How much do guns mean to you in this upcoming election?

[hogwyld]

If the choice was between a gun loving repuke, or a Dem nominee that was advocating much stricter gun control, how would you choose?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

1. YAWN

How about none of the above, because I have no need for a gun and would support any Democratic candidate who has the political courage to recognize that gun violence is a significant killer in our country and that if half the gun advocates on DU would be worried more about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, they would have nothing to worry about in regards to their own gun ownership

[Tejas]

20. Does that really mean you

can't vote in the poll?

As far as "worried" goes........Instead of "worrying" about gun owners, how about the apathetic leeches out there get off their duffs and "worry" about criminals (gun toting or not) doing time instead of giving them slaps on the hand? Nah, too much work for the laziest in our society, much easier to whine from behind a keyboard about guns-this and guns-that.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gorfle]

24. What more can we do?

if half the gun advocates on DU would be worried more about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, they would have nothing to worry about in regards to their own gun ownership

I don't think you will find any pro-firearms folks who don't worry about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, or support laws that disallow criminals from owning guns.

I think if half the anti-gun advocates on DU would be worried more about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, while not infringing on the rights of law-abiding people, they would get a lot less grief about it in regards to our gun ownership.

[virginia mountainman]

2. It would depend...

Mainly on what happens when the Supreme Court decides the Heller Case.

This will be a watershed case, with the potential to do great harm to us at the polls, no matter the outcome of the case. Just by the sheer bullshit some on "our side" can spout out to the news cameras.

Those comments, made to TV cameras, become "battle cries", even if the person that says them is not running for office, we will get painted with them..

I remember one in particular, that has done us untold harm..

This is from Dianne Feinstein, ....

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."

That is STILL quoted by many in the gun rights debate, as proof that we dem's want "to take peoples guns away", how ever unfair. But reality is reality..

[Callisto32]

89. Such broad strokes are unfortunate

I bothers me that that quote of often taken to prove that "Democrats want our (everybody who isn't a Democrat's)guns!!@1!@!!" Rather, it should be taken as proof that there are certain, powerful members of congress who hold those kinds of ideas (and, unfortunately some AK variant with her finger ALL OVER the trigger) and aren't afraid to act upon them. Society tends to get too caught up in a Democrat/Republican kind of thinking and people fail to realize that those labels don't really do much to explain anything about the individual members of the parties. I'd venture that almost all of us hold views that transcend the stereotypes of our respective political parties. Frankly, I think it would be better if we aligned ourselves based on our stances on individual issues, rather than along party lines. I think that would eliminate the "not a real Democrat/Republican/Green" stuff and may help us to see beyond labels that describe noting more than vague generalities about the individual members.


Edit: Just noticed this is a months-old post, sorry for wasting electrons...

[jmg257]

3. You can tell alot about a candidate by their stance on guns.

#1 being whether they trust WE the people. Anyone who would ban guns to "control crime" equates the common man with the lowest criminal - I take it personal. Not only that, they quite clearly show their willingness to have the state control the people, instead of the other way around - they NEVER talk about limiting the guns of the standing army or the police. They also seem to have NO problem stripping the people of the best convenient means to the natural right of self defense, despite the legal restriction in the constitution, and despite common sense, and despite the evidence showing that controlling guns has no effect on controlling crime.

Besides, some of these people are just outright ignorant of the subject - yet they still want to force others to comply with their ignorant unreasonable-ness. You would think it part of their job to educate themselves on such matters, since they are voting or executing or proposing acts regarding this issue. Others are just liars. ANYONE who would attempt to re/define words of the US Constitution, especially the BoR, TO MAKE IT EASIER TO RESTRICT THE FREEDOMS of we the people does not respect the people, or their rights - they are wanna-be tyrants.


I take it personal they are so willing to leave me and my family as unarmed victims, while they & their family enjoy the protection of state-supplied security. I take it personal when any person who says he wants serve the people, does so without really respecting us. Such candidates do not deserve MY respect or MY trust, why would I give THEM my vote?

[virginia mountainman]

4. Speaking of Ignorance..

Frankly, their is NO EXCUSE for someone this ignorant, to hold the office she does..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

If you wish to ban something, Their is NO EXCUSE, not to know, just what your trying to ban is.

[jmg257]

5. Exactly who I was thinking of, but the pool of ignorance on this matter is very deep, and has

many swimmers.

[Hellenic_Pagan]

6. some of those swimmers are olympians n/t

[Tejas]

11. Not again

<coffee still spurting from nose>I had a perfectly clean keyboard until your post LOL!


That said, are we the lifeguards? :)

[SecularNATION]

14. Typical

The woman in the video is all too typical of liberal and Democrat gun grabbers who have no idea what they are trying to ban. These idiots have caused the Democratic Party to lose election after election after election.

