Refreshing - DU

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry ID, but you made a very unsupportable assertion or at the very least asked a pretty silly and obviously rebutted question, and I called you on it. You also made a rather inaccurate conflation of "non right wing RKBA supporters" and "Dems in Congress. Silly on your part. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but you were clearly eating shoe leather. In point of fact, there are plenty of RKBA Dems; it would just be easier to keep a black and white picture of the world if there weren't. The truth is always a bit muddier than we'd like it to be, and oversimplified reductions just don't pan out.

I believe it is fair to characterize Democrats as very much like the ACLU.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see that change. It's harder to do when people who should be embracing people like me into the RKBA community instead try to divide and alienate us.
 
While one does have to be selective beyond party choice who he votes for, once a politician joins a caucus, there will be pressure to vote with the group. If you figure that one party seems to have this need to obstruct everything the other initiates, there isn't much in which they share an interest, always picking opposite sides. The current mix of what it means to be a Democrat or what it means to be a Republican isn't very logical, begging for hybrid parties to be added to the mix. The only remaining essences are socialism versus capitalism, which certainly still matter.

There are combinations of religious issues, fiscal policy, gun politics, foreign policy, etc. that are not represented by a two party system, forcing voters to have priorities and always be in a compromised and somewhat frustrated position. Perhaps this is why American politics always seems to have an element of anger and ugliness involved. Even the parties have major internal struggles, it never being very realistic to split off into independent groups.
 
"there are plenty of RKBA Dems"

Of this I have no doubt; hoever, this is not the case in the sampling that the D party sends to DC every 4 years.

But the question still remains. How many D reps, on the federal level, are pro RBKA?

Is there even one?
 
DU groupthink is enforced very strongly by the mods there. Even the slightest deviation from the movement dogma is met with immediate bannage. Having any sort of real debate is nearly impossible there, so I gave up on it a long time ago.

I got banned for suggesting that the Democratic party would have better luck running conservative candidates in conservative regions rather than trying to convert southern Baptists into NYC intellectuals. I think most DU people find it deeply disturbing to be reminded that the old once-dominant Democrat party was filled with many people like Zell Miller, not just people like Hillary Clinton. As I said, bannage ensued.

I was a Democrat until I moved to FL from CA and saw what happens when progressive/liberal policies run to their logical conclusion (CA) and then what happens when conservative/libertatian policies run to their logical conclusion (FL). I used to think of the blue state way of doing things as normal and looked down on flyover country as a bunch of simple minded rednecks. The trick that I missed was that the simple minded rednecks arent going to tell you how to live your life and wont pick your pockets at every opportunity. If the Dems could learn that simple lesson for themselves, I would probably go back to voting for them. But I'm not holding my breath and I'm not quitting the republican party just yet.
 
But the question still remains. How many D reps, on the federal level, are pro RBKA?
Click to expand...

By GOA ratings, 13 House members, zero Senators, less than 10% of the Dems. Hooray for those exceptions, but give us a break on saying that Dems don't deserve an anti-gun stereotype.
 
Budding pro-rkba politicians know better than to join the Democrat party. The Dems walked away from conservatives back in the 70s. The republicans embraced them in the 80s and unless the republicans continue to drift away from them, there is no reason they will go back to being treated like the red-headed stepchild of the Democrat party.
 
By GOA ratings, 13 House members, zero Senators, less than 10% of the Dems.
Click to expand...
I'd be interested in the NRA's opinions on those numbers. Seeing as the link I provided (from a 2A activist site, but not mine) indicated several senators who voted against the AWB and for Gun Manufacturer Immunity...

Hooray for those exceptions, but give us a break on saying that Dems don't deserve an anti-gun stereotype.
Click to expand...
Who's saying that? Over the last twenty five years they've gone from being a populist party that had long included many gun friendly folks to an authortarian party that largely has indeed drank the Bradyite Kool Aid. No one's denying that.

My point isn't really about the pols, it's about the people they represent. When you belittle and alienate people like me and Tellner, you're not doing the RKBA any favors.
 
indicated several senators who voted against the AWB and for Gun Manufacturer Immunity...
Click to expand...

