Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumNRA goes after Democrats in contested Senate races
But thanks to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the powerful gun rights group has stepped up its game. A $420,000 ad buy last week followed by a $358,000 buy reported Tuesday shows the NRA is ready to invest in more than just convincing fair- and rodeo-goers to vote against President Barack Obama.
The NRA Institute for Legislative Actions new ads, released Monday, attack the records of Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, who are both running for U.S. Senate and Federal Election Commission filings indicate Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, is the next target.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/08/29/10779/daily-disclosure-nra-goes-after-democrats-contested-senate-races
Response to SecularMotion (Original post)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Not just an organization that works to defeat President Obama, but an organization that spreads lies and fear to achieve it's goals.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)If the president would come out against further restrictions on gun owners instead of being for them I'm sure the NRA would like to back him. As to why a democrat would want the NRA's support, they're very well funded and have a large dedicated block of members who consistently vote. The "lies an fear" part just seems like you have an ideological ax to grind.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)while ignoring past statements by Romney which show his support of gun regulation.
You're very gullible if you think the NRA would ever back President Obama.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)As was pointed out above the NRA does endorse democrats who are pro gun, so what evidence do you have that proves they wouldn't endorse the president if he reversed his stance on gun rights? As for Romneybot, I agree that the NRA should be more critical of him but this months American Rifleman actually had an interview with him where they discussed the AW ban he signed. Apparently it had a large number of protections for gun owners in the bill and was supported by many pro 2A groups in the state so they give him a pass. I don't agree with that logic, but that's what the NRA is saying.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...and the Democratic party platform has, in recent decades, been anti-gun.
I doubt they're staining their jockies over voting for Romney, either, but Romney is a useful tool.
spin
(17,493 posts)President Obama has been largely pro-gun rights in his first term. He received an "F" rating from the Brady Campaign.
As with most issues Romney Romney has been on both sides of gun control. In the past Romney has been for strong gun control but now has shifted his position to supporting gun rights.
Mitt Romney on Gun Control
Mitt Romney. When he ran for the Senate and for governor, he supported a ban on assault rifles and the Brady Bill's five-day waiting period for gun purchases. He proudly said those positions wouldn't make him "the hero of the NRA." As governor, he made Massachusetts the first state to permanently ban assault weapons. He has even flip-flopped about whether he owns any guns. In New Hampshire, he was asked his view on the Second Amendment. He responded that he had been a hunter "pretty much all my life." Later, red-faced aides of Romney had to admit that Romney had never had a hunting license, and under further questioning, Romney acknowledged that his "lifetime of hunting" was having shot at some birds during a Republican governors meeting during a fund-raising event and maybe shooting at "small varmints" when he was seventeen with his cousin.
GovWatch: 1994: did not line up with the NRA
Top Romney Flip Flops: #3. Gun Control:
Campaigning for the Senate in 1994, Romney said he favored strong gun laws and did not line up with the NRA. He signed up for lifetime membership of the NRA in August 2006 while pondering a presidential run, praising the group for doing good things and supporting the right to bear arms.
Source: GovWatch on 2008 campaign: Top Ten Flip-Flops , Feb 5, 2008
***snip***
I support the work of the NRA, but disagree sometimes
We should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns. We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street. And finally, we should go after people who use guns in the commission of crimes or illegally, but we should not interfere with the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns, for their own personal protection or hunting or any other lawful purpose. I support the work of the NRA. Im a member of the NRA. But do we line up on every issue? No, we dont.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 Meet the Candidates series , Dec 16, 2007
***snip***
Supports Second Amendment rights but also assault weapon ban
Q: As governor you signed into law one of the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country.
A: Lets get the record straight. First of all, theres no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. Look, Ive been governor in a pretty tough state. Youve heard of blue states. In the toughest of blue states, I made the toughest decisions and did what was right for America. I have conservative values.
Source: 2007 Republican Debate in South Carolina , May 15, 2007
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)They support Democrat and Republican candidates based not on their parties but on their graded-positions on the subject of the RKBA.