[hogwyld]

41. If you look at some of the results above

The blame sits squarely on some gun owners crossing over and voting for the enemy instead of showing party loyalty.

[virginia mountainman]

45. Personal Safety....

TRUMPS party loyalty, and, if the political party cared, it would not try to ban my families means of self-defence.

[SecularNATION]

47. Blame, Schmame

Blame voters all you want. Elections will continue to be lost. Also, many people who vote in the general are independent.

[jmg257]

53. I will take that blame! Fuck the party when my rights, and my life, and the lives of my family are

at stake. When ANY politican works to limit the freedoms & natural rights of the people, they only serve themselves. NO THANKS!

[ac2007]

55. Rights trump party

Sorry, my rights trump any party affiliation. Individual rights is more important than ideology especially if party ideology is in direct conflict with my rights.

I will happily cross party lines to whatever candidate is closest to issues I hold dear if I in direct opposition to them in other areas. Gun rights is up there since as others have stated, it is a litmus test for how that candidate views me as a citizen overall.

And on guns as a general rule, the Dems lose. Sorry, that's just the way it is. The Republicans are no friends to gun owners either but there are fewer of these in opposition to RKBA than there are Democrats. With Republicans, at least I know the nature of the enemy.

As a gun owner, I do not trust the Democratic Party over time to not strip me of my gun rights or right to own certain types of arms.

So blame away because I won't apologize for it.

[virginia mountainman]

61. hogwyld, I thought some more about your comments above..

How can you blame us? I would bet, that all of us, held these positions LONG before the early 1990's. We was good enough for the party then, why not now?

It was SOME Democrats, that turned the party away from us, and to disastrous consequences I might add.

I wonder how the period from 1994 to 2006 would have looked with a Democratic Majority in the House and Senate??

What would Bushco have been able to ram rod thru??

Heck, they would not have even been a Bushco, if it weren't for Al Gore's proud, public, support of Gun Control.....

Just think about THAT for a moment...

What about the biggest, and loudest gun control advocates out their?? They tend to be high level REPUBLICANS......And they are, and have been leading Democrats to electoral slaughter.

Now tell me, "Who turned away from WHO" again???

[EricTeri]

72. If loyalty doesnt go both ways...

...then it isnt loyalty, but obedience.

[iverglas]

122. ah, resurrected for another stroll down memory lane

Well, the thread was, anyhow.

[saigon68]

118. Carolyn McCarthy

Is clueless and her attitude is typical of an eastern liberal who will be held up as a poster child for civilian disarmament.And if her AGENDA is pursued is why Obama may lose Wisconsin this time. (Kerry won by 8,000 votes last time)

There are lots of racists and the "Great Unwashed" here who need little else to push them over the edge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

Read the comments on this media clip if you don't believe me

[fightthegoodfightnow]

8. I Have to Own a Gun to be Able to Trust the "People"?

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

[jmg257]

9. Nope - just have to support the right to own one. Your choice whether to do so or not.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

15. I Have to Support the Right of Someone to Own a Gun and Potentially Kill Me

......... either accidentally or on purpose to be able to "trust the people".

Nonsense. I don't have to trust any ONE person who owns a gun and to do so defies the very purpose you folks think I should defend his right to own one.

What a crock.

[jmg257]

17. Nope. You have to support the right because you have to support the constitution which secures that

right...you will be sworn to when you take office. Clearly you too don't trust any of the people, and clearly you do not respect their inalienable rights, which is why I wouldn't vote for you either.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

18. Perhaps You Haven't Heard

Reasonable people can disagree about the meaning of those words without having their patriotism questioned or without being accused of 'not trusting the people.'

[Tejas]

21. Thank you for stating why you'll never

take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this country.


If you did, you'd be lying.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

29. See Post 18

Perhaps you haven't heard.

Reasonable people can disagree about the meaning of those words without having their patriotism questioned or without being accused of 'not trusting the people merely because they don't want to own a gun and they don't think you need one to protect anything.

Nah....it's far easier for some to think a gun is superior to the written word in changing the world.

[Tejas]

32. Lying to gain office - what a novel concept n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

33. Get a Clue

I'm not running for office.

[Tejas]

34. Thank goodness, enough of you up there already n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

35. And for Good Reason

Must think they can win on their agenda!!!

[one-eyed fat man]

115. I think I understand

Sounds like this is your solution:

[hogwyld]

7. I am pretty surprised by the results so far

50% crossing party lines to vote in another failed repug administration.


edited for grammatical brain lock.

