Pro-2nd Am, Iraq War vet Democrat runs for Congress

[javafiend]

Veteran of Iraq, Running in Ohio, Is Harsh on Bush

His opposition to banning assault weapons has gotten Mr. Hackett, who says he owns military-style rifles and has a permit to carry concealed weapons, into arguments with many Democrats. "The Democratic Party is wrong on this," he said. "We don't want government dictating a woman's right to choose. How do I tell people it's O.K. to dictate their gun ownership?"

 

[Rebar]

A vote for any Democrat, even a pro-gun one, is a vote for the gun grabbers.

 

[dolanp]

A vote for a pro-gunner is a vote for a pro-gunner. Republicons voted for the AWB. Some Democrats vote against gun control.

 

[Dan from MI]

Hackett doesn't have a record on this bill. Jean Schmidt voted for Conceal Carry in Ohio.

The question is what will Hackett do once he wins. Will he follow the 2nd Amendment or his leadership like Pelosi?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well is it the House or the Senate he is running for? Considering that the Republicans in the Senate are Voinovich and Dewine, I would definitely vote for Hackett if I had the chance. We've got enough seats in the Senate that we can afford to sacrifice a few anti-gun Republicans, particularly for a Democrat who is much stronger on guns than any of the Republicans in that state.

If it was the House, we have an even larger lead there but I don't know if the guy Hackett is running against would have the same poor record as the Senators from Ohio.

 

[Rebar]

A vote for a pro-gunner is a vote for a pro-gunner.

Incorrect. The Democrat party is the party of gun grabbers. When you vote for any Democrat, you're also voting for that party. The majority party has tremendous power to dictate the political agenda, and who chairs the powerful committees.

Even if a few genuine pro-gun Democrats get elected, all they will do is count towards getting the majority for the democratic party. If they do get the majority again, it will be the party leadership, ie Schumer, Fienstien, Kennedy, Box, and the rest of their gun-grabbing crew, who will dictate their agenda.

And their agenda is 100% civilian disarmament.

 

[Henry Bowman]

He is running for the House position vacated by Rob Portman, who was appointed by Bush to be trade representative. This is a strong Republican district and a Democrat has little hope for a victory. He is running a pro-miliarty, pro guns campaign on the hope that someone will see an ad and then vote that way without even thinking about the party or the opponent's position on these issues.

As stated, he has no track record and speaks Anti-Bush. Jean Schmidt is also pro-gun, pro-military, has a strong track record -- and is a conservative. basically he has removed these "one issue" issues (although we don't know for sure whether he will keep the faith) and the race is liberal vs. conservative.

I'm voting for Schmidt.

 

[Kurush]

Incorrect. The Democrat party is the party of gun grabbers. When you vote for any Democrat, you're also voting for that party. The majority party has tremendous power to dictate the political agenda, and who chairs the powerful committees.

That's all true, but on the other hand if RKBA voters never vote for RKBA Democrats, then the Democratic Party will be unable to move toward a more moderate position, because doing so would lose them gun-grabber votes and gain them no RKBA votes. Just look at the black vote, the Dems ignore them utterly precisely because they will get their votes in any case.

 

[dolanp]

Incorrect. The Democrat party is the party of gun grabbers. When you vote for any Democrat, you're also voting for that party. The majority party has tremendous power to dictate the political agenda, and who chairs the powerful committees.

Yes people that think like this who vote down party lines without investigating candidates are indeed ruining our country. I can only dream that one day there might actually be a third party with enough support to crush the current two-party system.

 

[Dan from MI]

Well, I've only for one Democrat my entire life, and it was for a small political office.

He was pro-2a and gave honest answers. The GOP'er was a gun grabber.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

That's all true, but on the other hand if RKBA voters never vote for RKBA Democrats, then the Democratic Party will be unable to move toward a more moderate position, because doing so would lose them gun-grabber votes and gain them no RKBA votes.

Horse hockey -- The Demogogs have shown their cards. We know who they are. If you vote for them and think they are something else I have several bridges to sell you, as well. There aren't any Zell Millers left, they've been run out by Fat Teddy and the gun grabbers.

 

[dolanp]

I guess this Iraq war veteran who is running as a Democrat is just a liar who is trying to pull the wool over our eyes?

