If you don't vote like a gun owner, YOU SUCK!

Status
Not open for further replies.
If someone has trouble feeding their familiy and putting a roof over their head, guns really don't mean a thing.

In our county the cost of a home is approaching 300k on the low end.
Tag that with home insurance premiums and taxes that add 7 or 8k a year along with getting health care.

Then after all that, lets put food on the table.

Retire on a small pension or SS and try to afford health care and medication, then eat.

Those issues are what drives people, not guns.

After spending year after year, month after month at the local gun show, those are the concerns of the overwhelming majority of gun owners. Even the NRA lifers.

There are much more issues than just guns.
 
Just asking a Question....

Yo, Mr. shoudek, I was just asking a question
Click to expand...


I quit paying NRA dues when I figured out that they were just a Republican fund raising organization. I also quit paying dues to AARP.
Click to expand...

No, you were bragging about how and why you don't support the NRA....you are described in the article too. The word union comes to mind......

Guess you are better off sticking with the conspira\y wack-o's and not boothering the NRA with your complaints about support of Republican candidates.....
 
If someone has trouble feeding their familiy and putting a roof over their head, guns really don't mean a thing.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you expect the Govt. to do about that? They don't exist to make you employable.

Low end housing is no-where near $300K a year in 99% of the country. If you live in one of the two or three areas where that "may" be the case.....MOVE!

If things are as bad as you'd have me believe, then why is home ownership at an all time high?

My point is this...most of the issues you mention have FAR less to do with the government and fall squarely on the shoulder's of personal responsibility.
 
One issue (you pick the issue) politicians suck and are unelectable, but anti-gun politicians do not have your best interest at heart. They want to control you; many are in office because they feel big government should control the people. I have yet to find an anti-gun politician who acted in my best interest.

For me gun-control isn't the only issue I consider, but it is a litmus test. Once they fail the 2nd Amendment test, I can usually find many other issues outside gun control where we also fail to agree. I may be a one issue voter, but it's usually the only issue I need to check in order to elect a politician who is acceptable to me in many other issues.
 
For me gun-control isn't the only issue I consider, but it is a litmus test. Once they fail the 2nd Amendment test, I can usually find many other issues outside gun control where we also fail to agree. I may be a one issue voter, but it's usually the only issue I need to check in order to elect a politician who is acceptable to me in many other issues.
Click to expand...

So you voted Libertarian then, right? Please tell me that you did because either of the last two candidates did not share your interests.
 
I am not a single issue voter, never have been, never will be. There other equally important issues, so it's important to weigh them all in the decision making.
 
Why should I vote GOP just for RKBA issues? So when my candidate wins I can shoot him for curtailing my mom or sister's right to choose to end their pregnancy? Or so I can shoot him for giving my tax money back to the richest 1% of the country so they can tighten their strangle hold on the economic system? Or so I can shoot him for refusing my friend Danny from having a legally binding relationship with his gay lover? Or so I can shoot you for supporting him on these issues? Thick talk from a bunch of thick talkers. :rolleyes: I don't see any RKBA proponents shooting it out with the popos over their ARs in Cali, or over their Marlin 60's in NJ, so blab about "from my cold dead hands" until nobody takes you seriously anymore. As someone who is ready to die for his civil rights, I know I don't.
 
I think most of us determine our political philosophies through our experiences, and changing lifestyles. No disrespect intended, but I don't think any intelligent person can remain a one issue voter when life begins to change, and responsibilities grow heavier on our shoulders. When I was younger I didn't take as active an interest in the economy as I do now. With a baby on the way, and my wife not working health insurance and economy issues are very important to me.
 
I'll admit it: if a candidate doesn't support my rights to own guns, the rights of the unborn, or if he's in favor of experimenting on humans/children -- he/she doesn't get my vote. If that makes me narrow minded, so be it.
 
The "unborn" (is that like "undead"?) have no individual rights. They aren't citizens of anywhere, more importantly they aren't individuals. The mothers are. That is the very easy distinction, and if I am to err, I will err on the side of the idividual's rights. Just like on every other issue.
 
I wouldn't call you narrowminded, or a one issue voter. You have opinions based upon a set of beliefs that are important to you. I would disagree with you about a couple of your points, but we'd get bored if we all agreed with each other.
 
The unborn are alive according to the technology we have to prove it, heart beats and pictures included. I don't recall any such technology that's proved God's existance either....the undead are in the movies only, unless they're walking along the streets of Salem... Being a woman, I don't think women who were too stupid to use birth control should have more rights than their children. Funny, you can murder a child and get everyone's sympathy -- if you see the corpse, but you can stab a baby in through the mother's belly and it's no big deal. I feel otherwise, which is why I don't vote for candidates who think children only have rights as long as you can see them. It's odd how those very candidates claim to believe in God -- I haven't seen Him around lately...