[jody]

10. Why surprising? I'll bet you have many DUers who would cross party lines to support Pro-Choice. n/t

[Jack_DeLeon]

22. When a politician says they are going to take something from you...

I'm more likely to believe that than when they say they are going to give you something.

Yes you will say that, but they are so much better on all of the other issues, but I inherintly have my doubts about politicians ability or willingness to keep thier campaign promises.

Hillary and Edwards in recent interviews said they would support a new assault weapon ban which would negatively effect me and all other Americans who choose to own firearms. I'm pretty certain that Obama would also support a new assault weapon ban, but he has commented on it lately.

We already had an assault weapon ban, I wasnt old enough to own firarms or vote when it was first passed, I am now though and I dont want to see it happen again.

[SecularNATION]

12. Counterproductive

I voted "Stupid Poll". If Dems don't come to their senses and completely drop the gun control issue, they will continue to lose elections.

[hogwyld]

42. Only because of fairweather "Dems"

abandoning the party to vote rethug and their pet issue.

[SecularNATION]

46. The point is...

..lost elections.

[Critters2]

65. The point is...

you voting against Dems.

[Jack_DeLeon]

51. For alot of people...

Freedom and rights arent a "pet issue." Its the most important issue.

[east texas lib]

62. Well...

It would appear that the Democratic Party is in the process of abandoning gun
owners, not the reverse. And I do confess, staying alive IS a pet issue of mine.
Private ownership of guns and situational awareness give you a fighting chance
to survive, nothing more, nothing less. Why on earth would you vote for anyone
who would strip you of that chance?

[selador]

76. civil rights are not a "pet issue" n/t

[tburnsten]

100. think it might have anything to do

with "the party" (disgusting communist way of thinking by the way) claiming that its members must be loyal to "the party" regardless of what wingnut directions some of its leadership takes? Why do you think conservative democrats have been so popular in many areas where both republicans and more out-there democratic politicians used to reign supreme? It is because most people really do like a good amount of the democratic platform, but some of the high-profile leaders have unfortunately come out strongly in support of elitist restrictions that very few citizens are in support of. So they vote out with the old and in with the new, which are democrats who are not out of touch on issues like guns yet maintain the strong support of working people who are not loaded. People who are deciding what length yacht they would like do not need strong advocates. People who are deciding between gas to get to work and health insurance DO require strong advocates. That is why politicians who get wrapped around the axle in the bullshit "party" mindset that has caused such irreparable harm over the last ten to fifteen years should and are starting to be replaced, by new politicians who know they need to appeal to both sides of the aisle, by throwing their weight behind measures that ALL americans are in favor of. No "pet" issues like brady and fiensteins gun control has a right to waste our time and money with all the real issues we have to deal with today. That is why I will vote against any anti-gun politician, regardless of what "party" they claim to be a part of, and hopefully our up and coming democratic candidates will use their heads and realize they need to focus on important issues, not what marginal fringe groups have as pet issues. The majority of Americans do not care about gay marriage, for instance. A bill protecting marriage rights for all people would not bother anyone but far-out voters, just like not introducing that bill at all won't cause the vast majority of citizens to lose any sleep. It is an issue which is HUGE for the people directly involved, but others mostly don't care one way or another. Guns are similiar, only it negatively affects 80 million plus citizens directly, and that IS a big deal.

[east texas lib]

13. Hmmm...

Retention of my weapons (and thereby the survival of my family)is first and foremost.
Furthermore, ANY political party or politician whose aim is to disarm the common person
is undeserving of votes or financial support PERIOD! BY the way, the U.S. Gov't has a
very poor record of accounting for it's own armouries and weapons. BATF could actually
do something usefull by scrutinizing it's sister agencies.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

16. How Sad to Think

....... that providing for your family depends on you having a gun.

I do agree with your position on the US Government having a poor record of accounting, but I suspect that has more to do with the culture the gun lobby has fostered in our society.

[Tejas]

19. Sad how some butcher the English language

pt 1
"survival of my family" - ie: firearm for protection against intruders.

"providing for your family" - ie: work, make money, buy food.


pt2
So, the gun lobby is to blame for the government's ineptness?

[Jack_DeLeon]

23. My mother wants to vote for Hillary Clinton...

she told me "well if you ever have a daughter, she could alteast have a roll model and look up to and see that she could be president some day."

If I have a daughter I would much rather she had the ability to protect herself with adequate tools for the task.

IMO nothing else trumps that, we are all each responsible for our own safety and for the safety of those we care about. Its nice as a society to have police and other law enforcement around to help when they can, but ultimately its up to each of us as individuals.

Nothing is more important than taking care of the people you love, so I dont understand how some people can think its okay to leave that responsibility up to strangers.

