Will "Pro Gun Liberals" stand up and vote in 2014 against Gun Control

[Karma]

Now you can add to the dems trying to scrap or second amendment with their recent assertions that they can pick off American citizens, on American soil with drones! I have no idea what i can even say to anyone who still supports this administration given that knowledge.

 

[8ball]

^ which is why the GOP is a failure as of right now. Ideally the GOP should be the party that should not care about legislating against such things. Instead they have been turned into the "Christian values" party. The GOP would win a lot more crossover votes if they would keep their platform about fiscal responsibility and personal freedoms. Unfortunately that's long out the window. A lot of their former voter base tried to push for the GOP to adopt the libertarian stance last election. They pushed back hard on that and nominated one of the biggest flops in the GOP's history other than maybe Palin.

Amen to this, Mancat. Where are the pro-liberty, pro-small government Republicans who don't want to shove their social issues down my throat?

 

[Bob D]

Amen to this, Mancat. Where are the pro-liberty, pro-small government Republicans who don't want to shove their social issues down my throat?

Ron Reagan sold the party to Billy Graham a long time ago and now they're in an upside-down mortgage they can't get out from under.

 

[Caveman Jim]

I will say to all, if a party towes the line on infringement of our rights, any of them, I hope you vote your concious & can sleep at night!!!
I know that a fair amount of members here helped re-elect a dictator so you will probably re-elect any Rep even if they try to infringe on the 2A.
God help us...

 

[Bob D]

Personally, I've never voted for a President who attempted to restrict any of my rights while in office.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I support this view. The problem is, and I know a lot of people who are in this group, that there are many people who have just as much ideological belief on other issues such as immigration, reproductive rights, marriage equality, social programs, etc. Who are those people to vote for? I can't bring myself to vote for any candidate who is trying to take firearms from citizens, but I also can't bring myself to vote for anyone who believes that the morning-after pill is morally wrong. Who am I to vote for? I also believe in a small government, which neither major party aligns with regardless of what they say, yet I believe that there are some families in our society that the government should step in to help. I believe that religious worship should be protected in our schools and public places, yet I also believe that we should be doing more to be better stewards of our planet. I have no candidate to vote for. I am neither liberal nor conservative, yet both sides treat me as an enemy rather than as a potential ally. I am the vote that the social values movement lost for the republican party, and I am the vote that the socialist values movement lost for the democratic party. Which values will I choose as most important? Or will I continue to choose neither? I'm not yet so worried about any issue that I am willing to vote with a party that vilifies me. I am the center. The party that meets me in the middle will win. The Republicans, sadly, are losing that battle at present. They do not have to continue to do so.

And now come the condemnations, attacks, and accusations. I am not your enemy.

I agree with you 100%. What we need is an independent candidate with a rational stance on most things, who doesn't have to pander to the whacko extremists who run both the Republicans and the Democrats. If Eisenhower were running again I'd vote for him, and I suspect 90% of America would too:

Ike:

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

This world of ours... must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center.

We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.

Dwight D. Eisenhower Quotes - BrainyQuote

 

[Misterbill]

I will say to all, if a party towes the line on infringement of our rights, any of them, I hope you vote your concious & can sleep at night!!!
I know that a fair amount of members here helped re-elect a dictator so you will probably re-elect any Rep even if they try to infringe on the 2A.
God help us...

Talk to some women on this. One party wants their guns, the other wants to control their wombs and reproductive rights, down to even in this last election, condemnation of BIRTH CONTROL.

Talk to gays, whom the GOP has been openly at war with for decades. One party wants their guns, the other wants them to make them second class citizens.

Talk to Hispanics who feel like the GOP is out to get them with good reason given the rhetoric, if not the policy.

All of these groups are in the position of choosing which party to vote for to preserve their rights. All of them are in the position of choosing which rights are more important. A lot of them vote "none of the above" by staying home or voting third party. A HELL of a lot of them don't own guns, so guess which rights they vote to preserve?

the GOP protects (better than the other guys, they aren't real advocates) my gun rights. I'm not a Woman, not Gay, not Hispanic and AM a gun owner. This makes me choose the GOP as the lesser of two evils. It's almost NEVER a case of voting for someone I care for except on the state level. It's on ONE issue.

