How do anti gun politicians get elected

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hummer70

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
613
Location
Cradle of the Confederacy
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm This gov't website says there are 14.8 Million union members.

The NRA reports 5 Million Members.

Who did the Unions support 8 years ago? approximately 130 million votes cast.

Who did the Unions support 4 years ago.? approximately 127 million votes cast.

Who are the Unions supporting this time?

What if the NRA had 14.8 million members?

I just read where it is estimated 200 million citizens own guns.
 
Last edited:
You have other things to consider.

1) You treat "union" as a single monolithic entity. Whereas the NRA is the largest, but really only one of half a dozen similar shared purpose organizations.

2) No one makes anyone join the NRA so the members numbers of a voluntary group typically can be considered to represent a third of the people that have some agreement with the core stance of the organization. Sadly that makes the NRA closely representing the attitudes on the 2A of only 15 million people (a tenth of what we wish it was).

3) Only 32% of the adults in the U.S. live in a household with any firearms. That's two thirds of the households have no firearms of any sort. Only half of the Republicans do. And only a quarter of identified Democrats do. I'll repeat, only half of Republican households have any firearms and only a quarter of Democrat households do and only a third overall do.

4) Only half of the eligible voters bother to vote for POTUS. Only 42% of the voters lean Republican and most of them are not in the states with lots of electoral college power. If we can't get the numbers to vote then we can't get the politicians we want.

5) The fatal flaw in your assertion is that everyone is a single issue voter when the majority of folks are just looking for the best total package they can get to match their opinions. People on our side of the 2A issue don't only vote the same so how can we expect to have the general public to want to.
 
Last edited:
The simple answer is that people vote for them.

The more complex answer is that guns are one of a wide range of things that factor into how people vote. Just because someone owns a gun does not mean that firearms are a priority in voting.

OP points at unions as a voting block contrasting with the NRA. A person is in a union to protect their job and livelihood and it makes sense to vote to protect that. A union member may not agree or care either way about a candidates stance on guns but they will care quite a bit about their stance on labor. Even if not a single issue voter the labor position of a candidate will have a greater weight than the firearm stance.

Counter question, is it possible to remove firearm restrictions as a goal of either side? There will always be fanatics like Feinstein but is there a path to have the rest of the legislature roll their eyes when the fanatics start a crusade?
 
I was riding with a couple of agents once and we were talking politics and I said I was voting for X because he was pro gun.

One asked " Is that the only way you judge politicians". I replied, "Have you ever met a anti gun politician that had common sense?"

The both looked at each other and grinned and said "No".

In other words if they are not for the 2nd Amendment I don't trust them.
 
Last edited:
Never forget the impact of "single issue" voters.

Just as many here have a "single issue" when firearms comes into play - others still may have different "single issues" while otherwise being firearms enthusiasts in general and Second Amendment proponents in particular.

I know several folks who prioritize issues such as abortion/pro-life, union allegiance or social progressiveness over gun rights and are still pro-gun/2A.

When cornered by conflicting points of view in their voting options, they sometimes simply must potentially harm their own firearms ownership in protecting another issue of higher priority to them.


Todd.
 
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." - Author Unknown, even though this has been attributed to AF Tytler, Tocqueville, and others
 
<Guys, we have to keep this on topic of GUNS and political candidates. Pointing out that people are more concerned about issues other than guns is fine. Ranting about "Liberals" or welfare or other side issues takes us too far afield.>
 
It does boil down to prioritization of the issues. I value, in no particular order, smaller government, economics, weapon rights (not just guns), conservation of wildlife resources, various social issues, and the character of the candidates. I tend to be fairly centrist. The character issue is what will make it so difficult to vote this time around. I would like to believe that others feel the same way.
 
This one is going nowhere good fast so unless someone can start coming up with some ideas about how do we get a diverse population with diverse priorities and where only a third of the households even have firearms (and only half of the self identified R leaning adults have firearms<but a quarter of the D leaning adults do too>) this threads not going to be much use.

Note that I pointed out that a quarter of the D leaning adults have firearms in their homes. That's a demographic we're neglecting in the 2A community.
 
Apathy

That is the one-word answer to all your questions.

Numbers don't really matter. Look around you - it does not take a majority of a population to effect change. Never has. A majority did not support the war for independence; as a matter of fact most opposed it. A majority of Americans did not elect any recent President. Most people stayed home. Politicians are elected by minorities.

