The only way.

I don't doubt that there are gun loving democrat citizens out there, just not enough pro gun democrat politicians. You cant run for office as a democrat and not be anti gun anymore then you can run as a republican without being a devout christian.
when forced to choose between issues, most pro gun dems (citizens) just care more about abortion rights or gay marriage then their own gun rights. Its not that they dont care, its just not their priority so they end up voting for the Brady endorsed politician.
We need the democrats on our side because the republicans are simply the losing team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edward7

...We need to find and support pro gum democrats and/or 3rd party's as much as possible...

---

We need as many gum chewers as we can find.

Until recently, I was a democrat gun toting woman (we're hard to find!) This election was horrible for me. I hated the thought of voting democrat because of gun issues, yet I hated the thought of voting republican because of most of the other issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edward7

...republicans are simply the losing team.

---

Just because a Socialist, I mean a Democrat who supports Socialism, won his re-election to the office of President, doesn't mean that the Republicans "are simply the losing team." The Republican party did win big in 2010.

Most people don't vote for the good of the country anymore. Most of those who vote, vote for what they perceive to be best for them. They don't care about their fellow countrymen as long as they get or think they will get what the politician promised them...a "free" cellphone...money that someone else earned..."free" healthcare..."free" energy..."free" tuition..."free" housing...a "paycheck" without having to work for it...stuff...things..."entitlements". The 2nd amendment isn't high on their list of concerns.

It's all about pandering to the most people possible and right now the politicians just have to promise voters "free" stuff and they will get a large percentage of the vote whether they keep their promise or not. I promised to give you "____" during my first term but there just wasn't enough time for me to do it...If you give me your vote and I'm re-elected, I'll make it my top priority in my second term.

He didnt win by offering "free" things, Romney lost because we (18-35yr olds.) just cant stomach voting for racists, (opposing affirmative action, wanting to build a damn wall.) sexists ( pro life or anti free contraceptives.) or homophobes (opposing gay marriage or gay adoption.) most of us wanted more fiscal responsibility from our elected officials so we aren't burdened with dept.
Unless the gop platform changes to meet the new america the time of the republican president is over. Not so with congress where the red states still matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glockman10mm

We need more woman.

---

True but with emphasis on mothers. Many mothers in prior years were extremely down on guns. Many would not let their children even play with toy guns. We need to turn that around.

The problem is people claiming they are pro gun/second amendment until they get in office,then they become pro gun but with modifications like "I don't think people need to have access to Military style guns/Magazines shouldn't hold more than 10 rounds or less/People should have to get a mental health evaluation before buying a gun/ETC"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edward7

He didnt win by offering "free" things, Romney lost because we (18-35yr olds.) just cant stomach voting for racists, (opposing affirmative action, wanting to build a damn wall.) sexists ( pro life or anti free contraceptives.) or homophobes (opposing gay marriage or gay adoption.) most of us wanted more fiscal responsibility from our elected officials so we aren't burdened with dept.
Unless the gop platform changes to meet the new america the time of the republican president is over. Not so with congress where the red states still matter.

---

Okay, why don't you get the real reason you started this thread? :rolleyes:

Don't take this the wrong way - you would do well to drop the ad hominems when stating your position. The art of argument has been lost over the last 20 years. People now rely on fallacies - ad hominems, strawmans, etc. - to "support" their positions, when, in fact, the fallacies do not support the positions.

With respect to your statement above - you attack the person for supporting a position, but you do not argue against the positions. Thus, the statement is not persuasive. There are valid reasons for each of those positions. You may disagree with those positions, and that is fine. But you have not discredited the positions. You have only discredited particular motivations for supporting the positions, but you have not discredited the positions. Finally, unless you have proof of racism, sexism, and homophobia - which are per se slanderous statements - your conclusions are unfounded.

I'll be the first to state I've engaged in this type of argument at times. But when you step back and look at it objectively, it's not the least bit persuasive, and only discredits the person making the statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PEF

Okay, why don't you get the real reason you started this thread? :rolleyes:

While I was side tracked by the statement concerning Obama's reelection my reason for the thread was genuine.

Don't take this the wrong way - you would do well to drop the ad hominems when stating your position. The art of argument has been lost over the last 20 years. People now rely on fallacies - ad hominems, strawmans, etc. - to "support" their positions, when, in fact, the fallacies do not support the positions.

Those aren't " my positions" I was trying to generalize the reasons my family and friends of my generation gave for voting for obama. I didnt vote for him. as a rule people of my age group wont have a discussion on whether or not its sexist to be pro life anymore then they would have a discussion on whether or not the earth rotates around the sun, its an accepted fact.

With respect to your statement above - you attack the person for supporting a position, but you do not argue against the positions. Thus, the statement is not persuasive. There are valid reasons for each of those positions. You may disagree with those positions, and that is fine. But you have not discredited the positions. You have only discredited particular motivations for supporting the positions, but you have not discredited the positions. Finally, unless you have proof of racism, sexism, and homophobia - which are per se slanderous statements - your conclusions are unfounded.

Again while I am admittedly generalizing, my generation doesn't see these as legitimate,if disagreeable, stances so much as acts of aggression and a sign of mental defect.

I'll be the first to state I've engaged in this type of argument at times. But when you step back and look at it objectively, it's not the least bit persuasive, and only discredits the person making the statement.

The individuals in question sees these statements as "facts" that cant be argued, thats my argument not that they are facts.

---

Im not saying some weren't "bought" but most simply preferred Obama to Romany. I didn't want either, I voted libertarian.

Hell, I'll just get straight to the point. Edward, you are an idiot. You voted Independent. Real smart.

whats wrong with voting 3rd party? Neither candidate would have been a president id be happy with, so why vote for him? If you wanted pro gun, you didn't want Romany.

The problem is, in general, pro gun democrats fall in line and vote for extremely liberal appointments to bureaucratic posts and judges seats. With that comes anti-gun attitudes. It's a downhill slide that, until people change from being immoral or amoral, greedy and selfish, will not stop.

I agree that's a problem but whats the solution? Mine is to separate this republican=pro gun and democrat=anti gun mentality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edward7

He didnt win by offering "free" things, Romney lost because we (18-35yr olds.) just cant stomach voting for racists, (opposing affirmative action, wanting to build a damn wall.) sexists ( pro life or anti free contraceptives.) or homophobes (opposing gay marriage or gay adoption.) most of us wanted more fiscal responsibility from our elected officials so we aren't burdened with dept.
Unless the gop platform changes to meet the new america the time of the republican president is over. Not so with congress where the red states still matter.

---

whoa

I realy misrepresented myself here....look, Im not saying supporting a strong border is racist, (I support a stronger border and being tougher on illegal immigration!) I'm saying the younger voters do! Thats why he (Obama) won, not welfare voters.