As long as the GOP (often called the STUPID PARTY) insists on pretending that it's permanently 1980, that evangelicals are more than a small (and shrinking) fraction of the population, as long as it insists on staking out positions on abortion that are nothing short of RADICAL (an egg fertilized 5 minutes ago is morally equivalent to a newborn? Seriously?) As long as it does this, it's going to alienate the fastest growing demographics in this country.

The GOP has learned nothing from this last electoral defeat either. It's still doing the same stuff.

Only the Democrats' over-reach on guns and getting hammered over the economy is going to save us in 2014. If the GOP wants pro-gun liberals, they need to start offering something besides protecting one right, while stomping down on all the rest. Calling the GOP a party which gives a rip about personal rights and freedoms is Orwellian.

They just protect ONE right. The rest, not so much. Obama's assassination doctrine is bad. Pretending that McCain or Romney wouldn't be doing the same thing is denial of reality.

*I* am a single issue voter. Asking the rest of the country to be that way is silly. It's not going to happen. Drop all the social crap from the 1980s culture wars and get serious about fiscal policy. START acknowledging that "non-traditional" americans are, you know, AMERICANS, who are entitlesd to the same rights as the rest of us. THEN you'll get cross-over. Until then, you opnly get people like me, because I am a single-issue voter. and even *I* can't pull the lever for some Repubs, I just leave the section blank or vote Libertarian.

 

[Karma]

Don't forget that there is monetary gain promised and delivered by the democrats in power to those groups of people. How do you get people to vote against free money and easy living?

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
Ben Franklin

 

[Misterbill]

Really? All my gay friends, women friends and Hispanic friends are waiting for their check. Where is it?

You aren't making an argument, you're relaying Rush Limbaugh talking points. You just implied that all minorities only voted for Obama because they were "promised free money." (paraphrased). This kind of insulting and counter-factual nonsense is exactly the GOP's problem.

Rhetoric like this is doing more to cement Democrat support than anything Obama could hope to do. It's more extremist hyperbole from a group that's already dominated by its most extreme members.

Are you actually dim enough to think that getting more moderates (the vast majority of the country) to side with the GOP is made more likely by making insulting, BS comments like this?

 

[kumabear17]

Really? All my gay friends, women friends and Hispanic friends are waiting for their check. Where is it?
Are you actually dim enough to think that getting more moderates (the vast majority of the country) to side with the GOP is made more likely by making insulting, BS comments like this?

I sense anger on your part or at least a lot of frustration. I'll acknowledge the frustration. Look I think it is pretty well establish about 15% or so of the population are hard Right and 15% are hard Left. My estimate may be off, but that's not the point. The majority of us are in the middle somewhere. We vote with the Party we believe at the time will do the best to support our values and who won't impose values on us we can't accept. And alright there are some who just won't vote to show everyone how dissatisfied they are. Well for those of you who voted Democratic, how's it working out for you regarding guns? Don't go off on tangents about spending, Afghanistan, Iraq, gay marriage or anything else. Stick to the subject, gun ownership. Obama sold a bill of goods when he stated, "...we're not going to take your guns..." and that is exactly what he is trying to do and what the Democratic Party has been attempting for the last 50 years.

 

[Bob D]

Well for those of you who voted Democratic, how's it working out for you regarding guns?

I didn't vote for Obama, first. Second, so far, I have all the same guns and legal right to them that I've had since 2004.

 

[kumabear17]

I didn't vote for Obama, first. Second, so far, I have all the same guns and legal right to them that I've had since 2004.

Okay, okay. I get that point. Now about the frustration and anger issues. I'm glad you got started putting together your guns in 2004 and I'll stand with you regarding our legal right to keep them. I keep telling myself that after 50 years of picking up a firearm here and there I have all I need, but then I stop my the local gun store and see another. Now why would I have to have two Glock 21's, two 19's and on and on except that I have the right and as I tell my Wife, "...you can never have to many guns...".

