Democrats and gun control

[bwframe]

I would have to add that I see one element which is never addressed when decrying a vote for [third-party candidate] as a vote for the other side: When you do the math, presuming that you support the R candidate, a vote for the L candidate, for example, has only half the negative impact to your cause as a vote for the D candidate given that it (theoretically) reduces the R vote by one, while voting D both reduces the R vote by one and increased the D vote by one, generating a 2 vote shift in the point spread...

Your math is good. However the math doesn't take everything into consideration.

Votes supporting these "principled" third partiers that cannot contend or be "principled" enough to pull out in the 11th hour for the greater good just feeds their narrative for future runs, hence we are talking about them as viable (wasted) votes again.

We all know some people will fall for anything, it's normally 2-5% of voters. While often not enough to obviously change election results, these 2-5% are frequently the most loud and obnoxious. What cannot be counted is the voters that are disillusioned into not voting at all by the BS and rhetoric created by this sort.

This is the reason we have Joe Donnelly as a senator instead of Richard Mourdock, who could arguably have changed our do nothing Senate. It could well be the reason why white Republicans didn't show up to vote for Romney.

Too often we don't have the capacity to learn that our well intentioned votes of the past have cost us big time.

 

[jamil]

Hint: The democrats who own guns will continue to own guns after this thread (and O's term in office) are complete.

Why are democrats considered a single bloc of voters when it is obvious that the GOP is divided among at least as many factions?

Probably we think that the democratic party is moving far beyond what gun owning democrats want. Progressivism as an ideology is not friendly with the concept of armed civilians. I realize there are some more pragmatic democrats and they're probably not recognizing their party anymore. The Democratic party is now the official party of gun control. Face it. This is the future of the Democratic Party:

 

[MisterChester]

Hint: The democrats who own guns will continue to own guns after this thread (and O's term in office) are complete.

Why are democrats considered a single bloc of voters when it is obvious that the GOP is divided among at least as many factions?

I think it's cyclical. Remember in 08 when the dems had congress? Big tent party there. Then in 2010 all the moderate dems got kicked out. The dems will get congress again at some point and the republicans will be viewed as a single bloc with very little room for those in the middle.

 

[Expat]

Am I hearing it again? Obama is the best friend gun owners have ever had in the WH....

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

The Obama election mobilized the pro-2A forces, which helped to keep all other anti-2A forces at bay. The actual net effect of the Obama presidency has been more Americans exercising their 2A rights than we have seen a generation.

In fact: Obama=more freedom for gun owners.

Would the same have been true for Romney? Would gun owners have recognized the threat he actually presented to our freedoms the way we did with Obama? I wonder...

Would the USA PATRIOT ACT have gotten through under Obama? Why is it "real conservatives" are blind to attacks on their liberty when they come from a Republican?

I think that the Patriot Act _would have gotten through under Obama_ but I see the larger point that you are trying to make.


If I understand your point - Obama was a direct threat to liberty who WANTED to attack 2A but forces mobilized against him, Romney was an indirect threat in that he would have gone along with it, while not directly promoting it per se, but would have gone along with it. So I should vote for the more _direct_ threat??? Homey ain't buying that.

I would vote for the less direct threat, and in EITHER case, apply as much pressure via NRA/GOA/SAF etc as possible. In either case, we have to hold ANY elected officials nuts to the fire. That's ALWAYS the case. It still doesn't justify voting for a KNOWN , DIRECT 2A threat, when a lesser one is available.

 

[jamil]

The Obama election mobilized the pro-2A forces, which helped to keep all other anti-2A forces at bay. The actual net effect of the Obama presidency has been more Americans exercising their 2A rights than we have seen a generation.

In fact: Obama=more freedom for gun owners.

Would the same have been true for Romney? Would gun owners have recognized the threat he actually presented to our freedoms the way we did with Obama? I wonder...

Would the USA PATRIOT ACT have gotten through under Obama? Why is it "real conservatives" are blind to attacks on their liberty when they come from a Republican?

I agree that a passive Romney may have produced a more dangerous outcome for 2A rights than an active Obama. The reaction to Obama has mobilized gun owners to counter-attack the ****storm of credible threats to gun rights. But what practical use is that understanding in determining a president? How would someone have predicted that outcome and how likely would that outcome repeat in a changing world? I think we're maybe one or two charismatic progressive presidents away from a UK style electorate. Then what?

