NRA Democrats


PDA






GunLvrNLearner
October 16, 2008, 01:09 AM
Are there any groups or websites for use GUN RIGHTS Democrats?

There are pro gun Democrats,are there groups we can join and try to persuade more Dems to see it our way?

Message boards ect?

Thanks

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA Democrats" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ziggy222
October 16, 2008, 01:26 AM
that is what i would like to see.i'm a big time dem and love guns.i won't join the nra or contribute to them in any way because the money will just go straight to the republican party.i would like to support gun rights without hurting my party.think about it.sooner or later dems will be in power again and if all you ever do is sit around calling them names then yes,they will hurt gun laws.many gun groups and some sites may as well have a big sign that says dems not welcome.don't throw away gun supporters from any party.encourage gun ownership to all parties.let me put it this way.if most dems did'nt support gun rights,there would not be enough republicans in all of the u.s. to support the gun rights we have now and the u.s. will be disarmed.

GunLvrNLearner
October 16, 2008, 02:42 AM
You are exactly right,before i go to the range or to gun shops i shouldnt have to 2nd guess "well best not wear the Obama shirt,hat ect"....i just hope there is an outlet for people like us

JD0608
October 16, 2008, 03:40 AM
i`m sure there a lot of democrat gun owners in the usa. but you guys in my opinion are a little two faced. you want to own guns, you want to hunt, a lot of you reload. but yet you go and vote for the very people who want to take all that away from you. i`m trying to think of any anti-gun laws on the books now that was not put into law by a democrat and i can`t think of any. just like california is full of gun owners but they keep electing the idiots who have put more restrictions on them than any other state. and-gunlvrnleaner- all i can say is (my god man are you crazy!) an obama tee-shirt? if you came to my gun range wearing an obama tee-shirt, i`d run your butt off the range too.

Shweboner
October 16, 2008, 03:58 AM
The problem is that for the most part, we vote liberal because of our views on the economy and the constitution, war, etc.

I never miss an opportunity to take a fellow lib out shooting, and never hesitate to call in to elected officials or progressive talk radio and let them know how much more successful and popular they would be if they just got off of the anti gun stuff.

The more we take our love of guns public, the better chance we'll have in disassociating guns with the far right.

Hoplophile
October 16, 2008, 04:21 AM
Fellow liberal here. Along with liberal civil rights, economic policy, comes a belief in liberal freedom: The freedom to speak as we wish, the freedom to keep and bear arms. And as a liberal, I have a liberal view of "keep and bear arms". By keep and bear, I interpret that as "possess, buy, sell, rent, use, and enjoy for any sake or no sake", and by arms I mean "anything short of a full-blown nuclear weapon". 40mm grenade launcher? Hey, what you do and have isn't any of my business, more power to you! 20mm Lahti anti-tank rifle? Who am I to say you can't own and enjoy one in the privacy of your own home or at a gun range?

If we believe in rights for minorities, we must also believe in rights for everyone. All of them, not just the ones we can sell.

I wish more liberals felt like I did.

bdickens
October 16, 2008, 08:48 AM
The NRA does not give money yo the Republican Party. The NRA is a single-issue organization and they would be just as happy to endorse Democrats who support the Second Amendment - if there were any.

ziggy222
October 16, 2008, 09:10 AM
i wish that was true.

feedthehogs
October 16, 2008, 09:35 AM
Well being progun in the Democrat party, IE Zell Miller, will get you nothing but anguish by telling the truth.

Kennedy's democrat party is dead and in the current version of democrat ideology, guns and socialism don't mix.

If your really pro gun, there's only one way to go. Period.

If your a multi issue voter, then guns are just not that important to you.

There's no hiding the truth.

are there groups we can join and try to persuade more Dems to see it our way?


Don't need any groups. Print up your own brochures with progun issues and hand them out at democrat meetings and rallies.
If you truly have the desire to turn your fellow voters to progun, then you'll do it. Joining groups usually only leads to like minded individuals sitting around complaining but never really do anything out of fear.

BTW there are many anti gun or the ones who feel anything other than bolt guns and shotguns should be banned republicans out there. While we don't have to worry when they vote the straight republican ticket, they would support gun bans if it came down to it.

