"Where Democrats proudly own guns"


PDA






K-Romulus
June 20, 2006, 12:58 PM
Hoo, boy! Time for another one of "those" threads . . .:evil:

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/14856809.htm

Posted on Tue, Jun. 20, 2006

Red, Blue - and Purple
A closer look at America's political and cultural divide.
Where Democrats proudly own guns
In Montana, less of a partisan issue.
By Paul Nussbaum
Inquirer Staff Writer

MISSOULA, Mont. - Gov. Brian Schweitzer won't say exactly how many guns he owns, other than it's "more than I need, but less than I want."

An unabashed shooter, hunter and gun-fancier in a state deeply in touch with its Old West heritage, Schweitzer is a member of the National Rifle Association and was happy to receive the NRA's endorsement for governor in 2004.

He is also a Democrat.

Like many Democrats, especially those beyond the nation's big cities and urban coasts, Schweitzer doesn't see gun ownership as a partisan issue.

Post a Comment
"Republicans try to make the case that 'Democrats will take your guns away.' I say, 'Yeah, Democrats like Giuliani, Pataki and Schwarzenegger,' " Schweitzer said, naming prominent Republicans from New York and California.

While leaders in cities such as Philadelphia, faced with a rising number of gun-related slayings and injuries, call for tougher gun laws, their counterparts in more rural states insist that criminals, not guns, are the problem.

As Democrats try to win control of Congress this year and the White House in 2008, the divide over guns may make their task that much tougher. For common ground in the gun debate is often found not in political affiliation, but in region, gender, or proximity to a large city.

A Pew Research Center survey of 1,500 adults in 2004 asked Americans which they thought was more important - "to protect the right of Americans to own guns, or to control gun ownership?"

In the Northeast, 70 percent of the respondents said it was more important to control gun ownership, while 26 percent said it was more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns. In all other regions of the country, majorities also said controlling guns was paramount, but by much smaller margins (the Midwest, 54 percent; the South, 53 percent, and the West, 59 percent).

And a Gallup Poll survey of 1,012 people in October found gun ownership lowest in the East, where 31 percent of respondents said they or someone in their household owned a gun. In the South and the Midwest, the figure was 47 percent; in the West, it was 38 percent.

Republicans are more likely to have a gun in the house: The Gallup survey found that 57 percent of Republicans said they or someone in their household owned a gun, compared with 33 percent of Democrats and 37 percent of independents.

Only 13 percent of women said they owned guns, while 47 percent of men did.

In a state such as Montana, the gun issue helps color the state red in presidential elections even as voters elect Democrats to state and local offices. In 2004, Montanans voted for President Bush by a ratio of 59 percent to 39 percent, while putting Democrats in control of the governor's mansion and both houses of the Legislature. (In the last 50 years, the only Democratic presidential candidates to carry the state were Bill Clinton in 1992 and Lyndon Johnson in 1964.)

The state's senior U.S. senator, Max Baucus, is a Democrat, and the Republican junior senator, Conrad Burns, is considered vulnerable in his reelection bid this year, partly because of ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. This month, State Senate President Jon Tester won the Democratic nomination to oppose Burns in November.

Montana voters regularly exhibit an independent streak laced with a suspicion of government intrusion. In 2004, they voted to approve a "right to hunt" constitutional amendment (with 81 percent support) at the same time that they approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes (62 percent) and a ban on cyanide in mining (58 percent).

A Democratic presidential candidate with hopes of carrying Montana would have to tap into that independence and speak frankly to the gun issue, Schweitzer said.

"I'd tell him to tell people he respects their Second Amendment rights and maybe talk a little about his own experiences with guns," Schweitzer said. "And it might not be a bad idea to go out to a gravel pit and set up some beer cans and shoot at 'em."

Craig Wilson, a political science professor at Montana State University-Billings who conducts regular polling on political issues, said that although state residents were relatively pro-gun, the image of Montanans as "redneck rebels with a gun in the back of every pickup is not a true picture."

He said the NRA had "the ability to mobilize their owners... . Gun owners win on intensity.

"That's why politicians in Montana are extremely skittish about crossing swords with the NRA, and that's why it's a coveted endorsement," he said.

Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, a political action group for gun owners, agreed that gun owners here were "life-and-death serious" about preventing gun restrictions, and "when you're running a campaign, the intensity of your followers is more important than the number of your followers."

Marbut has run unsuccessfully for the Legislature both as a Republican and a Democrat.

"I don't care what party a person is as long as they're agreeable to our principles," Marbut said. "But we do tend to find more friends among Republicans and the Constitution Party and Libertarians than we do among Democrats and the Green Party."

Montana got an F from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the political action group established by Sarah Brady after her husband, Jim, was wounded in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. The Brady Center cited Montana's failure to regulate gun ownership by juveniles, conduct background checks, require child-safety locks, or set waiting periods for gun purchases, among other things.

In the vastness of Montana, 935,000 people are scattered over 147,000 square miles, which means there are only about six people per square mile. Only Alaska and Wyoming are more sparsely settled. (By comparison, New Jersey has 1,134 people per square mile, and Philadelphia has 11,233.)

That can mean fewer gun conflicts than in crowded coastal cities, Schweitzer said.

"People in large urban places have concerns we don't have," the governor said. "In places like Philadelphia, New York, Boston, you have gun issues that are completely alien to us."

State legislator Kevin T. Furey, 23, a Democrat who served with the Army in Iraq, owns a .270 bolt-action hunting rifle and says hunting and guns are ingrained in the state's DNA. So, he said, is opposition to government control.

"A large percentage of people are pro-gun, but a large percentage are also pro-choice," Furey said. "There's an almost libertarian sensibility... that government should stay out of your life.