A single act of apparent contrition doesn't get one a favorable rating. Furthermore, the ratings are not as current as an incomplete Congressional session.

Since GOA was dead set against the trigger lock amendment to the Gun Manufacturer Immunity bill and lobbied against it, I would expect that they will look closely at who voted how on that amendment, including Republicans.

I am not going to be too quickly impressed by votes on the AWB, because some of the Senators could have sensed serious trouble with getting reelected if they voted for it. A rating has to look at a series of votes over a significant period of time. Barring data on newcomers they use questionnaires. Those who don't respond are dead meat on gun ratings.
 
All the more reason to evaluate each candidate individually. Not every candidate will vote the way you want them too on each issue, gun related or otherwise. Sometimes you'll have to choose from a mixed bag, Dem or Repub. Some issues are complex, others are pretty straight RKBA (AWBs come to mind) issues that give you a clue as to how someone thinks.

CCW rights and AWBs are the key metrics in my mind. Lots of Republicans wouldn't pass muster under Mr. Idaho's metric either, keep in mind.
 
"Lots of Republicans wouldn't pass muster under Mr. Idaho's metric either, keep in mind."

No disagreement here, none at all.

I most certainly vote split ticket. In locals, I will even vote a D or two. Out here though, our Ds are very moderate and pro RBKA.

Don't get me wrong, I know not every D is anti-RBKA, far from it if you look at the population. All I am saying, and have said, is that the D party is solid anti-RBKA on the federal level and therefore reflects poorly on the entire D party.
 
All the more reason to evaluate each candidate individually.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but it would be to try to figure out why they would be a Democrat, if you even bothered. It seems to me that one should be concerned about what issues, for which a party is well known, with which one would want to be associated. Appearances are more than half of politics.
 
With the exception of voting Democrat.

The problem is, once a Democrat is in the senate, the pressure to succumb to their left wing party is too great. Also, the definition of RKBA to most left wingers is a far cry from what we're looking for. Many lefties will say they are for RKBA but only in the way they sit fit for you to do so.

"Sure, we are for RKBA, as long as they are not semi-auto rifles or shotguns, as long as handguns can't hold over 10 rounds, as long as they are in a national registry so we can come get them when we decide to do so, etc."

It's too risky to vote for Dems that say they are for RKBA. They are a wolf in sheep's clothing, and even if not, they are vote thrown down the drain for our cause because the pressure to vote against the "least restrictive party" on this issue, is too great.
__________________
Marshall
Click to expand...


Helmetcase wrote:
And you're dead ****ing wrong. Nothing hurts our cause more than a lack of unity.
Click to expand...

Show me the last time the Democrats as a whole united with the Republicans in the senate on RKBA issues. So, you're right, nothing hurts our efforts more than unity, which your party is terribly guilty of and lacking in.


Helmetcase wrote:
In any event, a stupid argument. The point here is this--if you're trying to shut out or denigrate members of the RKBA community because they're not as right wing as you are, YOU are the one hurting the cause. It's not about party affiliation--I vote for the candidate that protects our rights, regardless of party.
Click to expand...

Take the chip of your shoulder and step into the light. I'm sorry you can't understand the pressures put on your democratic senators by their own party to vote against Republicans on this issue and most every other issue as well. If you don't understand that, nothing I can say will help step you up to reality, where the rest of us are. As much as I hate to ask, since you brought it up, when was the last time you voted Republican, and for whom?

I'll never fault you for voting however you wish, that's your right and I'm glad you're voting. But this dude isn't about to add to the fire by placing more Democrats in office and increase the base of the party that is out to hurt our cause. After all, stupidity has a knack of getting its way. I appreciate your thoughts but, I'll stand in the "momma didn't raise no fool line", thank you.
 
When I see the comic so I get the line exactly right, I think it would make good sig material:

"This is the first lesson. They will ALWAYS hate us. Yes, in recent years there has been an increase in tolerance between them and us. But we must never mistake that for TRUST."
-Emma Frost, the White Queen.

In an X-Men comic book talking to the new mutant students about the human/mutant relationship.