6_gunner
October 16, 2008, 09:37 AM
I really admire your desire to change your party. I genuinely hope that you succeed. I could rest much easier if neither of the major political parties wanted me disarmed.

However, as it is, Democrat politicians almost universally support gun control measures. Senator Obama is one of the most fanatically anti-gun politicians in the nation. If elected, he could prove to be the most anti-gun president we've ever had.

Surely you can understand why the average gun owner would be offended by seeing an Obama t-shirt at the range.

swampshooter
October 16, 2008, 10:31 AM
I'm an independent because I refuse to vote for an anti-gun candidate and can't live with many of the republican party's economic policies. The new administration, and it sure looks like Obama will win, will probably take our gun rights away. THE RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION REGARDING Washington D.C.'s restrictive handgun laws was ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment by ONE VOTE. The next president will appoint between one and three new supreme court justices, if they are anti-gun, which if Obama wins they surely will be, the next decision handed down by the supreme court will overturn our current interpretation of the 2nd amendment. WE'RE IN BIG TROUBLE BOYS. :banghead::banghead:

hso
October 16, 2008, 10:45 AM
First, the NRA does endorse Democrats running for office. Anyone that receives the NRA magazines can see this. As long as the politician has an A rating on RKBA, that is.

Second, there are non-conservative RKBA groups. Some are politically neutral like JPFO. I'm not sure about others, but sure would like to know. ProGunProgressive (http://www.progunprogressive.com/) is a site run by a liberal THR member. The site also has a forum.

Hank Hunter
October 16, 2008, 11:26 AM
I've been buying guns for 47 years. during that time there have been Dem and Rep presidents. I have never been denied the purchase of a gun and noone has come to my door demanding that I surrender one. When Obama takes office in January I don't expect anything will be different.

Vermont
October 16, 2008, 11:42 AM
but you guys in my opinion are a little two faced.

I've never encountered a politician who I agreed with 100%. I have still voted in every election I have had the opportunity to vote in. I don't think that makes me two faced.

If you have been lucky enough to vote for politicians you agree with 100% then more power to you. I haven't been that lucky.

swampshooter
October 16, 2008, 11:43 AM
Hankhunter, i sure hope your right. there's a lot of talk now amongst demo's to tax ammo and components to the point that no one can afford either. The australians thought their gun rights were safe also. look what happened there. If you don't fight for your freedoms you will lose them, just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen.:banghead:

TT
October 16, 2008, 11:49 AM
feedthehogs: If your a multi issue voter, then guns are just not that important to you.

Thank you for posting this. I agree, and I think it is a waste of time to ‘reach out’ to people who put their desire for free government treats over the natural right to self-defense. We should stop humoring ‘pro-gun’ Democrats, they won’t be there when we need them.

Hank Hunter
October 16, 2008, 11:49 AM
Yeah thats the same argument that I've heard for 47 years. I was still shooting yesterday and I might shoot today if it quits raining.

Machete
October 16, 2008, 12:21 PM
I've been buying guns for 47 years. during that time there have been Dem and Rep presidents. I have never been denied the purchase of a gun and noone has come to my door demanding that I surrender one. When Obama takes office in January I don't expect anything will be different.

I'm assuming you didn't have a problem with the 94 assault weapons ban, and don't have a problem with the new democratic party proposed assault weapons ban? I'm just trying to figure out where you stand on the second amendment?

Hank Hunter
October 16, 2008, 02:04 PM
After 94 every gun show I went to had assault weapons including class 3.

buzz_knox
October 16, 2008, 02:09 PM
After 94 every gun show I went to had assault weapons including class 3.

At double to triple the price. I take it paying $100 for a $15 Glock 22 mag didn't bother you, or $1000 for a Colt lower that normally sold for $200-300.

And please recall that those weapons were available at any price only because the Democrats couldn't get enough Republican votes to ban them entirely and confiscate them, which was Feinstein's desire.