Because of a flaw in our party's platform (wrongfully adapted by hopefully well-meaning but misguided Democrats) many more Republican candidates rate highly with the NRA than Democrats. But, that could be easily rectified by amending our party platform to a more pro-RKBA position.
Disarming the civilian populace isn't a liberal position -- it's fascist.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)and they're non-sectarian?
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Party doesn't matter, either you support gun rights or you don't and they react accordingly. Simple as that. If the dems really wanted to put an end to the republicans they'd adopt the NRAs platform on gun rights and run the table in future elections.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and the NRA is violently (and dishonestly) trying to get Willard elected, your post is nonsense.
Response to Doctor_J (Reply #114)
AnotherMcIntosh This message was self-deleted by its author.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)"Finally, on gun control Governor Romney signed legislation banning assault rifles in Massachusetts and said at the time that "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)since they are used for recreation and self defense. But then, he is the kind of guy that thinks every duck hunter wears tweeds while carrying UK made shotguns that cost more than my house.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)they are entitled to do so, but calling them "bi-partisan" or "non-partisan" is silly.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but they spent money getting Bernie Sanders elected, that was the only good thing that came out of the original AWB.
Response to SecularMotion (Reply #7)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)For someone with a Jewish symbol for an avatar, you use the term fascist loosely
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... but, as a Jew, I was raised to recognize fascism.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... not personality. I cannot say if Mr. Brown believes in fascism. However, disarming the civilian populace is fascist and anyone who supports disarming the civilian populace supports a principle of fascism. As to whether or not that makes that particular individual a fascist, only the individual can truly say.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Do I have that correct? That would surprise the editors at the newspaper who always say he is too liberal.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)then, yes, that would be a principle of fascism, now whether he does, I don't know.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)I thought this was a discussion board where everyone participated?
And when you start with the insults, it means you've lost the debate and that's all you have left.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Apparently, what is clear to everyone else isn't clear him
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)DWC
(911 posts)As an American, I was raised to recognize fascism and communism as well. Just because someone claims to be in support of our Democratic Republic does not make that claim a fact.
It would not be the first time a politician has misrepresented their true agenda.
Semper Fi,
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)That's about as SOP as any political/lobby organization can get. That seems to be the norm today.
I wonder what FDR and JFK would think of today's politics? Were lobby/special interest groups as pronounced back then as they are today?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)you support the Brady Campaign don't you? Since I don't support either one, you tell me.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)If the democrats suddenly decided to become pro-life and vowed to overturn Roe v. Wade they would likely lose the support of NOW right?
Would that mean liberals who support NOW and the right to choose are suddenly political opponents? Or would it mean that the democratic party is wrong on that issue?
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Sherrod Brown has been an outstanding congressman and senator. Now you're people are deciding to attack him.
You're claim of him not :"supporting""RKBA" is bullshit. This is just the Republicans manipulating stupid gun fanatics.
Response to Kolesar (Reply #9)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)"Sherrod Brown and his wife Connie Schultz are NOTORIOUS firearms prohbitionists. nt"
rDigital
(2,239 posts)it's just important to note in this forum that they are anti-RKBA. I wish they'd change their minds.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)He was brave enough to speak at all the antiwar rallies in Cleveland. Now, you and the NRA are fascioning a campaign to replace him with that asshole Josh Mandel
Response to Kolesar (Reply #20)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)...then there is something wrong with you.
Response to Kolesar (Reply #27)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)I can't imagine why the NRA doesn't support him, oh wait yes I can.
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Sherrod_Brown_Gun_Control.htm
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)That "favorite website of yours" tells DU everything we need to know about your politics.
Gun extremists keep fashioning these issues as a gimmick to get more money to the NRA.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)And I was simply pointing out why the NRA doesn't support him in response to you call bullshit. As for me, you know nothing of my politics other than my stance on gun rights. I also noticed you avoided the rest of the article.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)On any day of the year, you, the NRA, and the gun industry will always be able to find some fine detail to whine about.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)He earned his "F" rating from the NRA over his voting history. Do you disagree?