"When someone sees 'Democrat,' they think 'control.' But when you explain to people that you don't agree with the national Democratic Party on every issue, they're willing to listen."

Furey continued: "Democrats are in power now, and we're not raising taxes, we're not taking away guns. I think that's a wake-up call for people. All those scary things they were told were going to happen, didn't."

If you enjoyed reading about ""Where Democrats proudly own guns"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
orangelo
June 20, 2006, 01:06 PM
Democrats are in power now, and we're not raising taxes, we're not taking away guns.

Apparently he slept right through the 90s.

Cosmoline
June 20, 2006, 01:12 PM
This is similar to Alaska. It was a liberal Democrat who pushed for Vermont carry here. The best case scenario is not one where pro-gun Republicans win, but rather returning to a world where the RKBA is a NON-PARTISAN issue.

Sadly, the national Democratic party remains under the control of antis. But then again so are a lot of Republican politicos.

Mongo the Mutterer
June 20, 2006, 01:14 PM
Amazing..

Nussbaum is in Philly, he had to go how far to find a pro-gun Democrat???

geekWithA.45
June 20, 2006, 01:36 PM
Well, I'd encourage more Democrats to follow their lead on the issue, and arrive at some genuine support of the 2nd Amendment.

At the end of the day, if the Dems stopped being the political champion of the forces of organized gun bigotry, such forces would find themselves politically homeless, relatively powerless, and relegated to the fringe where they belong.

Dems have a long track record to overcome, and their sincerity will be suspect for quite some time.


All in all, I'd say that this is more an example of local politicians fitting in with their locale, than the sign of a trend.

Flipside example: Bloomberg of NYC. (Laying aside the fact that the GOP is a flag of convenience for Bloomberg, shall we write an article about "Where Republicans Proudly Fear Guns?")

orangelo
June 20, 2006, 02:20 PM
Bloomberg isn't a republican, he's an alien from an alternate dimension where black is white and right is wrong. In his mind he believes he has a chance at winning the presidency, that's how out of touch with reality he is.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-detail.php?id=15612

That top 10 list of gun grabbers in the US senate looks like a who's who of the demorat party leadership. If the Ds want to convince normal gun owners they aren't out to screw them, then why are these jokers still calling the shots?

Cosmoline
June 20, 2006, 03:00 PM
Let's not forget the great Republican "Hero" Rudy, who's personally overseen the imposition of the most draconian anti-gun laws and police methods in the US. Plainclothes cops, authorized to stop and even kill anyone they suspect has a firearm. Compared with Rudy, Hillary is barely a threat. Don't get too mired in partisan politics. Enemies are all around us, and friends can be found in unexpected places.

modifiedbrowning
June 20, 2006, 03:02 PM
Man, I love living here.:D

TX1911fan
June 20, 2006, 03:06 PM
While I agree that there are Democrats who are 2A friendly, they are vastly outnumbered by their colleagues and constituents. It simply is not safe to vote for a Democrat JUST because they support the 2A. Now, in a governor's race, or in a state legislature, that may be ok. But on a national level, it is plain crazy to vote for a Dem because you think they'll protect the 2A. Even IF, and its a big if, they have the courage to stand up against their party (which most don't, on both sides), they are so outnumbered as to not matter anyway. I'm much more comfortable with a few Republicans supporting gun control than I am with a few Democrats supporting the 2A.

cbsbyte
June 20, 2006, 03:38 PM
Montana is a hard state to pin politicaly, it is both conservative on economic issues, yet very progressive on social issues. There Democrats are much more old fashion liberal, than east coast Dems. I bet it has to do with a large percentage of people who live there once lived in California, or the Midwest. An ex girlfriend who moved from Montana to Mass, stated, most younger Montanans can't wait to leave the state for place like California, or the East coast when they are old enough. There is not enough work, and it is to isolated for them. In the near future Montana and other Western states will become Democrat on the Federal level. One can already see the change from Red to Blue, in every election. Hopefully, they won't turn into Californias. Though I suspect they will in the long run, do to the influx of East coaster and Californians. Maybe if enough old fashion Dems from the western states, can get together and force the Liberal East Coast Dems out of the National Democratic Party.

wheelgunslinger
June 20, 2006, 03:56 PM
*waves*
Here's a Dem who's RKBA friendly. I likes my guns, and I likes my environment. Yes to assault weapons, no to drilling in Alaska.


The Democratic Party is, at present, like a big herd of Cats. Impossible to move in a direction and hard to tell who is truly in charge.
Cosmoline is right about how the RKBA should be a non partisan issue. And that even some Reps have sold out the RKBA.

Zen21Tao
June 20, 2006, 04:23 PM
And I remember another Democrat "unabashed shooter, hunter and gun-fancier... in touch with [his] Old West heritage" :D :

http://www.liveshot.cc/images/John%20Kerry%20Hunting%204.jpg

http://www.tonyrogers.com/humor/images/kerry_shotgunning.jpg

The problem I have with getting behind even legitamate pro-gun libs is that their party platform is still anti-gun. At best we can expect pro-gun Democrats to try to ward off their party's anti-gun agenda. On the other hand, the Rublican platform is pro-gun. RINOs are limited as to how far they can stray from party platform beliefs before the rank and file party memebers toss them out of office. The American people have recent voiced where they stand on the 2nd Amendment. Any attempt by a RINO to rebel against the 2nd Amenment would be political suicide.

TallPine
June 20, 2006, 04:28 PM
the image of Montanans as "redneck rebels with a gun in the back of every pickup is not a true picture."
Once you get outside of Billings and other bigger cities, that pretty much still is a true picture. Most of my neighbors are even more radical and anti-government than I am - if you can imagine that ;)

I do know of one widow lady that moved here in the last couple years that doesn't have a gun, though she is thinking about it. Other than that I am not aware of any households in my rural spread-out neighborhood that are unarmed. And I know some grey haired ladies that pack a pistol when hiking.