 

[Rebar]

Ignoring the fact that the democratic party is run by folks like Schumer, Fienstien, Kennedy, Boxer, etc., is a very bad mistake. Sure you can try to deflect and temporize, but the issue is clear - the leadership, platform, and the core party democratic faithfuls are 100% anti-RKBA. This is simply the ugly truth.

Electing a tiny handful of pro-gun Democrats will not make the slightest dent in the overwelming anti-gun stance of the democratic party. On the contrary, it will strengthen the party and enhance it's ability to pass anti-gun legislation and appoint liberal activist judges.

 

[Henry Bowman]

I guess this Iraq war veteran who is running as a Democrat is just a liar who is trying to pull the wool over our eyes?

No, not at all. But he has no voting record to back up his pro-gun claims on this issue. The other candidate does. If you are a one issue voter (guns), then his opponent has a slight edge. If you consider them equal on the gun issue, then vote based on other issues.

 

[Kurush]

Horse hockey -- The Demogogs have shown their cards. We know who they are. If you vote for them and think they are something else I have several bridges to sell you, as well. There aren't any Zell Millers left, they've been run out by Fat Teddy and the gun grabbers.

The Dems are not monolithic any more than the republicans are. I'd say less monolithic actually. Many Democrats in Pittsburgh are hunters and even NRA members and only vote Dem because Republicans are perceived as anti-union.

 

[Kurush]

Electing a tiny handful of pro-gun Democrats will not make the slightest dent in the overwelming anti-gun stance of the democratic party. On the contrary, it will strengthen the party and enhance it's ability to pass anti-gun legislation and appoint liberal activist judges.

I disagree. You are greatly overestimating how much the party leadership actually cares about issues. The Dems were stunned by the loss of Daschle. They are still in a panic over it. If a couple of solidly NRA A+ Dems win elections the party leadership will back off.

As the liberals liked to say in the 60s, "It doesn't take a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing".

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

I guess this Iraq war veteran who is running as a Democrat is just a liar who is trying to pull the wool over our eyes?

Nope, I trust that he is an honorable man, and he is pro 2A as he says he is.

If he wants to go anywhere in the Demogog party, he will have to dance to their tune. Their tune is played by the usual suspects. Oh, and by the way, when they try to ban guns, it will be under the auspices of a UN treaty or some such "global test". They won't touch the tarbaby, they'll say they aren't responsible.

 

[BlackCat]

A vote for any Democrat, even a pro-gun one, is a vote for the gun grabbers.

That statement made no sense when you used it in other thread and it makes no sense now.

You're trying to pass that off on gullible people and/or idiots in the hopes that they will vote for your beloved republican party. Good effort.

 

[Rebar]

That statement made no sense when you used it in other thread and it makes no sense now.

It makes perfect sense, if you actually know how our government works (or doesn't work, as the case may be).

 

[Henry Bowman]

BlackCat -- See post #6, above, for an explanation.

 

[Standing Wolf]

After Snopes Clinton, I'd have to see a representative of the Democratic (sic) party with a very strong pro-Second Amendment voting record versus a Republican with a very long record of anti-Second Amendment bigotry even to consider voting for the representative of the Democratic (sic) party.

Frankly, the Libertarians make the most sense.

 

[BlackCat]

It makes perfect sense, if you actually know how our government works (or doesn't work, as the case may be).

Naw I don't know how the gov't works, I didn't make it to 8th grade where they taught that.

BlackCat -- See post #6, above, for an explanation.

I saw post #6 and I still don't buy that crap. Where are my waders? It's getting deep in here.

 

[North Texan]

Having that little R or D in front of their names won't win my vote. I vote on issues important to me. If the incumbant fails to keep his/her promises, I vote to give someone else a chance. The last round, I voted mostly third party.

 

[hillbilly]

I was swimming over in the sewer at DU.

They were discussing this guy.

They were basically saying that the Iraq vet running was a great idea, except for his stance on guns, which meant he should get no national support from the national party at all.

Again, I point to Al Gore and Bill Clinton.

They showed no, and I do mean NO anti-gun predilictions while they were still just from Arkansas and Tennessee.

But nobody, and I do mean nobody, gets major national support from the top of the Dem party without toeing the party line on gun control.

It just doesn't happen.

Until I see real, true movement by the national party at the highest levels on this issue, no Democrat will ever get any vote from me.

hillbilly

 

[Rebar]

I saw post #6 and I still don't buy that crap.

So it's your position that there is no difference between being a majority and minority parties? That they both have the same power to push their agendas?