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Which is, presumably, what your NRA-raters do want.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)But I certainly wouldn't vote for him either.
Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #23)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)That's what happened to Governor Strickland in the last election. He had acquiesced to the NRA platform of ridiculous positions and lost.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Because of the republican wave in response to the affordable care act. Not his stance on gun rights. Ohio is a very pro gun state.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)He had a record that was fine with the NRA. It didn't help him.
He should have run on issues that motivate people to vote Democratic instead.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but not with the Kochs. The current guy voted for the AWB among other things, making him unfine with the NRA and Ohio gun groups. Being a corporatist, he was very fine with the Kochs. Now shall we talk about those easily hacked touch screen voting machines? Yeah I think there was some high tech ballot stuffing going on like 2004.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)a chance in hell.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)at some point if you take money (or advice) from anti-Dem organizations, you aren't a Dem any more.
Response to Doctor_J (Reply #117)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)be anti-choice and they are your new best friend. Like I said, there's all kinds of campaign cash to be had from the NRA, "pro-life", anti-union, and all manner of fringe right-wing groups. But someone who calls himself a Dem should not pander to the extreme right.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)or what? Bloomberg might by pro-choice, but he is anti-union and anti-Wall Street regulation. To me, that puts him more to the right regardless of his views on guns.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/01/1032282/-Mayor-Bloomberg-repeats-right-wing-lies-about-genesis-of-financial-crisis
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/07/local/la-me-brown-guns-20110407
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)The Democratic party could co-opt this issue within 24 hours. They could literally, overnight, turn the NRA into a campaign organization for our side.
All you have to do is actively support the second amendment.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)There will always be some trivial detail the the 'pukes and the NRA will use as a wedge issue.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)In the last election, the NRA gave high marks to all my Democratic candidates except one. Three of them were the endorsed candidate. You can see my ballot in my sig.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Because the NRA is indefensible
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)The NRA is indefensible in your mind, but not in the minds of it's 4.5 million members, along with millions of other gun owners who are not members.
Just because you say so does not make it so.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)And the NRA will work to put them out of office because of it.
That's the price of shitting on a Constitutionally-enumerated right.
Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #73)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I pointed out that all you have to do to get NRA support is to support the second amendment.
You claimed this wasn't so, that, "There will always be some trivial detail the the 'pukes and the NRA will use as a wedge issue."
Then I pointed out that the NRA endorses Democrats.
Since the NRA endorses Democrats, I'm not sure what trivial details you are talking about that is preventing the NRA from endorsing Democrats.
it is about the Second Amendment, I have a lot of friends who would vote D if the party would change it's stance on gun control.
If the Dem. Party would wholly embrace the Second Amendment, we would take away the R's biggest wedge issue and probably win just about every seat in the country.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)President Obama is not advocating further restrictions.
More likely, you support a ridiculous continual process of relaxing existing gun regulations. That's your wedge-issue.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)I didn't say what Pres. Obama is or is not in favor of restricting, I said what the Party stance is, like the permanent renewal of the failed AWB, the closing of the so called gun show loophole which is not a loophole at all, it's the law.
And I do support the laws already passed, enforce them first before even thinking of passing new laws which do absolutely nothing to stop thugs from getting guns.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)You support a continuum of right wing legislation to help republicans.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Your just like every other anti gun, anti NRA person here, just because we're pro Second Amendment or we agree with NRA, then we support RW legislation to help R's., even though you know nothing about us.
You want to tell lies about me, then we're done, you want to have an honest debate, fine, but don't pretend you know what I do or don't support.
You are so transparent it's laughable.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)How about guns on school busses?
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)WTF are you talking about, where is that allowed? And I would have no problem with it if the person were properly trained.
The three day waiting period? Why? The instant background check works pretty good now, I would like to see the Fed. Govt fund states for better reporting of prohibited persons to NICS.
And how could I be vague about something I didn't even offer an opinion about yet?
You sure do like to project don't you?