OTOH, it was the Democrat controlled state legislature that failed to pass self-defense reform and "Vermont carry" last session (2005). :( So I still take all their "I'm a Democrat and I hunt/own guns" with a grain of salt.:rolleyes:

'Card
June 20, 2006, 04:32 PM
Not a big surprise.

The south was solidly Democratic for decades, and rabidly pro-RKBA. Now the south is solidly Republican, and still pro-RKBA. The south never changed any of its core values as far as I can tell. It's just that the Democratic party moved away from those values.

The south eventually realized that the Republicans better represented their interests, and if local Democrats in Montana start reflecting the views of the national Democratic party, the same thing will happen there.

davec
June 20, 2006, 04:48 PM
The south never changed any of its core values as far as I can tell. It's just that the Democratic party moved away from those values.

Damn that civil rights movement.

tellner
June 20, 2006, 04:49 PM
This is similar to Alaska. It was a liberal Democrat who pushed for Vermont carry here. The best case scenario is not one where pro-gun Republicans win, but rather returning to a world where the RKBA is a NON-PARTISAN issue.

Sadly, the national Democratic party remains under the control of antis. But then again so are a lot of Republican politicos.

Once again, the Infernal snowball fight has been postponed to allow for porcine aerial maneuvers. Cosmoline and I are in complete agreement :D

MrTuffPaws
June 20, 2006, 04:55 PM
The problem I have with getting behind even legitamate pro-gun libs is that their party platform is still anti-gun.

True, but the problem I have with getting behind conservatives is that while their party is pro-gun, their actions are just lip service. :D

Dravur
June 20, 2006, 04:57 PM
You have to remember, that in Montana, Democrats have to be very conservative to win. Plus, they happened to have one of the most corrupt republican governors the last time around. True montanans are a conservative bunch, but we tend to be classicly liberal when it comes to social issues and somewhat to the environment. Montanan's tend towards environmentalism as a controlled environment. Do no harm, but harvest the trees, etc.

With the influx of the vapid left from ********** however, a new threat to Montana has developed. The Looney left, like Farmer Ted Turner moved in and proceeded to hork off the real ranchers and farmers in MT. More and more of these loons move to Montana and have really destroyed towns like Bozeman and Missoula. Where once was a friendly old diner, now there is a Bistro, selling Alfalfa Sprouts in Buttsauce. Where once was a Good ole Guns and Fishing shop, now sits an Orvis shop selling $30 flies and fishing waders made from rare baby seals.

Out in the hinterlands of MT, you can still find the charm of MT. Where your neighbor knows who you are and doors are never locked.

But Bozeman, it has changed..... and none for the good.

Phetro
June 20, 2006, 05:20 PM
In the Northeast, 70 percent of the respondents said it was more important to control gun ownership, while 26 percent said it was more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns. In all other regions of the country, majorities also said controlling guns was paramount, but by much smaller margins (the Midwest, 54 percent; the South, 53 percent, and the West, 59 percent).

Yeah. I'd like to know who the respondants were exactly. And then I'd like someone to explain why rural areas, with nearly universal gun ownership, have far less crime than cities that ban guns.

Cosmoline
June 20, 2006, 05:43 PM
Any attempt by a RINO to rebel against the 2nd Amenment would be political suicide.

Sadly untrue. GW supported the AWB all along, and Rudy is thinking about a run in '08. He's beloved by millions of Republicans, esp. back east. He's "America's Mayor"--didn't you know that? There are many Republicans at every level who are either fair weather friends of the RKBA or out-and-out enemies of it.

Once again, the Infernal snowball fight has been postponed to allow for porcine aerial maneuvers. Cosmoline and I are in complete agreement


There's hope yet!

orionengnr
June 20, 2006, 07:21 PM
Quote ('Card):
The south never changed any of its core values as far as I can tell. It's just that the Democratic party moved away from those values. /Qoute

Quote (davec):
Damn that civil rights movement /Quote

Reply-- Wow...Dirty pool, below the belt, totally un-High Road.

Quote (Cosmoline):
Sadly untrue. GW supported the AWB all along, and Rudy is thinking about a run in '08. He's beloved by millions of Republicans, esp. back east. He's "America's Mayor"--didn't you know that? /Quote

Reply--Right back at you--sadly very untrue. Rudy was in the right place at the right time. His 15 minutes have come and gone. GWB...a lot of us (yours truly included) voted for him twice, and I hate to trot out the "lesser of two evils" card here...but we are not blind to his shortcomings.

Many of us (I hope) have written our Governors, Representatives, Senators and President to express either our approval or lack thereof. The fact that nearly every one elicts a response (yes I know they are canned) leads me to believe that these efforts are not wasted...unless I am the only one doing it.

So, may I ask you to spend 15 minutes less today on the 'net, and compose a letter to your elected officials? An email works too...and there is no law against doing both.

I do both regularly, and the responses I've gotten from my (TX) Representative and both Senators are encouraging. Governor and President, somewhat less so ..:mad:

PS: Guess I really need to figure out how to "quote" from another member's post...

mordechaianiliewicz
June 20, 2006, 07:38 PM
Montana, along with Eastern Washington, and chunks of Oregon, Idaho, and Wyoming and Colorado, had the phenomena of what I would call "pink libertarianism" in the 50s-90s. Unions (mining and logging) combined with small businesses to create an atmosphere of concern for the small man combined with "do your own thing" social ideas + a "screw the government" attitude bourne of the cowboy spirit.