Gunsby_Blazen
October 16, 2008, 02:35 PM
Pretty much the biggest reason why I don't vote democrat is due to the party's stance on guns. I have a couple more but I really would wish they would try to be more open about it. There really needs to be a way to get more pro-gun democrats elected. I know that they are out there. Its sad though, that this year there is a candidate from the Chicago Machine. I blame Chicago for the rest of the state having such ignorant gun laws. I really don't want to get into politics here... but I agree with everyone here. Its not really Obama the man, but rather the ideals and ideology of the place in which he is from. There needs to be a bigger effort to get the mindset in the cities that guns are not the cause of their problems but its rather the "bad guys". I don't see this argument working though. I could go on and on but don't really want to right now. The political dynamics and the ideologies that come with different sects of society dictate different evaluations of a specific situation. The problem with many of these forces is that there are predetermined causes for the situations that are expressed within society. That being said, there needs to be more objectivity. I am no sociologist, but I can tell you that the same mentality that came about from the dawning of violence is still prevalent today in that removing the capacity to do violence will in turn remove violence itself. This of course is a limited way at viewing the problem. It is human nature, arrived from the traditions rooted in the development of society; the conflict between the haves and the have nots that instigate violence. But, it is a limited view of the world that leads one to believe that removal of the object will result in the removal of the act. Anyway, I may write more on this later… or start a new thread. But the bottom line I am trying to make is that in order to change the Democratic Party’s platform, different ideologies must be interjected….. Then there is the whole problem with lobbies that is tied into this whole notion… and that is another rant.

Gunsby_Blazen
October 16, 2008, 03:30 PM
by the way, feedthehogs, you are RIGHT ON!!!

BBQLS1
October 16, 2008, 04:22 PM
I'm not a Democrat, but the NRA shows a few Dems as having an "A" record. I'm quite possibly going to vote for them.

hso
October 16, 2008, 04:29 PM
Let's be careful to stay with the OP and not drift into Dem bashing.

bdickens
October 16, 2008, 04:34 PM
I'm sorry, but a gun owner voting for Osama - I mean Obama - is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

akodo
October 16, 2008, 05:07 PM
.i won't join the nra or contribute to them in any way because the money will just go straight to the republican party

Ziggy, of the money the NRA gives to candidates 75% of it goes to republicans and 25% of it goes to democrats.

The have backed pro gun democrats against anti gun or even just gun neutral republicans

However, if you don't like the NRA feel free to join GOA (Gun Owners of America) JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) or the Pink Pistols (GLBT and their friends, family, and allies for gun rights)

ArmedBear
October 16, 2008, 05:17 PM
Here's the thing: if the Senate gets 60 Democrats, there will be a ban of semiauto rifles. Probably a total ban of all semiauto rifles, because that's what Obama has supported. Furthermore, in the debate, Obama praised Biden's "hard work" in passing the '94 ban.

There has been almost ZERO evidence that the pro-gun Democrats elected in 2006 will stand against their party on principle. Why would they do it against an AWB?

That's just reality. That's what you're voting for if you vote Democrat. Why would you expect anyone at a gun shop with a tiny bit of political awareness to welcome you in your Obama t-shirt?

Furthermore, proposals like the Fairness Doctrine and Card Check, which the Democrats will also make into law if they can, are not about free speech or civil liberties. I could go on, but suffice it to say that it would be difficult for anyone who is politically aware to just say to themselves, "Well, I understand, with all the Republican opposition to free speech, why they'd support the Democrat."

au1776
October 16, 2008, 05:26 PM
The problem you're going to have is that the core of the Democratic party doesn't support the underlying theories behind RKBA. I mean, I know that portions of the Democratic platform and the Second are not in conflict, but in theory, there is quite a bit of mutual exclusivity.

The modern Democratic party is overtly in favor of government intervention. The modern Democratic party is blatantly in favor of autonomy-stripping. Those just aren't things that really mesh with Second Amendment rights in a lot of scenarios. You can say you vote Democratic for financial reasons, but substantial governmental interference with regard to personal ownership seems to touch on RKBA, doesn't it?

Good luck, maybe you folks can reign in some of the radicalism.

barry960
October 16, 2008, 05:39 PM
bdickens took the words I wanted to say....chickens for Sanders. If someone has the best NRA grade, then they will get my vote regardless of party though, once it really was a democrat with an 'A', believe it or not. Other than that, I don't see how you people can enjoy firearms and believe in 2a but blindly support that party where it has gone to. NRA is for dems too, if you are really pro 2a, and not some kind of seminar bloggers trying to divide up and ambush sites like this! If the NRA is using it's money against a candidate, he or she is a gun grabber, or the more anti of the options, so you shouldn't be troubled that they are being defeated just because you also support their position on taxing us all so we can't afford to have any outdoor activities anyway!