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)He came out in support of a new assault weapons ban. He isn't campaigning on it because he knows it will cost him swing states. Also, the democrats support more "common sense" gun control. Renounce that and shun groups like the Brady Campaign and you'll see more NRA support.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Yeah, nobody should advocate "common sense" gun control. /sarcasm
Why are you here? (not sarcasm)
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)I'm here as a pro gun liberal trying to counter my fellow lefties unreasonable stance on the 2nd amendment. As for why I oppose "common sense" gun control, it's because it serves no purpose other than to disarm the citizens of this country and infringe on the second amendment. When you say "common sense" I hear "I'm frightened and want to strip you of your constitutional rights".
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Your words.
So, no gun regulations of any sort is necessary by your logic
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)I'm using the term as it is currently being used, to justify further gun restrictions.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)"Currently used"?
You are not excelling in writing skills.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Florida has a three business day waiting period, meaning if I bought a gun yesterday it would actually be a six day waiting period, since so many people on your side bitch about Florida, I'm guessing the three day waiting period isn't really common sense after all?
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)Absolutely nothing, since we have no stance on gun restriction. Have you checked the party platform lately? Not a word regarding the firearm restriction issue.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Fuck that shit, and fuck the goddamn special-interest fuckers the NRA.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Are you against Unions, too?
There is nothing wrong with individuals joining together to fight collectively for a common cause.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)issues of guns and gun ownership.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)that's the Second Amendment and the preservation of gun rights, and that's all.
Unless you can prove otherwise, your "beliefs" mean nothing at all.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)If not, then your comment is only your opinion of the NRA. Many Democrats hold a different opinion of the NRA.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)in 2016 we can draft Brian Schweitzer and the Republicans can run Christie, Giuliani, or Bloomberg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schweitzer
In 1990 the NRA supported Bernie Sanders against Republican Jim Smith because Smith (along with Lott, Thurmond, Helms, Gingrich) supported the AWB.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)but it's not opinion, it's fact, all you have to do is go to their web page and read it.
And many Democrats hold the same opinion that the NRA is a one issue org., So what is your point?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)but damned if I can find it.
Oh well, have a good day.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Maybe you can shine a light on it?
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)you have no point, just here to throw insults and stir things up.
Whatever, have a good day.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)NRA has only one issue. I could just as easily have said to you that "until you can prove that the NRA is a one issue group" then your statement is meaningless.
Undoubtedly, you will respond to my post with your usual, "I'm right and you are wrong". In other words, you will just piss on my opinion with the smug certainty that you are absolutely correct in you opinion.
Response to ladjf (Reply #124)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)I've proven you wrong even though the onus is on you to prove what you claim.
So far, you've provided no proof of what you claim and until you do, then, this conversation is over.
If and when you do provide proof that the NRA is more than a one issue org., then I will retract my statements and issue an apology to you.
Fair enough?
scottsdalebubbe
(4 posts)than a highly financed front for the gun and ammunition manufacturer , distributor, and retailer lobby.
And the citizen members of the NRA and their fellow travelers are the malleable tools of the NRA who will rush out and buy more guns and ammo, even in a down economy.
They are a captive customer base. Everyone, except them, apparently, knows that the first step in capturing a customer base is to capture their minds. In this case, the fearful and resentful are easily made more fearful and resentful to be captured by made-up stories, wholly without any supporting evidence (because there is none to be had) that Obama and/or the Democrats are going to go house-to-house to confiscate people's guns.
It's like people rushing out to buy toothpaste or deodorant based on the scare tactics of the commercials warning of becoming a social pariah if those products aren't used. Or people asking their doctors for heavy duty pain killers because a a bit of muscle strain or minor headache.
Ultimately, for the NRA, the goal of defeating a political candidate is secondary to selling more product and being able to hold captive already elected officials and still sell more product.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)NSSF
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Don't mistake the gungeon and its residents (the gun-religionists) for the rest of DU. DU is a Liberal chatboard.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)As the NRA acolytes and the DU Gun Lobby know, the 2nd Amendment has nothing about "well-regulated militias" in it. Those words are imaginary!
