Would you vote for a pro-gun Democrat?

[Jim March]

Yes, with some caveats.

First, understand that in some areas of the country (say, San Francisco) you ain't gonna get elected without that "D" next to your name.

Second, a lot depends on whether or not majority control of a legislative house is at stake, COMBINED with how "pro-gun" the Republican leadership is that will either gain or retain legislative control based on your vote.

Example: the Federal-level Republican party is at this moment mostly pro-gun. Ditto the California Republican party (mostly). So give either control over a legislative branch, and they'll pick good committee seats for the committees that gun bills (good and bad) have to go through. They'll take key committees like "public safety" or "justice" or whatever and load them up with pro-gunners of both Dem and GOP flavor - IF they have the overall majority and can make such picks.

Let's take an example where there's a legislative house with 49 Dem seats, 51 GOP. Of those, 41 of the Dems are gun-grabbin' idjits and 10 of the GOP are too. Bad news: this legislative house is 51% gun-grabber - you're not going to pass pro-gun legislation out of it that year, not without a hairball fight.

BUT, if your GOP leadership is good, they'll set up one or more committees as a "gun control kill zone" stacked with pro-gunnies. Doesn't help with votes on the floor of course but it means gun control bills will never GET to the floor, they're dead in committee.

In some states, the GOP leadership is NOT any good at all on guns, sometimes as bad as the Dems. New York State has that rep . Then you're just plain screwed unless you can scrounge up major grassroots pressure (letter campaigns from hell, phone call blasts, etc.).

All this has to be factored into your votes.

If the GOP who would be controlling the committee seats are good, and they're DEEP in control, voting for a "Zell Miller type" is fine. But if the GOP leadership in that legislative body is good and retaining/gaining control is going to be a nailbiter, that's when you have to really ponder what to do.

 

[joab]

Everything goes in cycles.
There was a time that I would slit my wrist before voting for one of the Republican offerings. The party,IMHO, was bordering on Facsism and was losing touch with the populace. Apparently others agreed with me and we got Clinton.

Now I would open the same vein before I voted Dem.
The party has almost crossed over to the Socialist ideals that I and my generation were prepared to fight and die to overcome.

Liberatarians are interesting but they dally a little too much towards Anarchist for me to be completely comfortable with.

So I generally listen to the people supporting a candiate more than the candidate themselves.
You can accurately judge the character of a man by the people who support him

 

[bbaerst]

Absolutely.

Bush hasn't done much for gun rights as far as I can tell (let me know if I'm wrong), and even stated that he supports the AWB. I don't know why the hell gun owners like him so much.

Compare him to say, , who may not be as Pro-Gun as we may like, but he seems just as good if not better than Bush when it comes to gun rights--he wants to stop any further restrictions on gun ownership (whilst Bush has supported measures such as trigger locks, etc). I think the democratic party is trying to distance themselves from the gun debate and gun control because they realize that it's costing them votes; voting for a democratic pro-gun candidate would affirm this theory and get gun control off the Democratic Agenda for good.

 

[yy]

yes, IF the dem candidate has about the same stand on issues from competing candidates. Note that this happens pretty often between dems and repubs candidates.

Bush disappointed me when after 9/11 he signed patriot I into law and made the federal gov bigger. and also when he bought the elderly vote with medicare prescription coverage. So that's a nondem doing big government, strip civil rights, and socialized medicine.

 

[RealGun]

Absolutely.

Bush hasn't done much for gun rights as far as I can tell (let me know if I'm wrong), and even stated that he supports the AWB. I don't know why the hell gun owners like him so much.

Because he's not John Kerry. If there is any real enthusiasm for Bush, it's pretty mild. We're not on his radar except during a campaign. It's Congress that gets the real attention from gun owners.

voting for a democratic pro-gun candidate would affirm this theory

He would just wind up condoning the Democrat's anti-gun voting block in Congress, most notably the Senate. The fact that he is a Democrat settles the question.

 

[Surefire]

Maybe. If they are moderate in other issues.

I won't vote for a socialist lefty even if they are pro-gun. But a moderate Democrat I would gladly vote for, especially if the Republican was anti-gun.

 

[hillbilly]

I would argue that some of you have lost your flippin' minds.....


Who would these "solidly" pro-gun Democrats be, exactly?

The Tooth Fairy? The Easter Bunny? Maybe Santa Claus?

Just two real, actual Democratic examples from recent history.

Bill Clinton....remember him? The most anti-gun president in history?

He was from Arkansas (as am I) and never gave a single indication he was anti gun at all. He posed with dead ducks. He owned guns..... He was a "moderate" Southern good ol boy, remember?

