Defensive Carry banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

The only way.

2K views 44 replies 22 participants last post by  Edward7 
#1 ·
The only way we will be able to stop the anti gun nuts is to eliminate (or at least reduce.) the immediate connections between conservatism, republicans and guns. We need to find and support pro gum democrats and/or 3rd party's as much as possible. We cant win if we only have one or two party's supporting us.
Im not trying to insult conservatives or republicans or trying to push them out of pro gun positions in the slightest, I just believe that the current one team method is ultimately a bad idea, especially considering recent elections.

I hope this is in the right forum, it is about helping pro gun legislation pass in a ever growing democrat/liberal country.
 
#7 ·
I know a lot of Democrats that enjoy their guns. Just because you're a democrat does not mean that you are a San Francisco liberal.

And you'll never stop the anti-gun nuts. They will always be there.

Finally, look at the recent 2A S. Ct. decisions and the proliferation of carry laws in various states. The acceptance of the 2A by the vast majority of the populace has been a silent victory over the last 20 years.

Things are much better now for the 2A than they were 20+ years ago, in my opinion.

What concerns me is this second term and an aging S. Ct. textualist that my retire. Keep my fingers crossed that he'll stick around for another four years....
 
#11 ·
We should remember that there are many, many, many who have more independence of mind than they are given credit for by either party. I believe many of these individuals are pro-gun, pro-liberty and because of the value they place on trusting their own judgment, they dislike being told what to think by either party. Show these people respect, demonstrate that you will listen to what they have to say and you will have powerful allies in the fight for liberty.
 
#13 ·
I believe that problem is that the standard bearers for conservative principles such as 2A, are largely inept (Republican party, and yes even the NRA). Many of our members here are quite liberal, and yet also love their freedoms and right to bear arms.

The anti's are simply better at organizing their efforts. By doing so, a small handful manipulates the majority.

"In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is King"
 
#14 ·
one ray of hope: as most of you know, Washington is a very blue state. i don't think a single Republican won a state-wide race in the recent election. though most of the state is moderate to conservative, the very liberal Seattle-Tacoma area dominates the state politically because of its' population.

but back in 1997, the anti-gun people managed to get Initiative 676 on the ballot, which, if passed, would have given the state some of the worst anti-gun legislation in the country. (you can Google it for details). while it was billed as a "Trigger Locks" initiative, it would have imposed other severe restrictions and impediments on gun ownership.

despite the fact that anti-gun forces spent a great deal of money on ads recommending passage, the initiative went down to overwhelming defeat, 71 percent against to 29 percent for.

since liberals outnumber conservatives roughly 52 percent to 48 percent in state-wide elections, this means that about 23 percent of those who normally vote Democratic - nearly half - voted against this initiative.

so while there are those extremists who would really like to outlaw all firearms, it seems that in 1997 Washington State, many who did not own guns, still didn't think that the extreme measures proposed by 676 were necessary

i also believe that momentum continues to be on our side. the percentage of voters who think that more restrictive gun laws are needed has continued to drop over the last 25 years. and with so many more states now having passed "shall issue" concealed carry laws without the predicted catastrophic consequences, i think that we will continue to see the advance of real common sense/reality.

what we need to remain alert against is anti-gun POLITICIANS, such as Senators Feinstein, Gillibrand, and Schumer, and Mayor Bloomberg of NY City.
 
#15 ·
Now I'm confused. I owned just as many guns when I was a Democrat as I do now that I'm a Republican. Maybe I need to re-register as an Independent?
 
#16 ·
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.
 
#19 · (Edited)
...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.
 
#18 ·
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.
 
#20 ·
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.
 
#23 ·
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.
 
#22 ·
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"
 
#31 ·
There is no need for name calling in any of these threads. As Americans we have a right to vote for whom we choose or not vote at all. If we all saw eye to eye this forum would not exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sensei2
#27 ·
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.
 
#30 ·
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.
 