I think it applies well to gun owners and the rabid "antis" and their opinion of us. The elite antis in power are "tolerating" us because they don't want to lose any more elections for people that are (either rightly or wrongly) seen as being "with" them. When/if there is a Dem/RINO majority, things will change.

I fully accept that there are Democrats/liberals that support RKBA. I live near Asheville, what DU calls the "liberal oasis in a neocon desert." :barf: But the lil' town where I work seems mostly Democrat. I KNOW one of my bosses is a 100% Bush-bashing Democrat...yet he and a colleage regularly go into the woods to plink.

You know, I've said that Dems need to demote Fineswine, Hillary, Kennedy et al to "LEPER" status for their extreme anti views. But apart from NRA ripping them a new one, are the Republicans doing anything against our own antis like Bloomberg????

In summation - look at the RECORD, both PAST and present! (especially if there's a D after the name, but it's wise for both I'd say.) Remember the antis are being careful and practicing our "concealed means CONCEALED" mantra - only on their gun-grabbing views! :cuss:
 
Here's my question to our friends who are to the left of the political spectrum. I'm sure there are a few Republicans who support some left causes, let's say gay marriage. So, if gay marriage is something very important to you, would you rely on Republicans to protect that for you simply because there are one, two or a few Republicans who hold the same views as you do on that issue? I don't think you would, so forgive those of us who don't trust Democrats to protect our 2A rights, despite the fact that some Dems may agree with us.

Additionally, just as no political candidate is, or should be, a one issue candidate, I am not a one issue person. I am concerned not only about RKBA, but also security, the economy, etc. While there is becoming less and less of a distinction on many of those issues between R and D, in my book, Republicans still match my values and issues more closely on ALL the issues. I certainly an not going to vote in a Dem just because he likes guns just to have him or her vote against me on everything else. The national Republican party is more closely aligned to my issues, so that has to factor into it. If we could rely on our representatives to actually vote the way their constutents want every time, instead of voting the way the national party tells them to, then I might vote differently. Until that day, I'll stick with the Rs. Just as most left leaning people will stick with the Ds.
 
That's an interesting point, TX. So what does a person like me do, a person who strongly supports the RKBA, but also believes that the govt shouldn't discriminate against and discourage stem cell research when it encourages so many other forms of medical research, that religion and govt should be kept separate, that we shouldn't tell gay people they can't enjoy the financial benefits of monogamous relationships that we afford straight folk, I believe in protecting the environment, that women should get to choose, and that RNC controlled neocon influenced foreign policy has made us less safe not more (if we're safer today, why the hell can't I take hairgel on an airplane?), and that the war on drugs = the war on civil liberties, and is something that's helped destroy not save our cities and families.

Should I vote Republican to support the RKBA and then have them vote against me everywhere else?

As great as you think your problems with pro-RKBA Dems might be, I can ASSURE you a pro-RKBA lefty is in an even tougher position than you are. Believe me.
 
Helmetcase, do what I do and vote for the best viable candidate you can. Most republicans talk a solid game of being pro-life or pro-jesus but very few of them have those things as top priority goals. You also have to appreciate that some things are in greater danger than others, regardless of what people say in speeches.

Abortion rights are currently protected by republican political strategists. The main results of an overturn of Roe v Wade would be
1) the highly motivated pro-life constituencies that keep many republicans in office would no longer have an issue to drive them to the polls. This would be bad.
2) a lot of otherwise socially conservative women are pro-life. Not vocally so, but strongly enough that they would at least begin sitting out elections if not switching sides over the issue.

Stem cell research is protected by scientific innovation. The thumpers pride themselves on a lack of sophistication, which means it is very easy for both sides to have things their way without much drama. They have already figured out a way to make stem cells without killing embyros, so this is about to become a moot point.

The big issues that I see right now are:
-increased federal spending, which will get even worse if we vote non-conservatives into power (which sadly includes many republican incumbents)
-gun control
increased gun grabbing is only a real threat if dems take both houses and the presidency
getting stuff repealed will probably require another 10 pro-gun votes in the senate, at least
so basically this is likely to continue to be a stalemate
-illegal immigration
if the dems take the house, we could see a big amenesty push next year which bush would sign.
-war on iraq
not likely to change in the near future regardless of who is "running things"- iraq is running things, lets be honest.
 