I think my question is still valid. People were sold a bill of goods regarding gun ownership in the last election. The question is, how do we work with whatever group is available to form a coalition that supports gun ownership. We seem to keep clouding the discussion up with all these other social issues. If they are the priority, then gun ownership will be reprioritize somewhere else on the list used. I don't have a magic answer for anyone and I think discussion is good. For now at least I belong to GOA, NRA (the whole Family) and I vote Republican. The way I vote is not because I agree with everything they say or do, but I personally believe it's better then doing nothing and for me the Constitution - as I see it - and gun ownership the priority.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Wow, there sure is a lot of verbiage in most of these posts.
It seems to me it's a "yes or no" question.

Who (especially those registered Democrats) intends to vote for liberal/progressive candidates that support gun control, in 2014?
In most western Oregon/western Washington districts, that means incumbents.

Nobody said you had to vote "R" or even "L" if you don't vote for the liberal/progressive Dem.
The point is, will you ignore the RTKBA issue and vote Dem anyway?
YES or NO?

When the Democrats put the call for a renewed AWB in their 2012 national platform, and then won the election, they interpreted that as a mandate for greater gun control. When you voted them into office, you contributed to that interpretation, as they made it clear that was their intention.

So, will you reinforce that notion in 2014, since they've "put their cards on the table" so to speak?
Or make it plain that you will not support them if they persist in their gun grabbing efforts, and then follow through?

YES or NO?

 

[Bob D]

According to my 30 something and 20 something kids, (the daughter calls herself a "green conservative" ) they are working towards a viable third party and believe it is just around the corner.
I've tried to put it in a nut shell but I'm sure I've missed something. Nonetheless, the following is a gist of what they discuss.

They are advocates of less government, and are against the Nanny State.
They want to be left alone.
They believe in pure Capitalism.
They don't care if you're gay or straight, just quit asking for preferential treatment.
If you want an abortion or believe in the practice, it's your choice, though they themselves would not consider it an option under most circumstances. They do not however, want their tax monies used to pay for them.
They are staunch defenders of the Constitution, including but not limited to the 1st and the 2nd Amendment.
They want a fair, and simple tax system, where everyone pays the same percentage, and no loop holes for anyone, or anything.
They want our borders sealed up, 100%, FIRST, and then want a fair and swift immigration system, as they recognize the value of the hard working immigrants who are already here, be they illegal or not.
And, regardless of party they want their President to follow, and uphold the "rule of law" which is drastically lacking these days.
Though they do not want the country to become isolationists, they want the country to stop being the world's police.
This third party wants the U.S. to be energy independent, and to move forward with those cleaner and abundant energy sources like natural gas and the very real clean coal technology, i.e. "oxidation". They want the market to decide the direction of less viable energy sources such as wind, solar, and ethanol.
And finally, be they left or right, this third party is sick and tired of the cronyism that is commonly practiced by our current President and his minions, as has been the case by BOTH past Left and Right Administrations.
And again... The Constitution is first and foremost to these people.
This, folks is the face of the growing number of young adults in our society who will bring both parties to their knees.

That's pretty much the face of it. Although I'm sure parts of it look different to them (us) than they do to the previous generations.

There's a common saying among us young professionals in our late twenties and early thirties: "If those baby boomers would just start dying off." We're not serious, and mostly mean it as an irony, but if you would all just retire already it really would help us out.

 

[Bob D]

Who (especially those registered Democrats) intends to vote for liberal/progressive candidates that support gun control, in 2014?

I don't think we've yet identified anyone here who voted for them in the first place.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

According to my 30 something and 20 something kids, (the daughter calls herself a "green conservative" ) they are working towards a viable third party and believe it is just around the corner.
I've tried to put it in a nut shell but I'm sure I've missed something. Nonetheless, the following is a gist of what they discuss.