#32 · (Edited)
i did not state this clearly (or at all) in my first post in this thread (#14).....BUT


I FULLY AGREE WITH Edward7's BASIC PREMISE THAT WE, THE PRO-GUN FORCES, NEED TO TRY AND SEPARATE OUR CAUSE FROM THE PLATFORMS, GOALS, AND ATTITUDES OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN GENERAL.


i realize that as matters stand, most Republican politicians tend to be pro-gun and most Democratic politicians tend to be anti-gun, but this is not necessarily true of the general voting public. a majority of citizens in this country believe in the right of the individual to own firearms.

as i stated in my first post, the anti-gun Washington State Initiative 676 of 1997 went down to overwhelming defeat, 70.6% against to 29.4% in favor. what i didn't state in that first post was the fact that 676 was defeated IN EVERY SINGLE COUNTY IN THE ENTIRE STATE! even in very liberal King County, which includes Seattle, the vote was 56.7% against 676 to 43.3% in favor. so rather than 23% of liberal Seattle voting "pro-gun" as i said in my first post, over half of them voted "pro-gun". this assumes, incorrectly, that all Seattle voters are liberal Democrats, but it simplifies my figuring.

when Californians (Californians!!!) were offered a proposition in 1982 (Proposition 15), which would have effectively placed a moratorium on new handgun purchases throughout the state, it went down to a landslide defeat, 62.8% to 37.2%

in 1976 the citizens of Massachusetts voted down a proposed law to confiscate all handguns. despite support from virtually major newspaper and most Massachusetts politicians, including Edward Kennedy, the measure went down to another lopsided defeat, 69% against, to 31% in favor. only about a dozen or so of the 500 Massachusetts towns voted for the law.

what this says to me is that on firearms issues by themselves, we enjoy broad support from citizens of both political parties, in blue states as well as red ones. it was no coincidence that these laws were proposed in three of the bluest states in the nation. the anti-gun forces chose these states as being most likely to approve such laws, and in each case they were truly confident of victory. they were proved VERY wrong.

but, and this is Edward7's contention, which i second, many of those who would otherwise vote "pro-gun", cannot stomach the Republican Party's other views, and will vote for a Democratic candidate who believes as they do on many social and economic issues, if not on gun control. they will not vote for a Republican candidate who may share their views on the 2nd Amendment, but is at odds with them on so many other matters. i read that many Washington State voters would not vote for the moderate Republican gubernatorial candidate (in 2012) because they couldn't stand the National Republican Party's stance on social issues.

at the moment, (IMO) the Republican Party is busy digging itself into a demographic grave. it has alienated the fastest growing segment of the population (Latinos), does poorly among Asians (also a growing percentage of the voting public) and African-Americans, and with younger voters. yes, i expect Republicans to fare better in the off-year elections of 2014, (when minorities and younger voters won't turn out in the numbers that they do for presidential elections), but the party has lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, and i don't expect things to improve for them in 2016. (barring a terrible Democratic candidate and a terrific Republican one). the Republican Party's primary base of support is from older, Caucasian men. i need not point out why support from older voters without similar support from younger voters is not a good long-term outlook. and the other element, white males, are also a declining percentage of the voting population.

furthermore, PEF's comments about the U.S. Supreme Court merit serious consideration: it is the President who selects nominees, and the Senate which confirms or rejects those nominees. for two years, and possibly more, those branches of government are in unfriendly Democratic hands. the replacement of even one conservative Justice could overturn all our recent SCOTUS victories. this concerns me more than the make-up of the Congress, because those politicians must face the voters every two or six years, and most of them remember, or will be reminded of, the lesson of 1994. a SCOTUS Justice is appointed for life and will never have to answer to us. frankly, i have been appalled at how easily the liberal/progressive Justices manage to pervert history and the Constitution to suit their own anti-gun biases. we simply MUST do a better job of electing a President who is at least more neutral towards the 2nd Amendment than the current one, and i don't see this happening so long as we are tied solely to the Republicans.