We've weathered some category 5 storms under this president because we took the threat to our rights seriously. Maybe we wouldn't have taken them as seriously with a president Romney. But the nation wouldn't have moved as leftward as it has to make a future assault on even more rights more possible.

 

[MisterChester]

Am I hearing it again? Obama is the best friend gun manufacturers have ever had in the WH....

FTFY

 

[jamil]

Am I hearing it again? Obama is the best friend gun owners have ever had in the WH....

FTFY

Well, yeah, because people having the right to buy whatever the **** they want does tend to help the companies that make whatever the **** people want.

 

[MisterChester]

Well, yeah, because people having the right to buy whatever the **** they want does tend to help the companies that make whatever the **** people want.

I wasn't disputing that. Gun sales skyrocket when a president like Obama is in office. If it were a pro-2nd president people wouldn't be as afraid of anything changing so there's no sense of urgency to purchase based solely on that fact.

 

[jamil]

I wasn't disputing that. Gun sales skyrocket when a president like Obama is in office. If it were a pro-2nd president people wouldn't be as afraid of anything changing so there's no sense of urgency to purchase based solely on that fact.

Well, yes. Sorry about that. I suppose I interpolated a bit between the lines.

It's kinda like Obama is a friend to gun manufacturers in the same way that a hurricane is a friend to bottled water producers.

 

[actaeon277]

The Obama election mobilized the pro-2A forces, which helped to keep all other anti-2A forces at bay. The actual net effect of the Obama presidency has been more Americans exercising their 2A rights than we have seen a generation.

In fact: Obama=more freedom for gun owners.

Would the same have been true for Romney? Would gun owners have recognized the threat he actually presented to our freedoms the way we did with Obama? I wonder...

Would the USA PATRIOT ACT have gotten through under Obama? Why is it "real conservatives" are blind to attacks on their liberty when they come from a Republican?

Would the Patriot Act...... ?
Yes. Because it was extended under the present administration. If they were against it, they wouldn't have extended it.

 

[Hellhound1055]

I dont think anyone in their right mind would vote for Hillary, even my extremely progressive/ democratic friends dont want her. They're all cheering for Sanders. Personally I think he should base his platform on "11 herbs and spices of Democracy" lol

 

[Alpo]

Feel the BERN

 

[Hellhound1055]

Feel the BERN

Bringing that original recipe socialism, extra crispy socialism, and cajun style commie spice. lmao

 

[oldpink]

The net result you speak of is accurate. I don't think anyone is blind to the fact that, while Democrats pose a direct threat to our liberties, Republicans, at best, pose an indirect threat to them. Republicans haven't done anything but pander to conservatives in a very long time.

It's rare when I disagree with you, but please let me know when all this pandering to conservatives has happened.
All I've seen during the Bush presidency onward has been Democrat-lite politics, with open contempt being expressed for conservatives in general and the Tea party in particular by the Republican establishment.
The legislative agenda passed during that time also reflects that contempt.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I dont think anyone in their right mind would vote for Hillary, even my extremely progressive/ democratic friends dont want her. They're all cheering for Sanders. Personally I think he should base his platform on "11 herbs and spices of Democracy" lol

But make her the D nominee... and how do you and your friends vote?

 

[Hellhound1055]

I'd never vote for her to begin with, knowing my friends they would choose her. Personally I am probably voting for Rand Paul.

 

[oldpink]

I'd never vote for her to begin with, knowing my friends they would choose her. Personally I am probably voting for Rand Paul.

He will not be the nominee, so I guess that means you're abstaining entirely.

 

[jamil]

I'd never vote for her to begin with, knowing my friends they would choose her. Personally I am probably voting for Rand Paul.

Well, that'd be my choice. But he's not going to get the nomination. That is woefully clear.

So. Let's go with realism. Say the choice is between Rubio and Hilary. The establishment will find some way not to nominate a complete outsider. Bush is just a no-go. I think at some point they'll rally around Rubio.

So then, who do you pick? Third party? Yeah, I'd be tempted too. That or write in Yosemite Sam. I think he's pretty 2A friendly.

But regardless, either the Republican or the Democrat will be President come January 2017. Third party is not much more than a protest vote. You vote 3rd party when you don't want to participate in the decision to elect either of the main party candidates. I hate the two party system but that's what we have and neither you nor I can change that.

I'd probably pull the pragmatic lever and hope Rubio doesn't **** things up too bad, because Hillary definitely would extend the power of the presidents pen and phone beyond what Obama has dared to do.

 

[Hellhound1055]

Very well may end that way. Gotta love politics.