Gun issue keeps rural voters away from Dems


PDA






kengrubb
August 23, 2006, 01:52 AM
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/editorial/15311557.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

By David Gambrel
CONTRIBUTING COLUMNIST

If you look at a U.S. map that shows county by county where candidates for president have won and lost in recent elections, almost none of the counties where Democrats won are in rural areas. As a rural Democrat this greatly concerns me.

One issue that has severely hampered the Democratic Party in rural America, particularly the South,is gun control. I have found that urban and rural people sometimes have completely different views on this issue. For urbanites, guns are often associated with school shootings, gangs and crime.

When rural Americans, particularly Southern males, think of guns, it is often from a totally different perspective. To many of my friends, guns are family heirlooms. Shotguns or hunting rifles that once belonged to grandpa usually fall into the category of "it's not worth much, but I wouldn't take anything for it."

The old gun might bring back memories of opening day of a rabbit or deer season from long ago. Sometimes it is not even a whole gun.

All that survives of my grandfather's gun is the lock. Years ago, a dear friend told me that the lock came from a gun made around 1812. My aunts have told me that in the 1930s, grandfather would melt lead in the fireplace to make bullets for the old black-powder rifle. The rifle provided protection and put food on the table for his wife and nine children.

That brings me to a more practical reason that rural people are so staunch in their support of gun rights. When it comes to protection in rural America, more often than not, you're on your own. It is just not practical to have a law enforcement officer on every corner as it is in the city.

Even in the best circumstances, it sometimes can be 30 minutes before help arrives. My mother just turned 70 and lives alone. How can she protect herself from an intruder twice her size? Call 911? Install a security system? By the time help arrived she would be dead.

So when politicians start talking about anything that remotely resembles a threat to Second Amendment rights, many rural Americans get their dander up. I have several friends who are single-issue voters when it comes to gun control. Right or wrong, that is how they have voted and will continue to vote.

Gun control advocates would have us believe that organizations such as the National Rifle Association exaggerate the threat to private gun ownership. More than that, they would tell us not to worry, that the government will protect us.

Tell that to those law-abiding citizens in New Orleans whose weapons were seized in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. If there was ever a time in the history of New Orleans that private citizens needed weapons for protection, it was after the hurricane.

There are also those who would have us believe that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted with guns.

Remember all of the uproar when the Kentucky General Assembly passed the concealed carry law? Several gun control advocates predicted something akin to Dodge City in Kentucky. But responsible Kentucky gun owners proved them wrong.

We who believe that the Second Amendment was intended by our founding fathers to protect the individual's right to keep and bear arms also must doggedly stress that with rights come responsibilities.

Just as strongly as I believe in the right to own a gun, I believe in the importance of safety. My father was killed in a hunting accident at age 27, so gun safety is not a trifling matter to me.

No one should possess a firearm without knowing its safe and proper use. Most important, if you have children in your home, they must not be allowed improper access to your weapons.

For those who believe the national party should stay the course on this issue, be warned: If it does, the victory map will continue to be more Republican than Democratic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Gambrel of Waynesburg is a minister and Lincoln County's property valuation administrator. E-mail him at dkg_171@yahoo.com

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun issue keeps rural voters away from Dems" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
71Commander
August 23, 2006, 05:06 AM
I'm a single issue voter and that issue is gun control. You're anti gun, i'm anti you.

ilbob
August 23, 2006, 08:24 AM
I tend that way. I have gravitated toward two issues - guns and taxes. Politicians that understand my guns are mine and my money is mine will get my vote.

It is a rare democrat who is willing to concede whats mine is mine to keep and use as I see fit and not his to take and use as he sees fit.

TCB in TN
August 23, 2006, 08:50 AM
I tend to agree mine is mine and if you let me alone with it then I am much more inclined to vote for you. That being said with the National Democratic parties willingness to pander to Brady and to use DNC money to push both Anti Gun legislation and Anti Gun legislators, it takes a very special person on the Democratic side of the ticket to get my vote. Not that I am a huge fan of the current RNC as there are way to many RINOs, but sadly in todays political arena rather than vote for who you feel will do the best job, you just have to vote for who you feel will do the least damage!:mad:

antsi
August 23, 2006, 08:54 AM
The author of the article is correct, but his implication is that Democrats should change their stance on gun issues. I doubt this will happen. Look at it from the Democrats' point of view: change to a pro-gun platform, and you may pick up a few rural votes, while simultaneously alienating millions of urban socialists, university blissninnies, former hippies, and inner-city government dependents. The math does not add up.

What they will do is go into stealth mode on gun issues - try to keep their antigun activism under wraps until after the elections. Hilary will have a photo-op shooting skeet somewhere. Harry Reid will declare his support for the second ammendment rights of hunters. This way, they will hope to pick up a few rural fence-sitters without changing their real agenda.

Dr. Dickie
August 23, 2006, 10:07 AM
Well, traditionally Southern Democrats have pretty much been against almost everything the current "progressive" Democrats stand for.
If they changed their stand on gun-control, I doubt too many Southern Democrats would switch (although I know that for many I know, that is the one buzz-issue they mention).