now i would guess that there are more DC members who are Republican than who are Democrats, but ON THE SINGLE ISSUE OF FIREARM OWNERSHIP, we (those of us who support the 2nd Amendment and all that it stands for) must broaden our support beyond a single party. if voters keep electing politicians who are anti-gun at heart, or just beholden to the anti-gun forces of the political left, we will find ourselves fighting more battles to retain our gun rights than we should have to, given the pro-gun stance of the electorate in general.

another problem with being 'tied' to one political party is that when they know you have nowhere else to go, there is less pressing need to court your vote by actually DOING something for you. as blacks have learned about the Democratic Party.

HOW we are go about separating our agenda and broadening our base of support is something for another thread. BUT...(IMO) open primaries would be a good start....
 
#40 ·
I FULLY AGREE WITH Edward7's BASIC PREMISE THAT WE, THE PRO-GUN FORCES, NEED TO TRY AND SEPARATE OUR CAUSE FROM THE PLATFORMS, GOALS, AND ATTITUDES OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN GENERAL.
I absolutely, hands down agree with this statement and have said so numerous times since joining this forum about 1.5 years ago.

i realize that as matters stand, most Republican politicians tend to be pro-gun and most Democratic politicians tend to be anti-gun, but this is not necessarily true of the general voting public. a majority of citizens in this country believe in the right of the individual to own firearms.
I think you are correct, and I think that the growing number of permit holds, soaring guns sales, etc, is a strong indication of this. I think that the data is speaks loudly that the people, in general, value the 2nd-A and what it brings.
but, and this is Edward7's contention, which i second, many of those who would otherwise vote "pro-gun", cannot stomach the Republican Party's other views, and will vote for a Democratic candidate who believes as they do on many social and economic issues, if not on gun control. they will not vote for a Republican candidate who may share their views on the 2nd Amendment, but is at odds with them on so many other matters. i read that many Washington State voters would not vote for the moderate Republican gubernatorial candidate (in 2012) because they couldn't stand the National Republican Party's stance on social issues.
I am in this group. In actuality, I think that a lot of moderate (meaning have some views on the left and some on the right) fall into this category. In the end, we need to decide what is most important to us and weigh the issues carefully.

at the moment, (IMO) the Republican Party is busy digging itself into a demographic grave.(snip)
This is also true. For example, in Texas, there is a massive Latino population that will become of voting age in about a decade. If they follow the trend and align themselves with the Democrats, the D party will have near total control of the national elections via the electoral college.

furthermore, PEF's comments about the U.S. Supreme Court merit serious consideration.
That is true. Unfortunately, the current 5-4 conservative based court has an obvious partisan bias and they know it; hence the comment by the chief justice when deciding on the constitutionality of Obamacare where he said that it was necessary to not vote along party lines to preserve the integrity of the court. I think the integrity of the court is severely in question.
HOW we are go about separating our agenda and broadening our base of support is something for another thread. BUT...(IMO) open primaries would be a good start....
I believe that one of the key answers to fixing a lot of the election issues is to increase voter participation. Australia has solved this problem by implementing a penalty (tax) for not voting, or rather for not showing up to vote as you can leave the ballot blank as long as you show up. I think that we should implement the same thing here and combine it with a lottery jackpot where the fines go to a winner who did vote.
 
#36 ·
This is more proof that you are ill-informed on the subject.

Romney supports a woman's right to contraceptives too.

No one is trying to ban anyone from having access to contraceptive devices.

We just want you to pay for your own contraceptive devices if you are able to do so. Contraceptive devices should not be given to you "free" of charge if you can afford to purchase them yourself. You or those like you who can afford to purchase it yourself want to get it for free because someone who is less fortunate than you got it for free. You don't want to have to pay for it with your own money. You think you are entitled to it. This is free stuff...things. Nothing is "FREE"...someone has to pay for it and people like you think that it is OK to get "free" things as long as you don't have to pay for it. The money that is used to pay for it doesn't come out of thin air, it come from the people who pay taxes on the money they earned. Their tax dollars goes towards paying for your "free" stuff. And just so we are clear, $1.00 collected in income tax does not by $1.00 worth of contraceptive devices. It takes approximately $7.70 in income tax collected to provide you with $1.00 worth of contraceptive devices.

