NRA Democrats

Status
Not open for further replies.
.i won't join the nra or contribute to them in any way because the money will just go straight to the republican party

Ziggy, of the money the NRA gives to candidates 75% of it goes to republicans and 25% of it goes to Democrats.

The have backed pro gun Democrats against anti gun or even just gun neutral republicans

However, if you don't like the NRA feel free to join GOA (Gun Owners of America) JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) or the Pink Pistols (GLBT and their friends, family, and allies for gun rights)
 
Here's the thing: if the Senate gets 60 Democrats, there will be a ban of semiauto rifles. Probably a total ban of all semiauto rifles, because that's what Obama has supported. Furthermore, in the debate, Obama praised Biden's "hard work" in passing the '94 ban.

There has been almost ZERO evidence that the pro-gun Democrats elected in 2006 will stand against their party on principle. Why would they do it against an AWB?

That's just reality. That's what you're voting for if you vote Democrat. Why would you expect anyone at a gun shop with a tiny bit of political awareness to welcome you in your Obama t-shirt?

Furthermore, proposals like the Fairness Doctrine and Card Check, which the Democrats will also make into law if they can, are not about free speech or civil liberties. I could go on, but suffice it to say that it would be difficult for anyone who is politically aware to just say to themselves, "Well, I understand, with all the Republican opposition to free speech, why they'd support the Democrat."
 
The problem you're going to have is that the core of the Democratic party doesn't support the underlying theories behind RKBA. I mean, I know that portions of the Democratic platform and the Second are not in conflict, but in theory, there is quite a bit of mutual exclusivity.

The modern Democratic party is overtly in favor of government intervention. The modern Democratic party is blatantly in favor of autonomy-stripping. Those just aren't things that really mesh with Second Amendment rights in a lot of scenarios. You can say you vote Democratic for financial reasons, but substantial governmental interference with regard to personal ownership seems to touch on RKBA, doesn't it?

Good luck, maybe you folks can reign in some of the radicalism.
 
bdickens took the words I wanted to say....chickens for Sanders. If someone has the best NRA grade, then they will get my vote regardless of party though, once it really was a Democrat with an 'A', believe it or not. Other than that, I don't see how you people can enjoy firearms and believe in 2a but blindly support that party where it has gone to. NRA is for dems too, if you are really pro 2a, and not some kind of seminar bloggers trying to divide up and ambush sites like this! If the NRA is using it's money against a candidate, he or she is a gun grabber, or the more anti of the options, so you shouldn't be troubled that they are being defeated just because you also support their position on taxing us all so we can't afford to have any outdoor activities anyway!
 
I haven't seen a remotely pro-gun Democrat on any ballot I have ever marked. However, that was in California.

That said, I'd vote for Democrat Bill Richardson over either of the two Presidential candidates right now, if he were running, and not just because he's pro-gun.

Both parties have gone to ****, assuming they were much to speak of before. But one of them has gun banning in their party's platform.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm
 
Addendum:

Note that California's AWB requires registration of guns acquired before the ban went into effect (2000), and prohibits transferring these guns to anyone.

So, those who had them before 2000 can keep them (if they registered them immediately), but they're not at gun shows, and they're not available for sale anywhere else in California, either.

Even a ban that looks like '94 could easily have a provision banning transfer of pre-ban guns or parts.
 
I've never heard of a legitimate pro gun group for Democrats.

The only gun groups I've heard of, who cater to Democrats, have been anti-gun groups.

For reasons unknown to me all my adult life, the Democratic party attracts rabidly anti-gun voters.

I simply don't know what happened to the Democratic party in the last 50 years. Something went haywire relative to the 2nd Amendment and modern day Democrats. :confused:

Why the 2nd Amendment, and it's individual rights holding in Heller, is a political issue is ridiculous IMHO.

Democrats and Republicans agree with freedom of speech, why we don't agree with the individual right to own firearms totally escapes me. I'm just not smart enough to understand this one.

Like I said, something "happened" to modern day Democrats. It wasn't like that when I was a kid. (My parents, in their mid 80's now, are rabidly left wing but they NEVER have had any problem with me owning a firearm. They just don't see it as a problem. They let me play with guns as a kid, own a BB gun and .22lr at a very young age. Different generation I guess??)
 
Democrats and Republicans agree with freedom of speech

Really? You think that the government as arbiter of political speech is "free"? Or haven't you heard of the Fairness Doctrine? "Hate speech"?

The Democratic Party does not believe in free speech, either legislatively or culturally ( http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/8675-How-the-Left-Works.html ).

The Republican Party wants to do stuff like have a moment of silence in schools, or, for a time, wanted to ban flag burning. It's silly, IMO, but while I don't like this stuff, it's rather innocuous compared to the Orwellian ambitions of the left at the moment.

Bottom line, if I had to choose, I'd rather live in a society where kids had a 30-second moment of silence in the morning, in public schools, than in one where the government decided what news coverage and opinions on the air are "fair".
 
Good point Armed Bear.

I was talking mainly about ordinary folks.

But you are correct, I've heard about the shenanigans presented by current Democratic political leaders in their attempt to thwart talk radio, etc.

It ain't right and I hope to heck nothing like the Fairness Doctrine EVER passes.

Do you think most ordinary Democrats favor stifling speech like that? I don't but admit I haven't followed that issue that closely.
 
There really needs to be a way to get more pro-gun Democrats elected
We could always encourage Casey to run for president next election, I hear he's pretty pro-gun.