K-Romulus
August 23, 2006, 10:07 AM
Even Wash DC, with something like 50 local LEO's per square mile, is under a crime emergency.

There are some 18-odd links among the three parties in the response chain that must all be connected before direct LEO assistance can happen:

1) victim recognizes a problem
2) victim makes decision to try to call for police assistance
3) victim must identify communication method
4) victim procures communication method
5) attempt to open communication channel
6) secure communication link with 911/LEO
7) explain the problem to 911/LEO
8) have 911/LEO understand problem
9) give location of need
10) 911/LEO understand location
11) 911/LEO determines which responding unit to dispatch
12) 911/LEO secures communication link with responding unit
13) 911/LEO explain problem and location of problem to responding unit
14) responding unit determines route to location
15) responding unit travels to location
16) responding unit arrives on scene
17) responding unit assesses situation
18) responding unit decides course of action (which could mean NO action until further backup arrives)

Let's say you can get the chain done in 5 minutes or less from problem to on-scene assistance. How many times can you stab a watermelon with a kitchen knife in five minutes?:eek:

Letting blissninnies living in insular enclaves set national policy on firearms ownership makes as much sense as having a Klavern hanging around some holl'er setting national policy on race/ethnic discrimination.

As a Democrat, I applaud any effort on getting this issue unscrewed.

dracphelan
August 23, 2006, 10:58 AM
Well, traditionally Southern Democrats have pretty much been against almost everything the current "progressive" Democrats stand for.
If they changed their stand on gun-control, I doubt too many Southern Democrats would switch (although I know that for many I know, that is the one buzz-issue they mention).

Well, from what I've seen, the vast majority (90%+) of traditional Southern Democrats have switched to the Republican party. In the recent primaries for Texas Governor, the Democrats had a choice between someone who got an A from the NRA and TSRA and someone who got a C. The Texas Democrats chose someone who got a C.

Henry Bowman
August 23, 2006, 11:14 AM
That is a very well written op-ed piece. No inflamatory language, hyperbole, or distortions.

As a (libertarian-leaning) conservative, my home has usually been in the Republican party. However, anti-gun RINOs (like Senator DeWine) will not get my vote, either.

22-rimfire
August 23, 2006, 11:42 AM
The problem is that the core Democratic leadership DOES favor significant gun control measues. Kerry (last presidential election) for example said he did not want to take the guns away from legitimate hunters or for legitimate sporting purposes. He of course is referring to shotguns for the most part. What about handguns or rifles? What are legitimate uses? He has voted for every gun control measure to come along that I am aware of. This is true of many of the Democratic leadership including the rookie NY Senator Hillary Clinton. How can I support someone like that?

The Democrats would favor gun control measures similar to Great Britian. The truth is that they want to eliminate private ownership of firearms in general. They would be the party to use the UN decree to disarm the American population. Their approach now is death by many cuts, but death all the same to the gun owning private citizen.

Gun Control the one issue that tilts my vote one way or the other. You just can't trust the Democrats regardless of what they might say in regard to firearm issues.

rev214
August 23, 2006, 12:07 PM
You just can't trust the Democrats regardless of what they might say in regard to firearm issues.

i completely agree...you saw what happened with Joe Lieberman...they dumped him fast and followed the party candidate...it would be the same with any 2nd Amendment or gun control platforms from the national party...i don't think there's too many democrats with enough political strength (and guts, for that matter) to stand up to the national party when they're expecting victory in November...

ArmedBear
August 23, 2006, 12:19 PM
So wait...

Rural conservative voters really love to vote for the party that supports an absolute right to abortion at 38 weeks, "affirmative action," high taxes that transfer their money to city dwellers, more regulation on the businesses that comprise rural opportunity, feel-good environmental laws that pander to trendy yuppies who don't have dirty boots and rob rural families of their livelihoods?

Rural conservative voters really LIKE people like John Kerry, because there's nothing that plays better in rural America than taking both sides of an issue, and talking up Europe as a model for America to follow. They LOVE sending off the tax money they earned by the sweat of their brows in physical jobs, so that urban welfare mothers can buy new Nikes. They HATE the idea of school vouchers, and they LOVE the idea of taxing gasoline up to $5 a gallon or more, because hell, they don't need gasoline anyway out in the country. Rural conservatives really believe that "theocracy" is a huge threat.

Yeah, if it weren't for guns, rural voters would all be "progressives".:rolleyes:

The_Shootist
August 23, 2006, 12:31 PM
I won't forget it was Gov (now Pres) Bush who signed into law the Texas CHL laws and it was Democratic politicians at the national level throughout the Comrade Klinton years that sought to eliminate our 2nd Amendment rights.

