jerkface11
Member
Yeah you can believe promises from a Democrat Senator.
Every liberal on my college campus seems to be pro-gun.
- Thread starter Hoplophile
- Start date
- Status
JImbothefiveth
Member
I'm sure it wasn't a fake, the internet is a reliable source after all.
(P.S.: If you can get one from Pelosi saying this, then I'd settle down a bit.
But as it stands, there is one party with gun control as part of their platform) Actually, that's not true, or at least it wasn't in 2005.
58% of gun owners owned guns for hunting, 66% for target shooting, and 67% for protection from crime. While self-defense is the most common reason for owning guns, I'd say based on that poll that most gun owners own them for more than one purpose.
I feel that I should add to this thread the fact that there ARE some Democratic officials that are OUTSTANDING supporters of the RKBA and have LONG track records demonstrating that fact-- records that put most Republican officials to shame.
(And I say this as a 20 year member of the Republican Party.)
One particular Democratic Representative that has earned the right repeatedly to be mentioned is Gene Taylor (D-MS).
I've spoken to him a number of times in the past, and I can feel absolutely secure in his convictions to the RKBA. He voted against the "94 AWB, and continues to vigorously oppose any AWB or gun control measures.
We differ on a few issues, but those are few and far between.
I'd take several dozen Gene Taylors over some of the Republicans that we've seen.
Just a reminder to judge the man, not the party. But it is also a reminder to ASK the man the questions.
-- John
(And I say this as a 20 year member of the Republican Party.)
One particular Democratic Representative that has earned the right repeatedly to be mentioned is Gene Taylor (D-MS).
I've spoken to him a number of times in the past, and I can feel absolutely secure in his convictions to the RKBA. He voted against the "94 AWB, and continues to vigorously oppose any AWB or gun control measures.
We differ on a few issues, but those are few and far between.
I'd take several dozen Gene Taylors over some of the Republicans that we've seen.
Just a reminder to judge the man, not the party. But it is also a reminder to ASK the man the questions.
-- John
withdrawn34
Member.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2008
- Messages
- 529
Why not? His record also reflects his promises. Why so against someone just because they have a (D) after their name? If their record speaks for itself, then what debate is there?
If our goal is RKBA, then we need to stop being so divided in party lines. I really don't like it when people vote exclusively along party lines, without really looking at the candidates. It's the ultimate form of sheeple-ness syndrome.
Get out of the box and THINK.
Oh and Ron Paul 2012
JImbothefiveth
Member
+1
I'd probably support senator Casey. (Although I don't like his economics.)
AKGuy
Member
Wow.
The gyrations and whizzbangs that people will go through to avoid just flat out admitting that they were wrong and that they need to adjust their attitudes/views to fit reality rather than try and redefine the reality that they are confronting to try and make it bette fit their faulty definitions....gotta be a heckuva workout!
The gyrations and whizzbangs that people will go through to avoid just flat out admitting that they were wrong and that they need to adjust their attitudes/views to fit reality rather than try and redefine the reality that they are confronting to try and make it bette fit their faulty definitions....gotta be a heckuva workout!
JImbothefiveth
Member
So my reality is wrong?
Let's see what Gallup has to say about that.
I'd agree that the most anti-gun group(In fact, the only group that is overall anti-gun) also contains the most liberals, would you agree?
Autolycus
Member
What does the first line about enslavement have to do with the discussion? We are talking about an unwanted pregnancy, not enslaving a person.
So if a woman has a gun, she is immune from rape? Did you know that the majority of rapes are date rapes and marital rapes? Not the stranger danger rapes.
notorious
Member
What does a flaming liberal who likes guns have to do with raping your wife?
JImbothefiveth
Member
No, but I can imagine it would create a lot of problems for her attacker.
Source, please.
In my defense: He is describing something which hurts another human being(and it is in the eyes of science.), and describing it as a "freedom", so I'm comparing it to something else that does that.
If you want to discuss this, please PM me, I don't want to get this thread killed by turning it in to a discussion about abortion.
I will discuss the gun-related stuff that you posted in this thread. (I have done so above.)
