Ref the above article.
It's obvious we will have to draw out the oppositions view (I know we already know it) and get them talking.
This is a discussion on Is there an anti-gun forum somewhere? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I was lurking around on DemocraticUnderground and found this actually intelligent post. I'm quite surprised that I found something like this. Its a doozy, but ...
I was lurking around on DemocraticUnderground and found this actually intelligent post. I'm quite surprised that I found something like this. Its a doozy, but its worth reading I think.http://www.democraticunderground.com...x702505#702568As I scroll through these forums, I keep reading numerous posts regarding all of the proposals that are being touted by DU members as well as many others.
I have realized that many on these forums;
1) Do not have a real working knowledge of guns which then means they have a hard time fantasizing the new "laws" they want to pass.
2) Do not understand gun legislation currently on the books or proposed..(This and number one go hand in hand)
3) Do not understand gun culture, gun voter intensity or the damage it has caused our party.
4) Are EXTREMELY intolerant of anyone of anyone that doesn't share an urban and/or Berkeley style view on guns
I cannot even begin to tell you how many incorrect statements that I have corrected in the last 3 days about guns. Folks on here must just conjure laws up in their mind because they sound good or lax or menacing, (depending on the context). A few of us well versed in guns attempt to correct these positions, but the answer is lost in the cacaphony of anti-gun cheerleading. People are so critical of the MSM, but yet they continually tout "facts" they hear there that are incorrect about laws and background checks, machine guns...It never ends...KNOW YOUR FACTS OR YOU'LL LOOK LOSE CREDIBILITY SOMEONE WHO DOES.
How about this...If you don't know the law to be FACT, don't POST it as fact. If you don't completely understand the gun you are posting about, the barrel, the caliber, the method of action, the reliable statistic...whatever, don't post it as fact. Educate yourselves for God's sakes so you don't look like morans
And to the real meat of the whole matter..
Here's the bottom line...Some posters can post voluminous and wordy handringing manifestos about their solution to the perceived gun problems in the USA. However, they do not understand that we as a party are at somewhat of a crossroads with the southern/midewestern/rural voter.
If this party actively pushes a media based anti-gun initiative during this upcoming election, they will lose this election. That is the bottom line about guns. We have went from a 20 year open gaping wound to a "scab" on the gun issue in the south and midwest. Proposing a SINGLE law....A SINGLE ban....A SINGLE registration right now will mean for us death in 2008. We will lose 20-30 states right off the bat. This is exactly what the pugs want and for some reason, many here are irresistably drawn to it like moths to a flame.
Most of it has to do with posters that have no CLUE about the real southern, rural, gun-owning voter and his/her culture. Folks on here do not understand the level of distrust that this voter has with the Democratic party because of Feinsten, Schumer, Boxer, Gore and their constant pounding of the gun issues in the 1990's. It has pushed what should be easy votes far from us.
News Flash guys...What sells in Orlando/Chicago/Berkeley/Sacramento/Cleveland will not sell in Rome, Georgia or Bell Buckle, Tennessee or Beatrice, Alabama...The south or Midwest does not consist of Nashville and Kansas City...It is the tens of thousands of small towns and villages that will make a state turn either Democratic or not.
Remember, if Gore had won his home state,(my state), of Tennessee in 2000, he would have been president. Florida wouldn't have even been an issue..He would have won Tennessee if he had left guns alone...I was here, my Democratic friends and I watched it happen before our very eyes. I knew what was coming when he started pounding the NRA and touting his "tie breaking vote on the gun show loophole" right before the election...We knew he was killing himself politically in the south, but yet he couldn't see it. He actually thought it would HELP him!
Democratic Senator Jim Webb agreed in his book "Born Fighter" that Gore lost in 2000 not because of Florida, but because he lost the gun vote in Tennessee and West Virginia. Bill Clinton agreed with Webb in an interview. We also know he agreed that guns and his push for the now expired "assault weapons ban" cost him both houses of Congress in 1994 and got us 20 plus years of pug leadership in Congress. These are probably two of the most astute Democratic politicians in modern history.
Also, Hunting has NOTHING to do with it. Most gun owners do not hunt...I don't hunt, but I enjoy shooting and do so quite often. Trying to tie gun ownership with hunting was the classic "hunters and sportsmen" triangulation ******** that Clinton started and Gore used as well. It attempted to split the hunters away from gun owners in general and in the meantime seem "reasonable". It doesn't fly down here.
Remember...Any proposal, serious discussion, implementation, media hype...ANYTHING that brings gun control as an issue to the attention of the voting public at large, will mean more alienation from the rural voter...When words like "common sense", "reasonable restrictions" and other such ******** is used, it is immediately interpreted by the rural voter like we interpret, "Let's roll" or "with us or against us" or some other such propaganda...When you say things like that to a rural voter, he immediately knows its a ******** smokescreen and that someone is attemtping to run their virtual hands into his gun cabinet and either make him register his guns, not allow him to buy that Semi-automatic Glock that he's been wanting or whatever..In other words, by proposing more legislation like this, the more he distrusts us as a party because it disrupts his gun owning routine...And although this voter may not like Bush or the war or other things, he will still vote for the person that promises to leave his guns alone and even would like to go target shooting with him..That's reality and until it is understood, we will continue to struggle for these rural votes and wonder why we cannot get them.