I simply can't see myself EVER voting Democratic based on that parties anti-2nd Amendment bias.

cbsbyte
August 23, 2006, 12:33 PM
There are two main types of Democrats. The first are the urban Progressives who now control the party. Starting thirty years ago, many of them left the urban areas and moved into rural areas of the blue states, overpowering the controling traditional Democrats. The traditional Democrats, who are mostly Union workers, blue collar, and middle class small business owners, tend to be far more moderate on most issues than the Progressives. They are the ones who where gun owners, and pro-2nd AD. Unfortuantly they are now a dying breed. Since the progressive have taken over the public school systems in the areas they live in, they have indocurnated the childern of the traditional Dems to become far left progressives. Many traditional democrats in these states left the party to become independents. This is why in most blue states Independent voters out number Democrats 2 to 1. This is what happen in Mass which at one time was a much more conservative Democrat state. In southern red states, the traditional Democrats still have some power. Though many became Republicans or Independents.

cuchulainn
August 23, 2006, 12:45 PM
What ArmBear said :D

SIOP
August 23, 2006, 12:46 PM
I simply can't see myself EVER voting Democratic based on that parties anti-2nd Amendment bias.

Likewise, I can't find myself ever voting Democrat, but I also don't see me voting Republican anytime soon, either.

I've posted this stuff a few times recently, but it bears repeating for those who have missed it:

Here's a few things the Republicans have done in recent years: Reagan lobbied for passage of the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill before Congress, he also banned new machinegun manufacture for civilians. Bush I implemented the ban in imports of "non-sporting" firearms. Bush II stated that he would sign an assault weapons ban, he also expanded his daddy's ban to also include imported barrels and such. Republicans also banned "cop-killer" bullets and are pushing to close the so-called "gun show loophole".

The Republicans aren't really any better than the Democrats, the only real difference is that the Democrats let everyone know where they stand, while the Republicans talk the talk but screw us behind our backs.

Lone_Gunman
August 23, 2006, 12:59 PM
Read my sig line and tell me why Republicans are better than Democrats.

ArmedBear
August 23, 2006, 01:04 PM
Read my sig line and tell me why Republicans are better than Democrats.

I don't especially LIKE the Republicans, but in politics, it's important to separate substance from rhetoric.

I look at the results of having a Republican Congress and President, and despite some serious disappointments, I like what I see better than what the Democrats gave us and promise us.

Letting the AWB die had the same substantive effect as crusading against it, without stirring the political pot so much -- keeping the controversy down to a dull roar probably HELPED our cause a LOT more than making daily headlines would have, BTW. Now, we can point to history and say, "See, the AWB is gone, and the world hasn't ended." Two years ago, this was not so, and the hysterics controlled the rhetoric.

Again, I'd love to see GW have a born-again experience and change his legal name to John Galt, but when it came down to choosing between W and Kerry, it was one of the easiest choices I ever made.

Now for the next election....

SIOP
August 23, 2006, 01:10 PM
but when it came down to choosing between W and Kerry, it was one of the easiest choices I ever made.

Having studied the candidates and read my ballot, I realized that there choices OTHER than W or Kerry, both of whom treatened my right to keep and bear arms. I voted for someone who promised they WOULDN'T infringe on that right.


Spare me the "You wasted your vote" line of crap, too.

Ralph G. Briscoe
August 23, 2006, 01:11 PM
<<Rural conservative voters really love to vote for the party that supports an absolute right to abortion at 38 weeks, "affirmative action," high taxes that transfer their money to city dwellers, more regulation on the businesses that comprise rural opportunity, feel-good environmental laws that pander to trendy yuppies who don't have dirty boots and rob rural families of their livelihoods?>>

I really love to vote for the party of people who would deny my daughter an abortion after she's raped by one of the illegal immigrants they allow into the country for the benefit of their corporate donors. I love to vote for the party that established "affirmative action" for the rich by reducing their taxes to historic lows so that we in the middle class can make up the difference. I love to vote for the party that lets polluters write environmental law so people like my neighbors in Cheatham county, Tennessee can get cancer from drinking their well water. I really love to vote for the party that sent my 54 year neighbor (Grandfather of 7) to Iraq
with his National guard unit so he could die for God knows what. I really love to vote for the party that has bankrupted our country and left the bill for my Grandchildren. I really love to vote for the party that steals elections, ignores the law, and tramples the constitution. I love to vote for the party that lets my job be outsourced abroad then allows the company that did it to avoid taxes by relocating its "headquarters" to Bermuda.

I'm conservative, but I'm not stupid and neither are a lot of the other real conservatives--fiscal conservatives, people who believe in the rule of law and the sanctity of the constitution. There's nothing conservative about the bunch running the country now. To the contrary, fiscally speaking they are the most rabid radicals we've ever seen...like drunken teenagers with Daddy's credit card.

hillbilly
August 23, 2006, 01:12 PM
Wait for it......wait for it.......

Some "more-ideologically-pure-than-thou" libertarian is gonna say it at any moment.......here it comes......wait........for...........it.................


BADNARIK!!!!!!!!!!!!


:rolleyes:



hillbilly

ArmedBear
August 23, 2006, 01:14 PM
Spare me the "You wasted your vote" line of crap, too.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?:rolleyes:

Badnarik had no chance. If I thought he had a snowflake's chance in hell of carrying a single state, I would have voted for him.