Autolycus
Member
Here is a source for information about rapes:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=54c55be7725394d249cd7d51dada3df2
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r04610r837nh8m6j/
I can provide more. I would suggest taking a Deviant Behavior or a Human Sexuality class at your local college. It really is fascinating what you learn about people. I would also contact your local womens center, as they can give startling and accurate facts to your locale. We had a rape counselor come in and give a discussion to us at my university, and it helped to open up the eyes of many students about what is rape and legally considered rape.
If you have kids and one is in college, the college will by federal law have to give you information about crimes committed on that campus.
If the woman has a gun, it might provide problems for her attacker. However lets say the woman is drugged over the course of the date? What then?
Or she is making out as many people do on their date, this is not intercourse or "sex" as commonly defined. She may not have access to her gun.
Or she is rendered incapable of making the decision to have sex while impaired by a drug?
As far as in the eyes of science, I would disagree. However I will agree to back off on that discussion.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=54c55be7725394d249cd7d51dada3df2
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r04610r837nh8m6j/
I can provide more. I would suggest taking a Deviant Behavior or a Human Sexuality class at your local college. It really is fascinating what you learn about people. I would also contact your local womens center, as they can give startling and accurate facts to your locale. We had a rape counselor come in and give a discussion to us at my university, and it helped to open up the eyes of many students about what is rape and legally considered rape.
If you have kids and one is in college, the college will by federal law have to give you information about crimes committed on that campus.
If the woman has a gun, it might provide problems for her attacker. However lets say the woman is drugged over the course of the date? What then?
Or she is making out as many people do on their date, this is not intercourse or "sex" as commonly defined. She may not have access to her gun.
Or she is rendered incapable of making the decision to have sex while impaired by a drug?
As far as in the eyes of science, I would disagree. However I will agree to back off on that discussion.
JImbothefiveth
Member
In the situation that you described, it would be quite feasible to keep a pocket pistol handy.
JImbothefiveth
Member
Back in the late 70's, the DOJ did a study on this, and found that a rape was more than 10 times more likely to be completed when the victim was unarmed, versus armed.
Last edited:
notorious
Member
I hate it when that happens.
JImbothefiveth
Member
In Texas, in the first year after allowing CCW, rapes fell 90% faster than the national average.
So it seems to me guns should still be more of an important issue to you
So it seems to me guns should still be more of an important issue to you
JImbothefiveth
Member
Sorry about the Typo!
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Apparently, he not only talks the talk, he walks the walk. He voted AGAINST the first AWB, and has consistently voted against its many zombie resurrections.
Could he have a weak moment and sell us out? Possibly. But his record so far is good.
The number of people who hunt in a given year can be obtained from the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, U.S. Census Bureau. This is pretty solid data.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf (2006)
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html (prior years)
According to the data, 12.5 million people over age 16 and 1.6 million under age 16 hunted in 2006, for a total of 14.1 million active hunters.
There is also a population of former hunters and once-every-few-years hunters that didn't hunt in 2006 but could be considered "latent" hunters. If you count those, you get a total of 18.6 million people over 16 as having hunted at least once between 2002 and 2006, although not all of those are active hunters anymore.
There are roughly 80 million gun owners in the United States. 14.1 million (active hunters) divided by 80 million is about 18%, or a little less than 1 in 5.
18.6 million (active hunters + once-every-few-years hunters) divided by 80 million is just over 23%, or about 1 in 4.
What's the source of the poll you cite? I'd like to know how the poll was conducted, how respondents were selected, the sample size, and how the questions were worded. Depending on how you asked the question, I (a nonhunter) could be classed as a "hunter" a couple ways, e.g. I have hunted small game once, I obtained a hunting license once that I never used, and I own a couple of guns suitable for hunting. You might also get a higher percentage of hunters if you polled a population with more hunters than average, e.g. NSSF members or something.
I'm not denigrating hunting at all (I'd like to take up hunting someday), but it is a pretty solid fact that hunters are no longer the majority of gun owners.
And if you throw the pro-RKBA 30% of Dems and 54% of independents off the train by linking the RKBA firmly to the broader Republican/social conservative platform, what happens to your RKBA?
Answer: We lose it.
57% of republicans do not constitute anything close to a majority of voters in this country.
57% of republicans + 30% of Dems + 54% of indies DOES.