The interpretation of those words from several Supreme Courts was the same until the ultra-right-wingers came along with Heller. Scalia etal made that part of the 2nd Amendment DISAPPEAR!
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Him, and the other four right-wing jurists on the Supreme Court got their very own fan club in the Gungeon.
Try to pin one of our "pro gun progressives" down on whether he's going to vote for Obama or not given that the President is likely to put jurists on the Supreme Court who are likely to overturn the core ruling in Heller and the Chicago case: it's like trying get a handle on cotton candy. Lots of subject-changing and obfuscations and diversionary nonsense...you've never seen so many "progressives" so reticent to state forthrightly that they'll vote for the progressive, Democratic President of the United States in November.
Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #88)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #89)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> Prove it. Also, let's hear some names.
After you prove the many, many assertions you've made to me.
And after you change your ID to the guy I was talking to.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)16 so far in the last 90 days.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)and probably pretty close to joining bupkus and Hoyt on the ban list for this group.
Response to bongbong (Reply #87)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)that'd be a quick way to see your posting privileges revoked.
But if you want to sing the praises of Scalia, be my guest....
Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #93)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)what you think is "good" in this regard is a sure path to being shown the DU door - and you well know it.
Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #99)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)So far, President Obama has appointed Supreme Court justices who would, if they had the votes, overturn the core holding of the Heller and Chicago case rulings.
Given that if re-elected he will likely have the opportunity, due to the advancing age of several of the right-wing justices, to appoint the deciding vote to overturn those rulings, are you going to vote for President Obama this November?
YES or NO, please.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)by anyone because it could begin a right wing attack on other incorporation rulings. Plus, I don't see Brady or anyone else pushing anything through the court system to SCOTUS. I'm voting for Obama either way.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Or maybe GD.
Nothing here about guns, guns laws, gun rights, actual legislation about guns, crime committed with guns, or anything actually within the group SOP. Why is this here?
Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #94)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)That doesn't belong in this group.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Why are you dodging this easy question? I think we know why....
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)anti-choice, anti-worker, anti-SS, anti-Medicare, anti-woman fascists just because they want to make the US a free-fire zone. Are you going to vote for Obama or Romney?
Response to Doctor_J (Reply #115)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)- a seat held by a pro-worker, pro-choice, pro-America, anti-oligarchy liberal Dem - to a Repuke who likes guns. Hhich raises the question, "Why do you call yourselves Dems?"
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)name-calling in return.
Hell, I can't even get one of them to state that they're planning to vote for President Obama's re-election in November: they won't answer the question!
Very telling, methinks.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Yes I do plan on voting for President Obama because I want to see the entirety of the affordable care act implemented. That being said, I have no problem handing him a hostile congress, by not voting for pro gun control democrats, if he pushes gun control. In 2016 if the democrat runs on a gun control platform they will not be recieving my vote and neither will the republicans. Eventually the democrats will either learn not to touch the gun issue or lose elections. Simple as that.
Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #123)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)nonsense aside: you are in the same "boat" as the poster above who is violating TOS? Then the same goes for you: you have no business posting on DU. See TOS here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=68545
Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #135)
rDigital This message was self-deleted by its author.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #141)
Post removed
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Winning elections is important therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side." -emphases added.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
Your post above is in gross violation of those rules, and one wonders why you still retain your posting privileges. They should be revoked.
petronius
(26,602 posts)I'll be voting for President Obama and every other Democrat on my ballot, no matter what they say or do regarding RKBA between now and the election, and no matter what promises/threats they might make regarding RKBA for the next term. And, I hope that Pres. Obama gets the opportunity to appoint a few more USSC judges.
That said, if I'm given the choice between two otherwise equivalent Ds I'll vote for the one with a better RKBA record, my active support/donations will be encouraged by a pro-RKBA position, and my communications to my representatives (and anyone else) will always been in favor of RKBA...
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Democratic ticket. What you do in the Democratic primary is okay with me; but what your post tells me is that you are likely a genuine "pro gun progressive," one who cares about "RKBA" but still overall supports the progressive agenda. I may have to change my Sig line: I think I have found a genuine "pro gun progressive" here...