I've done some serious work for a Lib candidate, but it was someone with at least a nominal chance.

"Wasted" as a symbol or protest? No, you didn't waste that. But the vote had no effect on the outcome of the election, and clearly, it's having no effect whatsoever on the platforms of either party that actually did win any elections.

It's time we sought a path to our goals that doesn't depend on getting a Badnarik into office.

ArmedBear
August 23, 2006, 01:17 PM
fiscal conservatives, people who believe in the rule of law and the sanctity of the constitution

Banning international trade is somehow fiscally conservative because you want the government to force me to pay higher prices so that your own job to be protected?:rolleyes:

I mean, you have a right to believe that socialism is a good idea, but calling it fiscal conservatism is disingenuous.

Vic
August 23, 2006, 01:31 PM
:cuss: As the years progressed through the 50's and 60's, someplace, democrats lost sight of their fundamental stance to represent the working class. They decided to represent women, gays, and city dwellers (includes the gimme social programs). Generally, these people have no use for guns...period, even if it were in their best interest to posess one. If they would just stick to the issue of making life better for the working class and TRULY stick to issues that affect the working class and quit trying to convert this country into a COMMUNIST STATE, they would win elections. Since I now equate DEMOCRAT with SOCIALIST (remember Adolph Hitler?), I cannot ever vote democrat again because I don't need to leave my grandchildren in a communist opressive country, or at least say I did all I could to block them from ruining this country (NAFTA sucking sound is now in effect Ross, and thanks Klinton for signing it into law). When I vote...I throw the party lever and vote republican across the board...blindly. I will never get the bad taste of the Klinton years out of my mouth as long as I live...and I have a GOOD memory. The democrats serve nothing except themselves and to tear this republic to shreads. As long as I can take a breath...I aim to stop them at every chance I get. I DO NOT want to repeat the KLINTON years.:cuss:

cuchulainn
August 23, 2006, 01:33 PM
You guys are drifting:

from: "Would rural conservatives vote for Dems if not for the gun issue?"

to: "Republicans are better than democrats. Are not! Are too! Nuh-uh! Uh-huh! Yo' mamma!"

ArmedBear
August 23, 2006, 01:36 PM
The tragedy is that you're so fixated on the bullet box that you cede the other boxes to the anti-liberty forces.

Bingo! I like the sig.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 23, 2006, 01:41 PM
Here's a few things the Republicans have done in recent years: Reagan lobbied for passage of the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill before Congress

After he left office and after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's as well.

He also banned new machinegun manufacture for civilians.

The poison pill amendment that a Democrat controlled House committee attached to the 1986 FOPA is well known here and the reasons the bill was signed despite that are also well documented. A quick search on "1986 FOPA" here will show we gained a lot more than we lost with that bill - though it still puzzles me why people blame Reagan for the poison pill amendment that Democrats attached to the bill.

Bush I implemented the ban in imports of "non-sporting" firearms. Bush II stated that he would sign an assault weapons ban, he also expanded his daddy's ban to also include imported barrels and such.

Actually the ban on imported barrels and such was put in place during the Clinton Administration - it was the Bush Administration who opened up the exception for "repair or replacement parts" until that exception was closed by a legal opinion that it was at odds with law Congress had passed.

Republicans also banned "cop-killer" bullets and are pushing to close the so-called "gun show loophole".

I didn't realize the John McCain represented the entire Republican party these days. If the Republicans are "pushing" this bill as you claim, then how is it we don't have any bill like that despite a Republican House, Republican Senate and Republican White House?

The Republicans aren't really any better than the Democrats, the only real difference is that the Democrats let everyone know where they stand, while the Republicans talk the talk but screw us behind our backs.

The Republicans aren't any different? Would the AWB have expired if the Democrats had their way? How would that whole UN Small Arms Conference have played out? The Republicans may not be as great as everybody would like them to be; but they have done all kinds of things on guns. In fact, about the only way I could see anybody make the claim you just did with a straight face is if they were one of those people who wants so much change so fast that they simply aren't capable of appreciating or seeing incremental change.

As to whether rural voters would vote for the Dems if not for the gun issue, I think a good argument can be made for it. Several in my family grew up as Democrats, are still registered as Democrats and are particularly annoyed with what they see as an uneven playing field for free market capitalism that unduly favors large corporations. Yet they still vote Republican more often than not. If you could convince them that the Dems did actually favor free market capitalism and guns, I think they would switch in a heartbeat. The real problem the Dems have right now is that the leadership doesn't support either of those things and spends all its time trying to figure out how to fool people into voting for them despite that.

gezzer
August 23, 2006, 09:32 PM
Spare me the "You wasted your vote" line of crap, too.

So you realize your mistake. I can forgive you but you are living the shame of it. Let it go!!


By the way you Southeron boys wer slapped by the commentary of the Democrat.