ArmedBear
October 16, 2008, 05:43 PM
I haven't seen a remotely pro-gun Democrat on any ballot I have ever marked. However, that was in California.

That said, I'd vote for Democrat Bill Richardson over either of the two Presidential candidates right now, if he were running, and not just because he's pro-gun.

Both parties have gone to ****, assuming they were much to speak of before. But one of them has gun banning in their party's platform.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm

ArmedBear
October 16, 2008, 05:58 PM
Addendum:

Note that California's AWB requires registration of guns acquired before the ban went into effect (2000), and prohibits transferring these guns to anyone.

So, those who had them before 2000 can keep them (if they registered them immediately), but they're not at gun shows, and they're not available for sale anywhere else in California, either.

Even a ban that looks like '94 could easily have a provision banning transfer of pre-ban guns or parts.

RDak
October 16, 2008, 06:09 PM
I've never heard of a legitimate pro gun group for Democrats.

The only gun groups I've heard of, who cater to Democrats, have been anti-gun groups.

For reasons unknown to me all my adult life, the Democratic party attracts rabidly anti-gun voters.

I simply don't know what happened to the Democratic party in the last 50 years. Something went haywire relative to the 2nd Amendment and modern day Democrats. :confused:

Why the 2nd Amendment, and it's individual rights holding in Heller, is a political issue is ridiculous IMHO.

Democrats and Republicans agree with freedom of speech, why we don't agree with the individual right to own firearms totally escapes me. I'm just not smart enough to understand this one.

Like I said, something "happened" to modern day Democrats. It wasn't like that when I was a kid. (My parents, in their mid 80's now, are rabidly left wing but they NEVER have had any problem with me owning a firearm. They just don't see it as a problem. They let me play with guns as a kid, own a BB gun and .22lr at a very young age. Different generation I guess??)

TT
October 16, 2008, 06:21 PM
The philosophical underpinning of the Democratic Party is communitarianism; individual self-defense is anathema to communitarianism.

ArmedBear
October 16, 2008, 06:23 PM
Democrats and Republicans agree with freedom of speech

Really? You think that the government as arbiter of political speech is "free"? Or haven't you heard of the Fairness Doctrine? "Hate speech"?

The Democratic Party does not believe in free speech, either legislatively or culturally ( http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/8675-How-the-Left-Works.html ).

The Republican Party wants to do stuff like have a moment of silence in schools, or, for a time, wanted to ban flag burning. It's silly, IMO, but while I don't like this stuff, it's rather innocuous compared to the Orwellian ambitions of the left at the moment.

Bottom line, if I had to choose, I'd rather live in a society where kids had a 30-second moment of silence in the morning, in public schools, than in one where the government decided what news coverage and opinions on the air are "fair".

RDak
October 16, 2008, 06:27 PM
Good point Armed Bear.

I was talking mainly about ordinary folks.

But you are correct, I've heard about the shenanigans presented by current Democratic political leaders in their attempt to thwart talk radio, etc.

It ain't right and I hope to heck nothing like the Fairness Doctrine EVER passes.

Do you think most ordinary Democrats favor stifling speech like that? I don't but admit I haven't followed that issue that closely.

JImbothefiveth
October 16, 2008, 06:30 PM
There really needs to be a way to get more pro-gun democrats elected
We could always encourage Casey to run for president next election, I hear he's pretty pro-gun.

The only way to make sure the democrats turn pro-gun is to make it cost them an election. After losing a few of these, they'll shift their stance. So if you are a democrat, wishing the party was more pro-gun, don't vote for them until they are.(And don't just take their word, look at their votes.)

RDak
October 16, 2008, 06:32 PM
TT: I don't quite understand why a Communist would be against an individual owning a firearm for self-defense.

I just don't get it.

I know Commies are wacked out but I still can't grasp why they would be against the private ownership of firearms?

The 2nd Amendment should transcend all that political garbage.

