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

[Trailboss]

Now eight pages in. . .lots of air horns being tooted.

No kidding...There's an old saying "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer." The dem party has always pushed gun control. If someone claims to be pro-gun but still calls themselves a dem, then the dem id and agenda wins out. Gun control it is.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Come on PP, that's like saying I'd vote for a lib candidate "if" they weren't trying to grab my guns , they weren't murdering babies, they weren't turning this country into a "socialistic paradise "....

Actually, it is like saying I would vote for the democrat if the only issue I disagreed with them on is guns since I have the 2nd amendment backing me up on that. I am pro-choice and I believe all nations have a level of social involvement by their government. Only morons think otherwise.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

The question you ask to me is not as simple as yes or no - because there is more at stake than just gun rights. If gun rights was the only question to consider - I would say yes unquestionably but to put forth a question with out other considerations is foolishness to me.

James Ruby

Some people are not intelligent enough to vote beyond which issue pissed them off the most the most recently. They do not have the vision to see the things that are working. They only focus on one thing that bothers them and cannot begin to grasp the big picture. They are simple minded and reactionary and will ignore everything else.

 

[Chee-to]

Actually, it is like saying I would vote for the democrat if the only issue I disagreed with them on is guns since I have the 2nd amendment backing me up on that. I am pro-choice and I believe all nations have a level of social involvement by their government. Only morons think otherwise.

I'm not going to argue, bottom line, YOU and your lib cronies are totally responsible for any and all the anti-GUN RIGHTS legislation that may be FORCED on legal gun owners, and only morons would think otherwise.............BTW, believing you have the 2nd amendment backing you up on that, is like saying "OBAMA won't enact any new gun legislation if elected"...........

 

[Chee-to]

Some people are not intelligent enough to vote beyond which issue pissed them off the most the most recently. They do not have the vision to see the things that are working. They only focus on one thing that bothers them and cannot begin to grasp the big picture. They are simple minded and reactionary and will ignore everything else.

This is true, but you forgot to mention that this trait belongs to all political party's. Might take those lib goggles off for a true view of reality ..........You forgot= "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

 

[CharonPDX]

No democrat I know, demanded that their party drop the gun control plank from their platform.
No democrat I know threatened/offered to withhold their support and/or their vote from candidates that ran on that platform.

Then you know lame Democrats.

I have been working to ensure that at the state level, the Democratic Party of Oregon retains, as it's only statement on guns, a pro-gun statement. I have no influence at all at the national level - and those I know that theoretically did say that the national platform was shoved down their throats, without even getting to see it before voting on it. (I have multiple pictures of the Democratic National Convention with members from Oregon prominently wearing "Gun Owners Caucus" hats on the floor, including during President Obama's speech.)

I haven't just threatened/offered, I have done it. And my state Senator knows it. Likewise, I have worked to support (publicly,) to the pro-gun Democratic state Representatives, state Senators, and candidates. When my state (I thought mildly pro-gun) Representative candidate decided that she was a sure-enough win that she didn't need help canvassing or campaigning, I worked to get her to endorse helping a very pro-gun Democratic state Representative candidate who DID need the help. And that candidate (now state Representative) knows that gun-friendly Democrats were heavily involved in getting her elected.

 

[CharonPDX]

Rep. Hank Johnson
Do you suppose all Buddhist are that misinformed?
Or is it just Democrats that believe that stuff?

I know an ultra-liberal vegan Buddhist Democrat who is staunchly pro-gun-rights. So it's not being Buddhist. And it's not just being Democratic.

It's being an idiot.

 

[bnsaibum]

I have, in fact. No living under rocks for me. It's mostly a hypothetical question. If a right can be taken away by force or law, then it must not be inalienable. If it's not inalienable, then its status as natural or god-given comes into question. If it's not a natural or god-given right, then it must be granted by some legal entity. If it was granted by law, then it can be taken away by law.

I can understand if that's when you want to start an active Revolution, but the fact that our Constitution can be amended is one of the most powerful aspects of it. As the world changes, the rights granted to us by the Constitution may have to change with it. The founding fathers understood that, and left us with the great burden of responsibility to determine when and what those changes must be.

We need as many Pro-Gun Liberals as we can get. We also need as many Pro-Gun Conservatives, Pro-Gun Moderates, and Pro-Gun Anarchists as we can get. We can't afford to be picky about who we let help us with this, or what help we are willing to accept. If we turn any away, we will wind up with one fewer Constitutionally protected right.

Our Rights are NOT granted by the Constitution. I will go farther and say that there are NO Constitutional Rights. Our Rights are manifest by our very lives. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights all recognize these Rights as preexisting. What the Constitution does is secure these preexisting Rights and provides a framework to work within them. It is constrained by those Rights, more so by those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Rights being unalienable does not mean that they are magically invulnerable to any abrogation. It means that they are your Rights to keep or give away. Yours and only yours, you bear the sole responsibility for your Rights. Some will fight tooth and nail to keep as many of their Rights as possible. Some do not fully understand the responsibility of Liberty and so through ignorance allow their Rights to be legislated away little by little. Our Rights are most definitely and unequivocally not granted by any legal authority or legal entity, but they are legally stripped by these legal entities through our own inaction.

Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript
Bill of Rights Transcript Text
U.S. Constitution | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[JGRuby]

This is true, but you forgot to mention that this trait belongs to all political party's. Might take those lib goggles off for a true view of reality ..........You forgot= "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

You have some republicans that back gun control and have voted so in the senate on mandatory background checks - seems to me each side has thier problems.

James Ruby

 

[DMax]

The difference is we will primary our side. They are on the list for reassignment(Not talking transgender either although??) We have no use for Rhino Republicans or any unconstitutional politician on either side. In 2014 you will see plenty of that.

 

[JGRuby]

Sure you will - you will get rid of some and get some more. There are also some democrats that are joining the Republicans in how they vote. As a democrat and something I dont have much control over - I keep wondering how people like Burdick, Boxer and Feinstein keep getting elected.

Respectfully

James Ruby

 

[Bob D]

If you eject a longstanding representative in the primary election, you open your district up to the other party. Careful that you don't eject a moderately pro-rights republican, put forward a 2A radical, and then lose the seat to a democrat somewhere on the other side of the spectrum.

 

[DMax]

Lets see Rand Paul,Ted Cruz Vs John Mc Cain Lindsy Gramnisty types, the moderate low T guys got to go. Its moderates that always side with progressives and give them the door crack to take our liberty. Just looke at the 2A Besides the moderate Romney worked out pretty well don't ya think.

 

[civilian75]

I don't understand why so much discussion about single issue voting, idiotic elected officials, etc. Gentlemen, if there will ever be a single issue worth voting against some of your other treasured political views is gun rights. Once lost, all the other rights will be next. Although I am morally conservative, and fiscally libertarian, I have often voted Republican against my grain because I am clear about the importance of protecting our 2nd amendment.

This "republic" has survived partly because no one political party has ever had full control for too long. I wished we could fast forward to 2014 and 2016. 8 years "centrist" Bush plus 8 years of ultra-leftist BHO and his cronies are more than enough. It is time to sway the country in the other direction at least for 4 years to balance things off a bit, and keep these jokers in Washington from both parties off balance.

If we cannot make them hear our voice through our votes, what is the alternative, huh? Are you really ready to take arms against the government? With what arms? Are you digging up holes and burying firearms and ammo by the thousands? I guarantee you they will show up at your door late at night, handcuff you in your undies, while they survey your property with metal detectors! What you are going to do about that? Are you ready to go off the grid?

Get over it. Yes; it is always about voting for the lesser of the two evils! Let's vote them out of office while we still can.

 

[CharonPDX]

If you eject a longstanding representative in the primary election, you open your district up to the other party. Careful that you don't eject a moderately pro-rights republican, put forward a 2A radical, and then lose the seat to a democrat somewhere on the other side of the spectrum.

And that's a large reason of why the extreme Democrats stay in office - as long as they don't do something so outrageous to their BASE that they get primaried out, they're often safe as long as they want to be there.

Feinstein is one. She lives in more-anti-gun-than-not California. She brings money to the state. She has power and influence - more Californian voters apparently appreciate that than dislike her crappy stances.

Same with Burdick. She's in a "safe" Democratic district. She makes the news. She's the name that is seen year-in and year-out. I'd argue that a majority of Democrats in her district know almost nothing about her stances, they just vote for her because she's the incumbent - and then she wins because the Democrat wins in her district.

 

[meener777]

What say you defenders?

A clear message needs to be sent with regards to their lack of respect for the Second Amendment and you better believe I will be sending it with my vote and my money. I think it's imperative that we let them know that this will not be tolerated, other issues be damned as far as I am concerned. If we don't do this then the gun banners will just keep coming. Look at Sweden as your example. They have a strong gun culture and extremely low gun crime and yet they still they have gun banners trying to take their rights away. If we want to keep our rights we MUST make it clear that they are our rights, paid for by our forefathers in blood, and they are not to be taken away ever. We need, quite frankly, a supreme court that will write this down in a verdict and ensure that no future government with too strong a majority can pass a Feinstein-like agenda. The next administration will likely get to choose a justice or two on the supreme court and it is, in my opinion, important that we get the right justice in there to reinforce the constitution, not to water it down.

 

[duane black]

A clear message needs to be sent with regards to their lack of respect for the Second Amendment and you better believe I will be sending it with my vote and my money. I think it's imperative that we let them know that this will not be tolerated, other issues be damned as far as I am concerned. If we don't do this then the gun banners will just keep coming. Look at Sweden as your example. They have a strong gun culture and extremely low gun crime and yet they still they have gun banners trying to take their rights away. If we want to keep our rights we MUST make it clear that they are our rights, paid for by our forefathers in blood, and they are not to be taken away ever. We need, quite frankly, a supreme court that will write this down in a verdict and ensure that no future government with too strong a majority can pass a Feinstein-like agenda. The next administration will likely get to choose a justice or two on the supreme court and it is, in my opinion, important that we get the right justice in there to reinforce the constitution, not to water it down.

Heller was decided by a 5-4 vote. The supreme court justices are some of the most important in our system of government, IMHO.

Sent from my Nexus 4