LightningJoe
August 23, 2006, 11:55 PM
Undoubtedly, the issue of private gun ownership helps the Republicans. In the football game of national elections and of local elections to national office, it's probably more of a field goal than a touchdown, but many a game is won by the kicker.

edwardyoung
August 24, 2006, 12:12 AM
I think anything that keeps someone from voting Democrat is a good thing.

TCB in TN
August 24, 2006, 12:43 AM
I really love to vote for the party of people who would deny my daughter an abortion after she's raped by one of the illegal immigrants they allow into the country for the benefit of their corporate donors. I love to vote for the party that established "affirmative action" for the rich by reducing their taxes to historic lows so that we in the middle class can make up the difference. I love to vote for the party that lets polluters write environmental law so people like my neighbors in Cheatham county, Tennessee can get cancer from drinking their well water. I really love to vote for the party that sent my 54 year neighbor (Grandfather of 7) to Iraq
with his National guard unit so he could die for God knows what. I really love to vote for the party that has bankrupted our country and left the bill for my Grandchildren. I really love to vote for the party that steals elections, ignores the law, and tramples the constitution. I love to vote for the party that lets my job be outsourced abroad then allows the company that did it to avoid taxes by relocating its "headquarters" to Bermuda.

I'm conservative, but I'm not stupid and neither are a lot of the other real conservatives--fiscal conservatives, people who believe in the rule of law and the sanctity of the constitution. There's nothing conservative about the bunch running the country now. To the contrary, fiscally speaking they are the most rabid radicals we've ever seen...like drunken teenagers with Daddy's credit card.

So much wrong with this post it pains me to even read it. I will just stay away from the abortion issue, not worth the effort.

First of all whatever percentage of republicans are fighting against protecting the borders, it is minor in comparison to the # of dems. While some Republicans are wrong, just about all of the dems are wrong on this issue!

As for Tax cuts, all the Government has done is go from taking an utterly obscene percentage of wealthy peoples money to a merely obscene percentage. Excuse my souther grammer, but IT AIN"T the government money to begin with. Taking a little from everyone to help run the nation is one thing, but when such a large percentage of the taxes are taken from such a small percentage of the populace then something is wrong. BTW in the real world you can't get a tax cut, if you ain't paying taxes!

As for outsourcing, well I personally don't want to end up paying 3 times what a product is worth to pay a union tow moter driver $30 an hour. And don't tell me it isn't happening, because I just quit a fortune 500 company last year and can give way to many examples of it. When a flipping "cheap economy" car is costing $15000 there is a problem. As for moving corporate to Bermuda, well if the taxes here weren't so high, they wouldn't want or need to move!

Steals elections? Get real, how many democrats voters aren't even citizens or in many cases even alive? All that happened was that actual election law was followed. Novel idea hugh? But as for trying to steal elections the dems have been proven to try to keep the military votes out, and have tried or invented about every dirty trick in the book.

As for the war, well just be glad its happening over there. I have friends and family over there as we speak and even if you don't understand why they are there.......... THEY DO! Keeping the enemy focused there keeps many of them from coming here! Other important issues involved but we will keep it simple for now.

As for physical conservative, well you are right the bunch in charge sure aren't that, but look at the alternative. The dems are talking about how stingy the Republicans are in just about everything and yet are blasting them for spending to much money. No that isn't the way to go. Sadly enough it is a case of having to chose the lesser of two evils. It don't go down to easy, but it beats what could have been otherwise.

DCR
August 24, 2006, 12:50 AM
TCB in TN:

Fortune 500 company, huh? Re-read your post.

Your leaps of logic exceed by quantum levels those you attempt to ascribe to Ralph G.

Bring it back to guns, please, Mods.

TCB in TN
August 24, 2006, 01:38 AM
Sorry to have offended you, but I worked for a well known automotive industry F500 company for 16years. The last 9 split between Software implementations and Inventory Control Manager for a 130 million a year facility. Like or not like it. That is what I did, quite successfully I might add. I did that until I tired of corporate life and decided to follow my passion and work with kids. As for my quantum leaps of logic, why don't you help me out. Explain to me, with all your wisdom where I went so wrong. :D

mordechaianiliewicz
August 24, 2006, 03:30 AM
Don't y'all try to get on Briscoe now. While I disagree with much of what he said, he postulated that the issues which concern Rural voters are something neither side is doing anything about.

Whats more, have none of you ever heard of Pat Buchanan? He is an arch- Conservative. Extreme Conservative. (To me a scary Conservative because i hold many libertarian beliefs). But, he is for trade protectionism, and against illegal immigration, and many people in this country don't think it is right that the Chinese can use slave labour to undercut wages while they get most favoured nation status (a Communist country using slave labour is just providing the cheapest product at the best price, come on, do any of you really believe that?

As to the illegal issue, well it has been well hashed here, and many on this board (especially many mods) don't want to hear about it (which is part of why my posting is down from what it was on this site).

Is this a gun board?

Yes.

But there are other issues that must be addressed because they effect the 2A issue.

Niether Dems nor Reps really are supporting many important issues even though they could make someone the President in a landslide. Why is that?

You're asking whether Democrats changing their stance on guns will help in rural areas?

