Why Aren’t gun owners reliable voters?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"The lesser of the 2 evils" has become a cop-out but isn't that what it actually is? You are not only voting for a person on the right but against the other person on the left or vice versa. Besides this is not a personality contest, you are voting for their policies and what they may do and not the actual person themselves.Traits like crude or ungentalmanly should not be much of a factor at all. Though I would think intelligence or lack of intelligence should be a BIG factor. Care to guess who I might be referring to?
 
Forgive me for not being able to work up even the slightest bit of worry about gun rights in the U.S. Nothing bad is happening that will ever affect me, and I'm to the point of looking after Number One.
 
Apathy is why.

Look at Florida, a state of 22 million people with an estimated number of 10-11 million gun owners. Half the state's population owns firearms. When the Parkland gun control bill was being rammed through the legislature by a Republican supermajority with the approval of then Gov. Rick Scott and Pres. Donald Trump. Less five people showed up to the committee meetings to speak against the legislation. I was one of them. But at the same time that was going on, 5,000 gun owners flocked the Tampa Bay Gun Show to panic buy and horde more Magpul Pmags and PSA stripped AR-15 lowers.

I've spent close to a decade now changing gun owner participation at the Capitol. It is a LOOOOOOOOONG fight.
 
Littlef said:
I think my question back to you would be, where are you finding this information that gun owners are inconsistent voters? Where is this data being derived from? Your example is you talked to one person who didn't want to vote for Trump. What are you considering to be inconsistent? voting versus not voting? Having differing opinions on policies? Are you trying to say that if you own a gun, that your only focus in life should be towards firearm related policy? Life is way more complicated than that.
Click to expand...
The info I got was from the Gun Talk Radio Show podcast. Tom Gresham was discussing with some guests and they estimated several million gun owners or more were not active voters. Several callers chimed in with their own opinions which supported the thesis.

Discussion was that we need more folks to get active and, if nothing else, register and vote for their most 2A friendly candidates.
 
I opine (worth what you paid for it):

1. The one issue vote myth is a constant bleat in the gun internet world. That is because many progun politicians have other political views that many find just as unpleasant as banning guns are to some. Since you agree their conservative views - you cannot conceive of this problem for some voters.

Some conservative positions are so abhorrent to many - that they override the gun issue. Pragmatically, even in the most anti states, you can get some kind of gun for home SD.

2. Surprise - many folks are quite alright with gun laws that try to keep guns out of the hands of bad folks. Thus registration, red flags, waiting periods - don't bother them. They are good folks and they are willing to take the steps necessary to get one or two SD guns. They really don't see the black helicopters coming for them
3. Many probably think restricting the higher capacity weapons are ok. After all - 5 is enough - nuts want more.

So, there isn't outrage on the level, the internet gun poster gets excited about.

Certainly, Scotus doesn't show any fire in the belly. Bruen, Bruen - then they just stopped taking cases to enforce it - due to the usual legal blather about precedent. For example, Bruen in NYS was pretty much a loss, while some counties lightened up on one thing and started issuing permits, there are still onerous restrictions. The sensitive locale rules totally reduced the utility of carry - so how was Bruen a WOO HOO - we win!
 
JohnKSa said:
I'm trying to get all these lined up.

Which of these are the major anti-gun bills you mentioned? And which of the two pro-gun Obama laws are you referring to?

1934 NFA was signed by FDR (D)
1968 GCA was signed by LBJ (D)
1986 FOPA (which expanded firearms rights considerably but also closed the machinegun registry) was signed by Reagan (R)
1989 "Assault Weapon" import ban was enacted (not a law, an Executive action) by Bush Sr. (R)
1993 The Brady Act imposing waiting periods and later background checking was signed by Clinton (D)
1994 AWB was signed by Clinton (D)
2005 The Safety Lock bill was signed by Bush Jr. (R)
2007 NICS Improvement Act (incentivizing states to report on mental health issues for the NICS system) was enacted by Bush Jr. (R)
2009 a bill allowing firearms in checked AMTRAK luggage was signed by Obama (D)
2012 a bill National Park carry was signed by Obama (D)
2016 or 2017 SSA notification of mental health issues to the FBI background check was enacted (not a law, an executive action) by Obama (D)
2017 SSA notification to FBI background checks rescinded by Trump (R)
2022 the BSCA expanding the 1968 GCA by increasing some background checks and trying to restrict private party sales was signed by Biden (D)
Click to expand...
A lot of what Republicans have done have been on the state level.

Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act into law in California and instituted a 15-day waiting period.
George Deukmejian signed the Roberti–Roos Assault Weapons Control Act into law.
George Pataki signed NY's Assault Weapons Ban Act into law.
Rudy Giuliani led cities to sue gun companies out of existence and championed the Clinton AWB.
Mitt Romney signed MA's Assault Weapons Ban Act into law.
Larry Hogan banned bumpstocks, privately made firearms, and signed RFLs into law in MD. Along with supporting the MD AWB.
Rick Scott banned signed the FL's Parkland Gun Control bill which banned bumpstocks (and other similar accessories like FRTs), adults under 21 from buying a firearm, instituted RFLs and statewide mandatory waiting periods.
Phil Scott singed VT's magazine ban, UBC, mandatory storage, RFLs, and waiting period into law.
Dean Skelos as the NY Senate Majority Leader rushed the SAFE Act through and politically forced the Republican controlled Senate to pass the bill through at midnight for Gov. Cuomo.
Arnold Schwarzenegger signed CA's .50 caliber ban and microstamping bill into law.

As for Republican Presidents.

Reagan didn't stop BATFE's open bolt ban in '82.
George HW Bush via executive order banned the import of "assault weapons."
Both Bush and Reagan supported the Clinton AWB and Waiting Period.
George W Bush via executive order banned the import of "machine gun barrels." Bush also stated if the Clinton AWB reached his desk, he would renew it.
Trump via executive order banned the ownership of bumpstocks (which, his actions were just declared unconstitutional). Also championed for state to pass RFLs and Under-21 purchase bans. He congratulated FL Republicans for doing just that.

Gun owners typically win federally when Congress is under Republican control and the White House is under Democrat control.

Obama is a prime example of that. National Park carry is a huge win. It happened because Republicans added it as an amendment to must pass legislation for the Obama administration.

But when Republicans actually have both chambers and the White House, nothing gets done. A prime example of that was National Reciprocity. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to bring the bill up for a vote in the Senate after it passed the House. The Republicans controlled both chambers, but McConnell let the bill die.

Federally, the best course of action isn't legislatively now. It is judicially since gridlock is the best thing we can hope for in terms of unraveling the behemoth that is the administrative federal state.

The biggest danger gun owners face is the state level though, and in a number of states, the avalanche of gun control started under Republican leadership.
 
GEM said:
I opine (worth what you paid for it):

1. The one issue vote myth is a constant bleat in the gun internet world. That is because many progun politicians have other political views that many find just as unpleasant as banning guns are to some. Since you agree their conservative views - you cannot conceive of this problem for some voters.

Some conservative positions are so abhorrent to many - that they override the gun issue. Pragmatically, even in the most anti states, you can get some kind of gun for home SD.

2. Surprise - many folks are quite alright with gun laws that try to keep guns out of the hands of bad folks. Thus registration, red flags, waiting periods - don't bother them. They are good folks and they are willing to take the steps necessary to get one or two SD guns. They really don't see the black helicopters coming for them
3. Many probably think restricting the higher capacity weapons are ok. After all - 5 is enough - nuts want more.

So, there isn't outrage on the level, the internet gun poster gets excited about.

Certainly, Scotus doesn't show any fire in the belly. Bruen, Bruen - then they just stopped taking cases to enforce it - due to the usual legal blather about precedent. For example, Bruen in NYS was pretty much a loss, while some counties lightened up on one thing and started issuing permits, there are still onerous restrictions. The sensitive locale rules totally reduced the utility of carry - so how was Bruen a WOO HOO - we win!
Click to expand...
Most people are authoritarian and are fine when their side wears the boots of oppression and does the curb stomping of people they don't like. They never think to themselves "gee, this could be used against me in the future."

And "pragmatically, even in the most anti states, you can get some kind of gun for home SD." That wasn't the case until politically recently with Heller and McDonald. Because prior to Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment wasn't enumerated as a person's right, period. A number of jurisdictions made it near impossible to get a firearm.