People on here think they are being helpful and adding just some very basic "reasonable restrictions" to the debate...Here's some advice...SHUT UP ABOUT GUNS PERIOD...Anything proposed will not be viewed as reasonable. Don't talk about them except if its positive, don't allude to them legislatively..Let guns cease to be an issue.
There is a lot of regional wisdom in this post...If a national candidate could really get a hold of it instead of holding stupid assed Kerry/Romney type duck hunting stunts...They do this **** and then wonder why he can't get the rural vote? What the candidate needs to do is have a photo op at a gun range rapid firing a Glock at a paper target...Then people would think, "hey...maybe this guy isn't a bullshitter"...Gun owners can spot a pile of ******** three miles away. It's because these candidates, their handlers and advisers....NONE of them understand the culture..Hunting is only one small aspect of shooting.
And until one of them really does grasp this, we are 20-30 states down from the get go...Can we afford to lose another election? Remember, the current liberal bastion of the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens, will be 90 years old around 2010. He can't last much longer...Who do you want appointing the next justice?
Print this off, because it is Politics 101 on how to win the south and midwest.
Ref the above article.
It's obvious we will have to draw out the oppositions view (I know we already know it) and get them talking.
Press the fight!
I know who I want to appoint the next Supreme, and Ginsberg is getting a little long in the teeth too!
If it is not in the US Constitution then the Federal Government should not be doing it.
"Carrying a gun is a social responsibility."
I'm not surprised to read that coming from a Dem. I've heard that sentiment several times lately on NPR. (yes I listen). It seems that some movers in the Dem party feel that gun control is a vote loser for them and they want to drop the issue all together.
Don't know if they will prevail, but it's a start.
I went to the Americas watch site after I got back form my first trip to Afghanistan I became incensed after reading the dribble they were posting about how mistreated the terrorist in Cuba are by the US. I am sure that my response fell on many deaf ears.
"Hell of a thing, killin' a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."
- William Munny (Clint Eastwood in the Unfrogivin)
“The graveyards are full of indispensable men.” – Napoleon Bonaparte
“My Idea of a fair fight is beating baby seals with a club”
In response to Knight's post...
That was an excellent read and I've been hearing that more and more the past few days. Its interesting to read some of the comments made in reply to it on the DU page. It would seem that quite a few of the posters are being forced to the pro-gun side because of the nature of some of the other posters. Good news for us, I guess. That board seems to draw out the fanatics, though. Wow.. See words like "feel" and "know for sure" quite a bit fom the die-hards. Those are two items which have no business being used in conjuction with politics.
This isn't exactly anti but lots of that sort flock here to bash fox news and anybody that does not support liberalism 100%
Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.
I don't know what you guys are talking about. I just went over to DU.com, which I had never even heard of before, and looked at the forums, specifically the topics about guns. Am I missing something?I just spent a bit reading the DU forum. I think I need a shower now.
Either 1) the DU.com forums have been infiltrated by a bunch of gun-lovers posing as Democrats, or 2) there's a bunch of vocal Democrats who are also pro-gun. I read a whole bunch of posts echoing the large one quoted above: "the Democrats need to drop the gun issue", "the gun-control rhetoric cost the Dems the 2000 and 2004 elections", "80% of gun owners are NOT hunters", "the police aren't going to protect you", etc. Much of the same stuff everyone here at CC says all the time.
Sure, there were several anti-gun people too, as you'd expect, but they were quite soundly (and eloquently) shouted down by the pro-gunners.
Personally, I think that if the Democrats could cast off the losers like Ted Kennedy, dump the anti-gun and pro-welfare crap, and return to the way they were before the late 60s or 70s, when they were supposed to be the party championing the lower-income citizens instead of just wealthy "progressive" elites, they'd win a lot of seats and change the face of current politics. They just won a bunch of seats last year in Congress because of their anti-Iraq War stance (or at least anti- the way Bush is handling it), because the American public has gotten so sick of the war. But this was just a big message to the Republicans; if the Dems don't get their s*** together on other important issues like gun control (which most Americans don't want either), they're just going to lose again.
What'd be really funny, in an ironic way, is if the Republicans put McCain and Giuliani on their '08 ticket, and the Dems got a really pro-gun candidate and used McCain's and Giuliani's anti-gun records against them. They could even get an "A+" rating from the NRA, as Democratic senator Webb in Virginia has. This would certainly win them the White House.
Yes. Lets not assume that all D.s are for gun control. I'm a one (well, not exactly a commie-pinko-******), and i fully support a person's right to own and carry a hand gun.
Not trying to stir up the political pot, but, if the the R.s could come together and be against immigration (both legal and illegal), I'd vote R..
These days, it seems that a lot of people vote D not because of adherence to Democratic ideals, but because they don't like the Rs (and their pre-emptive war, their numerous political scandals (DeLay, etc.), their continual pandering to religion (which I believe to be just a ruse to gain votes), their terrible cronyism, etc.). This doesn't mean that all the ideals of the Republican party (at least what used to be their ideals) are bad, but that the current actions of their prominent members are bad.
Not to stir the pot again, I have to agree with you about illegal immigration, but not legal. Countries that steal away other countries' "best and brightest" always do extremely well. But countries also have a right (and responsibility) to pick and choose which applicants are allowed to move in. If you wanted to share your house with someone, to share expenses or whatever, would you want to be able to pick that person, or would you want to be forced to accept whomever just pushes their way in the door, even if they're a criminal? Is it "prejudicial" to say, "no, you can't live in my house because you have a criminal record and no job, and will probably not pay rent and probably will pawn my TV"?