Only if they also decide to kill NAFTA, sanction China, use protectionism to help American industry, and labour, and start giving illegals the boot.

They do all of that, and change their stance on guns, and they can get some rural support.

xd9fan
August 24, 2006, 10:50 AM
about the only thing the GOP has left is the 'vote for us , cause if you dont the other pro-govt party will win'

About as uninspiring as the 'anti-bush' voters

Where is the less Govt platform again? Where is the Pro-gun platform?

SIOP
August 24, 2006, 10:58 AM
I think anything that keeps someone from voting Democrat is a good thing.


Are you a member of the NRA?

The NRA supports at least one Democrat in the upcoming Senate election.

mrmeval
August 24, 2006, 11:04 AM
Dems are slightly worse then Reps

I will never vote for anyone who ever votes for or implements gun control and I'll never again vote for anyone who fails to remove it at every opportunity afforded them.

SIOP
August 24, 2006, 11:43 AM
After he left office and after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's as well.


Quote:
He also banned new machinegun manufacture for civilians.


The poison pill amendment that a Democrat controlled House committee attached to the 1986 FOPA is well known here and the reasons the bill was signed despite that are also well documented. A quick search on "1986 FOPA" here will show we gained a lot more than we lost with that bill - though it still puzzles me why people blame Reagan for the poison pill amendment that Democrats attached to the bill.


Quote:
Bush I implemented the ban in imports of "non-sporting" firearms. Bush II stated that he would sign an assault weapons ban, he also expanded his daddy's ban to also include imported barrels and such.


Actually the ban on imported barrels and such was put in place during the Clinton Administration - it was the Bush Administration who opened up the exception for "repair or replacement parts" until that exception was closed by a legal opinion that it was at odds with law Congress had passed.


Quote:
Republicans also banned "cop-killer" bullets and are pushing to close the so-called "gun show loophole".


I didn't realize the John McCain represented the entire Republican party these days. If the Republicans are "pushing" this bill as you claim, then how is it we don't have any bill like that despite a Republican House, Republican Senate and Republican White House?


Sorry, but I think you'll find Mr. Reagan's actions happened BEFORE his Alzheimer's.

And the fact is that he was the one that banned the machineguns. He signed the bill. Doesn't matter who added the provision or what you think we might have gained in the process, the fact is he did it.

And again, your grasp of history is shaky. The first importation ban occurred in 1989. Last time I checked my history books, Bush the first was the president in 1989. And the fact that a later legal opinion might have closed Bush the second's actions don't change the fact that he imposed them in the first place, now does it?

I didn't say McCain represented the entire Republican party. The fact of the matter is that he is pushing it, and he is a Republican. And there is a companion bill in the House, sponsored by Democrats.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 24, 2006, 02:07 PM
Doesn't matter who added the provision or what you think we might have gained in the process, the fact is he did it.

It doesn't matter whether we gained something if all you are concerned about is making a questionable argument that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats on gun rights. If you are actually concerned about whether there is a difference between those two groups, then who proposed the amendment and the tradeoffs we got for signing it ARE important.

And again, your grasp of history is shaky.

My grasp of history is fine. How is your grasp of reading comprehension?

We were discussing the ban that the Clinton administration implemented on barrels and other imported parts to support Congressional legislation also passed during that administration (around 92 IIRC). GWB lifted this restriction for "repair or replacement" parts only in 2000 until a legal opinion in 2004 determined this violated the earlier Congressional law.

The first importation ban occurred in 1989. Last time I checked my history books, Bush the first was the president in 1989. And the fact that a later legal opinion might have closed Bush the second's actions don't change the fact that he imposed them in the first place, now does it?

I'm not exactly sure what your point is with this argument. What GWB did has no effect on what Bush I did - which is why I didn't argue that. GWB complied with the law as expressed by Congress and interpreted the law as loosely as possible until told to do otherwise.

I didn't say McCain represented the entire Republican party. The fact of the matter is that he is pushing it, and he is a Republican.

Which is fine if your only point is to argue semantics on the Internet. If you actually care about how it affects RKBA, then the fact that McCain's position is a minority in the Republican party and a majority in the Democratic party is relevant to the discussion.

Steve 48
August 24, 2006, 03:14 PM
I would not vote for a democrat even if I liked them. They are not the democratic party of Truman and JFK. They lean too far left of center and some stay on the "fringe" of society. Steve 48

Ralph G. Briscoe
August 24, 2006, 03:27 PM
<<First of all whatever percentage of republicans are fighting against protecting the borders, it is minor in comparison to the # of dems. While some Republicans are wrong, just about all of the dems are wrong on this issue!>>
This is your opinion offered as fact and sounds like what we hear on Fox or Rush...neither of which are objective sources though we may often agree with them. The fact is Bush and his corporate friends want amnesty. Real conservatives like Buchanan want to enforce our laws.
Prominent Dem Rom Emmanuel says congress should vote to enforce the findings of the 911 commission which include tough border security and a crackdown on illegals...that's going to be the Democratic position officially.
John Edwards says we need to do "whatever it takes" to secure our borders and crackdown on Employers who hire illegals. Most environmentalists are opposed to anything which increases our population and puts more stress on the environment. It's not a simple "liberal vs conservative" thing...few issues are. For example, Howard Dean has always opposed broad national gun legislation pointing out that what might be OK in Manhattan would make no sense in Montana...he favors local and state govts. making the decisions.