[east texas lib]

36. Oh, don't be sad for me...

I have merely accepted the realities of rural life and the responsibilities
which it entails.

[SecularNATION]

50. Rural life

A rural person? Heck, everyone knows rural people all vote GOP anyway. The inside the beltway Dems don't need you. You're a leftover from a bygone era. :sarcasm:

[Critters2]

66. I've lived in rural areas most of my life,

and I've never touched a gun and never intend to. And I vote for gun control when I can.

[gorfle]

25. I'm going to go Democratic

I was a life-long Republican until the 2006 elections, when I voted a straight Democratic ticket.

I have pretty much been a single-issue voter my whole life, not because firearms are the only thing important to me, but because I see a politician's stance on firearms as a litmus test to how they stand for the principles of freedom and personal responsibility in general. Politicians who are for the right to bear arms are typically in line with other issues I agree with.

Unfortunately I believe the Republican party has jumped the shark.

First of all, I have always considered the Democratic Party to be the party that taxes people like me and gives it away to people who make less than me - the party of People Welfare. And I have considered the Republican Party to be the party that gave benefits to Corporations - the party of Corporate Welfare. I always preferred the Corporate Welfare because I figured if the Government was going to blow money at least they were blowing it on things that would create jobs and benefit everyone - low and high income alike.

But because of Globalization, the big money Corporations, the ones with the most pull in Washington, well they can live anywhere nowadays. They are no longer beholden to the United States. It used to be a matter of "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" - but now they can go anywhere. The CEOs of these companies, like the latest fiasco with Countrywide Home Loans, can screw over lots of Americans and still get his $150 Million Pink Parachute and go retire anywhere in the world he pleases.

And of course the War on Iraq is just a huge welfare program, except we are blowing American tax dollars on the welfare of Iraqies.

So I figure if I'm going to sign up for a government that blows my tax dollars I'd rather have it blown at least on welfare programs for Americans, instead of foreigners and global mega-corporations. I'd rather spend money on two-dollar crack whores instead of that.

I'm leery of the Democratic Party because of its stance on gun control. But I am hopeful that they learned their lesson after getting trounced from the Assault Weapons Ban legislation that perhaps they won't touch the gun control issue again. My biggest fear is that once they control the legislature and the presidency they will feel emboldened to go after pet issues, like gun control, that they back-burnered until they had complete control.

It's possible I might vote for Ron Paul this election, but I don't think he has a shot at winning. Maybe I would if he did. Instead, I'm hoping to back Obama. For one thing I think it would be outstanding to have a black man for president. Maybe with one of our own in the ultimate position of leadership we can finally get past this culture of victimhood that seems so pervasive in the black community.

[Yavapai]

26. I think that many democrats already have gone over

to the republican side because of this issue. I live in a very rural area of Arizona, where almost everyone votes republican, but hear them everyday taking the side on many democrat issues. The one factor that seems to make them vote republican is the gun issue. If it wasn't for the loss of so many democratic votes during the Bush/Gore election, even Diebold and Florida wouldn't have allowed the Bush "victory".

[benEzra]

27. One such anecdote:

I think that many democrats already have gone over to the republican side because of this issue. I live in a very rural area of Arizona, where almost everyone votes republican, but hear them everyday taking the side on many democrat issues. The one factor that seems to make them vote republican is the gun issue. If it wasn't for the loss of so many democratic votes during the Bush/Gore election, even Diebold and Florida wouldn't have allowed the Bush "victory".

One such anecdote:

Alienated Rural Democrat

I would point out that an anti-AWB, pro-gun Dem won the open senate seat in that state in 2006, defeating a nationally known repub incumbent.

[Oddball]

31. I'm pro gun and anti AWB.

It seems that many of the so-called 'thinkers' who run the Democratic Party believe that only gelding males inhabit the ranks.

[jody]

37. My twist inspired by your observation “only gelded males can propagate”! n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

40. Nah.........We're Smart Enough to Know that Felons are both

.... men and women and that felons should not own guns.

[tburnsten]

101. And in your eyes, are all gun owners felons?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

30. Nonsense

Good riddance. Let them go to the GOP.

The notion that the Democrats lost the 2004 election was because of the 'gun issue' is .......... silly, unless of course, you acknowledge we won the 2006 election because of the 'gun issue.'

[57_TomCat]

38. It seems to me...

... that many pro-gun democrats were in fact winners and responsible for the slim majorities we now have. Lose a few of those pro gun Dem's and we lose the leadership. I guess then it is safe to say that the gun issue did win the 2006 election. :)

If more of the senior members of the party continue to go anti gun then we stand a better chance to lose. Very sad.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

39. Rubbish

The Democratic Party platform hasn't changed between 2004 and 2006.