Edit: You know, I'm so far to the right politically that most of the leftie philosophies just don't make much sense to me. I have a very hard time grasping the "collective" theories they espouse. It's like they are trying to make us into sheep and I just don't have a good understanding of the benefits of a society of sheep. Never have and never will.

I hear guys like Al Franken talk and my eyes get crossed and I get dizzy. I just don't get it.

TT
October 16, 2008, 06:37 PM
Communist is not the same as communitarian.

RDak
October 16, 2008, 06:41 PM
Maybe I'm just not smart enough because they seem very similar to me. I get the feeling that it is a 20th century version of Communism but could be wrong. I'll have to read up more on that one.

Why would communatarians be against the individual ownership of firearms? Why wouldn't it be good for the "community" for law abiding citizens to defend themselves with a firearm and to guard against tyranny?

ArmedBear
October 16, 2008, 06:49 PM
I know Commies are wacked out but I still can't grasp why they would be against the private ownership of firearms?

Because the individual is always subordinate to the State.

Remember, the only two real-world options are: individuals and government agents have weapons, or only government agents have weapons.

There has never been a society where there just weren't any weapons.

JImbothefiveth
October 16, 2008, 06:55 PM
Woah guys!
Let's be careful to stay with the OP and not drift into Dem bashing.

RDak
October 16, 2008, 06:55 PM
I have to think about that one Armed Bear.

I just don't see the correlation with Communism and it automatically meaning an individual can't own a firearm for self-defense and to guard against tyranny.

Why do Communists regimes only allow the government to own firearms? What does that have to do with Communism?

I'm going to have to do some reading on that one because I just don't see why it matters. Dictator - yes, I can understand why but true Communism - no, I don't understand that one and never will. Maybe I just haven't understood Communism enough because everytime I've heard one of those wack jobs talk I just get crossed eyed and dizzy.

RoadkingLarry
October 16, 2008, 06:55 PM
You democrats that think the NRA only supports republicans are not doing your home work.
http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/State.aspx?y=2008&State=OK#U.S.%20HOUSE%20OF%20REPRESENTATIVES

Dan Boren is my Congressman. The only Democrat in Oklahoma's D.C. road show. he has an A+ rating from the NRA and is on the NRA Board of Directors.

As far as being a single issue voter is concerned, a politicians position on the 2nd amendment and privte ownership of firearms is all I need to know about them. Am I a Citizen to be trusted with my own defense or am I a subject to be ruled and controlled. It is as simple as that.

RDak
October 16, 2008, 06:57 PM
Sorry Jim: To stay on topic, I've never heard of any legitimate pro-gun group run by Democrats.

JImbothefiveth
October 16, 2008, 07:00 PM
I guess the NRA is bi-partisan, so it might sort of qualify.

RDak
October 16, 2008, 07:02 PM
Yes, somewhat IMHO.

wolfe28
October 16, 2008, 07:07 PM
[QUOTE]The only way to make sure the democrats turn pro-gun is to make it cost them an election./QUOTE]

Here's a thought; take someone who you know to be anti-gun with you to the range next time. Show them how to handle a firearm correctly. Let them experience how much fun it is to blast a clay pidgin out of the sky, to hit the bulls eye on a target, or watch golf balls bounce when you hit them just right (my wife's current favorite shooting sport).

On that same thought, the idea same could and should be standard practice for the NRA and other pro-firearms groups for all elected officials. The reason is, as my father often said, "a man forced against his will is of the same opinion still". A party loosing an election because they are anti-gun is the same as a waiter or waitress thinking that they should improve their service practice when they get a lousy tip. The waiter or waitress will chalk the customer up as a jerk, and the loosing party will chalk the loss up to people being stupid. That's just life, like it or not.

Oh yea, and by the way, I vote.

D

TT
October 16, 2008, 07:10 PM
RDak: I'll have to read up more on that one.

You should read up on it, however the short answer to your question is that communitarians hold that individuals are incompetent/bigoted and cannot be trusted with self-governance- they are effectively suitable only to be wards of the state. Providing for your own individual defense shows self-reliance that is in direct opposition to the idea that individuals are incompetent. Additionally, communitarians believe that as incompetents, individuals cannot be held responsible for their own mistakes- shooting a criminal in self-defense has the effect of holding the criminal responsible for his own actions...which communitarianism rejects.

