1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A new tactic to win the 2nd Amend war..

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by TheProf, Jul 22, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheProf

    TheProf Well-Known Member

    Hmmm.... There will be people that we can never convince to support our views regarding the right to bear arms. That said, we can still get those same folks to vote for pro-gun politicians. How???

    I noticed that most pro-gun politicians happen to be also pro-life and conservative in their views.

    Why not get active in garnering support for pro-life politicians who happen to be also pro-gun?

    What I am saying is, even if Mr. Joe Public cares nothing for gun rights, try to win his vote under the guise of voting for a pro-life politician? Even if a person cares little for the abortion debate, the abortion issue may just be the angle that we can use to get people to vote for pro-gun politicians.

    What do you guys think?
  2. armoredman

    armoredman Well-Known Member

    Totally differant issue, and one known to be divisive. Rather than try to tie the two togther, and rise or fall on Roe v Wade, better to stick to one that is a Consitutional Right. I see your point, but I really have to think it's not as great as idea as it may sound to some. Thanks for the try, thinking outside the box may be what we need.
  3. Loanshark

    Loanshark Well-Known Member

    Leave the lid on that can-o-worms. Unless you like worms that is!!
  4. DHJenkins

    DHJenkins Well-Known Member

    I don't think the OP is trying to tie the two issues together, but rather manipulate otherwise "non-gun" folks into supporting whatever candidate is pro-gun by bringing up whatever hot-button issue those folks happen to believe in.

    Pretend it's not abortion. Pretend it's kittens. If you know someone who really likes kittens, and there is a candidate who is pro-kitten and pro-gun, just bring up the kitten part and forget the pro-gun part.
  5. Extremely Pro Gun

    Extremely Pro Gun Well-Known Member

    Interesting position, strange though. Most of the people i associate with already vote conservative. Some of them dont like guns but it doesnt matter. My girlfriend voted for Obama and she likes my guns, and hunts dove with me. (I am slowly working her over to the right :D)
  6. 2RCO

    2RCO Well-Known Member

    If we piggyback with other issues and those issues lose, we lose as well.

    We have the Second Amendment which is pretty clear and defined by the founders of the nation. IMHO any politician that does not support the 2nd is Un-American or really misinformed.

    Rather than jumping in with others we need to forget about other issues and get everyone on Board. There are Hardcore Libs that are Pro Gun and there are Hardcore Conservatives that are antis. Also there are many groups such as the Pink Pistols that probably wouldn't be welcome by the mainstream Conservative Right that do alot for the Second Amendment. We need to get together under the Cause of Gun Rights rather than fragment over other differences.

    This is what I've been trying to do with the Color of the Second Amendment and the whole wristband idea. We need to rally together and be identified instead of being manipulated and fragmented by groups that don't really have the 2nd's best interest at heart and only use Guns as a way to get votes. There are many Politicians etc. that throw Guns out there as a way to get our vote but don't do a damn thing about it. We need serious organization for serious change.

    Sorry for the rant, but then again I'm not!

  7. RedLion

    RedLion Well-Known Member

    Well, Most politicians, like senators or even representatives, are elected based solely on the fact that they are the incumbent. So, unless you can change a few incumbents' view, its going to be pretty hard to get enough people in office to actually have an effect.

    Plus, you'd be putting a candidate in a position where they can't be affiliated with any party.... so I'd bet, that more often than not in this country, that fact alone will make them lose. Whether its because of lack of funding, or campaigning or because voters don't like it.
  8. JImbothefiveth

    JImbothefiveth Well-Known Member

    If you look at the data, the groups that are pro-life are most usually pro-gun.

    I think you have a good idea though, if you can convince someone to support pro-gun candidates due to the right-to-life issues, the effect is the same.

    This isn't quite piggybacking other issues. Suppose Candidate A is pro-gun, and candidate B is anti-gun. Mr. Voter thinks he's going to vote for candidate B. He owns a 30-30, and candidate B "hunts, and would't ban those". "Well, you see mr. voter, candidate A is also pro-life, (or anti-tax, or pro-America, or other important issue). "He is? Well, he won my vote"

    If candidate A wins, what matters is we have a pro-gun politician, who will vote against gun bans, even if he was put in office because he was pro-life (Or anti-tax, or other important issue)

    Then we should oppose those candidates, even if it takes other issues to do so.