Guns had nothing do with either election.

[SecularNATION]

49. Not really

Guns have something to do with EVERY major election. Is it a deciding factor in all of them? Of course not. But it has been in enough of them, to make a difference.

[Tejas]

52. Bullseye

Feinstein, Biden, and Schumer have not helped the matter in any fashion whatsoever.

[Firethorn]

82. Very true

If more of the senior members of the party continue to go anti gun then we stand a better chance to lose. Very sad.

This right here.

There's really only one watershed issue that causes me to think about voting for the republicans. The right to bear arms.

I'm pro choice, pro legalization(MJ), agnostic, don't like pollution, want to see better schools, etc...

I'll admit to thinking neither party has any real idea, control, or motiviation to balance the budget, but we did last approach that goal under democratic leadership.

Yes, I think the issue is that important.

[tburnsten]

102. Wow... Summed it up perfectly for me!

Firethorn for Senate '08?

[hogwyld]

43. good riddance indeed

We don't need these single issue people continuing to drag our party to the right.

[SecularNATION]

44. To the "Right"?

Gun owners drag the Democratic Party to the right? How?

[Critters2]

67. Progressives are concerned for the well-being of the community.

Gun-nuts care only about themselves.


And their guns.

[Dimensio0]

68. I am curious.

Do you have any argument of substance to present?

[selador]

77. No

Some of us support civil rights- which includes gun ownership.

Other ALLEGED progressives only support civil rights cafe style, picking and choosing which appeals to the,

Gun control will affect me exactly ZERO percent. But I am against it because I respect the rights of all, not just my own.

[iverglas]

123. me-e-e-e-e-m'ries ... like the corners of my heart ...

Is that right?

Ne'er mind.



Nobody there to hear.

[benEzra]

56. The Federal AWB was the brainchild of arch-right-winger William J. Bennett...

and was made legislative Priority One by the DLC, not liberals, as a way to look "tough on crime" to right-leaning law-and-order types. The proposal to bar gun ownership by anyone on the presidential blacklist originated with Albert "No Habeus Corpus" Gonzales, and DLC corporatists carried the water for him. And so on...

Historically, banning the guns of the working class is a corporatist/authoritarian thing, not a liberal thing. Nor is there anything progressive whatsoever about using fear, ignorance, and half-truths in the furtherance of one's pet projects; the AWB was one of the most egregious examples of bait-and-switch legislation since the Volstead Act.

John F. Kennedy was a gun enthusiast and "assault weapon" owner; Richard Nixon was an authoritarian who hated gun ownership by the peons. That pattern goes back a long way.

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Keeping guns out of the wrong (color) hands...

Socialists and the Second Amendment

[iverglas]

84. If you're still around

I have to apologize. ;)

I never ever "vote" in polls like this, because I don't vote in the US, so for me to do that would just be wrong. Heck, I might completely throw off the otherwise scientifically accurate results!

But I get tired of never voting in polls ... so I decided I could, this time, without affecting the outcome. So I voted that you were a gun-sucking nutcase, or however that went.

Forgive me!



edit --

Oh no! Good reason for me not to vote in polls. I went back and looked, and realized that when I voted (it was some time ago) it was to say that you were a gun-grabbing nutcase!

There need to be eligibility tests for DU poll voting, I think ...

[SecularNATION]

48. Loser "Logic"

"Let them go to the GOP"

Yes, let the very sizable number of independents who would vote Democrat, but for the gun issue, go to the GOP, as well. Who needs 'em?

[benEzra]

58. That was the attitude toward blue-collar Dems and indies in TN and WV

in 2000. That view was sure a winner, wasn't it? :sarcasm:

[benEzra]

54. Ummm...the Senate WAS turned blue in '06 by anti-AWB Dems...

who would not have won had they been pro-AWB. A key part of Dean's 50-state strategy in 2006 was to DROP THE BAN-MORE-GUNS THING and promise to leave it to the states. That message got out loud and clear, if you were listening. Jim Webb, Jon Tester, and Bob Casey courted gun-owning Dems, indies, and moderate repubs heavily and won with their votes.

President Clinton said the 1994 Feinstein law (which didn't even ban any guns) cost at least 20 House seats. It motivated gun owners of all political stripes into political action like no other issue before or since.

[Traction311]

75. If Clinton knew it would cost 20+ seats,

why did he push for it? Even if he truely believed in the ban, was it really worth a Republican Congress for the next 10 years?

[iverglas]

124. if Traction311 had known life was so short,

Would he have bicycled around the world?

[derby378]

57. You forgot one poll option, which I will now supply...

I will work for the election of pro-RKBA Democratic candidates for the House and Senate in order to block new calls for gun control from the White House.