<<As for Tax cuts, all the Government has done is go from taking an utterly obscene percentage of wealthy peoples money to a merely obscene percentage. Excuse my souther grammer, but IT AIN"T the government money to begin with. Taking a little from everyone to help run the nation is one thing, but when such a large percentage of the taxes are taken from such a small percentage of the populace then something is wrong. BTW in the real world you can't get a tax cut, if you ain't paying taxes!>>

You might read Bartlett and Steele's "America, who really pays the taxes."
It provides a history of the income tax and an analysis of where the tax burden has fallen historically and it's effects or non-effects on the economy.
When federal taxes are cut, federal assistance to state and local governments are cut and regressive taxes, like the sales tax, are raised to make up the difference with the result that often the middle class end up paying a higher rate in total taxes than Bill Gates and Paris Hilton.
The 1950's and early 60's were the best of economic times in my memory. The middle class grew and prospered and were taxed much less than today. They had money to spend which meant the rich got a hell of a lot richer. The income tax was highly graduated then with serious incentives for investment in labor and equipment. The top rate was 91%!...lowered to 75% in the early 60's.
It's not the government's money, but it's the government's highway system you move you products on, the government's army that protects you and your international trading partners. It provides and enforces patent and copyright protection among other laws and regulation which make it possible for you to do business profitably. You benefit handsomely from those government services. The rich control the government these days..you might consider higher taxes the rent they pay on congress,
or their expression of gratitude that their kids don't have to enlist for Iraq in order to afford college. You might also read the bible which describes gluttony as one of the seven deadly sins. Government spending, properly directed, creates a sense of opportunity and hope among the less fortunate which reduces social tension and the likelihood that the poor might someday exercise their second amendment rights by rising up and taking all your expensive toys away.

<<As for outsourcing, well I personally don't want to end up paying 3 times what a product is worth to pay a union tow moter driver $30 an hour. And don't tell me it isn't happening, because I just quit a fortune 500 company last year and can give way to many examples of it. When a flipping "cheap economy" car is costing $15000 there is a problem. As for moving corporate to Bermuda, well if the taxes here weren't so high, they wouldn't want or need to move!>>

I personally don't want to continue subsidizing the buildup of the Communist Chinese military while destroying middle class families in this country. I also have a small problem with enriching foreign companies who employ what amounts to slave labor. BTW, I am a union member. Many conservatives are union members. It ain't all black and white brother.


<<Steals elections? Get real, how many democrats voters aren't even citizens or in many cases even alive? All that happened was that actual election law was followed. Novel idea hugh? But as for trying to steal elections the dems have been proven to try to keep the military votes out, and have tried or invented about every dirty trick in the book.>>

If you seek out some credible sources you'll learn that Gore won Florida in 2000...no doubt. Also you might google "Diebold" and Ohio 2004.

<<As for the war, well just be glad its happening over there. I have friends and family over there as we speak and even if you don't understand why they are there.......... THEY DO! Keeping the enemy focused there keeps many of them from coming here! Other important issues involved but we will keep it simple for now.>>

The canard that "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is simply uninformed nonsense recycled from the Vietnam era. I'll play along and say that I'd personally LOVE to "fight them over here." I mean that's the dream of every red-blooded American gun owner...I've got a .223 and a thousand rounds of ammo I've love to burn on some Al Quaeda ass! We could defeat them over here in about 3 days. We could stay in Iraq 30 years with no change, just a lot more dead Americans. We could probably have won over there had W listened to Colin Powell instead of Dick CHeney, Rummy etc. and gone in with overwhelming force. I'm afraid that war is lost and Bush is to blame. I have several friends with kids over there and it breaks my heart. According to a recent poll, 70% of the troops think we should come home in a year. Funny how the only folks in Washington who still want to "stay the course" have never served in combat.


<<As for physical conservative, well you are right the bunch in charge sure aren't that, but look at the alternative. The dems are talking about how stingy the Republicans are in just about everything and yet are blasting them for spending to much money. No that isn't the way to go. Sadly enough it is a case of having to chose the lesser of two evils. It don't go down to easy, but it beats what could have been otherwise.>>

Being a "Fiscal conservative" simply means keeping a balanced budget.
Clinton for example was a fiscal conservative, a moderate on most social issues, a liberal on assault weapons, and one horny bastard. Bush is a fiscal liberal/radical, ditto on immigration, a social reactionary and one dumb bastard. Clinton had to raise taxes modestly in order to balance the budget and pay down the debt. We got the best stock market in history and
all economic classes prospered. In our current situation, short term greed (tax cuts for millionaires) has exploded the national debt, put us in hock to CHina, and if allowed to continue will hurt everybody--notice those interest rates going up, ARM payments going up, people starting to lose their McMansions? When the real estate market collapses we will all be in deep **** for a long time. Bush's response will no doubt be another tax cut. God help us...

mordechaianiliewicz
August 24, 2006, 03:31 PM
What Briscoe said.