I’d like to re-emphasize that while communism is a sub-set of communitarianism, they are not the same. Please do not misrepresent my previous comments as saying that Democrats are communist-that’s not what I said.

JImbothefiveth
October 16, 2008, 07:13 PM
Sorry, I thought you were bashing the democrats. I think communists might restrict guns because they can, just like they restrict religion, free speech, etc.

But let's not let this dominate the whole thread, it's a very good thread.

And beware a group that claims to be pro-gun, but supports a ton of restrictions, thinks guns cause crime, and endorsed Obama. I can't remember their name, but DON'T DONATE TO THEM! They don't even want handguns used for hunting!

However, if you don't like the NRA feel free to join
There's also the CATO institute,(a liberatarian organization, I don't know who they give to) and the Possenti society.(I have no idea who they fund either, but Catholic positions probably aren't too compatable with the democrat's positions.)

ArmedBear
October 16, 2008, 07:26 PM
There is no such thing as "true" communism. All examples have been dictatorships, unless you're talking about very small groups of people who voluntarily joined communes or whatever. These have little to do with Marxist governments; they're just groups of people who decide to enter into a certain living arrangement (and they tend to break down eventually).

Anyway, since the market is simply a fact, not a construct, it won't just fade away. People want to trade stuff. That's part of who we are as a species. To stop them requires brutal authoritarianism, and even that doesn't really work -- witness the black markets in the USSR and today in Cuba. But that's why "communism" ends up being a dictatorship, or breaking down.

RDak
October 16, 2008, 07:32 PM
Yes Armed Bear, I understand that explanation. Makes sense from what I've seen over the years.:)


I see TT, makes more sense now. Thanks for the explanation.:)

They "believe individuals are incompetent". Man, that makes my blood boil!!

aka108
October 16, 2008, 07:34 PM
We've survived Rep and Dem administrations senates and houses in the past but don't think we have ever had such wacky people as Pelosi, Reid and possibly Obama in the drivers seat at one time. Esp with 2 or 3 Supreme Court seats comming up in the next few years.

RDak
October 16, 2008, 07:35 PM
+1 guzillion!!

JWarren
October 16, 2008, 08:03 PM
The more we take our love of guns public, the better chance we'll have in disassociating guns with the far right.

A couple thoughts...

Stop worrying about where gun rights are ALREADY associated and START incorporating them into non-traditional areas.

While I understand your sentiment, I think your message could be better phrased that you would like 2A support not to be solely a "far-right" notion. However, quit worrying about disassociating things. Worry about associating things. The far-right will likely ALWAYS be pro-2A-- as we have always been. That will not change.

As a conservative, right-wing person, I agree with you. I would much rather RKBA issues NOT to be solely associated with one ideology or the other. There's plenty of room for everyone in supporting the 2A.

If this is no longer a polarized issue, I suspect that position becomes dramatically more secure.

GunLvrNLearner
October 16, 2008, 08:25 PM
Although the 94 ban was a Clinton piece, Republicans had the power to filibuster,why didnt they, did they not consider it that important?

Personally if i have a full size 9mm and limited to 10,i feel like i am gettin messed over

ziggy222
October 16, 2008, 08:28 PM
i no longer enjoy visiting this site.i'm tired of all the insults when all i wanna do is talk guns.this site is republican 1st and a gun site 2nd.i don't feel welcome here.you guys make me wanna give up the hobby.i said i was dem,i did'nt say i was voting obama.unlike you guys,i'm not even telling anyone else who they should vote for.a true firearms advocate would try to get along with both parties,not cut them off.my other hobby is reef keeping.the people in those forums have twice the intelect and 3 times the money.they are true republicans,very very rich,and non of them would bully people over politics.

ArmedBear
October 16, 2008, 08:31 PM
Nobody is bullying anyone, ziggy, by expressing opinions and backing them up with examples.

Is that what Democrats really think? If I don't agree with you, and I can cite reasons, I'm a bully?

Give me a break.

(And your use of periods instead of spaces makes it hard to read your posts, BTW. That will be true anywhere.)