That wasn't so hard. It's possible to be a committed Democrat and support the Second Amendment at the same time. Just look at Amendment II Democrats, Blue Steel Democrats, some of the Pro-Gun Progressive folks, etc.

[jody]

59. Excellent point. n/t

[virginia mountainman]

60. Dog on straight Derby....

I have "stumped" for various Democratic candidates for years, but I ONLY, do it for Pro Bill of Rights Candidates....

Most of my local Dem's are very pro gun, so this is not so much of a problem.

[slackmaster]

64. Bingo

And the thing about someone being something.

[TxRider]

119. Same here, good answer... n/t

[Paladin]

63. Kicked (n/t)

[Paladin]

69. Kicked (n/t)

[Paladin]

70. Kicked. (n/t)

[Paladin]

71. KIcked (n/t)

[-Wolverine-]

73. My gun rights come first

I vote for my gun rights first and foremost, every other political position I hold (gay marriage, Iraq, etc) comes secondary.

[zanne]

74. Oh yeah. This is accurate.

Poll a bunch of gun nuts. Nice going,hog.:crazy:

[hogwyld]

94. Just wanted to test the waters

To see how dedicated the gun owners are to the Democratic cause.

[Paladin]

78. Kicked. (n/t)

[chknltl]

79. Easy, I would risk losing my guns to the Dem.

If saving our boys from further war in Iraq meant giving up my shot-gun and my rights to own guns? I would make that sacrifice in a heartbeat! Sure, I and my family are worth protecting, but America's boys, (and gals) are worth protecting even more. To me , if I felt America's needs to be less important than my needs on something like this...well that would simply be selfish of me. That's how I see it.

Fortunately we do not need to make such a choice because Senator mCcain is by far no friend to the gun owners. (He ain't much of a friend to America either)

[Paladin]

80. Kicked (n/t)

[NaturalHigh]

81. I will not vote for anyone who advocates taking away guns from law-abiding citizens.

[Paladin]

83. Kicked (n/t)

[Unrepentant Fenian]

85. DID ANYONE ELSE HAVE THIS HAPPEN ????????? !!!!!

Sorry for the all caps, but something fishy is going on here. I tried to vote for the third option (there are other more important issues). When I went to confirm my vote, it said that I HAD ALREADY VOTED! I haven't been on DU for over a week. Is some one messing with the poll, is there a problem with the poll? or is someone messing with my account? Is there anyway to look up how I voted? This has really got me wondering. By the way, no one else has access to my computer, so the problem is not on this end.

[iverglas]

86. check the date on the poll

It's 3 months old -- might you have voted and forgotten all about it?

I had. ;)


Is there anyway to look up how I voted?

Actually, something most don't know -- the admin knows how you voted. It ain't anonymous.

I doubt they'd go looking it up for you, though!

[Unrepentant Fenian]

87. Thanks, that could explain it! n/t

[Paladin]

88. Kicked (n/t)

[Paladin]

90. Kicked (n/t)

[Paladin]

91. Kicked (n/t)

[Paladin]

92. Kicked (n/t)

[solinvictus]

93. Why the hell doesn't the Democratic Party agree..

...to defend all of the Bill of Rights and not cherry-pick pet issues. I mean, Dems will defend nude dancing, NAMBLA, etc. under the First Amendment and abortion rights under a vague right to privacy, but the Second Amendment is automatically deferred to whatever arbitrary "common sense" regulation that those in power deem necessary to protect the masses. I'm sorry; the Second Amendment's not about target shooting and hunting, it's about the unalienable human right for an individual to protect their family or their property from criminals or an oppressive government. Why don't we propose some reasonable "common sense" restraints on free speech or abortion while we're at it? Why not subject the Fourth Amendment to "common sense" regulation as well since it would protect the public?

[Thelvyn]

95. They throw reason out the window when it comes to guns.

I think the main problem is that the anti-gun Democrats (and the few anti-gun Republicans) have never been around guns, never shot them, and probably don’t even know anyone who owns them.

For them guns can in no way shape or form be useful for good any anyone’s hands but police or military. They just get so emotionally responsive to the subject, that some of them actually feel they would be morally superior if they were lying dead on their kitchen floor with the criminal going out the door with their stuff; as opposed to the criminal lying dead and them being alive with a gun.

You can’t argue, use reason, use logic, or debate with that kind of lunacy; you simply can’t. The only thing you can do is use political force to stop their anti-gun legislation in its’ tracks.

[iverglas]

97. one thing's for sure

You can’t argue, use reason, use logic, or debate

You sure couldn't!