With the addition of the Californians to Western cities, and Easterners to the pretty much always leftist Denver, and Leftist since the late 60s early 70s Boulder/Golden area, there is no way of telling if this can continue. People lived in rural and small town Western states for the good Union wages, and minimal regulation on small business. With the destruction of unions, and the increasing of tax and regulation caused by the Cali/Northeast interlopers, what were really cool places to live with very reasonable laws could go the way of states' rights.

Cosmoline
June 20, 2006, 07:48 PM
Here's how you quote from my posts, just FYI. Hit the little quote button and insert the text

Sadly untrue. GW supported the AWB all along, and Rudy is thinking about a run in '08. He's beloved by millions of Republicans, esp. back east. He's "America's Mayor"--didn't you know that? There are many Republicans at every level who are either fair weather friends of the RKBA or out-and-out enemies of it.

Then say:

"Cosmoline, you are right again."

That's the best way to do it, I find.

mp510
June 20, 2006, 07:53 PM
By no means should either major party be consdiered to have a monopoly on the RKBA, though it seems that the R's tend to be freindlier in office than the D's. That said, you should vote and support (or lack thereof) by candidate, and not party line.

Zell Miller of Georgia has been a lifelong gun owner and hunter, and he currently is on the NRA board of directors.

Zen21Tao
June 20, 2006, 09:24 PM
True, but the problem I have with getting behind conservatives is that while their party is pro-gun, their actions are just lip service.

Sorry here in Florida Conservatives' support for gun rights is more than just lip service. Our Republican Governor has recently passed legislation to:

1. Extended the castle doctrine to public places (stand your ground law)
2. Protect CCW during state's of emergency.
3. Allow CCW in state and fed parks
4. Keep information associated with concealed weapons permit holders private.
5. Protect the amount of land designated for hunting from being used for other things.


Sadly untrue. GW supported the AWB all along, and Rudy is thinking about a run in '08.

GW had said prior to '08 he would sigh to renew the AWB "IF" it came to his desk. He was repeatedly called out by libs to urge congress to bring renewal of the AWB to floor to be voted on. But he did absolutely nothing saying that his position is known.

Henry Bowman
June 20, 2006, 11:17 PM
Damn that civil rights movement.Led by the Dixiecrats, right? :rolleyes:

pete f
June 20, 2006, 11:33 PM
These numbers about gun ownership are truly suspect. When I get out of the city, there simply are no homes without guns. none. I have worked all over the nation, working in fancy places and dumps, once you get out of the city, EVERY house has a gun, at least a .22 for killing skunks and raccoons.

For five years i misspent my time working for a national homebuilder as a service foreman. I was in between 400 and a thousand homes a year. This is in the metro area, I would say in at least half of them their were indications that guns were present. Maybe it was a bag of decoys in the basement, or a deer head in the den, or a gun case in the garage but I would say 50 % of the urban houses had guns. Working out in the rural areas, every house has a gun. period.

gopguy
June 21, 2006, 09:55 AM
Damn that civil rights movement..:scrutiny:

Hmmmm history reminds us the leader of the fillibuster on the Civil Rights Act was that great paragon of Democratic values Robert "Sheets" Byrd. As long as the longest serving senator still walks those halls with a D behind his name I would not banty about the civil rights issue. In fact the dirty little secret is that more Republicans by percentages voted for it than did Dems. Al Gore even lied about his daddy....the Senator from Tennessee voted no on the Civil Rights Act.....so tread lightly here......:neener:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVDavisGore599.html

Congressional Quarterly reported that, in the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as opposed to 80% of Republicans (138 for, 38 against). In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Act while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrats voted against the Act.

Rudy is the darling of the RINO Rockefeller wing of the GOP, not the base. He would not win a national primary. Nor would John McCain.

Personally I would like to see Condi Rice run. She is brilliant, articulate and pro gun.:D

Manedwolf
June 21, 2006, 10:12 AM
Personally I would like to see Condi Rice run. She is brilliant, articulate and pro gun.

Except for that whole "buying $1000 shoes and going to a play while NO drowned" issue.

Or "We never could have anticipated 9/11"...Sorry, Condi. That was YOUR JOB. Nope, I'd rather have someone who didn't fail upwards.

SIOP
June 21, 2006, 10:15 AM
Democrats, like the Communists they are, don't have anything at all against guns. This has been evidenced time and time again by liberal democrats who carry for their own protection, have armed bodyguards, etc.

They just don't want YOU to have any guns.




Personally I would like to see Condi Rice run. She is brilliant, articulate and pro gun.

Prove it. We just had this discussion somewhere. Find me a quote where she specifically says that she supports the right
of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms. Not the drivel about how she thinks the 2nd Amendment is as important as the rest, or whatever she said. John Kerry supports the 2nd Amendment. Hillary Clinton supports the 2nd Amendment. Etc., etc.

gopguy
June 21, 2006, 10:59 AM
Except for that whole "buying $1000 shoes and going to a play while NO drowned" issue. :barf:


Good God, what petty leftist marxist class envy. I don't know if she bought the shoes or not but so what? It's her money she can spend it on what ever she wants and going to a play.....so what? New Orleans drowned because Mayor Nagin and Gov Blanco are a pair of Democrat political hacks and idiots. They could not mobilize an escape from a cardboard box. It was their job to get the morons who stayed out of the city. An evacuation could have been done with those school buses that we saw with water up to the roof line... you know you folks are really something else .....geeze:rolleyes: Thank you for confirming what most of us think of you leftists....:barf:


Or "We never could have anticipated 9/11"...Sorry, Condi. That was YOUR JOB. Nope, I'd rather have someone who didn't fail upwards.