The wheels of justice work at two speeds. Glacially and tectonic. But erosion and movement is happening. Just as the current environment of gun control that exists today took a century for them to build. It will take to dismantle it.

Victory breeds victory. A lot of people want SOMETHING NOW. But it doesn't work that way. But the court victories are building up. Heller gave us McDonald, which in turn gave us Caetano, which gave us Bruen, which gave us Cargill and Loper.

Right now, a lot of that is being used in lower courts.
 
Eutycus said:
I'm guessing he was attempting to be sarcastic because that is one absurd statement you were responding to.
Click to expand...
I hope so, but that is the apathy I directly deal with when it comes to gun owners.

I get the following from folks when I ask them for their assistance at the Capitol:

"What do you mean I have to burn a vacation day to speak before a committee at the Capitol?"
"Wait, I have to sacrifice my football game day? Screw that. I'm not driving up to Tallahassee!"

And then they complain the following as session progresses:

"It isn't fair that the Moms Demand Action swarm the Capitol push anti-gun stuff all the time!"
"Why did this bill pass? I was against it!"

My response to them is:

"The folks in Moms Demand Action burn a vacation day and drive to the Capitol and meet with lawmakers. They're willing to sacrifice and give up football game day. They're willing to push for legislation they're in favor of and speak out against the bills they aren't for. You, you sat on your butt, complained, and did nothing."
 
Last edited:
Buzznrose said:
Tom Gresham
Click to expand...

Buzznrose said:
The info I got was from the Gun Talk Radio Show podcast. Tom Gresham was discussing with some guests and they estimated several million gun owners or more were not active voters. Several callers chimed in with their own opinions which supported the thesis.

Discussion was that we need more folks to get active and, if nothing else, register and vote for their most 2A friendly candidates.
Click to expand...
Being actively engaged, and registered to vote is certainly always a good way to make your voice heard, and to push for the policies that matter to you.
 
Not sarcastic. I just don't worry about needless things, which I honestly believe firearms laws in this country fit the profile. I'm an always voter but don't think any candidate's firearms stance ever made an iota of difference to me. If that's your idea of apathy you should think again. I've thought about the subject a lot. And consider it settled in the USA
 
Eutycus said:
One shouldn't " feel good" about voting just every 4 years, this should be a continuous thing. Some people are definitely not keeping very vigilant in this constant battle. Isn't there a saying that "All Government is Local" or something like that?
Click to expand...
Bears repeating. The statistics of registered voters that actually vote in presidential election years versus off-year elections are alarming, at least for our side. Particularly in states such as mine, where the solid blue majority in both houses in the legislature coupled with a moonbat governor and anti-gun activist attorney general has resulted in new gun control laws every year since 2014.
 
Needless? Isn't that what the left call all guns? Elections are not about guns , they are about stupid policies and the people who make them. Firearms just happen to fall into one of those categories.Elections are definitely not single issue.
 
Last edited:
Miami_JBT said:
My response to them is:

"The folks in Moms Demand Action burn a vacation day and drive to the Capitol and meet with lawmakers. They're willing to sacrifice and give up football game day. They're willing to push for legislation they're in favor of and speak out against the bills they aren't for. You, you sat on your butt, complained, and did nothing."
Click to expand...
So at the last legislative hearing in Olympia for our most recent, heinous restrictive proposed bills, the women in orange tee-shirts showed up -- they were bussed in. Many had flown in from out of state. Soros and his cronies paid them to fly in and chartered the buses. Our side, freedom-loving pro-gun Americans still outnumbered them. I did notice that too many of us were retired, older white males. We were awesome with our statements (the written testimony alone from our side came in at probably 10 to 1 outnumbering the other side's) to the committee -- loaded with facts, statistics with impeccable logic and reasoning. The other side? Not so much. 99% emotional arguments.

Still, the committee passed the bills back to the floor, where they predictably passed with an overwhelming majority and our dictator, er, governor signed them.

It just made me sick. It's like the great Leonard Cohen song, "Everybody Knows..." The fix is in, and we cannot win with facts and logic, the other side simply doesn't care. We need to make our voices heard through the ballet boxes. It's not about electing "pro-gun" Republicans -- it's about electing smarter representatives and senators, even if they come with a "D" next to their names.
 