They are advocates of less government, and are against the Nanny State.
They want to be left alone.
They believe in pure Capitalism.
They don't care if you're gay or straight, just quit asking for preferential treatment.
If you want an abortion or believe in the practice, it's your choice, though they themselves would not consider it an option under most circumstances. They do not however, want their tax monies used to pay for them.
They are staunch defenders of the Constitution, including but not limited to the 1st and the 2nd Amendment.
They want a fair, and simple tax system, where everyone pays the same percentage, and no loop holes for anyone, or anything.
They want our borders sealed up, 100%, FIRST, and then want a fair and swift immigration system, as they recognize the value of the hard working immigrants who are already here, be they illegal or not.
And, regardless of party they want their President to follow, and uphold the "rule of law" which is drastically lacking these days.
Though they do not want the country to become isolationists, they want the country to stop being the world's police.
This third party wants the U.S. to be energy independent, and to move forward with those cleaner and abundant energy sources like natural gas and the very real clean coal technology, i.e. "oxidation". They want the market to decide the direction of less viable energy sources such as wind, solar, and ethanol.
And finally, be they left or right, this third party is sick and tired of the cronyism that is commonly practiced by our current President and his minions, as has been the case by BOTH past Left and Right Administrations.
And again... The Constitution is first and foremost to these people.
This, folks is the face of the growing number of young adults in our society who will bring both parties to their knees.

They sound like libertarians

 

[mancat]

Yeah your daughters sound more or less like libertarians, or old school republicans, but basically I agree with them.

Most young conservatives/libertarians are not religious, just want the government to leave us alone (straights, gays, all races, EVERYONE), for it to do its most basic tasks, and stop giving so many people and corporate entities a free ride - it's literally bankrupted us.

And yeah, it would help us A LOT if the average age of a politician these days wasn't getting up into the 60s-70s. It's time for the old generation to pack up and move out, and that goes for BOTH parties.

 

[Karma]

Really? All my gay friends, women friends and Hispanic friends are waiting for their check. Where is it?

You aren't making an argument, you're relaying Rush Limbaugh talking points. You just implied that all minorities only voted for Obama because they were "promised free money." (paraphrased). This kind of insulting and counter-factual nonsense is exactly the GOP's problem.

Rhetoric like this is doing more to cement Democrat support than anything Obama could hope to do. It's more extremist hyperbole from a group that's already dominated by its most extreme members.

Are you actually dim enough to think that getting more moderates (the vast majority of the country) to side with the GOP is made more likely by making insulting, BS comments like this?

I'm not talking specifically about minority groups. I'm saying that a large amount of the US population now sources some, or all of their money from the government. Is that up for debate? This is an entitlement culture that the current administration is doing nothing to curb in spite of the fiscal crisis. My point is that it is awfully hard to get people to vote against entitlements when they profit from them.

 

[Bob D]

I'm not talking specifically about minority groups. I'm saying that a large amount of the US population now sources some, or all of their money from the government. Is that up for debate? This is an entitlement culture that the current administration is doing nothing to curb in spite of the fiscal crisis. My point is that it is awfully hard to get people to vote against entitlements when they profit from them.

And everyone profits from them. So... it's hard to get people to vote against entitlements.

Who's willing to give up that social security they've been paying into their whole life?

 

[Botte Hork]

I think the Republican issue will be in their primary elections. They tend to select candidates that have less-than-zero appeal to even the most moderate of liberal-minded voters.

This is because of the split they have to do, first it's an internal battle to show who's most conservative, almost to an extreme level. Then the candidate is selected and it's running back to the center of the spectrum to try to appeal to moderate independents, trying to do damage control and hoping they didn't say anything too stupid in the first part of the race.

Also a reason I'm not too anxious to attend a pro-2A rally anymore. I was sick on the day of Olympia, but saw it was at the same time a republican primary of sorts, with anti-abortionists and what not hitting the stage. Great way to alienate people. Sure, these subjects might be highly important, but they're not what the meeting is about.