While Bill Clinton refused the many offers from Sudan and Qatar to hand Bin Laden over to us...I seem to recall it was Mr. Clinton who did nothing following the First World Trade Center attack, the Khobar Towers, the attack on the USS Cole, the embassy in Kenya.....turned tail and ran in Somalia.. It was also Mr Clinton's FBI that ignored all the information given about arabs getting flight lessons and only wanting to know how to fly not land or take off........Don't even dare to try to talk about this issue without expecting to get smacked down with any argument you may offer.:fire:



Condi pro gun
Prove it.

Easy enough.

http://junkyardblog.net/archives/week_2004_11_14.html

During the bombings of the summer of 1963, her father and other neighborhood men guarded the streets at night to keep white vigilantes at bay. Rice said her staunch defense of gun rights comes from those days. She has argued that if the guns her father and neighbors carried had been registered, they could have been confiscated by the authorities, leaving the black community defenseless.

That is exactly the lesson the gun-grabbers hope you and I never learn--that there are times when the right to bear arms can mean the difference between freedom and tyranny, even on a local level. Dr. Rice's history is a slap in the face to every gun control agitator in the coutry, but it's a slap they deserve: Had they gotten their way, there might never have been a Dr. Condolezza Rice because some racist nut might have killed her as a child.

You will find more here....

http://www.aubreyturner.org/index.php?/orglog/the_rice_update/

In a pleasantly meandering conversation over lunch in San Francisco last summer, Condoleezza Rice, then still provost of Stanford but already unofficially what she now is officially, George W. Bush's senior foreign policy adviser, was asked her thoughts about gun control. "I am," she answered crisply, "a Second Amendment absolutist." Growing up in Birmingham, Ala., in the early 1960s, when racial tensions rose, there were, she said, occasions when the black community had to exercise its right to bear arms in self-defense, becoming, if you will, a well-regulated militia. (Emphasis in red in original)

I know of what I speak.

SIOP
June 21, 2006, 11:14 AM
becoming, if you will, a well-regulated militia.

I repeat, find me something where she defends the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. Not one of your quotes does that. Anyone can say that they support the 2nd Amendment if not held to defining what they think that means. Most liberals say that they support the 2nd Amendment, but what they mean is that they support the right of the militia or National Guard to keep and bear arms. Rice's above quote supports that definition, NOT the right of individuals.

And what exactly does "2nd Amendment absolutist" mean? The militia?

cuchulainn
June 21, 2006, 11:18 AM
There are hundreds of reasons to vote against Democrats. Gun control is but one. If the D is pro-gun, then it's a lock that the R is too, meaning I still vote R. Anti-gun Republican vs Pro-gun Democrat simply doesn't happen.

I defy anyone to name 5 contests in the history of American politics, from dog catcher to POTUS, where the D had a better gun record than the R.

gopguy
June 21, 2006, 11:29 AM
"2nd Amendment absolutist" mean?

Hey I gave you what I found on the net to back it up. It suffices for me. Besides only liberals use that only to form a militia argument in defining their view of the second amendment, and then they will say that is what the National Guard is.......conservatives know it is a individual right. Conservatives know the first 10 amendments are individual rights. As Secretary of State she deals with foreign policy issues. She is rarely asked about domestic policy so you won't find a whole lot. If you really want to find a quote and want your specific answer, then you find it. You do the search engine on Yahoo, MSN or Google...I won't spoon feed you like a child.:rolleyes:

SIOP
June 21, 2006, 11:39 AM
Conservatives know the first 10 amendments are individual rights

Actually, conservatives know that the first 10 amendments aren't individual rights, but rather a list of restrictions placed on the actions of the federal government. If the government grants rights, then the government can take them away.


Besides only liberals use that only to form a militia argument in defining their view of the second amendment

Exactly why Rice used the word "militia" in her 2nd Amendment statement rather than "individual." Rice is not a conservative. She made an ambiguous statement about the 2nd Amendment that, just like her liberal brethren, can later be interpreted by her to have meant anything other that an individual's right to keep and bear arms.


If you really want to find a quote and want your specific answer, then you find it

It doesn't exist. I know that it doesn't exist. Your responses only affirmed what I said. She talked about the militia and not about individuals.

gopguy
June 21, 2006, 12:03 PM
Actually, conservatives know that the first 10 amendments aren't individual rights, but rather a list of restrictions placed on the actions of the federal government. If the government grants rights, then the government can take them away.


I am not saying the government grants rights, I know better.....I am saying the Government recognized those first 10 amendments to be rights. As rights are only given by God, or if you are a agnostic, by nature, then we agree Government only can recognize or trample on rights.......Lord knows she is quite good at trampling on them...

just like her liberal brethren,:scrutiny:

LOL I think some of the libs that were posting on here earlier would take umbrage with anyone calling Condi a liberal...:neener:

It doesn't exist. I don't know if it does or not. I got something like 10 pages on MSN and since I live in the sticks of Ohio, don't want to fork up big bucks for Hughes net high speed internet and am still "dial up man" I did not want to spend the entire day looking to answer your question....;)

If you really want the answer, seek and ye shall find......

tellner
June 21, 2006, 01:32 PM
I find the spectacle of Republican True Believers saying their Party stands for rights and liberties to be one of the most pathetic spectacles of the new millenium. Warrantless searches? Detention on Presidential whim without trial? Total surveillance of all communications and social networks? The abrogation of article 6 of the Constitution? Seriously discussing whether the President can order killings on US soil without charge or trial? the end of habeas corpus? Persecution of reporters who write unfavorable stories (pretty mild ones at that)? The ownership of the voting machines by Party activists?

