they say :rolleyes:
 
There are no degress of Liberty in the Bill of Rights
"Congress shall make no law" , "shall not be infringed" etc

shows you how far this country is a drift......."for safety"....."for common sense compromise"

I think Neil Smith is right
 
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...

Funny NYCs crime rate is lower than Miami's :)

My problem with many "pro gun" candidates is that they want gun rights whilst poking in folks bedrooms and wombs among other places. Their idea of freedom is pandering to social troglodytes.

Then you get the pro gun candidates who are clueless about things like foreign policy.

WildandsoonAlaska TM
 
As was said earlier, maybe they aren't single issue voters. Although not as formal as it sounds here, I essentially score a candidate based on his record and responses to various issues. The War is one, border security is another, the Second amendment is another. Abortion is of somewhat less importance, but still a consideration, and so on, I have a lot of issues, and all of them have some level of importance. Since few people have a binary view of any issue, having a binary view of a candidate is seldom helpful.

For most issues, a candidate that disagrees with me sufficiently on even a single issue will be stricken from consideration, unless the opposition is significantly worse, then I'll generally vote to keep the worst one out.

It all depends on the candidate, and the office they are going for. People seem to forget that the president isn't the only office with any power. It is an important office, but ultimately most other offices have more effect on your life. The constitution was DESIGNED to make the local elections more important than the national ones. Somehow we've gotten to really only care about the presidential elections in the past few decades, and it has seriously damaged our country.

In fact, with as far as the President goes, his stance on the Second Amendment is fairly far down on my priority list. Why? Because the president has little authority when it comes to something like gun control. That is the purview of Congress. A president that is bad on the Second Amendment, but acceptable on national defense is more acceptable than one good on the Second Amendment, but bad on national defense. Conversely, a senator has little authority for foreign policy, but much more on domestic policy, so his stance on the Second Amendment would figure much higher.

To cite a more concrete example. Ron Paul is, in my opinion* not a bad senator, but would be a suicidal choice as a president. He is nearly 100% right on domestic policy, and nearly 100% wrong on foreign policy. Unfortunately, a president's main authority is foreign policy, while congress controls domestic. If he were running for the senate in my state, I could vote for him, even in a primary. He would just about have to be running against Hillary for me to vote for him for president, and I wouldn't consider voting for him if ANYONE better came along with even an outside chance of victory.

See the difference? As a Senator, the views I don't like are in areas where he has less influence, while the views I do like have more. As a President, the views I do like are in areas that have less influence than the views I don't.

It is vital to weigh a candidates views, not only with yours, but the how those views will come into play with the authority and influence of that particular office, that particular office has no authority in an area in which you disagree with a candidate, than his views on those issues matter much less.

For example. I live in Idaho. I don't know or care what my Mayor's attitude about the Second Amendment is. Why? Because in Idaho, municipalities have ZERO authority to regulate guns in any way (of course in Idaho, attempting to do so would be political, and possibly literal, suicide), therefore his Second Amendment Stance is Irrelevant. Now I want him gone for other reasons, but that's another subject.


* I'm not really interested in debating the merits of Senator Paul's stances here, as it would be seriously offtopic. I only use him to illustrate a point. If you like him, you should probably vote for him.
 
Correct; because they are not single issue voters. They are not single issue voters because they don't fully realize, IMO, that without the 2A, all other rights and the very existence of our nation is at risk.
 
Unfortunately, as I said before, we have found many who say that about the 2nd Amend. are quite happy to curtail liberties as long as they have their guns.

It doesn't ring true.
 
Two of worst reason I have heard for voting for the anti gunner. These I really did hear.

1 Because he's cute. (Yes, she was a natural blonde)

2 because that is who my shop steward told me to vote for.
 
It is an important office, but ultimately most other offices have more effect on your life.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I think there is at least one subset of voters for whom the President can have a greater effect on their lives than other offices...soldiers.

But yes, I think the absence of focus on Congressional and local elections is often a bad thing. I'm hoping the midterms of 2006 might be the start of a reversal to this trend, but I doubt it.
 
I suppose it's fair to say that we shouldn't decrease our dogged assertion of 2A issues, but bring our assertion of other rights issues up to the level that we have with it. Do we cry foul as quickly or as fiercely upon encroachment of others? Do we do so for other people when the issue doesn't concern us? It seems like we need to be the good neighbors we expect others to be.
 
Probably because the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean as much to them as other issues.
Click to expand...

Or, more to the point, that other issues do mean as much as the second amendment. Just because you agree with the pro-2A candidate on those issues doesn't mean they suddenly aren't important to those that don't.

I suppose it's fair to say that we shouldn't decrease our dogged assertion of 2A issues, but bring our assertion of other rights issues up to the level that we have with it. Do we cry foul as quickly or as fiercely upon encroachment of others? Do we do so for other people when the issue doesn't concern us? It seems like we need to be the good neighbors we expect others to be.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Juan, something must be tipping the scales to vote for a Democrat if you also are pro-2nd Amendment. So, those other issues must be more important.

Maybe I didn't understand your statement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top