The only way to make sure the Democrats turn pro-gun is to make it cost them an election. After losing a few of these, they'll shift their stance. So if you are a Democrat, wishing the party was more pro-gun, don't vote for them until they are.(And don't just take their word, look at their votes.)
 
TT: I don't quite understand why a Communist would be against an individual owning a firearm for self-defense.

I just don't get it.

I know Commies are wacked out but I still can't grasp why they would be against the private ownership of firearms?

The 2nd Amendment should transcend all that political garbage.

Edit: You know, I'm so far to the right politically that most of the leftie philosophies just don't make much sense to me. I have a very hard time grasping the "collective" theories they espouse. It's like they are trying to make us into sheep and I just don't have a good understanding of the benefits of a society of sheep. Never have and never will.

I hear guys like Al Franken talk and my eyes get crossed and I get dizzy. I just don't get it.
 
Maybe I'm just not smart enough because they seem very similar to me. I get the feeling that it is a 20th century version of Communism but could be wrong. I'll have to read up more on that one.

Why would communatarians be against the individual ownership of firearms? Why wouldn't it be good for the "community" for law abiding citizens to defend themselves with a firearm and to guard against tyranny?
 
I know Commies are wacked out but I still can't grasp why they would be against the private ownership of firearms?

Because the individual is always subordinate to the State.

Remember, the only two real-world options are: individuals and government agents have weapons, or only government agents have weapons.

There has never been a society where there just weren't any weapons.
 
I have to think about that one Armed Bear.

I just don't see the correlation with Communism and it automatically meaning an individual can't own a firearm for self-defense and to guard against tyranny.

Why do Communists regimes only allow the government to own firearms? What does that have to do with Communism?

I'm going to have to do some reading on that one because I just don't see why it matters. Dictator - yes, I can understand why but true Communism - no, I don't understand that one and never will. Maybe I just haven't understood Communism enough because everytime I've heard one of those wack jobs talk I just get crossed eyed and dizzy.
 
You Democrats that think the NRA only supports republicans are not doing your home work.
http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/State.aspx?y=2008&State=OK#U.S.%20HOUSE%20OF%20REPRESENTATIVES

Dan Boren is my Congressman. The only Democrat in Oklahoma's D.C. road show. he has an A+ rating from the NRA and is on the NRA Board of Directors.

As far as being a single issue voter is concerned, a politicians position on the 2nd amendment and privte ownership of firearms is all I need to know about them. Am I a Citizen to be trusted with my own defense or am I a subject to be ruled and controlled. It is as simple as that.
 
Sorry Jim: To stay on topic, I've never heard of any legitimate pro-gun group run by Democrats.
 
Now hang on just a second.

The only way to make sure the Democrats turn pro-gun is to make it cost them an election./QUOTE]

Here's a thought; take someone who you know to be anti-gun with you to the range next time. Show them how to handle a firearm correctly. Let them experience how much fun it is to blast a clay pidgin out of the sky, to hit the bulls eye on a target, or watch golf balls bounce when you hit them just right (my wife's current favorite shooting sport).

On that same thought, the idea same could and should be standard practice for the NRA and other pro-firearms groups for all elected officials. The reason is, as my father often said, "a man forced against his will is of the same opinion still". A party loosing an election because they are anti-gun is the same as a waiter or waitress thinking that they should improve their service practice when they get a lousy tip. The waiter or waitress will chalk the customer up as a jerk, and the loosing party will chalk the loss up to people being stupid. That's just life, like it or not.

Oh yea, and by the way, I vote.

D
 
RDak: I'll have to read up more on that one.

You should read up on it, however the short answer to your question is that communitarians hold that individuals are incompetent/bigoted and cannot be trusted with self-governance- they are effectively suitable only to be wards of the state. Providing for your own individual defense shows self-reliance that is in direct opposition to the idea that individuals are incompetent. Additionally, communitarians believe that as incompetents, individuals cannot be held responsible for their own mistakes- shooting a criminal in self-defense has the effect of holding the criminal responsible for his own actions...which communitarianism rejects.

I’d like to re-emphasize that while communism is a sub-set of communitarianism, they are not the same. Please do not misrepresent my previous comments as saying that Democrats are communist-that’s not what I said.
 
Sorry, I thought you were bashing the Democrats. I think communists might restrict guns because they can, just like they restrict religion, free speech, etc.

But let's not let this dominate the whole thread, it's a very good thread.

And beware a group that claims to be pro-gun, but supports a ton of restrictions, thinks guns cause crime, and endorsed Obama. I can't remember their name, but DON'T DONATE TO THEM! They don't even want handguns used for hunting!

However, if you don't like the NRA feel free to join
There's also the CATO institute,(a liberatarian organization, I don't know who they give to) and the Possenti society.(I have no idea who they fund either, but Catholic positions probably aren't too compatable with the Democrat's positions.)
 
There is no such thing as "true" communism. All examples have been dictatorships, unless you're talking about very small groups of people who voluntarily joined communes or whatever. These have little to do with Marxist governments; they're just groups of people who decide to enter into a certain living arrangement (and they tend to break down eventually).

Anyway, since the market is simply a fact, not a construct, it won't just fade away. People want to trade stuff. That's part of who we are as a species. To stop them requires brutal authoritarianism, and even that doesn't really work -- witness the black markets in the USSR and today in Cuba. But that's why "communism" ends up being a dictatorship, or breaking down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top