To keep the math simple, let's just say 50% of American households have guns. How many of them are ardent, knowledgeable 2A advocates? Certainly not all, I'd say less than half. How many of them even vote? If about half the eligible population votes in general elections it can be assumed about half of the gun-owning households do also. Then: how many of them actually vote in favor of candidates who are firmly committed 2A advocates? Again, certainly not all. So at best we are left with less than 10% of eligible voters who strongly support politicians who actively work toward preserving our Constitutional rights.

Considering the question from the "anti" perspective, it can be assumed their voting representation is similar. However, given that high density population areas contain large voting blocs of people, most of whom are dependent upon the proper functioning of low-level municipal services, and that the most ardent pro-gun supporters choose to live in less repressive, more self-sustaining environments with fewer infrastructure-dependent resources, and the result is a disproportionate representation of anti-gun politicians.

There is one more aspect to consider, one that is strictly my opinion: Politicians of all stripes are motivated by control. They have (again, my opinion) a psychological affliction that manifests itself in an irresistible urge to impose their will upon others. They get off on it. Personally, I find that repugnant. I think it's a sickness they share with rapists and spouse-beaters, but it's a sickness that has found a socially acceptable outlet in government service. This opinion, though personal, is supported by others close to me: I have family members who have government jobs. They see that trait in their coworkers every day... but never in themselves, of course :rolleyes:

Maybe I'm wrong here, but 2A advocates have the opposite tendency: they generally want to be left alone. In times of need they don't expect others to come to their aid. They don't demand that someone else "do something", they take action themselves. They don't consider themselves "activists". They aren't "community organizers". They disdain "occupy" movements. After all, the 2A addresses self-defense, not the defense that comes with a mob.

That characteristic – the desire to be left alone, what some call "rugged individualism" – is a hindrance to all who favor limited government, and explains the inexorable erosion of liberty and freedom that so many American fought and died to preserve.

Apathy is difficult to overcome. I hope this website contributes in some small way toward that goal.

...

Eight years ago I was fairly active on this site. It was heartening to find a number of like-minded, intelligent people with whom to discuss subjects such as this. Events subsequent to that time were dismaying, and I thought we will all just have to hunker down for a few years while the voting (and willfully non-voting) public finally learns the consequences of their actions... or lack thereof. Wait until the storm passes, from which a much more enlightened nation will surely emerge. Needless to say, four years later the situation became even more dismaying. Millions of people chose apathy over action, and we are now living the consequences of their choice.

Today, finally, we have arrived at a similar juncture. Your favorite politician may not be God's gift to liberty and independence. His or her manner of speaking might sound preachy. He or she may be guilty of having served in government. He or she may not share 100% of your social or economic values. But, you will have a choice, and I won't try to impose mine upon yours. Choose wisely, but choose, while bearing in mind the decision not to vote is a choice as well.
 
V35 is so right but as someone said on TV the other day not voting this time is a vote for the end of the 2nd amendment if the anti gun crowd stays in the White House.
 
I'm sure the reasons anti-gun politicians get elected vary but I suspect they include one or more of the following:

1. No other viable candidates to vote for except anti-gun.

2. The majority of people in the area are anti-gun.

3. People have a higher priority than the 2nd Amendment.
 
Agreed but right now there is no higher priority than keeping the 2nd Amendment and that starts with having the right people on the NRA Board of Directors that were endorsed by Soldier of Fortune (Col Brown) and that includes my friend of 40+ years Harold J. Rocketto I can personally vouch for.
 
I was riding with a couple of agents once and we were talking politics and I said I was voting for X because he was pro gun.

One asked " Is that the only way you judge politicians". I replied, "Have you ever met a anti gun politician that had common sense?"

The both looked at each other and grinned and said "No".

In other words if they are not for the 2nd Amendment I don't trust them.

Okay, you are really a single issue voter and if the politicians don't agree with you on that issue, then the politician is OUT in your opinion. Okay cool. You are not alone. That being said, you asked how anti-gun politicians got elected, but you failed to realize that that the exact same sort of single-minded logic you used is the exact same sort of single-minded logic other single issue voters use for their pet causes.

You need to understand that not everybody shares your priorities. People can be pro gun without the gun issue being their highest priority for consideration.