Ah....how well we deceived them all, eh, Caligula???????


Same for Al Gore, who until this year was the most anti-gun presidential candidate in history.

Old Al was from Tennesse.....never gave a single indication he was anti-gun until he got on a national stage. And then, he cast the sole deciding vote to pass the AWB back in 1994........

If y'all haven't figured it out yet, being anti-gun, from just mildly anti to rabidly anti, is a PREREQUISITE for attaining any sort of national prominence in the Democratic party.

Recent history shows that even "moderate" Southern candidates go way left and become rabidly anti-gun as soon as they get on a national stage.

Until this party is burned to the ground, and rebuilt completely (in other words, until folks like DiFi and Chappaquiddick Ted and Upchuck Schumer are no longer power brokers of any sort) then there can be no such thing as a "solidly pro-gun Democrat."

At this point in history, "solidly pro-gun Democrats" who wield the power necessary to get the Dem presidetial nomination quite simply do not exist anywhere except in someone's fevered imagination.

hillbilly

 

[RealGun]

There are some Democrats in the House with decent, B or better GOA ratings. I prefer to be respectful of that record, since we shouldn't be adversarial and disrespectful regardless of their support. Forget the Senate. The best among Democrats, as I recall, is Sen. Grassley's C rating. Good guy though, generally speaking.

Reelected Democrat House incumbents (with real records):

Cramer (D-AL) - B
Ross (D-AR) - B
Michaud (D-ME) - B
Peterson (D-MN) - A
Taylor (D-MS) - A-
Strickland (D-OH) - B
Davis (D-TN) - A
Gordon (D-TN) - B
Tanner (D-TN) - B
Boucher (D-VA) - B
Mollohan (D-WV) - A-
Rahall (D-WV) - A-

That is not a very good percentage but is enough to make the point that the House is different than the Senate.

 

[mountainclmbr]

Sorry, but no

I was a registered Democrat from 1977 until about 1999. The corruption, pro-crimminal, socialist agenda finally disgusted me too much, even though I hadn't voted heavily Democrat in a long time. I switched parties and have not voted for a single Democrat since, not even at the local level. A vote for a moderate Democrat puts the Nancy Pelosi's into power. I voted NO, NO, NO! The Democrats have a lot of apologizing to do before I quit addressing them as "comrade ____".

 

[stevelyn]

Yes, but only if that candidate has a history of bucking party politics and has a verifiable pro-gun voting record.

 

[sigmaman]

both parties pretty much screwed gun owners
if you think otherwise your wrong. the republicans dont have any diane feinsteins but many of them have voted for gun control
err what political party was brady from again... i forgot
right now there is federal gun registration if you think your gun purchases are magically erased after a certain period your wrong
if there is another terrorist attack i dont rule out martial law being declared and bush becoming presidente for life
if you think your guns are going to stop tanks good luck
wearing nomex suit in wi.

found this
Never believe any politician -- especially a Republican -- about the position he promises to take from now on with regard to the individual right to own and carry weapons, unless he first allows himself to be photographed at a shooting range, for public circulation now and until the sun burns out, firing a semiautomatic "assault" rifle and a high-capacity semiautomatic pistol.

And for safety's sake, you'd better make him take a breathalyser test, first.

 

[Black Snowman]

If I felt they were better than the other candiates over-all, definately. But without the pro-gun stance, they don't even have a chance of getting a check from me. I voted for a Democratic Sheriff this last time around because he's who the local gun store and Hodgdon backed so I know where he stands.

I'll vote for a Demo president if they take the hint and move tward a more Lib "hands off" platform. If they still want to try and bribe me with my own money while taking a cut for themselves they can still look elsewhere.

 

[molonlabe]

Nope, a contradiction in terms. Plus guns are only part of it.

 

[progunner1957]

Hey, blackrazor -

We just had a progun Democrat run for President. His name is John Kerry.

Joking aside, the Democrat party would have to change bottom to top - new personnel, new party platform. It won't happen by next go-round in 2008.

If the party does not change its fundamental philosophy on gun rights, for the national party to throw us a "progun Democrat for president" would be nothing more than them throwing us a wolf in sheep's clothing.

With the current "leadership" in the democratic party, there are no national level candidates that are progun. If you're a progun Democrat and you want to run for office, you'll be lucky if they let you run for dog catcher.

 

[mountainclmbr]

Look at the people the Democrats have in leadership positions:

John Kerry, #1 Liberal Senator, Defeated in Presidential race!!!