Not only didn't they rise up with their rifles against this, their elected representatives said "It's all fine with us. We don't even want the power to investigate it."

The Democratic Party leadership is spineless, consultant-driven and complicit by its silence. I'd give up on them in a minute if there were an real alternative.

geekWithA.45
June 21, 2006, 01:48 PM
Except for that whole "buying $1000 shoes and going to a play while NO drowned" issue.

Condi Rice is Secretary of State.

That means, she is in charge of the Department of State, an executive department descended from the Department of Foriegn Affairs, and whose function is primarily Foriegn Affairs.

Domestic functions are limited, and mostly ceremonial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_State

The implied charge of dereliction of duty is therefore invalid.


Keep the thread civil, germane, and on track, folks.

Manedwolf
June 21, 2006, 04:20 PM
Good God, what petty leftist marxist class envy.

(Extremely non-highroad reply to idiotic dittohead rhetoric withheld) :fire:

I don't know if she bought the shoes or not but so what? It's her money she can spend it on what ever she wants and going to a play.....so what? New Orleans drowned because Mayor Nagin and Gov Blanco are a pair of Democrat political hacks and idiots.

Because you'd think the Secretary of State would at least make an appearance at the office, and G.W. could do something more than taking another vacation day while a major US city was being destroyed, no matter whose fault it was?

Yeah, that's really expecting too much.

Wow, what good little SERFS some of us have become. And yeah, call me leftist or a marxist for suggesting a showing-up at the office might have been called for, and I'll call you a serf-mentality tool who will be an apologist for ANY transgression as long as there's a shining, glorious, holy (R) after their name. :barf:

you know you folks are really something else .....geeze Thank you for confirming what most of us think of you leftists....

And yeah, I think I'm about done with this forum in general. Can only take so many of this sort of noisemaker ripping on anyone who isn't a Holy True Republican Believer regardless of their stance on 2A before it becomes tiresome.

Keep it up. Keep alienating possible allies, and see how far this all gets.

Some of us are just people who believe in 2A and vote on each issue individually, not by party, and don't swear loyalty and our firstborn and every damned braincell in our head to one side or the other like blind, bleating sheep following wherever the herd goes.

And the sooner some people figure that out, instead of calling all Democrats and independents 'leftists' and 'marxists' and 'liberals' and all sorts of other nonsense...well, the fight might get somewhere.

Till then...I guess all that's wanted here is an echo chamber a la Free Republic.

A shame.

scromp
June 21, 2006, 09:16 PM
I am disappointed in The .. Road.

I am a Democrat, and I will put my second amendment convictions up against any of yours. I have plenty of guns, and I think everyone else should too. I don't hunt. I don't compete, but I practice. I keep my weapons for self defense and as a safeguard against tyranny. I carry every day. I am a patriot and a proud citizen of this country and I named my first child after Benjamin Franklin. My allegiance is to the Constitution and the memory of the Founding Fathers.

While I would rather just not vote than cast a vote for a corrupt, lying, crooked Republican, I will also not vote for anti-gun Democrats, or those that I find to be dishonest. I will vote for a Libertarian if they're not completely crazy, and let's face it, there's little risk of them getting elected.

I don't think anyone here who really puts the second amendment first will be upset to hear this. As a Democrat, when I am mixing guns and politics, I am not preaching to the choir. I am fighting for the second amendment in a sometimes hostile environment, and often making our case to people who do not already agree with me. And in the long run, I convert more than I don't.

You should all be grateful for people like me. Unless you're really just partisan Republicans who happen to kinda like guns.

the pistolero
June 21, 2006, 10:22 PM
RINOs are limited as to how far they can stray from party platform beliefs before the rank and file party memebers toss them out of office.

I'm not so sure about that. Anyone remember this quote from John Chafee, the (late) Republican senator from Rhode Island?

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs).... It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

He died in office, and if I remember right, he kept his GOP affiliation right up until his death, when something like that should have caused the GOP, if it was as pro-gun as we all wished it were, to disown him. Or did they? I honestly do not know. Anyone with a better memory wish to enlighten us?

You should all be grateful for people like me. Unless you're really just partisan Republicans who happen to kinda like guns.

Well, this semi-partisan Republican who really likes guns is grateful for you and those like you. I just wish there were more like you, or, better yet, that the RKBA was a non-partisan issue.

edited for clarity

scromp
June 21, 2006, 11:37 PM
Well, this semi-partisan Republican who really likes guns is grateful for you and those like you. I just wish there were more like you, or, better yet, that the RKBA was a non-partisan issue.

Well I can get behind that. Thanks. And to be fair, living where I live, I rarely have the chance to vote for either anti-gun democrats or honest republicans, so it is usually a pretty easy choice for me. :-)

( deleted rambling )

gopguy
June 22, 2006, 11:09 AM
Mannedwolf said Keep it up. Keep alienating possible allies, and see how far this all gets. :scrutiny:

You need to rethink this. Your dedication to defending the RKBA should have nothing to do with your views on anything else or mine.:rolleyes:

Your attack on Condi Rice for buying expensive shoes, assuming she did buy them, was a marxist class envy sort of response. It is none of your beeswax what she does with her money. That is what I was refering too and I stand by it.....That was not refering to your comment she should have made an appearance. Think about it.

As far as her going down there. Why? The President was criticized by the press and the left every time he went down for being in the way and slowing progress. I could just hear the wailing and nashing of teeth about the cost of her flying down in a government plane to look at the damage.....especially since State has no jurisdiction there. For your info she did make comments from State on the issue of Katrina when foreign aid was offered. Which was proper. Pay more attention and you would know that.


And yeah, I think I'm about done with this forum in general. Can only take so many of this sort of noisemaker ripping on anyone who isn't a Holy True Republican Believer regardless of their stance on 2A before it becomes tiresome.