GunLvrNLearner
October 16, 2008, 09:00 PM
Ziggy, honestly most of these ppl have been very helpful but you are right, TONS of ppl on here have ANTI Democratic propaganda in their taglines

If ppl wanna vote McCain that is fine,just glad they vote,but to be insulted for being pro gun and Democratic is absurd and yes i think guns rights are better protected by the GOP,but i am certainly not going to be a Republican for ONE SINGLE issue and ditch the other MILLION issues i agree with my own party on

MILLIONS OF ACTIVE DEMOCRATS ARE gun owners and to inssult and try to intimidate is awful,there are many democrats on here and noone bashes McCain....we all have the same hobby and interests,why try to offend others?

And i greatly appreciate the mod HSO stating please stay on topic tht was class,Thanks

TT
October 16, 2008, 09:33 PM
For the sake of fairness, please note that my explanation of communitarianism is as seen by a libertarian. No communitarian will agree with my definition- you can easily search online to get another point of view. But regardless of the claimed motivation, the Democratic agenda syncs very closely to communitarian philosophy.

Deanimator
October 16, 2008, 10:18 PM
I've been buying guns for 47 years. during that time there have been Dem and Rep presidents. I have never been denied the purchase of a gun and noone has come to my door demanding that I surrender one. When Obama takes office in January I don't expect anything will be different.
Now tell me again how I can LAWFULLY move to Chicago with my handguns?

I mean, if nobody's going to take my guns, that should be pretty easy, RIGHT?

Signed - Liberal EX-Democrat

GunLvrNLearner
October 16, 2008, 10:20 PM
Its ironic that gun control is in areas that LAW ABIDING citizens need guns

kolob10
October 16, 2008, 11:49 PM
Gentlemen, I am a registered repubilican. I vote for individuals not parties. Currently, the NRA is endorsing a Democratic state representative in my district not the republican. I voted for the democrat last term & I'll vote for him again this term. I also will be voting for repubicans, libertarians, independents, and maybe even a write in or two. I consider myself pro gun, pro God, pro life, and enjoy my pursuit of life and liberty here in this wonderful land of opportunity. It seems to me that the democrats generally lean too far toward unbridled socialism and tend to punish the rich business owners (who provide us jobs and a lucrative tax base) and lean heavily on unwarranted, poorly supervised, and poorly administrated social welfare (read that hand outs without hand ups) programs. The republicans on the other hand seems to lean heavily on wanting to make big government work for just the elite heirarchy. Our founding Fathers and our Supreme Father above would not be pleased to vote for most who aspire or serve to political office today.

Our politicians enjoy good wages, excellent health care benefits, great retirement plans (vested and evergreen), great security personnel, and it seems job security due to an uninformed and misinformed people who care more about Sundays sporting event scores than the welfare of this nation.
I remember the words of Thomas Jefferson who warned with almost prophetic urgency that every democratic republic would become sufficiently corrupt every 200 years or so to warrant purging. Earlier patriots also said that the tree of Liberty should be refreshed with the blood of patriots from time to time.
Let us be informed citizens unitedly and rebuke media lies, half truths, self serving and self perpetuating innuendos. May we be informed by self education, supported by hard work, and rewarded with honest, public serving
public servants who love the liberty they enjoy here in the good old USA.

Republicans ,democrats, libertarians, and independents are and have been welcomed to my shooting range. We are all equals on the range but all enemies on the fields of battle. Good Shooting

cbrgator
October 17, 2008, 12:11 AM
Brian Schweitzer is what the rest of the democratic party should be like.

GunLvrNLearner
October 17, 2008, 12:39 AM
Brian Schweitzer and John Tester

Deanimator
October 17, 2008, 12:52 AM
You are either Pro gun Rights or a liberal. Can't be both. It don't work that way.
Strange, it works that way for me.

I don't care if you want to marry another guy.

I don't care if women have abortions.

I won't vote for fanatical anti-gunners like Obama.

I'm a liberal independent.

hso
October 17, 2008, 11:00 AM
Let's get back onto the OP question and quit picking at whether Dems is devils or not. This isn't a philosophy discussion group.:rolleyes:

buzz_knox
October 17, 2008, 04:06 PM
Although the 94 ban was a Clinton piece, Republicans had the power to filibuster,why didnt they, did they not consider it that important?