ArmedBear
August 24, 2006, 04:00 PM
We got the best stock market in history and
all economic classes prospered.

The dot-com bubble?!?

That wasn't the most prosperous time in history as much as it was the most successful pyramid scheme in history. It wasn't Clinton's fault, nor does he deserve any credit for it.

The rich control the government these days.

Yeah, not like in the old days, when only 6% of the American population could even VOTE...

At the time of the first Presidential election in 1789, only 6 percent of the population–white, male property owners–was eligible to vote. The Fifteenth Amendment extended the right to vote to former male slaves in 1870; American Indians gained the vote under a law passed by Congress in 1924; and women gained the vote with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.

This is a gem:

If you seek out some credible sources you'll learn that Gore won Florida in 2000...no doubt.

Credible sources mean what, exactly? Like this one? http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=248

I'm sure that's a lot more credible than the partisan Republican writings that state the opposite...

John Edwards says we need to do "whatever it takes" to secure our borders and crackdown on Employers who hire illegals.

Oh yeah, John Edwards, who also said, "When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

Dude, you're giving the Republicans nothing but ammunition here with this silliness. You sound like, well, most partisan Democrats these days.

BTW I'm not a Republican, and a lot of similar statements from their side of the aisle make me cringe as much as your post here does, because it reminds me of the incredible ignorance -- generally with the desire to believe that one's "side" is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong -- of our voting public all around.

cuchulainn
August 24, 2006, 04:34 PM
Interesting, we've got a self-proclaimed conservative whose spiel reads like the DNC's talking points.

"Government spending, properly directed, creates a sense of opportunity and hope among the less fortunate which reduces social tension"
"pay down the debt"
"tax cuts for millionaires"
"If you seek out some credible sources you'll learn that Gore won Florida in 2000"
"Bush and his corporate friends"
"incentives for investment in labor and equipmnent"

Me? I'm a unicorn today. Mooo!

mordechaianiliewicz
August 24, 2006, 05:42 PM
Look folks, in view of what can get rural voters to vote for Democrats, I totally agree with Briscoe.

Even though I disagree with plenty of what he said.

They got a lot of work to do, and guns are but a part of it. Problem is, many Traditional Conservatives sound more like what it'll take.

Ralph G. Briscoe
August 24, 2006, 07:30 PM
<<Banning international trade is somehow fiscally conservative because you want the government to force me to pay higher prices so that your own job to be protected?>>
Nowhere did I suggest "banning international trade," but regulating it intelligently would be a good thing--it would be good to use trade policy to discourage the Chinese from building the world's largest war machine, and
to discourage companies from using child labor for a couple of examples.
So, you're more concerned about being able to pay $3 instead of $5 for a T-shirt at Walmart than me being able to feed my family? Nice guy.
Like most men, I will feed my family one way or another. If there were no jobs and I had to knock you over the head and steal all your stuff so be it. If I got caught and sent to jail the taxpayers would be paying $100,000 a year to keep me there. Wouldn't it have been easier, and cheaper, to just pay a couple more bucks for that T shirt? Think about it...and don't accuse me of making a threat--that was just a hypothetical example of the possible effects of globalization.

<<I mean, you have a right to believe that socialism is a good idea, but calling it fiscal conservatism is disingenuous.>>
There you go again--"socialism?" Might consider buying a dictionary.
Protecting American jobs is not socialism...protectionism, nationalism yes.
Socialism is where the government owns the means of production.
Fascism is where the producers control the government (which is where we're headed).
__________________

ArmedBear
August 24, 2006, 07:47 PM
So, you're more concerned about being able to pay $3 instead of $5 for a T-shirt at Walmart than me being able to feed my family? Nice guy.

And if I'd planned to use that $2 for food for my kids?

I couldn't care less if you think I'm "nice." I think you are a thief. Whatever.

If there were no jobs and I had to knock you over the head and steal all your stuff so be it.

Problem with populist nationalists like yourself is that you have no idea how economics works. Protectionism doesn't lead to a better domestic job market. Who decides what's protected, anyway?

Fascism is where the producers control the government

Production is a terrible sin, I know. We don't need to have anything produced.:rolleyes:

MDMadrid
August 24, 2006, 08:26 PM
If all American voters would do a little research and find out for themselves what each candidate really stands for we would all be better off. The fact is that most voters base their votes on info gained from the media, or they will vote the way their friends vote, or some other nonsense like that.

I have good friends of mine that said that they were going to vote for a certain candidate and when I asked them why…they didn’t know. I ask them where their candidate stood on certain issues…don’t know (or they would give me some off the wall answer that sounded like they got that answer from some twisted media person.

Please people find out where each candidate stands and vote accordingly, democrat or republican or independent.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun issue keeps rural voters away from Dems" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!