You made the noise ripping by making a unwarranted attack on Condi Rice and the President, and got a response, now that you have been challenged you run away....very immature. Stay and debate if you have the courage of your convictions. Just use facts and back up what you say rather than make a hit and run comment and then expect to get away with it......

gopguy
June 22, 2006, 11:20 AM
Scomp saidI am disappointed in The .. Road.:scrutiny:

You should not be. This is the section where we talk politics. There are bound to be disagreements and you should expect to see it here. One must have fortitude to read what you may disagree with, and you have the freedom to respond to it.

The High Road is indeed the The High Road. They let us discuss and debate. If we took this to Daily Kos or Democratic Underground I would be banned in a New York minute from posting there and my posts removed.....censorship pure and simple. And Political Correctness at its essence....one of many reasons I despise it. They only want to hear the leftist point of view over there. That is not the High Road this is. We can debate here. If you say something someone disagrees with you must expect they will respond...and depending on how vile a comment someone makes they should not be surprised when they get slapped down pretty hard for it. You just need a thick skin here sometimes.;) However those disagreements should have nothing to do with your commitment to the Second Amendment or gun ownership.

If you can't handle talking politics or don't like having your views or comments challenged you need to just stick to the other pages.;)

SuperNaut
June 22, 2006, 11:32 AM
I'm suprised to discover that there are only "Rightists" and "Leftists" posting here, what's a moderate indy to do?

Isn't there a logical fallacy concerning limiting choices to only two? I think it is called a False Dichotomy. I'm also suprised to discover that Democrats are considered to be "Leftists" on this site, when they strike me as being Republican Lite.

I suppose since the Republican party has been hi-jacked by Trots and the Democrats play dress up I should just shut up and enjoy the spectacle.;)

Byron Quick
June 22, 2006, 12:09 PM
There's still a good many 'yellow dog' Democrats here in the South. As in,"I'd vote for a yeller dawg if'ern it were a Democrat." The South voting Republican is a fairly new phenomenon and the South would not be voting Republican if it were not for northern Republicans who have moved to the South.

The Republican Party is still paying a price for what it did in the South during Reconstruction.

I've a first cousin who hunts, shoots, and owns multiple guns. And votes Democrat whether the candidate is anti-gun and anti-hunting. Union man from a union family.

I have difficulty seeing a difference between the Republican conservatives and the Democratic liberals. The big contentious debates in Congress boil down to what areas of my life the government controls and by how much. Say what?

I'm neither rightist, leftist, or moderate. Rational anarchist. A rational anarchist is a person who does not need to be governed to respect others' rights but realizes that there are many pathological individuals who do need to be told what to do. Therefore, the rational anarchist is willing to exist under a government which is necessary for the welfare of those poor, sick people. Trying to live perfectly in an imperfect world.

Personally, I think the Democrats and Republicans should merge to form the Tyrannical Party. Let's have openness in politics!

So, is this the best we can hope for? Renewed assault on gun rights when the Democrats return to power or neglect and being taken for granted if the Republicans retain power?

The only reason the Republican Party can claim allegiance from gun owners is,"Hey, we haven't kicked you lately!" The party can certainly point to no positive achievements on a federal level. Even the sunset of the AWB saw nothing but Republican waffling on the matter..."I'll sign it if it is sent to me." Now, granted, this was a political maneuver by Bush. It took any heat off and he certainly didn't pressure any Republicans to vote for the measure. But it shows a certain lack of conviction in pro-RKBA, don't you think? And that's typical of the Republican Party on a national level. Republicans are happy with Democrats supporting gun control and losing elections. But when they look at the polls, they get scared of the issue. Little spine in the party.

As far as Republicans being pro-RKBA, to judge from results I'd say the best that could be said of the Republican Party is that it is neutral. How many federal gun control laws have been repealed with a Republican President, and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress? None? Hmmmm.

SuperNaut
June 22, 2006, 12:33 PM
^When I was old enough to vote, my Dad told me that the only good government is a paralyzed government. He used to vote "opposites." i.e. If we had a Democrat as CIC or a Dem Senate Majority, he'd locally vote Rebublican. And if we had a Republican CIC or Repub Senate Majority, he'd locally vote Democrat.

Unfortunately since modern Repubs and Dems are so similar, I can't employ his tactic anymore. Janus and Epimethus may exchange orbit but they both still circle Saturn. Republicans and Democrats may exchange positions but they still circle the dollar.

carebear
June 22, 2006, 12:40 PM
Yeah. I'd like to know who the respondants were exactly. And then I'd like someone to explain why rural areas, with nearly universal gun ownership, have far less crime than cities that ban guns.

Here's how some folks explain it. Notice neatly avoiding the trap of dealing with "cultural" issues.

In the vastness of Montana, 935,000 people are scattered over 147,000 square miles, which means there are only about six people per square mile. Only Alaska and Wyoming are more sparsely settled. (By comparison, New Jersey has 1,134 people per square mile, and Philadelphia has 11,233.)

That can mean fewer gun conflicts than in crowded coastal cities, (Gov.) Schweitzer said.

"Cute" answer: Potential targets are further away. :evil:

Serious answer: See, it's all about population density, those evil guns would be causing folks in rural states to kill each other at the same rate if they (the folks) were in closer proximity, as city dwellers are. :rolleyes:

gopguy
June 22, 2006, 01:03 PM
I have difficulty seeing a difference between the Republican conservatives and the Democratic liberals.:scrutiny:

As a conservative Republican I can tell you it is easy to see the difference. I think you are confusing us with liberal Republicans that those on my side of things refer to as RINOs. John McCain, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chaffee, Mike DeWine, George Voinovich, Olympia Dukakis, the President's father. etc...are examples of the breed.

what's a moderate indy to do?

