FIRST, a few ground rules. Let's not get too political and stick to the FACTS, but this is a query as to WHY the Democratic party is so anti Second amendment and why or foe this has come about. Then I will give my hypothesis, which is just that. Then one can agree or disagree and provide your hypothesis.
FACT: Much of the 20th Century, the Democratic party had a bloc of voters that identified as Southern Democrats. These individuals, some wealthy, some poor, identified with a rural way of life and firearms were commonplace. Certainly not anti 2A individuals.
Lately, these Southern Democrats switched to the Republican party as the Democratic party no longer really represented them. These folks, who have, as the media has portrayed, have fallen behind socioeconomically as jobs have moved overseas and factories in small town America have closed, both in the South or elsewhere.
FACT: (Maybe more subjective). You take virtually any kid, before political views have been shaped, take him or her target shooting, take him or her clay pigeon shooting, and he or she will have a BLAST. Completely apolitical, good fun for all!
FACT: The Democratic party has elected to appeal to minorities and inner city individuals, as well as white collar professionals who usually have high paying jobs in big cities. These individuals are unlikely to have grown up in areas with open spaces and have, therefore, never experienced a firearm in a positive light--that is, target shooting, shooting clay pigeons, hunting (or even fishing, for that matter).
FACT: Individuals in urban environments are unlikely to have any hands on experience with firearms and are likely to associate them with violence.
HYPOTHESIS: Because of demographics and wishing to represent their political base, one party has become more pro 2A and the other one the opposite. It's simply a matter of demographics and what is likely to get a Congressman re-elected.
It seems it shouldn't be political at all--think back to taking a kid outdoors to use a firearm. He or she could care less about any politics relative to firearms.
So, does this make sense? Like I said, let's stick to the facts. So, in a nutshell, it all reflects the political base of each party??? Because, I'm sure there are Democrats who hunt, fish, etc despite voting anti 2A. And, much more probable, there are many, if not most, by far and away, Republicans who have never even handled a firearm but yet vote in favor of any pro 2A legislation.
What is disturbing is how fast HR8 has been proposed. The House only became Democratic less than 2 months ago. And again, think of a kid you took shooting once. Completely apolitical, right?
FACT: Much of the 20th Century, the Democratic party had a bloc of voters that identified as Southern Democrats. These individuals, some wealthy, some poor, identified with a rural way of life and firearms were commonplace. Certainly not anti 2A individuals.
Lately, these Southern Democrats switched to the Republican party as the Democratic party no longer really represented them. These folks, who have, as the media has portrayed, have fallen behind socioeconomically as jobs have moved overseas and factories in small town America have closed, both in the South or elsewhere.
FACT: (Maybe more subjective). You take virtually any kid, before political views have been shaped, take him or her target shooting, take him or her clay pigeon shooting, and he or she will have a BLAST. Completely apolitical, good fun for all!
FACT: The Democratic party has elected to appeal to minorities and inner city individuals, as well as white collar professionals who usually have high paying jobs in big cities. These individuals are unlikely to have grown up in areas with open spaces and have, therefore, never experienced a firearm in a positive light--that is, target shooting, shooting clay pigeons, hunting (or even fishing, for that matter).
FACT: Individuals in urban environments are unlikely to have any hands on experience with firearms and are likely to associate them with violence.
HYPOTHESIS: Because of demographics and wishing to represent their political base, one party has become more pro 2A and the other one the opposite. It's simply a matter of demographics and what is likely to get a Congressman re-elected.
It seems it shouldn't be political at all--think back to taking a kid outdoors to use a firearm. He or she could care less about any politics relative to firearms.
So, does this make sense? Like I said, let's stick to the facts. So, in a nutshell, it all reflects the political base of each party??? Because, I'm sure there are Democrats who hunt, fish, etc despite voting anti 2A. And, much more probable, there are many, if not most, by far and away, Republicans who have never even handled a firearm but yet vote in favor of any pro 2A legislation.
What is disturbing is how fast HR8 has been proposed. The House only became Democratic less than 2 months ago. And again, think of a kid you took shooting once. Completely apolitical, right?