Many years ago, a buddy of mine worked in a service industry in southern Louisiana and spent over 30 hours a week on the road across the state. Former (?) klansman David Duke was running for governor. My buddy, despite is apparent genetic conflict with Duke, told me that he would have gladly voted for David Duke if Duke has promised to fix all the pot holes and bad roads. The point here has nothing to do with racism or road maintenance except to point out that what people consider to be a top priority issue depends on their circumstance and 30 hours a week of truck damaging road hazards made the road issue a top priority in his book. Think about it. 30 hours of dodging pot holes and road hazards lowers quality of life. Damaged service vehicle means increased costs and increased losses due to time not getting to the clients. Not getting to the clients in a timely manner means potential lost clients. Lost income means a lower and harder standard of living with less money.

This is actually important to understand. Simply proclaiming the 2nd amendment to be the top priority issue and then name dropping special interest groups that support it is really no more valid of a justification for the 2nd amendment being a top priority than other people focusing on their special interest groups and name dropping and saying their cause is a top priority. So if you don't take the time to understand the POV of other people and why they have their own apparently wants and needs, you will fail at trying to convert them to seeing your perspective as being worthy of consideration to influence their votes.

Note that I pointed out that a quarter of the D leaning adults have firearms in their homes. That's a demographic we're neglecting in the 2A community.

Right, so our 2nd amendment patrons should cut the political bigotry of classifying Democrats and Liberals in the a broad negative light simply because of being Democrats and Liberals. It is hard to win over people you keep insulting all the time.
 
The NRA reports 5 Million Members.

Who did the Unions support 8 years ago? approximately 130 million votes cast.

Who did the Unions support 4 years ago.? approximately 127 million votes cast.

Who are the Unions supporting this time?

I have to point something out, when the NRA endorses/supports a candidate I usually end up voting for him. I am also a union member (USW) and I can remember voting for a single, yes one, candidate they endorsed/supported.

The thing is that the NRA does represent its members, contrary to popular made up polls. The unions, at least the ones I've dealt with, definitely do not. About half of the union members I know got against the union frequently. Almost all union members I know strongly dislike their union on a national level, but they love (or at least highly appreciate) their local union, unfortunately the two cant be separated. The point is many, if not most, union members have little or no loyalty to the national unions, but NRA members have much loyalty to the NRA and the second amendment. The two are definitely not on a level field.

A better question might be what could the NRA do if all of its members donated several hundered dollars a year.
 
I too know gun owners who voted for anti gun candidates and the reasons they give for doing so defies logic and reason.

There was a lady that worked for Bob Jones University in Greenville, SC 50 years ago. She was Polish. The night before Hitler rolled into Poland the Polish Police came to their door as they were eating supper. She ran and answered the knock and the cops told her father they wanted his guns. (Poland had had a gun registration scheme a few years prior to "control crime"). He refused, they shot and killed him in the living room in front of her, ransacked the house, got the "registered guns" and went next door and on down the street collecting guns.
 
Agreed but right now there is no higher priority than keeping the 2nd Amendment and that starts with having the right people on the NRA Board of Directors that were endorsed by Soldier of Fortune (Col Brown) and that includes my friend of 40+ years Harold J. Rocketto I can personally vouch for.


My point was, and is, that people have different priorities. Someone, for example, who is financially secure and single, may have vastly different priorities than another person who is married, has kids and a lot of financial responsibilities. They may both be pro-gun but the married person may put the welfare of the family ahead of their own gun rights. It isn't that the 2nd Amendment isn't important but can take a backseat to other stuff like food, shelter, etc.

Edit: In some ways, this situation reminds me of the old Rollerball movie with James Caan where he basically says people have traded freedom for comfort.
 
Last edited:
How do anti-gun politicians get elected? Well, mostly they run for office in places where most people are either anti-gun or gun-apathetic. Depending on where you are in this big, diverse nation of ours, guns can either be widely liked or widely despised.
 
"Welfare" of the family. You are probably correct, I guess someone who wants their kids college tuition payed for by their neighbor, has had their unemployment run out and has now moved on to disability and gets free medical and has a spouse who is employed by the government will cast his vote for the one who promise's to give more.
 
I too know gun owners who voted for anti gun candidates and the reasons they give for doing so defies logic and reason.

No, it defies your logic and your reason. You fail to understand that other people have perspectives other than the ones you hold most dear. Not everyone is a single issue voter like you. Not everyone that is pro 2A has 2A as a top priority. The reason why you fail to understand how anti candidates get elected is because you fail to understand folks have views different than your own and those view are as dear to them as your views are to you.