[iverglas]

98. so I just dropped by here for other reasons and I see this

I mean, Dems will defend nude dancing, NAMBLA, etc. under the First Amendment and abortion rights under a vague right to privacy, ...

Yeah, women's right not to be forced to accept a risk of disability or death, that's such a nebulous damned thing -- although I'll agree with you that the Democratic Party's defence of that right is a tad anaemic.

But no, I'm curious about that NAMBLA thing. Who are these "Dems" who "defend NAMBLA"? Can you tell me more? Please??

Just seems like a kinda funny thing to be saying at Democratic Underground.

[tburnsten]

99. NAMBLA? silly!

I think maybe he was just pointing out that free speech tends to be a right the Democratic party prides itself on protecting, regardless of how distasteful (ok it's more than distasteful and they are a group hated by all who are not members and aren't insane) that speech may be to the rest of us.

But what do you mean by

Yeah, women's right not to be forced to accept a risk of disability or death,

To me a right that all citizens (minus felons and others who have gone out of their way to prove they can't be trusted to not harm others) have does not single out or force anything on half the population. Maybe what you are talking about is actually abusive relationships? that is a whole other can of worms, not truly related to firearms policy at all, which will require much work that has nothing to do with firearms.

[iverglas]

103. Excuse me?

NAMBLA? silly!

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I asked a question of someone who asserted that "Dems" defend NAMBLA. I'm looking for substantiation (other than naming some obscure Democratic Party member or voter who may qualify).


I think maybe he was just pointing out that free speech tends to be a right the Democratic party prides itself on protecting, regardless of how distasteful (ok it's more than distasteful and they are a group hated by all who are not members and aren't insane) that speech may be to the rest of us.

Blah blah. I think he made a claim. I'd like it substantiated.


To me a right that all citizens (minus felons and others who have gone out of their way to prove they can't be trusted to not harm others) have does not single out or force anything on half the population.

To me, if one is going to join a conversation, one takes the time to notice what it's about. I'm not sure how you could have missed this one, since I laid it out. Maybe I can help you by adding some emphasis:

solinvictus: I mean, Dems will defend nude dancing, NAMBLA, etc. under the First Amendment and abortion rights under a vague right to privacy, ...

Me: Yeah, women's right not to be forced to accept a risk of disability or death, that's such a nebulous damned thing -- although I'll agree with you that the Democratic Party's defence of that right is a tad anaemic.

Did that help?

The female half of the population happens to be "singled out", when it comes to pregnancy, by that biology stuff. It is then singled out, by right-wing assholes, when it comes to the compulsion to accept a risk of death or disability, i.e. a compulsion to continue a pregnancy.


Maybe what you are talking about is actually abusive relationships? that is a whole other can of worms, not truly related to firearms policy at all, which will require much work that has nothing to do with firearms.

Maybe what I was talking about was what the poster to whom I was replying was talking about.

Neat trick. Give it a shot.

[tburnsten]

104. 10-four good buddy

"abortion rights "

Was skimming, thought you were talking about gun ownership, which is the topic of the day out here in the guns forum, not abortion rights, which I am not sure is such a hot issue right now. One of those things if you need one you will be VERY concerned about the laws on them and if not chances are you just don't think about it ever, unless you happen to be someone morally opposed to it.

[iverglas]

105. says much

One of those things if you need one you will be VERY concerned about the laws on them and if not chances are you just don't think about it ever, unless you happen to be someone morally opposed to it.

Yeah.

Or unless you just happen to give a crap about the welfare of anyone besides yourself.


Was skimming, thought you were talking about gun ownership, which is the topic of the day out here in the guns forum, not abortion rights, which I am not sure is such a hot issue right now.

Do kindly note that it was not I who raised the question of either NAMBLA or reproductive rights. If you find them out of place, feel free to have a word with solinvictus. Maybe you'll get an answer.



typo, typo, typo

[tburnsten]

108. Yeah, or maybe I just don't like our legislators wasting money

we don't have on marginal issues like abortion. Sorry, it may hurt to hear it, but most americans don't care one way or another what the current exact legal details about abortions are, it isn't a major part of life for most people, so most people don't give a fuck. It doesn't mean we don't care about others, it just means we have our own lives to live and don't get wrapped around the axle over the technical details of abortions. Misrepresent that as misogyny however you want.

And do kindly note that what I was responding to was your comment, not his. Regardless of who started the conversation.

[iverglas]

106. just a bit more then

Why don't we propose some reasonable "common sense" restraints on free speech or abortion while we're at it? Why not subject the Fourth Amendment to "common sense" regulation as well since it would protect the public?