I guess that makes me a three issue voter: Guns, Babies, and no experiments on humans -- and to think I'm from Massachusetts. :what:
 
Or so I can shoot you for supporting him on these issues? Thick talk from a bunch of thick talkers.
Click to expand...
You come to this board spouting this nonsense? You think you can shoot everyone who voted for Bush? Insult the members here?

Go to DU to spew this hateful crap.
 
With a baby on the way, and my wife not working health insurance and economy issues are very important to me.
Click to expand...

Just as they should be!! Nice to see a new parent thinking about the important stuff. Congratulations by the way.......

But, if you think either party is going to help you with health insurance or the economy you'll be sadly disappointed.

Figure out quickly the government isn't your answer to these problems. Education (constant learning) and hard work are the answers to increase your economic prosperity. You could still run into a tough spot with some bad luck. But, there is nothing like being employable.

(I"m not trying to say you aren't currently employable by the way)
 
jdkelly
I couldn't figure out why a Life Member wouldn't renew his membership when it expired....End of the day sort of thing!

Here, yea, here, yea, Roland of Fantasy Games, this may come as news to you, but the unborn are actually not like the undead. They do have rights. You don't need to go much further than your Oprah shows to have heard about Laci Peterson.

And what is with the "shoot people" comments?
 
Since post count is so important here

I guess I don't have the right to venture an opinion - but I would respect the admonitions to RoG's admittedly abrasive post if I could be sure that the same posters would tell anyone who joked about or "threatened" to shoot people who did NOT vote for Bush to take THEIR "hateful crap" to Free Republic.

I haven't seen that happen yet.

But then I have a low post count and I'm new so maybe it has. Lots of opportunities out there to prove me wrong.

I AM a single issue voter - I vote for the candidate who I feel has the better likelihood of increasing benefit to or decreasing harm to society in general. I do not vote for my own personal individual benefit and have little respect for those who do be they on the left or the right. Lack of critical thinking has no political boundaries. If I save a few bucks or keep my ox from getting gored while millions of others are hurt or have THEIR rights trampled then what kind of man am I to welcome that? Not the one I want to be. Unlike many here I do not see the 2nd amendment however construed as to be the most important part of the country's legal and political framework. 1776 is long gone and will not return. Sure I want to be able to keep guns or I wouldn't have the damn things would I? However that does not make it the be all and end all of my existence and even if it was that would not make it the most important thing to the interests of the nation.

Obviously the kneejerk "thought" is Republican = gun vote. This is way too simplistic. Look at RKBA issues in the courts. How many of those judges who typical vote for more control were nominated by Republicans? How many Democrats and Democratic nominees are trying to take away our guns? Voting straight party line - ANY straight party line - without due consideration is the mark of a pretty poor excuse for a voter.
 
but I would respect the admonitions to RoG's admittedly abrasive post if I could be sure that the same posters would tell anyone who joked about or "threatened" to shoot people who did NOT vote for Bush to take THEIR "hateful crap" to Free Republic.
Click to expand...
Since in my recollection I've never seen anyone threatening physical harm to someone who doesn't support Bush, I guess I'm free to admonish away. And direct them to DU where they'd be among their ilk.
Obviously the kneejerk "thought" is Republican = gun vote.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. Just about every Democrat votes ant-gun, it's a platform for that party, and Democrats more than republicans vote the party line. That's not our fault, that's what they believe and vote for. Go figure.
 
The leadership of the dem party is all anti-gun.
dem party = anti-gun

If you want to get rid of gun control, vote a straight Republican ballot. It's that easy.

And yes, I am a single issue voter because without the ability to protect myself and my loved ones, all the other issues mean nothing.
 
out of curiosity, has the NRA said anything about gonzales?

i'm a one-issue voter. that issue is respect for the constitution.


edit: member GOA, NRA
 
So Democrats are anti-gun? Interesting.

I suppose George H. W. Bush is a Democrat? You know, that George Bush that quit the NRA? That George Bush that banned guns by "administrative action"? Or how about Ronald Reagan? I seem to recall him doing some of that "administrative action" banning as well.
 
Yes, the dem party is completely anti-gun. The party of anti-gunners, kennedy, schumer, boxer, kerry, feinstein dean, clinton & clinton.

Yes, that party as apposed to the Republican Party which gave you the end of the Assault Weapons Ban.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
NRA Helping Americans Vote Early
Replies
0
Views
421
wingedmonkey
W
R
  • Locked
(CA) California Gun Owners Don't Vote!
Replies
6
Views
459
Russ
R
T
  • Locked
Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote
Replies
12
Views
412
Ian
I
H
  • Locked
MY $.02 ON VOTING
Replies
1
Views
348
Handyman
H
B
  • Locked
The Problem Is Gun Owners
2 3
Replies
66
Views
3K
Don Galt
D
Back
Top