Why do gun owners vote for anti gun candidates?

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?
Click to expand...

I'd say other Constitutional issues are "equally important." At which point it's generally a coin-flip, or non-constitutional issues, that win out. Or, in some cases, the pro-gun candidate is wrong on multiple other Constitutional issues...at which point yes, that tips the scales for me.

I guess I take issue with your implied statement that gun issues should be more important than any other issue, and possibly even every other issue combined. But yeah, I suppose if you're looking to make your statement in the most negative and inflammatory way possible, it's accurate.

If a politician's platform includes the eating of babies, that's probably a more important issue to me than the possibility that he might vote for an AWB.
 
The premise of the original posters question can be a little arbitrary. One persons "anti gun" candidate may not be "anti gun" in another person's view.

For example, Russ Feingold is my senator. I think he got a D from the NRA, but I have no qualms voting for him, fully confident that he is not anti-2A, and also more supportive of the rest of the constitution than most politicians. (I don't buy into the "money equals free speech" argument against McCain-Feingold).

Single-issue voting is like buying a car knowing nothing about it beforehand except that it is the color I want. All issues should be weighed and considered.
 
The thing is, if the gun owners of today lived up to the ideals of the Founders of this country, then we wouldn't care who was elected to any office. We'd simply say: "Go ahead and pass all the gun laws you want, and then try to enforce them. We dare you."
 
The thing is, if the gun owners of today lived up to the ideals of the Founders of this country, then we wouldn't care who was elected to any office.
Click to expand...

Cool, I could own slaves and treat my wife as a chattel..wait she is SWMBO, she would kill me. I like this 1776 stuff, although I look like crap in breeches.

WildcallmefranklinwashingtonjrAlaska TM
 
Why is it so much of a stretch to demand the good qualities of past society in addition to what we enjoy today? Must we choose between beer and buffalo wings rather than have both together? Must we burn the chicken after getting the marinade and seasonings right after having it perfectly cooked but painfully bland?
 
I have eaten the Anchor Bar in Buffalo, that invented the Buffalo Wing and thus am a political expert.

I also opine that WildAlaska wears a powder wig to this day!

If gun owners are willing to use guns to defend rights other than the RKBA, that is rarely expressed by those stating that the 2nd Amend. is most important.

So what other violations of liberty are important for one of those endless "Will you fight" threads? Is it only when someone wants to take away your hi-caps?

That's really the litmus test.
 
That's a really interesting question. I guess the scenarios where I would fight would be those which I think the threat is directly to my life or my family and livlihood or someone else's or actions which immenently threaten them. I think the best standard you could put forth would be exactly that in which you would use against criminals--both are meeting lethal or close to it threats with lethal force. The ethical standard is very, very high and the implications very, very serious. I guess another possible question is effectiveness. Would it work?
 
There are a number of issues that are important to me besides RKBA - spending restraint, dealing with illegal aliens, tax policy, etc.

But I find that a candidate's stance on RKBA is a fairly reliable "litmus test" as to whether or not he is going to have the right stance on other issues. There certainly can be exceptions, but it's exceedingly rare that an "anti" politician will support my views on other issues.
 
But I find that a candidate's stance on RKBA is a fairly reliable "litmus test" as to whether or not he is going to have the right stance on other issues. There certainly can be exceptions, but it's exceedingly rare that an "anti" politician will support my views on other issues.
Click to expand...

This is a fair litmus test. For you.

Now, is there some reason you'd assume that all pro-gun voters agree with you on those other issues and more?
 
Why is it so much of a stretch to demand the good qualities of past society in addition to what we enjoy today? Must we choose between beer and buffalo wings rather than have both together? Must we burn the chicken after getting the marinade and seasonings right after having it perfectly cooked but painfully bland?
Click to expand...
The problem comes from people not being able to agree which qualities were good and which were bad.

Some folks believe it was better when we could all smoke whatever we wanted.

Some folks believe it was better when marriage licenses could be used to keep certain people from marrying each other.

Some folks believe it was better when our country didn't start wars in other countries.

Some folks believe it was better when the best way to fight the commies was through putting the word "god" all over the place.
 
Juan wrote in part:

"If a politician's platform includes the eating of babies, that's probably a more important issue to me than the possibility that he might vote for an AWB."

Well, if you vote for Hillary Clinton you'll be getting someone who is for partial birth abortions and anti-gun all in one fell swoop!;)

So, I'm still mystified somewhat by why a pro-gun voter (like you for instance) would ever vote for a Democrat. Most Democrats are for the prohibition of private firearms ownership and partial birth abortions. Something alot of people would feel is akin to "eating babies" in the real world.

So, like I said in my original post, pro-gun voters who vote for Democrats probably don't feel the 2nd Amendment is as important as other issues.