That is my point. Bashing rank-and-file Democrats, bashing liberals in general, acting as if social conservatives are the only true pro-gunners, or making support for RKBA contingent on supporting social conservatism will destroy us as gun owners. Bash anti-gun idiots all you want---or even better, politely engage them, educate them, and perhaps change their mind (or at least demonstrate to them that it's not a battle worth fighting)---but don't bash Dems in general, or liberals in general, or non-conservatives in general. The RKBA needs us just as much as it needs anybody else, IMO.
We can agree to disagree on the other stuff. But if we don't stand together on RKBA, then as Ben Franklin wryly observed, we will surely hang separately.
Last edited:
jerkface11
Member
Oh wow you guys have convinced me. The DNC is really pro gun. They'll probably cut my taxes too. I bet they won't even make laws telling me what I can and cannot do.
Pardon my dig...
...But around where I live, there are plenty of life-long Democrats that are pro-RKBA, but also vote Democrat because they would really like somebody else to pay for their childcare, their eldercare, their kid's college education, and their medical bills too. This while they amass gun, Harley, and vacation-house collections.
Being pro-gun, and also feeling entitled to be a freeloader (because one's been raised to believe "life's unfair"), isn't mutually exclusive.
Sorry.
Les
...But around where I live, there are plenty of life-long Democrats that are pro-RKBA, but also vote Democrat because they would really like somebody else to pay for their childcare, their eldercare, their kid's college education, and their medical bills too. This while they amass gun, Harley, and vacation-house collections.
Being pro-gun, and also feeling entitled to be a freeloader (because one's been raised to believe "life's unfair"), isn't mutually exclusive.
Sorry.
Les
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Ok, so some liberals are pro gun. Now once they also decide to stop taking my money to pay for their pie-in-the-sky ideas, stop telling me I'm a racist, stop telling people how to raise their children, stop mocking my religion, stop thinking that talking to Iran or Hamas will solve anything, stop supporting the murder of tens of millions of unborn people, and stop supporting the breaking of immigration law, than they'll be A-OK with me.
I won't be holding my breath. Just being pro-gun does not redeem anyone.
I won't be holding my breath. Just being pro-gun does not redeem anyone.
Democrat does not equal anti-gun
Liberal does not equal anti-gun
Republican does not equal morality
Republican does not equal racist
Republican does not equal pro-gun
Etc.
Many reasonable folks have a range of opinions on various issues that may or may not line up exactly with a particular political party's stance. God bless them.
If you are the simple-minded sort that looks to a party to tell you how to stand on an issue, please do not vote or reproduce. Party nuts and Lib v. Con nuts (tell me again how we stand on the latest tax bill) are what is holding back our country.
Quit using labels to wrongly define people.
And voting for a politician of a party does not mean you endorse the most extreme measures of that party.
Liberal does not equal anti-gun
Republican does not equal morality
Republican does not equal racist
Republican does not equal pro-gun
Etc.
Many reasonable folks have a range of opinions on various issues that may or may not line up exactly with a particular political party's stance. God bless them.
If you are the simple-minded sort that looks to a party to tell you how to stand on an issue, please do not vote or reproduce. Party nuts and Lib v. Con nuts (tell me again how we stand on the latest tax bill) are what is holding back our country.
Quit using labels to wrongly define people.
And voting for a politician of a party does not mean you endorse the most extreme measures of that party.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Remander, you might be interested to know that Liberal and Conservative are in fact, not political parties. Democrat and Republican are. Liberal and Conservative are actually belief-sets or worldviews.
People sort themselves into groups. It's just the way things are. Sometimes labels DO mean things. And yes, if you vote to give power to a person, and that person stated what they intend to do with that power before you voted for them; you are in fact endorsing those actions by voting for them.
People sort themselves into groups. It's just the way things are. Sometimes labels DO mean things. And yes, if you vote to give power to a person, and that person stated what they intend to do with that power before you voted for them; you are in fact endorsing those actions by voting for them.
notorious
Member
Liberal Dems used to be for people's rights, or so they say... they love every right except the right to own guns now... as a party platform. Strange.
I think you're confusing old Dems with the "classic" Jeffersonian Liberal, what we would have called "Libertarian" back in the Ayn Rand days. I wish those cats hadn't have decided about ten years ago that legal weed was the most important issue facing the USA. I was a card-carrying member of the Libertarian party till then. Not that I'm a rabid prohibitionist, it was just a wasteful distraction for what could have been a promising political movement... All the chips on one petty issue.
Les
- Status