    For advancing an ideal, maybe. For advancing a political candidate who supports that ideal, no.

    That's actually what he was addressing. If you can convince those few anti-gun conservatives that other issues, like the right to life, matter most, they will vote for pro-gun candidates. Similiarly (spelling?) if you convince the pro-gun liberals that the second amendment matters most, they will vote for pro-gun candidates.
    We aren't voting for "pink pistols for senator". What he's talking about is getting support for pro-gun candidates via other issues.
    This isn't about us though. It's about the non-gun voters who can still be convinced to vote for pro-gun candidates for various idealogical reasons.
    58 senators recently voted for the Thune amendment. Most of them were put in office for a lot of reasons other than gun rights. If we can support these candidates, we can gain a lot of ground.
    You can't just give up on politics though. No organization, not even the NRA, has a congressional vote.
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2009
  9. Owen

    Owen Moderator Emeritus

    the question is, how many supporters do we lose by openly supporting pro-life politicians?
  10. SaMx

    SaMx Well-Known Member

    Yeah, it seems like a bad idea to tie two divisive issues together, as people who support one but not the other would essentially be forced out of the movement.
  11. JImbothefiveth

    JImbothefiveth Well-Known Member

    None. You'll only be using that particular reason to convince pro-life people to vote for your candidate
  12. Dr. Fresh

    Dr. Fresh Well-Known Member

    Most people who vote based on that issue are already voting for conservative candidates, many of whom are pro-gun.

    I say we try to get liberals on our side, as there's no good reason for them not to be.
  13. JImbothefiveth

    JImbothefiveth Well-Known Member

    What issues are important to them that are usually supported by consevative candidates? Less spending?
  14. Dr. Fresh

    Dr. Fresh Well-Known Member

    I think the 2A movement should distance itself from its socially conservative base as well.

    A lot of liberals I know actually lean toward the libertarian side of things without even knowing. I'm not gonna go on and on about libertarianism, but it is one ideology that tends to play to both sides to some extent.
  15. bigfatdave

    bigfatdave Well-Known Member

    Tying 2a rights to the rest of the so-called "conservative" bandwagon will annoy a lot of Libertarian gun owners.
    If candidate A is pro-gun and rabidly anti-gay or a forced-birther...
    and candidate B is a moderate on guns and wants more limited government authority on the other subjects...
    many moderates would vote for candidate B, and I would go and vote for candidate C (the Libertarian) as usual.

    Perhaps we need less authoritarian politicians, rather than attempts to "rally the base" that would drive away moderates.
  16. ohgrady

    ohgrady Well-Known Member

    Or perhaps the NRA could go to NARAL and NOW and point out that the NRA/gunowners have a supreme court case that isn't about guns, it's about freedom. And then acknowledge they have a supreme court case that acknowledges a woman's freedom. And then they could sign a truce, "we keep our hands off of your wombs, you keep your hands off of our guns."

    Come to think about it............I don't want to open up that can of worms either.
  17. 2RCO

    2RCO Well-Known Member

    Jimbo it really sounds to me you are trying to get Conservative Politicians elected using Guns.---Already been done to death.

    If Guns are the Issue, make it about guns and not other issues.

    If we ever want to win this war it will take people from every other group to be on our side. Why ostracize people because of non 2A issues.

    MADD didn't try to piggyback with Greenpeace to get drunk driving laws strengthened. They simply went after one issue. If a bunch of Pissed off Moms can fundamentally change the legal system in every state on an issue then we should learn something from it.
  18. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Sorry, but i don't think that in any case pro-life is necessarily a winning issue to tie the 2nd Amendment to. Pro-life loses a lot of the woman vote and a lot of the "middle." The thing is that a lot of strong 2nd Amendment proponents already lean toward the pro-life side, so you're not really attracting new votes by linking them. What we need to do is link the pro 2nd Amendment camp to other issues that will galvanize the woman vote and the middle.
  19. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Linking to more socially conservative causes is not the right direction. Broadening the base, not narrowing it, is our route to restoring our rights.
  20. GEM

    GEM Well-Known Member

    Amen to that. Bad idea.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page