I'll admit there are exceptions but those exceptions (relative to Democratic candidates) are far and few between IMHO.
 
While partial-birth abortions wouldn't be my issue of choice, I'll play. There is absolutely no reason why a pro-gun voter can't also be strongly in favor of partial-birth abortions. There is nothing magical about gun ownership or believing in the right to keep and bear arms that guarantees one will be against partial-birth abortion. So given a Democrat that is against gun rights but for partial-birth abortion, and given a Republican that is the opposite, either decision is valid.

Also, I don't believe "most" Democrats are for the prohibition of private firearms ownership. Most are more than willing to place limits on it, but it would take some convincing for me to believe that a majority of Democratic candidates actually favor an outright ban. But whatever.

But anyway, like I said partial birth abortions wouldn't be my issue of choice. I can think of others that I think have more clear Constitutional implications where Democrats tend to fall on what I see as the "right" the right side, and Republicans on the wrong one.
 
That's fine Juan. You feel there are more important issues than the 2nd Amendment. That's what I said in my original post.

So, like I said, pro-gun voters who vote for Democrats probably don't feel the 2nd Amendment is as important as other issues.

Btw Juan, you brought up the "eating babies" example and I thought it was ironic that, in the real world, there are some people who feel it is ok to abort a baby who, let's say, has been in the womb for 8.5 months. Kind of barbaric to me. It was something I would never have thought of had you not brought up that sarcastic example.

It is kind of interesting that someone like Hillary Clinton won't allow me to have a firearm for self-defense or to guard against tyranny, but she'll allow my wife to abort a baby who has been in the womb for 8.5 months.

Those are two of the core values of the Democratic Party that turn me off big time.
 
That's fine Juan. You feel there are more important issues than the 2nd Amendment. That's what I said in my original post.

So, like I said, pro-gun voters who vote for Democrats probably don't feel the 2nd Amendment is as important as other issues.
Click to expand...

See, and as a pro-gun voter who often votes Democratic, I'd not say there is a single issue to me more important to me than the second amendment. But most other Constitutional issue are equally important to me; that's why the Constitution is more than twenty-seven words long.

The implication you're making here, whether intentional or not, is that gun rights aren't as important to me (or other pro-gun Democratic voters) as they are to you. You have no way of knowing this, since it would seem you may be in agreement with pro-gun candidates on most other issues; you've never actually been faced with the same choice we're faced with.

So no, I'd not say that other issues are more important. I'd say other issues are equally important. Bit of a difference in connotation there.
 
The 2nd Amendment clearly isn't as important to someone who votes for an anti-gun Democrat as it is to me. I put the 2nd Amendment as the number one issue. Simplistic I admit but's that how I feel.

I do admit that other issues can be important, and if a candidate was WAY out in leftfield on something important I'd probably overlook his 2nd Amendment stance. It would have to be WAY OUT in leftfield though!:)
 
They clearly aren't as important to someone who votes for an anti-gun Democrat as they are to me. I put the 2nd Amendment as the number one issue. Simplistic I admit but's that how I feel.
Click to expand...

Hey wow, I put it as my number one issue as well. A candidate has to be "wrong" (to me) on a host of other issues before I'll consider voting against the more pro-gun candidate.

Unfortunately, the Republican party has actually embedded a few of those issues into their official platform, and most candidates pick the rest up as well. Or, put another way, nearly every Republican candidate is "way out in leftfield" to me.

Like I said, you can sit back and talk about how it's your number one issue, or as others have put it how it's a "litmus test" for everything else they believe in. But that's only because you have it easy...you generally agree with the pro-gun candidate (assumed in most cases to be the Republican) on other issues as well so you've never had to make the choice.

Or, in other words, the reason you can't understand why I vote the way I do is because I most likely disagree with you on every other major political issue. Since you brought it up, I don't even particularly agree with a federal ban on partial-birth abortions...though it's not really a huge election issue for me.

Basically, you sound like either a one-issue voter or somebody who subscribes to the Republican platform pretty much in its entirety. If it's the former...well, I'll abstain from comment. If it's the latter, bully for you. But really, don't look down your nose at people that actually have to make choices; you have no idea what it's like to walk in their political shoes.
 
Also, I don't believe "most" Democrats are for the prohibition of private firearms ownership. Most are more than willing to place limits on it, but it would take some convincing for me to believe that a majority of Democratic candidates actually favor an outright ban. But whatever.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily favor, but they sure as heck wouldn't oppose it if it cost them anything. They wouldn't defend the 2nd Amendment if it wasn't politically convenient and/or meant striking down their own party to do it. By their inaction to prevent it they're just as guilty if they were for it. Sadly for the majority both parties it's power #1, party #2, and us the people a distant #3, and that's on a good day. Not a stinkin one of them would trade their seat for doing the right thing, no, not one of them. Keeping their job and doing their job are two different things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top