Let's just say that people want $30 of "free" contraceptive devises per month.
That's $360 per year per person.
Now let's say that there are 30 million people (you and I both know this number is low) who want the "free" contraceptive devices.
That's $10,800,000,000
That's 10 Billion 800 million dollars of ADDITIONAL taxes that will need to be collected just to pay for your contraceptive devices.

This is so far off topic so let me try to get us back on topic...

We need to encourage people to vote for the candidate who will support and defend the constitution in its entirety (this includes keeping the 2nd amendment intact). We need to educate voters as to why it is important to do so. We need to educate voters on the dangers of Socialism and big government. We need to educate voters on the dangers and consequences associated with alterations to our constitution. We need to teach voters that working hard and being successful is a good thing. We need to demand that our candidate's name is on their ticket (Republican or Democrat). If they want to put a candidate on the ticket that we don't like, we need to be prepared to replace that candidate with a viable alternative from our "ranks". When our elected officials don't do what we want or do something we don't like, we need to remove them from office as quickly as possible. We need to educate everyone on how to flex the muscle of "We The People".
 
  • Like
Reactions: phreddy
#42 ·
All of the democrats I know, which is most of the most of the people I know, are very pro gun. Part of what needs to be done is the police force to let the public know what the gun laws are. Our local police force has a great deal of influence with the local population. If the cops would stop making the general public think every gun owner is a nut who is going to kill someone at the first sight of trouble we would be much better off. Open carry is one of those issues they sure could help with. When they get a call because someone is open carry a great deal of the time they could educate the public that it is indeed legal instead of running out to harass the person only living their constitutional rights. Education is the key. I happen to be a registered Independent. I have voted both ways republican and democrat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edward7
#43 ·
Edward - if your views of your generation's beliefs are accurate as reported in this thread, the American experiment is dead. If our liberal indoctrination stations (public schools) have succeeded in brainwashing an entire generation that:

1. If you disagree with a policy position proffered by a black man, even if he is half white, you are a racist,

I dont personally agree with affirmative action it was needed at one point but I feel that time is near at end and that even now it could be altered to be less detrimental to white workers. As a group the opposition of affirmative action rarely has an argument outside of "its just not fair...to me." and are very easily thought of as racist, especialy since actual racists say the same thing. Not saying there aren't real reasons to oppose it or solid arguments out there, im just saying its rare to hear them. As for the inability to argue with a minority about anything without being labeled a racist, it basically comes from you (and me) paying for the sins of men we dont know/represent but happen to look like.

You missed the point. My point had nothing to do with affirmative action. For the last 5 years, we have been told by O's supporters that if we do not agree with him, we are racist. There has been no allowance for the fact that a good many people do not agree with many of O's policies but are not actually racist - they just don't agree with the policies. I suppose if two black people were running for president in opposing parties, using this thought process, everybody would be a racist. This argument proffered by O's supporters and not refuted by O himself, has done significant damage to race relations in this country.

2. If you feel that it is morally repugnant to legitimize the murder of a person so that its mother's lifestyle is not inconvenienced, you are immoral,

Well...yeah. It has nothing to do with "saving baby's" and everything to do with controlling the body's of other people. Its a where not a what issue, the woman doesn't want the fetus (fetus not baby.) dead she wants it out of her. This was decided long before we where born and is simply an accepted part of life.
Im a catholic (more or less.) and would never suggest to my wife or daughter to have one and i would lecture till i was blue in the face against it, but at the end of the day its not my call and it shouldn't be. Im not in favor of abortion, im in favor of freedom of choice. I could go on and on with this one but i truly didnt want this to happen.