(a) You've heard of perjury? Illegal speech. Advertising snake oil to cure cancer? Illegal speech. Using four-letter words on prime time TV? Illegal speech. (In the US. Not in Canada or the UK or Australia, e.g.) Child pornography? Illegal speech. Can you think of any others? I can.

And yet that first amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech ...

(b) Were you under the impression that there are no statutory restraints on access to abortion in the US?? What planet have you been living on? The decision in Roe v. Wade specifically authorizes a range of restraints, and state and federal govts in the US have more than arguably gone beyond what it (and as subsequently nuanced) authorizes.

(c) The fourth amendment contains exceptions to the right to be secure against search and seizure right within it -- it is a right against *unreasonable* search and seizure, not any search and seizure, and the amendment outlines the conditions on which searches and seizures may be lawfully conducted. Not a good analogy here.


But (a) and (b), you may be on to something. You certainly are for (a). In fact, I make that point all the time: despite the wording of the first amendment (remarkably similar to the wording of the second amendment), speech is very far from unrestrained in the US.

Care to address that point?

[tburnsten]

107. Not so much, airwaves are government-owned

And are subject to regulation beyond the very limited amount of regulation allowable on speech. Generally speech is fine unless it causes harm to others, such as telling people your special acorn juice will prevent them from catching HIV. As far as regulation on abortions, those regulations are there because there is still much controversy over when exactly is too late for second thoughts, and when the critter on the inside is a "human" and when it is just a mass of cells. I don't think it is wrong to restrict late-term abortions any more than it is wrong to tell people they cannot kill their newborns because they changed their minds, if there is no compelling medical reason for it, maybe it should have been done earlier on in the pregnancy. But that's ok, I'm just a knuckledragger to you anyway.

[iverglas]

109. yadayada

The government owns the airwaves. That's on those natural law stone tablets, is it? Yeesh.

Generally speech is fine unless it causes harm to others, such as telling people your special acorn juice will prevent them from catching HIV.

Let's try a little experiment.

My special acorn juice will prevent you from catching HIV.

Uh oh, did that hurt? Do you need a bandaid now? Can I get you a 222?

As far as regulation on abortions, those regulations are there because there is still much controversy over when exactly is too late for second thoughts, and when the critter on the inside is a "human" and when it is just a mass of cells. I don't think it is wrong to restrict late-term abortions any more than it is wrong to tell people they cannot kill their newborns because they changed their minds, if there is no compelling medical reason for it, maybe it should have been done earlier on in the pregnancy. But that's ok, I'm just a knuckledragger to you anyway.

You seem to have got it in one.

[SlipperySlope]

96. I hate choices like this

> If the choice was between a gun loving repuke, or a Dem nominee that was advocating much stricter gun control, how would you choose?

To me this is the moral equivalent of saying "The choice is between George W Bush having a 3rd term, or a Democratic nominee who wants to execute all children under the age of five".

Repugnant versus Incomprehensible.

*spit*

[Paladin]

110. Kicked (n/t)

[Paladin]

111. Kicked (n/t)

[Paladin]

112. Kicked (n/t)

[Paladin]

113. Kicked (n/t)

[pipoman]

114. Isn't it time for you to start a new thread of your own?

I mean you seem to be the only one who thinks there is anything at all significant or telling in this 8 month old thread with many of the voters tombstoned months ago. Is there any poll about the 08 election from January that has anything meaningful to say about the election now? What about last month? The only thing old polls are good for is comparison to new polls.

[Paladin]

116. Kicked (n/t)

[Paladin]

117. Kicked (n/t)

[DeadEyeDyck]

120. I am not able to vote

but I have stated that I would switch parties if BO threastened the 2nd Amendment.

I am a DixieCrate who was raised in a hard working Union Family.

[Paladin]

121. Kicked (n/t)

[Paladin]

125. Kicked (n/t)

[Paladin]

126. HOW ABOUT IT, FORTY-FOUR PER-CENTERS?

How many of you in fact ended up casting a vote for Sarah Palin instead of Barack Obama, because of firearms policy?

Extra points for honesty, as always.....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

128. Nobody here. You must have meant to post this on FreeRepublic.

[Paladin]

129. FreeRepublic? Don't You Wish.....

If 45% of you (up from 44%) were honest enough to state your willingness to vote Republican over guns this time around, how many of you are now honest enough to admit that you in fact did so? Or have the results of this poll convinced you that honesty isn't in your best interests?

Sorry to interrupt your Obama-bashing down here, but I think it's a fair question to ask.....

[jody]

127. CNN exit polls re voter gun ownership

Anyone in Household Own a Gun?

Total     Obama   McCain
Yes(42%)   37%     62%
No (58%)   65%     33% 

[Paladin]

130. Kicked (n/t)