Tom Daschle, Minority Senate leader (RIP, Defeated by Thune!!!) Disclosure rules compel me to GLOAT that I contributed to Thune.

Nancy Pelosi, Minority House Leader.

Trying to vote for a pro gun Democrat is as risky as voting for a pro Jew Nazi.

The answer is NO, NO, NO!!!! They will double cross you!

I was a registered Democrat until about 4 years ago, the answer is NOOOOOO!!! Not till they give up socialist, anti-freedom pipe dreams!!! NO, NO, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[RealGun]

I still would ask why a pro-gun person would even be a Democrat. I do understand that in some voting districts you would have to be a Democrat to even get elected. That aside, I would be concerned about with whom I was then associated.

 

[BigG]

This poll shows me that even in this highly self selected universe on the attribute of "liberty" that almost 70% do not have a clue.

 

[RangerHAAF]

Yes, I would and could vote for a pro-gun Democrat in a political election but their pro-gun credentials would have to be impeccable. Unfortunately, for the few individuals who are pro-gun Democrats, their credibility has been undermined by the national party, the northeastern and western liberal elites like Kerry, Feinstein, Schumer and Clinton.

I think a lot of people would consider voting for a pro-gun Democrat but the main question is do we want to take a major chance with them? Can we(gun-owners) afford to? I say each person asking for our vote should be individually scrutinized by their actions for us or inaction against us.

The time is coming when the individual Dems are going to have to stand on their own personal voting records to survive outside of their urban strongholds and even that might not be enough. Witness what's happening in the Georgia legislature. People who won reelection as Democrats are abandoning the party in order to survive(politically). They know a sinking ship when their feet start getting wet.

 

[riverdog]

Sure, but it can't happen

I could vote for a solidly Pro-Gun Democrat running against a mildly Pro-Gun Republican (a RINO for instance). But the Democrat would need the backing of both NRA and GOA. THEN I'd need to look at the VP who would be casting the 51st vote in the Senate.

There is a lot of mind-set that goes with being Pro-Gun. First, you need to trust your citizens. IMO, most anti-gun politicians don't trust their constituents to be able to do the right thing. Look at Chicago -- Daley doesn't trust his constituents with firearms, same with all the large urban areas, NYC, LA, SF et al. The liberal mind-set doesn't trust the constituency to ever do the right thing.

Individual responsibility is a foreign mind-set to Democrats but is necessary for a Pro-Gun President. Individual responsibility runs counter to big government controlling every aspect of our lives. A Pro-Gun Dem at the national level flies in the face of a party trying to control individuals at the federal level -- Oil and Water. It will never happen with current Democratic party principles.

My question is how could a Pro-Gun Democrat get the nomination. Only through major changes within the party base, otherwise there is no way it can ever happen. However, if by some amazing turn of events a Pro-Gun Democrat did get the nomination, I'd need to look very seriously.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Not anymore. I used to vote for several pro-gun Dems at the local and state level but from 2002 on I pull a straight Repub lever. At least until some 3rd party presents a viable option. Even if the local guy is alright, voting for him simply strengthens the Dem party as a whole and thus "empowers"(God I despise that word, but it works in this context) the most leftwingnut aspects of it.

*edited due to my recent inability to write, type or phrase anything in a logical manner*

 

[six 4 sure]

Never Again

Before my state was redistricted my U.S. House Rep was a Democrat and I voted for him. I thought he was a pretty decent guy (still do) and he was pro gun or so I thought. Then the AWB is introduced and voted on. My rep voted against it the first two times, but changed his position on the third and final vote.
:banghead:

 

[RangerHAAF]

A lot of them(Democrats) voted for thw AWB and they've paid a heavy price for their presumption and outright stupidity. I would go so far as to say about half of them won't be voting for any new gun controls in the near future but you've still got the hard core "gun controllers" like McCarthy who've made the fight personal and though I don't agree with what they're trying to do I understand their mis-guided motives.

I guess they could be compared to rabid animals in that they are fearless and can't be stopped except by being shot or in their case, voted out of office(political death).

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Colin Peterson represents my home district in MN, and from what I've seen he's earned his GOA "A" rating. I have voted for him in the past and if I were ever to move "up north" I'd vote for him again. He's a good man.

 

[SAG0282]

Yes, and this is something I've thought about recently as I look to '08. Though I like Giuliani and some of the others, I wouldn't want them as President. There are plenty of anti-RKBA RINOs, and I'd vote a pro-gun Dem over them any day of the week.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

The problem with voting for a pro-gun Democrat is that by electing same, you strengthen that party's overall position. Considering the party platform, that is not a good thing.