Helmet, you just made my case. Although, in your case, you can vote for your Dem candidates and trust Republicans will protect your 2A rights.

On your specifics, I have a few comments:

but also believes that the govt shouldn't discriminate against and discourage stem cell research when it encourages so many other forms of medical research
Click to expand...

The government doesn't fund ALL medical research, nor should it, so if there is medical research that a large portion of the public reacts negatively to, the government should stay out of it. If fetal stem cell research is SOOOO promising, private enterprise will step in and fund it. If it will really cure people like Chris Reeves (as Edwards claimed) then think of all the money they would make. The fact remains that there is still NO clinical treatments available as a result of fetal stem cell research while there are many treatments that have been made available from adult stem cell research.

that religion and govt should be kept separate
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no requirement that religion and government should be kept separate. There is only a requirement that the government pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion or the free exercise of religion. Hence, the 10 commandments in the Supreme Court building, an official congressional Chaplain, commencing each session of Congress with a prayer, and, until recently, the practice of swearing an oath in court by saying "so help me God." If the Founders had intended that religion and government be separate, why was there no objection to these until the last 20 years or so?

that we shouldn't tell gay people they can't enjoy the financial benefits of monogamous relationships that we afford straight folk
Click to expand...

I don't believe any recent legislation has done this. Just because gay people cannot be married doesn't mean they can't enjoy the financial benefits of monogamous relationships. They certainly can live together, pool resources, draft wills, living wills and powers of attorney to enable their partners to have access to their assets. What they can't do is get married, because marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a definition thing. I may think its unfair that I'm classified as caucasian, but try as I might, I can't change the definition of what a caucasian is. Do I support civil unions for homosexuals. Sure. It's not marriage, but it provides the same benefits. What's the problem?

I believe in protecting the environment
Click to expand...

The EPA was established by Nixon. Republicans, especially hunters, believe in protecting the enviornment too, just not when it doesn't make sense. Ceasing all logging to protect the habitat of an owl is silly, expecially because most research indicates that despite changes in habitats, species adapt and move. Making restrictions on petroleum refinining so harsh that a new refinery has not been built in this country in 30 years is not only stupid, it is economic suicide (as is refusing to swap 300 acres of ANWR for an additoinal 300,000 acres, so we can drill there). Leftists want to protect the environment to the detriment of all else. Conservatives take a more reasoned approach.

that women should get to choose
Click to expand...

Choose what, to open carry a firearm? To have a fully automatic machine gun? To smoke? To drive 85 mph? To build a cabin in a national forest? Oh, you mean to have an abortion. That comes down to how we define life, and whether it is murder or not. What you really mean is not that women should get to choose, but that fetuses are not human, and therefore are not entitled to protection under the Constitution. You certainly don't support a women's right to choose to kill her baby after it is born, right? It's not about women's choice, it's about the definition of life. But it sounds much better to say it's about a woman's choice, right?

and that RNC controlled neocon influenced foreign policy has made us less safe not more (if we're safer today, why the hell can't I take hairgel on an airplane?)
Click to expand...

It would be nice if President Bush could snap his fingers and all terrorists would stop thinking of different ways to wreak havoc on the world, but that would be a bit naive. The fact that those terrorists were caught, and did not succeed in their plot leads me to believe that we are safer now. However, I would have to agree with you that there are more things we could be doing. Would the Dems be doing better, however, is the question you need to ask yourself. Have you heard one Democrat articulate a plan other than "we wouldn't be President Bush"? Until they can tell us what they would DO differently, I'm not inclined to believe we actually would be safer under them.

and that the war on drugs = the war on civil liberties, and is something that's helped destroy not save our cities and families
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you there. However, that is not a Dem/Repub thing. That is a libertarian thing. Dems are just as eager to fight that stupid war as Repubs are.
 
The government doesn't fund ALL medical research, nor should it, so if there is medical research that a large portion of the public reacts negatively to, the government should stay out of it.
Click to expand...
The thing is, most of the public doesn't support Bush's idiotic position (that isn't based on fact).