There are anti people who are as close minded to other people's way of thinking and who can't understand the moronic love of the antiquated and needless 2A. They have a lot more condemnation of the 2A, but I will keep the adjectives short for economy. The fact is, they see us as being illogical.

The funny thing is what is logical on one side is not logical on the other. Both sides make arguments for the logic they believe to be correct. The problem is that both sides do not share the same values in the same proportions and as such, don't share the same reasoning.
 
Last edited:
"Welfare" of the family. You are probably correct, I guess someone who wants their kids college tuition payed for by their neighbor, has had their unemployment run out and has now moved on to disability and gets free medical and has a spouse who is employed by the government will cast his vote for the one who promise's to give more.

If that's your only comprehension of what someone's familial "welfare" is, well sheesh. No wonder we see people ask questions like this.

If you consider how VERY many different things people care about deeply, and how they each feel that the things they care about are crucial to the welfare (true meaning) of themselves, their families, their community, and their nation, perhaps we might get closer to understanding the actual answer to this question.

The people who don't vote for the same candidates that we (... hold our nose, swallow hard, cringe, and...) pull the lever for aren't necessarily ANTI-gun, nor are they -- by a vast majority -- welfare-dependent ner-do-wells who are just voting for the next handout. And to say so, or believe so, is a HUGE stumbling block to ever getting this false wall on gun control beaten down.

We have to break the party politics strangle hold on the guns issue. Truly, keeping gun control alive as a hot-button issue is a tool of the parties to put a leash on your neck and mine. We won't vote for dozens of issues we actually have thought about and agree with, because we HAVE to vote on this one issue or the other side will win. (And I'd say beyond a shadow of a doubt that somewhere between 30% and 80% of many of our political opinions we hold ONLY because politicians and political pundits who promised that they were on "our side" about guns TOLD us what we should think about those matters. I will avoid giving examples because of our site rules but ... we are desperately lead by the nose by those who claim they'd let us keep our guns.)

And the D-voter across the street who really likes to shoot and wants to keep his guns can't vote for OUR guy because OUR guy is a kook who believes it should be against the law to (fill in the blank here) or is an embarrassing backward bigot who would (fill in another blank here). And HIS knee-jerk "yeah, sure, why not control guns?" reaction is 9 times out of 10, seeded, nurtured, and built by the politicians and pundits that tell HIM what he has to think about guns, while promising to lower his healthcare costs, protect free speech, stop going to war, etc.

Party politics, and the stupid (though totally deliberate) sloganeering that it uses to herd us around like cows, is WHY gun control is still "a thing."
 
Last edited:
Gun rights is not the number one issue for a majority of gun owners, I would wager to guess. It's not even in the Top 10 for me. There are a whole slew of social, personal and financial positions that I take into consideration before voting for any candidate for office. Usually I have no idea what their stance is on firearms. Gun ownership is waaaaay down my list of things that make life worth living, and that keep this planet safe and healthy for my great grandchildren and others to enjoy.
 
X-Rap said:
ATN082268 said:
They may both be pro-gun but the married person may put the welfare of the family ahead of their own gun rights.
"Welfare" of the family. You are probably correct, I guess someone who wants their kids college tuition payed for by their neighbor, has had their unemployment run out and has now moved on to disability and gets free medical and has a spouse who is employed by the government will cast his vote for the one who promise's to give more.
Wow. X-Rap, please tell me you're trying to make a joke here...

"Welfare of the family" has absolutely zero to do with government assistance. It has to do with looking out for the welfare of your family before your own. For example, about a year ago I was offered a different position at work. I didn't want that position; it offered me a worse schedule and a less enjoyable set of work responsibilities. It also paid more.

If I didn't have a family, I would have turned the position down. But since my family comes first, I took the position since it offered me more money. That's what ATN082268 was talking about: Sometimes people make decisions that go against their own personal interests because it's good for their family.
 
It's funny, you describe my view very well, no politicians offered you the choice you took and that's exactly what I want from government.
Give me the opportunity to make fee choices in a free environment without treating me like some child.
Politically I am conservative and I have found that 90%+ of the time I do not have to worry about the vote of someone I vote for who gets elected. I am at a loss on how we wrestle the gun issue from either party but I'm all ears.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top