Boattale said:
Not sarcastic. I just don't worry about needless things, which I honestly believe firearms laws in this country fit the profile. I'm an always voter but don't think any candidate's firearms stance ever made an iota of difference to me. If that's your idea of apathy you should think again. I've thought about the subject a lot. And consider it settled in the USA
Click to expand...
Well, being that I'm in the thick of the fight on the state and national level. It isn't settled at all. And yes, a candidate's stance does make a difference.
 
Sadly, when we vote on the gun issue (and I'm including both pro- and anti-gun votes), we vote for promises and not results. No politician has ever delivered results on the gun issue. I'm cynical enough to believe this is intentional. Both sides use this as an excuse for mobilization and, above all, for fundraising. If the gun issue was ever "solved" (whatever that means), these activists would lose their livelihoods. What happened regarding the NRA is all too typical. It's just that the NRA insiders got too confident and failed to cover their tracks adequately. Make no mistake, there are still people enriching themselves over guns (both pro and con). (David Hogg has made a career over the blood of his classmates at the Parkland high school. Disgusting.)
 
Old Dog said:
So at the last legislative hearing in Olympia for our most recent, heinous restrictive proposed bills, the women in orange tee-shirts showed up -- they were bussed in. Many had flown in from out of state. Soros and his cronies paid them to fly in and chartered the buses. Our side, freedom-loving pro-gun Americans still outnumbered them. I did notice that too many of us were retired, older white males. We were awesome with our statements (the written testimony alone from our side came in at probably 10 to 1 outnumbering the other side's) to the committee -- loaded with facts, statistics with impeccable logic and reasoning. The other side? Not so much. 99% emotional arguments.

Still, the committee passed the bills back to the floor, where they predictably passed with an overwhelming majority and our dictator, er, governor signed them.

It just made me sick. It's like the great Leonard Cohen song, "Everybody Knows..." The fix is in, and we cannot win with facts and logic, the other side simply doesn't care. We need to make our voices heard through the ballet boxes. It's not about electing "pro-gun" Republicans -- it's about electing smarter representatives and senators, even if they come with a "D" next to their names.
Click to expand...
Washington is a judicial fight, not a legislative one at this point due to the makeup of the state government. Different places are fought differently. Florida is a legislative battle (for now, judicial action is in the works) and so far, we've been clobbering the squishy Republicans. It is a long battle.

And you're right about it not being about electing Republicans. I keep telling people that simply voting for someone with an R by their name does nothing. Because plently of Republicans are anti-gun. I know, I deal with them in person.
 
AlexanderA said:
Sadly, when we vote on the gun issue (and I'm including both pro- and anti-gun votes), we vote for promises and not results. No politician has ever delivered results on the gun issue. I'm cynical enough to believe this is intentional. Both sides use this as an excuse for mobilization and, above all, for fundraising. If the gun issue was ever "solved" (whatever that means), these activists would lose their livelihoods. What happened regarding the NRA is all too typical. It's just that the NRA insiders got too confident and failed to cover their tracks adequately. Make no mistake, there are still people enriching themselves over guns (both pro and con). (David Hogg has made a career over the blood of his classmates at the Parkland high school. Disgusting.)
Click to expand...
I'm personally working my way out of a job. I make less as a fulltime gun rights lobbyist than I did as a cop.
 
I think many don't want to be bothered by the implications and don't understand the long game. In the last couple of elections, people would ask me why I was voting the way I was, and I would tell them that it is bigger than that one office. It's also ALL federal judge nominations for the duration of that term. Meaning, in THIS election, we are looking at federal judge nominations through 2036. Many think they're playing checkers while their opposition is playing chess.
 
I still think it's an attempt at sarcasm because not many level-headed or clear-thinking people would make a statement like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LiveLife
  • Locked
A new era for gun owners to come together
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
cdk8
C
R
  • Locked
"The gun rights voters are in charge ..."
Replies
5
Views
939
Robert Hairless
R
J
  • Locked
Brady Foundation Report
Replies
2
Views
597
mljdeckard
mljdeckard
M
  • Locked
CCW holder packing prevented from voting
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
CAPTAIN MIKE
C
L
  • Locked
Pennsylvania Gun Owners support Hillary before Obama?
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Back
Top