If fetal stem cell research is SOOOO promising, private enterprise will step in and fund it.
Click to expand...
This is a fallacious argument. Most medical research is subsidized because the risk/reward ratio is drastic for all medical research (haven't you seen the Glaxo Smith Kline ad where the guy describes medical research as looking for a particular snowflake in a snow storm? That's about right). Commerical drug companies need to respond to shareholders, and you can spend many, many years and billions on medical research before profits can be realized. Without public funding, much of the research that we all benefit from today wouldn't have happened.

Because of this nearly every form of medical research gets public funding. Singling out stem cell research to NOT receive funding because of a misunderstanding (that you're killing a human--you're not, 90% of all the embryos in question are already destroyed on a daily basis) is stupid.

If it will really cure people like Chris Reeves (as Edwards claimed) then think of all the money they would make. The fact remains that there is still NO clinical treatments available as a result of fetal stem cell research while there are many treatments that have been made available from adult stem cell research.
Click to expand...
The stuff doesn't happen overnight. You're making my point for me--the market rarely has patience for the relatively glacial pace of progress in medical research. Without public support, we'll all suffer from the slowing down of advances that would otherwise be made.

There is absolutely no requirement that religion and government should be kept separate.
Click to expand...
We've already got a thread on this subject where myself and several others have done a rather convincing job of showing you why you're wrong here. If you care to, argue over there.

Leftists want to protect the environment to the detriment of all else. Conservatives take a more reasoned approach
Click to expand...
No, conservatives pretty much advocate letting corporations do whatever they want. Your "reasoned" approach hurts all of us, whether you realize it or not. Your other arguments are fallacious--owls aren't the only creatures that rely on old growth forrest. Regulation has forced the logging industry to focus on sustainable processes, this is a good thing. Species adapt? The pace at which we can destroy our natural habitat far outstrips how fast the earth can adapt. And the reason we don't have new refineries isn't the EPA, but the fact that they're a huge investment that oil companies freely admit they don't want to make. They're recording record profits now, why should they bother?

But it sounds much better to say it's about a woman's choice, right?
Click to expand...
We could and probably do have a whole 'nuther thread on this. If you're like me and don't believe a few cells that haven't formed anything anywhere near a functioning human are a separate life form, then no, it really is about choice. The whole anti abortion, anti-Plan B thing is about punishing women for having sex IMHO; but it sounds a lot better to say it's about life, right?

Look, the point I was making wasn't to defend my social policies or beliefs or start an argument about them. I was merely pointing out that on issues other than the RKBA, the Republicans strike me as a bunch of neanderthals who cravenly serve the religious right...so I'm in a pickle. You might like they're policies, but as noted above I personally believe they're wrongheaded and not serving my interests.

It's not really about who is right or wrong on those issues, it's merely me pointing out that damn, other than the RKBA I have little in common with the GOP.
 
Helmet, good points, but we never really get anywhere when you call the other side neanderthals, do we. Especially given that it's a fallacious name to call them anyway, given that even Democrats had even more conservative positions 40 years ago than the positions you now claim are neanderthal.
 
Neanderthal meaning "prehistoric"--thanks again for making my point. The GOP hasn't kept pace with the times over the last 40 years, and so they don't as a rule share my values.

It's pretty pot kettle black for anyone here at THR to gripe about saying something unfriendly about the GOP. Do a quick search and you'll hear Democrats called a lot worse in thread after thread. Spare me the violin music. :neener:
 
I just find it interesting that the Left always claims we need to be more civil, and that Bush is so divisive, but any chance they get, the say things like idiotic and such. Maybe you aren't like that, so I guess it's ok.

And just because something is new doesn't mean it's better. Look at the Dem's position on guns as an example. I'm sure glad the GOP has not "kept pace" with the Dems on that one.
 
Some things are values that are timeless. The right to defend yourself transcends all of human history, and will continue to do so. So kudos to the GOP for sticking to their guns there, literally and figuratively.

But their position on things like stem cells and the environment just doesn't fit with what science has taught us about the world around us, and needs to evolve IMHO.

I'd like to see some civility return to public discourse, but sometimes you gotta call a spade a spade and you're never gonna make everyone happy. Someone's always gonna be insulted by what you're saying when you talk politics...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top