Was it the AWB or the Brady Bill where the Dems called a vote and then blocked the doors so some absent Republicans couldn't vote? It was one or the other.

You are either Pro gun Rights or a liberal. Can't be both. It don't work that way.

A true liberal should be pro gun, as the term involves allowing people to do as they want within some basic boundaries (i.e. do not harm another through the excercise of your rights). Most who claim to be liberal aren't, but are only interested in seeing their interests and beliefs advanced at the expense of others.

IndianaBoy
October 17, 2008, 04:26 PM
I think communists might restrict guns because they can, just like they restrict religion, free speech, etc.



This is an overly simplistic.. and in my opinion.. incorrect viewpoint.


The communists had very good reasons to restrict religion, free speech, and firearms.

Religion: Can't have the populace worshiping God. That interferes with the 'cult of the personality' that Stalin cultivated. He was revered to the point of a deity. For a modern day example, look at Kim Jong-Il "Dear Leader" in North Korea, or perhaps the 'rock star' status of Obama amongst some groups.


Free speech: Cultivation of dissent and revolution begins with people discussing and advertising that they are unhappy with the current situation. Make it a crime to discuss dissent, and that helps to stifle dissent. People were killed in Soviet Russia for speaking out against communism.

Firearms: Without guns, how can peasants overthrow a government backed by an armed military?


As for ziggy's comments about leaving:
Discussion about firearms themselves never or rarely delves into politics. Go the the rifles forum... lots of people talking about long arms.... Same with the pistols and competitive shooting forums... et al. You brought up politics. It should not surprise you that on a firearms forums you are finding an opposing view to your own. Democrats have tied the rest of their liberal policies to gun control in most of their candidates. I am not here to debate the merits of conservative vs. liberal policies. I can tell you it is a pure fact that the Democrats namely: Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi and Obama favor intolerable restrictions on our rights.

If you don't want dissent... don't start a thread announcing: "Hey I like guns just like the rest of you! But I plan to vote for people who want to take them away." You are going to stir up some irritated people.

Regards,

Indy

buzz_knox
October 17, 2008, 04:41 PM
We've survived Rep and Dem administrations senates and houses in the past but don't think we have ever had such wacky people as Pelosi, Reid and possibly Obama in the drivers seat at one time.

Regardless of party affiliation, I don't think anyone can realistically or credibly argue that this predicted administration and Congress will not represent the most anti-RKBA in history. Never before have so many with a virulent and confessed hatred of the RKBA been in positions of leadership. They might have felt that way, but they didn't publicly wallow in it.

ArmedBear
October 17, 2008, 05:11 PM
A true liberal should be pro gun, as the term involves allowing people to do as they want within some basic boundaries (i.e. do not harm another through the excercise of your rights).

True.

However, "liberal" in 2008 America doesn't mean that. Hence the need to coin the term "libertarian."

"Liberal" in 2008 is essentially equivalent to "statist" or "nanny statist."

Abortion is sort of an outlier; both sides have arguments based on individual rights. Carl Sagan, for one, proposed limiting abortion to the first trimester as a compromise. Neither side wants a compromise.

Gay marriage is another interesting case. Someone who is really libertarian might ask why the government has ANYTHING to do with marriage. This is a whole different approach from the "conservative" support for traditional marriage, and the "liberal" support for simply adding another protected class to those who can have government-controlled marriages.

By coincidence, many American traditions are libertarian, so they often mesh with "conservative" tenets -- but not always. And "liberals" tend to support the "nontraditional", which sometimes meshed with libertarianism. However, neither "conservatives" nor "liberals" are libertarians -- as support for the "War on Drugs" from both sides of the aisle illustrates.

JImbothefiveth
October 17, 2008, 07:45 PM
I think Casey is pro-gun, pro-life, and all that stuff. My kind of democrat. :cool:

hso
October 17, 2008, 09:07 PM
Ok, once again we tried to have a discussion about how self described Pro-Gun Democrats might band together to support RKBA and some folks insist on sniping at them instead of trying to help come up with ideas that might make just a little difference in helping them help the overall community.

So, once again, again, CLOSED.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA Democrats" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!