Watch out.......standing in the middle of the road will get you run over.....:neener:


As far as Republicans being pro-RKBA, to judge from results I'd say the best that could be said of the Republican Party is that it is neutral.

That is easy to shoot down. Had that been the case the Clinton 1994 gun ban and the hated 10 round magazine limit would still be in place. The Republicans lean pro gun....however are too timid at the moment to go after and repeal some of the antigun laws passed since 1934....I am all for sending more firebrands to Washington DC to repeal this unconstitutional rubbish.

Phetro
June 22, 2006, 01:58 PM
Sorry here in Florida Conservatives' support for gun rights is more than just lip service. Our Republican Governor has recently passed legislation to:

1. Extended the castle doctrine to public places (stand your ground law)
2. Protect CCW during state's of emergency.
3. Allow CCW in state and fed parks
4. Keep information associated with concealed weapons permit holders private.
5. Protect the amount of land designated for hunting from being used for other things.

Pfft. Yeah, sure--concealed. Until Florida stops treating its citizens like garbage, that have to hide their firearms in shame lest they be arrested for "exposing the evil guns," I will never set foot there.

SuperNaut
June 22, 2006, 06:28 PM
Watch out.......standing in the middle of the road will get you run over.....

...Or allow me to see the careening S#!7wagon long before it gets to me.;)

fulloflead
June 22, 2006, 07:32 PM
'Card: Not a big surprise.

The south was solidly Democratic for decades, and rabidly pro-RKBA. Now the south is solidly Republican, and still pro-RKBA. The south never changed any of its core values as far as I can tell. It's just that the Democratic party moved away from those values.

The south eventually realized that the Republicans better represented their interests, and if local Democrats in Montana start reflecting the views of the national Democratic party, the same thing will happen there.

That's a good one. It was all about guns. You've obviously never heard of the Southern Strategy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

.

No_Brakes23
June 23, 2006, 02:41 AM
Montana, along with Eastern Washington, and chunks of Oregon, Idaho, and Wyoming and Colorado, had the phenomena of what I would call "pink libertarianism" in the 50s-90s. Unions (mining and logging) combined with small businesses to create an atmosphere of concern for the small man combined with "do your own thing" social ideas + a "screw the government" attitude bourne of the cowboy spirit.
It would seem to me that the areas that are both Democrat and pro-gun are also "Outdoorsy" places. In fact I bet if you go to Upstate New York and rural California, you will find some pro-gun Dems.

Now I am not a Dem, myself, but it sure would be nice if they would pull their heads out and quit letting the Reps have this one.

Whenever any of my Dem friends start whining about the way our country is headed, I just remind them that the typical Democrats' unhealthy fascination with anti-gun laws is a big part of what got us here. (AWB=Republican Revolution=Republicans making laws now.)

Personally, I think the "Brawny" Dems are a huge help for their party. But how to tell the Kerry's from the real shooters? Voting Record, anyone?

That's a good one. It was all about guns. You've obviously never heard of the Southern Strategy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategyWow, you gotta love the spin on that one. So anyone who is not a big brother socialist is a Racist? (By the assertation that promoting states rights is a thinly vieled way of saying you support slavery or oppose civil rights.) Dems have a lot of chutzpah to call anyone racist, considering the era in which they owned the South.

Byron Quick
June 23, 2006, 08:55 AM
Had that been the case the Clinton 1994 gun ban and the hated 10 round magazine limit would still be in place.

You are referring to the AWB that had a sunset in the original bill, I assume? The bill the Republicans had to do NOTHING to repeal? OK, I'll give you that one, friend. But I'll tell you frankly, if I were a Republican I certainly couldn't count that as Republicans acting to preserve RKBA. Not and look myself in the mirror every morning.

The RINO's aren't the ones I have a hard time telling from liberals. It's the ones who want the government to control anything they don't think is proper that look like statist thugs to me. As I said, the only thing the conservatives and liberals disagree on is what areas of my life should be controlled by government and how much control should be applied to this area or that area. Aside from behavior that violates the rights of other citizens, my behavior is between me and God. The liberals AND the conservatives...of whatever party...can keep their hands off of my life. When a politician goes beyond guarding and broadening his constituents' rights to infringing upon and narrowing the scope of those rights...at that point it doesn't matter what party he belongs to or whether he is conservative or liberal. I've another label for the scum-statist thug.

gopguy
June 23, 2006, 09:26 AM
You are referring to the AWB that had a sunset in the original bill, I assume? The bill the Republicans had to do NOTHING to repeal? OK, I'll give you that one, friend. But I'll tell you frankly, if I were a Republican I certainly couldn't count that as Republicans acting to preserve RKBA. Not and look myself in the mirror every morning.

You will have to give me a bit more than that because the only reason that sunset was in there was because the Republicans and the few pro gun dems of 1994 demanded it.;) As I said before the problem with the current batch of Republicans is they are too timid. The class of House Republicans that was elected in 1994 were undermined by the RINOs in the Senate. I remember Trent Lott making the comment along these lines. "We did not run on the Contract and are not obligated to go along with that.." I knew the moment he was done he had just screwed everything up......and he did. The GOP lost seats every two years after that because the Senate has put the breaks on making progress every chance they get.....This immigration bill supported by both my RINO Senators included.:banghead:

It's the ones who want the government to control anything they don't think is proper that look like statist thugs to me.

We are actually more in agreement here than you would suspect. I embrace a number of libertarian views. However I don't think the Libertarian Party has much of a chance of success. The media ignores them and Neal Bortz seems to be about their only voice out there.

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