Would you vote for a pro-gun Democrat?

[FNFiveSeven]

Well, how about it? Let's say that the Dems back off and nominate a true blooded Democrat for president in 2008, except he/she is hardcore proguns. Would you vote for the democratic ticket, or still vote Republican/Libertarian. I personally think that if the Dems have the guts to do something like this, it might send a huge message if they win. If they win with a progun candidate, the issue of gun control would probably die forever. But if they lost, they would just go back to the same old rhetoric...

 

[Finch]

I tend to hate democratic ideals. So regardless of how they stand on the gun control issue, I would hate to see what else they had in store. Go Socialized Medicine!

 

[Spot77]

Have in the past, will in the future.


However, I generally limit this to local government positions. I'm too afraid that a pro gun Dem, such as a U.S. Senator or Congressperson would fall prey to party pressure and cave on the RKBA.

 

[geekWithA.45]

No, not until the Dems reclaim their party from the moonbats.

And most assuredly not until they remove gun control from their national policy platform.

Here's my review of their 2000 gun platform:

http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2003_08_24_geekwitha45_archive.html#106193426029007358

(Scroll to "Not Fit For Power")

and my followup on their 2004 gun platform:

http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2004_08_29_geekwitha45_archive.html#109392451704658177

(Scroll to "Second Amendment and the Party Platforms, Revisited")

 

[swifter]

Of course not!

It'd still be a Democrat, thus anti-liberty and pro big, socialist government.
Guns are only part -- albeit an important part -- of the equation

Tom

 

[Stand_Watie]

Zell Miller vs. Arlen Specter?


Yeah, I'd vote D.

 

[CarlS]

Before I would vote for a Democratic presidential candidate, their platform would have to change, and the elements controlling the party wold have to change.

 

[BerettaNut92]

What about John Kerry? He's a 'gun guy', just ask Ben Affleck

 

[Gunsnrovers]

Democate and Republican are just names. I'll vote on what the I think the candidate is all about.

There are enough RINO's out there to prove that point.

 

[SkyDaver]

Not on that issue alone

If a Democrat was running with an actively pro-gun position, I would certainly evaluate that candidate as a possible. Other positions would come into play, though.

IMO, it's not likely that a pro-gun Democrat would be running against an anti-gun Republican.

 

[ChiefPilot]

Maybe - what's his/her position on other issues, like :

• Sanctity of life?
• Foreign policy?
• Economic policy?
• Medical insurance/care?
• Welfare reform?
• Tax reform?
• Gay marriage?
• Military funding?

No doubt RKBA is important, but it's not the end-all-be-all to existance for me or my family. I doubt someone with a '(D)' after there name would match up well with my opinions and ideologies.

 

[BigG]

Hardly, Zell Miller is out of the picture and he was not as great as people are giving him credit for. Does anybody remember Jimma Carta? Him and Zell were tight. Fergit, hell!

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I am not a one issue voter.

It would depend also on his general thoughts on size of government, taxation, defense, abortion, etc.

BigG, as for Zell, he and Carter have long since parted ways. I agree Zell isnt going anywhere now, but he would make a good president... Unfortunately I think he would get even less Blue State vote than Bush did.

 

[RealGun]

If a Democrat was running with an actively pro-gun position, I would certainly evaluate that candidate as a possible. Other positions would come into play, though.

IMO, it's not likely that a pro-gun Democrat would be running against an anti-gun Republican.

Based upon GOA ratings, there were at least three such matchups for US House Reps in Texas, NJ, and Ohio. I think only one Democrat was an incumbent. I discount ratings if given to a challenger, because that rating would deteriorate in office when pressured to conform to the party position on a bill. Democrats as a group are anti-gun, no question. There are a handful of exceptions in the House, and they should be recognized as taking the Constitution seriously. Why they remain Democrats is certainly open to question. That's why I would be hard pressed to vote for them regardless.

 

[HankB]

Actually, I wish we had a pro-gun Republican in the White House, rather than a lukewarm, occasionally conservative but generally liberal RINO.

 

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

That's about the same kind of a question as, "Would you buy kosher bacon?"

At least it is around here. YMMV.


- pdmoderator

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

A candidate has to pass the gun hurdle before I consider them on other issues. A Democratic candidate will have a harder time doing that because their party has been so consistently anti-gun in the past 25 years.

Here are some things I need to see from a Democrat candidate before I would consider them on other issues:

1) An acknowledgement that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
2) Support for the Second Amendment as an individual right; both as a candidate and in the party platform (hint: Claiming you support this and then listing several infringements on that right immediately after that claim is not convincing)
3) A voting record that shows consistent support for both of these concepts.
4) In lieu of 3, a long record as a pro-RKBA activist.

I was watching a PBS bio of George W. Bush before the election. During the show, they had one of his Democrat opponents from his failed Congressional race. He talked about a debate where Bush and two Democrats were quizzed on their stance for gun control back in the mid-70s.

Bush answered first saying that he opposed gun control. The second Democrat said "I oppose gun control and I'll pass a law where people who propose it will get kicked out of Congress". The final Democrat answered "Not only will I oppose gun control; but if anyone tries to take your guns you can call me and I'll come help ya." The third Democrat won the race.

Ironically, most of those Democrats are pretty much gone in Texas from a combination of redistricting and being tarred by the national party's beliefs.

As it is now, give me two major party candidates with the same outlook on guns and matched evenly on other issues I care about and I'll choose the Republican just because he won't vote to hand over control of Congress to a national party that hates guns.

 

[Swamprabbit]

Yep. Have done so and will again. Here in KY, the only antis are the politicians from Louisville or Lexington. The rest are solidly pro-gun.

 

[walking arsenal]

sorry. no.

seeing as how a lot of em (notice how i said a lot and not all) will say/do anything to get into office.


i wouldnt trust one as far as i could throw one.

 

[F4GIB]

Only is he or she was committed to veto ANY legislation even close to anti-gun produced by their brethern in the Congress.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Trusting representatives of the Democratic (sic) party within five miles of the nation's civil rights is like pretending one has a mild, temporary case of A.I.D.S.

 

[Zundfolge]

This thread is based on a fallocy of logic called the False Dilemma.


A "strongly pro-gun" Democrat would never be allowed to run for president as a Democrat.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Not until the Democrat party unhitches itself from the flaming downward spiralling handbasket known as 'liberalism'.

 

[Schuey2002]

^^

Since that is NEVER going to happen, my answer is "No!"

 

[ZeroX]

Maybe but I don't see how the guy would get elected. Doesn't seem like a strongly pro-gun Democrat would get many votes from otherwise loyal Liberals.