Has this election knocked some Democrats to their senses re: gun control?

[dustind]

It is impossible for the stereotypical Democrat to be pro or even neutral on RKBA. Firearm ownership does not even come close to fitting in with their world view. If firearm ownership works, then it really calls into question all of their other anti individual liberty and responsibility stances.

Never forget how they have acted in the past with their hysterics, that is their true nature.

 

[Brian Dale]

No; those at the national level are not going to change their core beliefs. As Old Fuff said, though, they'll work hard to make us think they have. They'll be likely to clam up when gun control is discussed, right up until they can accumulate enough power to bring off some new laws. As in a lot of other states, we have some good people running as Democrats at the local level; I voted for some.

I think that Karl Popper's description of paradigm changes in the scientific community is an apt parallel: new ideas replace old ones not because new experiments show the validity of the new idea and everyone adopts it (contrary to what we were taught in high school). Rather, the old guys die off (or retire) and are replaced by the new guys who have grown up convinced of the new idea.

Democrats on the national stage, both the candidates and their supporters, grew up in the atmosphere of protest marches of the Sixties, or even the New Deal and Depression-era Socialism. You all know that the American Socialist Party fell apart in the Thirties, right? That happened because the Democrats stole their platform and their support (don't believe me? look it up). Somebody who lost his race last night (I missed who it was - a candidate interviewed on NPR) quoted Eugene Debs, for crying out loud! {"Earth to loser - it's 2004!"}

Their world view is that it takes government action to fix the problems of the world, and that the way to get things (note that I didn't write, "the way to make things happen") is to demand them - from the government.

In twenty years, they'll be replaced by young Democrats for whom communes, the hippie lifestyle and "fighting the Capitalist system" are something that OLD people used to do - the way that I look at sugar rationing and playing kick-the-can. These young Democrats will just expect to treat people based on what they write (having grown up on line), what they say and what they do. They simply won't understand how making money by doing honest work could be considered evil by their elders in the party. And yes, they WILL be registered Democrats. Sometimes joining one party or the other is a Ford-vs-Chevy thing, too.

 

[RealGun]

There use to be (maybe still is) a small faction of the Democratic party that is pro-gun, calling themselves something like "Democrats for the Second Amendment".

In the House there are 14 incumbent Democrats rated B or better by GOA. There are no favorable ratings in the Senate. You can't really rate Democratic Senators per se, because they always vote by party, the minority always in opposition. What you can do is grade their speeches in debate and whether or not they had something to say. Quotes and written statements would be another way, but that is hard to track. The real problem is that if pro-gun, why would one be a Democrat, if the culture was to not be independent in voting.

I don't know that many or any run on gun issues or claim credit for votes on gun control, so it is real debatable whether they represent anyone but themselves when they vote on gun issues. We would do well to force them to address gun issues during their campaigns and hammer them when failing to uphold the Constitution. That helps the electorate see that opinions on gun control should not be a matter of free rationale but are constrained by the Constitution, namely the BoR and the 2nd and 14th Amendments. It is the same rationale we use in convincing members of Congress how to view gun control legislation.

I am not sure I want to have a showdown on repeal of the 2nd Amendment, but that is the only proper gun control legislation. If anyone wants to try that, I wish them luck on getting the attention of 50 million gun owners who can and do vote. Some, possibly in great numbers, would respond in even more patriotic ways. Basically, no one has the stones to try that, and that's the way we want it.

You can rightfully hammer any Democratic candidate, for the Senate at least, for being anti-gun, because no matter what they say, you know how they will ultimately vote. There is no point in even drawing them into debate on the issue. The only thing that would make a difference is if a Senator was determined to be independent and seriously confronted his or her constitutional oath of office. Otherwise, Democrats, at least Senators, are anti-gun by definition.

 

[Smoke]

You likely won't win in Bosque County Politics running on the Republican ticket. We decide our elections in the primarys. Bunch of Yellow Dog Democrats here.

But we booted Kerry by 300%

I was speaking with a former county commissioner (D) and all-around good guy, that was lamenting all the "up-start Republicans that were coming in and taking over the county".

I asked him "So you're voting for Kerry?"

He replied "OH, Hell NO!" said with total disgust.

People need to quit thinking old school party politics. I used to think when the Yellow dogs die off things would get better. But it seems there is an equall number of morons (usually rabid morons) to take their space.

Smoke

 

[Ohen Cepel]

The Dems still don't get it.

I work with many. They are so arrogant that they just think everyone else are idiots.

 

[aguyindallas]

Not a chance in ....

They will never learn. History proves this theory, otherwise we would not be fighting tooth and nail to abolish the silly gun laws.

 

[ceetee]

Holey Moley!


That's a lot of weirdness to take in all at once.


I'm an odd one here... I'm not a Democrat, or a Republican, either. My registration card says "No party affiliation." In social issues I lean liberal, whereas in financial issues I lean conservative. (Fiscal conservative, not this artificial kind of "conservative" that's been invented by the "Neo-cons".)

There's something really strange about the idea of changing your belief system in order to get elected into office. What kind of integrity do you have if you actually have to sit around and have chat sessions on what positions you should adopt? And since your positions didn't get you the affirmation you were looking for last time, maybe you should play with your beliefs, promoting whatever you think WILL get you that accolade.

Odd.

It seems to me that a person of integrity would stick to his beliefs no matter how unpopular they may be with the mainstream of his peers. Personally, I don't think George Bush is the right man to lead America. I think he has too many interests in too many corporations that do business with the American government to be impartial. Double for Cheney. I have plenty of other reasons, also, but that will serve as an example.

My support for Kerry was based not in a desire for Kerry to BE elected, but for Bush NOT to. It galls me to see the lengths the Republicans are willing to go to to promote their agenda. I can't count the amount of e-mails I got from Republican friends trying to "convert" me... all either smearing Kerry, or touting some facet of Bush's performance; most based on lies. With each one I checked the facts, and e-mailed back correcting information. On a certain Gunboard I visit, I did the same, countering lies with facts. I was called a liar, I had viruses sent to me, even my personal integrity called into question, to the extent that I was questioned as to whether I was even a gun owner at all.

In my opinion, lying about your opponent is the equal to lying about your position in political matters. Either way, you've lost your integrity.

I'm starting to think that the only person qualified to hold office is the one who wants it least...