The science was less clear in 1973 than it is today. In 1973, the "blob of tissue" or "its a fetus, not a baby" argument could not definitively be refuted by the then-existing science. With today's science, no honest scientist would tell you that "the product of conception" is not a human being. It may be a human being in an early stage, but there is no doubt that it is a human being. I too am all for freedom of choice - but I put the choice at a different time than your generation does. You have many choices that do not have to end in pregnancy. One of these is, as you argue, your "right" to free contraception. You got it - use it.


3. Has no ability to see that demanding free stuff (contraceptives in this case) from the government is redistribution of wealth, a euphemism for legalized theft in which money is taken from the taxpayers to buy the votes of those who, in a good many cases, don't pay income taxes,

Few people of my generation oppose the idea of redistribution of wealth, anarchist capitalism is dead. How much and from who is debatable but the concept isnt offensive. That being said the dema...I already said this one with someone else, look there please.

May you get rich and have 90% of your wealth taken as taxes. Think it can't happen? Take a look at the marginal tax rate at the end of the last Roosevelt era. The people that got hurt by this were not the rich, they just quit working, but the little guy. Ronald Regan was a good case in point. He was at the apex of his career at the time and he just did a few movies a year then quit working as it was not worth his time. This harmed the camera people, gaffers, caterers, etc., not the stars. Admittedly nobody is currently talking about a 90% marginal tax rate, but if the ruling party does not want to do spending cuts and the populace continues to demand deficit reduction, it has to come from somewhere.


4. Really believes that O's spending plan was more fiscally conservative than Romney's (yes, Romney is spelled with an "e", not an "a"),

Nobody thought it was better outside of a couple things,military spending, tax cuts for the 1% things like that it didn't come down to who had the better economic plan, it came down to a sound economic plan or abortion,gay rights,healthcare and the like and we all know who won.
As for the spelling error, spellchecker not always perfect and i dont always check, meh
.

God only knows how we are going to pay for all this social engineering. You are right, O won. That does not mean we will be able to support his agenda fiscally now or after he is gone.

we have raised an entire generation of people that cannot think for themselves and can only parrot what their indoctrinators want them to think. In short- America is screwed!!! Your description of your generation tells us that they are ready to be led by a charismatic leader straight to a dictatorship. That is the logical end of the descriptions you provided.

So if we dont think the way you tell us to, we cant think for ourselves? We fundamentally disagree, that's not parroting or being uninformed its just a disagreement. The argument of "you disagree with me, you must be stupid." is never a good one.

I am not telling you what to think. I am only observing that, per your assertion, the vast majority of your generation thinks alike. I can tell you from my education and that my kids just received, that I was taught HOW to think and the schools have tried their dead-level best to tell my kids WHAT to think without giving them the framework to know how to think. Thank God that my wife and I have rectified that, at least with our kids. I have seen many from your generation state flatly that O has spent less than any other president in the last 100 years. This is not a statement coming from an informed group of people - regardless of how they view themselves.


Edward - i have a side question. On what does your generation base it's moral code? You say that Romney's position on several social issues is immoral. What is the standard you use to make that determination? I am just curious.

The moral code of "if it doesn't hurt me I don't care." my generation could aptly summed up in one word, apathetic. Personal freedoms are paramount, all else comes second.

Thank you for clearing this up for me. It tells me a lot about the upcoming generation. BTW - if y'all hold personal freedoms so dearly, how can you say that redistribution of the wealth is OK?

As to your original assertion in your OP, I concur that we need a broad spectrum of the population to tell the government to leave our guns alone. I would go further and say that I would prefer that the government, in general, leave us alone and go back to its Constitutional duties, but I am aware, from you above posts, that you are not in agreement with this.

For the record, I have not called you a troll and I don't think you are. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss your generation with you. I did not bring up the subjects in our discussion, but am perfectly willing to discuss them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1MoreGoodGuy
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top