In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options

Why are most Democrats anti-gun?

fideaufideau Member Posts: 11,895 ✭✭✭
It seems that way to me when we look at politicians. I know there are a few that are not anti but most are. And the ones that are pro gun, can you vote for them, given that they support most everything else down the Democratic line? How can you trust anyone that is too dumb to understand the Constitution on this point, when it comes to any other business of the people? On the other hand, I know very few people who call themselves Democrats that are not pro gun rights. Then why are the local and national politicians so anti? I cannot bring myself to vote for anyone on the Democrat side because I know that they stand with the antis. Why do Democrat voters that are pro gun vote for the very people that despise that right? You have to take a stand if you are a believer in the 2nd Amendment, make yourself a one issue voter, local and national elections. Forget about all the other crap that is going to happen anyway or face the fact that you will become a criminal yourself when the current Democrat leaders get total control of our government, and kill the only thing that really makes us free, your right to bear arms. Let's hear it now. Am I right or wrong?

Comments

  • Options
    salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Probably for the same reasons that most republicans are anti gun.
  • Options
    jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    Until very recently I was a 2 issue voter. Guns and babies. This made me a repub. I have added one to the list: Globalist. This pretty much excludes all the repub's too.
  • Options
    Wagon WheelWagon Wheel Member Posts: 633 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    fideau:

    Because the big money they require to get elected and ultimately win reelection comes from the Anti-American Elites, Socialist Factions that have infiltrated the process and Corporations with greed as their prime motivator. Dissenting votes are political suicide. It's far more profitable overall to toe the line. I hope they continue this strategy. Why, you ask?? Today I heard about one of our Congressmen being barraged with Anti-SCHIP sentiment from his constituents. I don't know what possessed him, (quite possibly all its flaws and additional taxes) but for a change he heeded the sentiment and broke with party lines. The Democratic Leadership has condemned him. Either way, he looses, might as well do the right thing. Now, I'd like see him to break on gun control.
  • Options
    tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Generally, Democrats do not trust their fellow citizens to make the "correct" choices. By default that means that the Democrats are left as needing the power to make many/most choices for those citizens. In the arena of firearms, naturally the Dems do not trust the actions an armed citizen would take and therefore fear those citizens. This leads the Dems into wanting to outlaw most/all guns (leaving police, "special" citizens and the military still armed) so they can relax and not have to worry about what their fellow citizens might do with their guns.

    I do not love or trust either political party. Nor could ANY political party ever earn my COMPLETE trust. If we ever come to completely trust any political party, then we could easily be enslaved.
  • Options
    gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    From a philosophical perspective, a person who believes in democracy is one who believe majority should rule and minorities can be left at their mercy, in what I call a politer form of mob rule.

    What a democrat cannot have is a minority equipped with the ability to render their majority rule invalid or toothless.

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner.
    Liberty is the lamb whipping out an uzi to contest the vote.

    This is also why democrats are not always in favor of their own philosophy when it is they who are the minority.
  • Options
    The DutchmanThe Dutchman Member Posts: 811 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    sic semper tyranis...the Democrats (read as Communists) always know better what is best for you. They have changed the dictionary definitions as follows: NEED is when somebody wants something that belongs to you, GREED is you wanting to keep what you earned and the Democrats (read as Communists) will arrange the transfer. In order to perform this service they need to dissarm the citizens.
  • Options
    fideaufideau Member Posts: 11,895 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    Probably for the same reasons that most republicans are anti gun.
    Thank you all for your replies. This one I do not understand. Are you saying that most Republicans are anti-gun. That does not seem to be my experience. Or am I missing something. I guess I was stating the obvious to everyone, that in the realm of national politics, the Demos seem to be on one page, and that is pure hatred for the 2nd Amendment. No lie is too big for them. There seems to be no reasoning with them, no common sense to their attitude. However on the local political scene it seems , to me at least, that you can't find many that support this. I've always heard that all politics are local. I guess those of us still living in somewhat rural areas see a different brand of Democrat. They get votes because we think they are on our side,and we've always voted for good 'ol so-and-so, not realizing that this support grows up the line and benefits those at the top who take it for granted that you support your local candidates and therefore whatever they do on the national level is ok by you. This is what I was getting at. I will not vote for ANY Democrat on ANY level again. I am sorry to say this because there are several that I have supported in the past. But if they continue to be part of what I believe is a political machine that is on a path to destroy our freedom I just can't give them my vote anymore. I realize that Republicans are not 100% on our side either, but I think the majority of them understand and support the Constitution on this point. Maybe I have just been dumb all my life but Democrats didn't think this way when I was younger. Of course they ran everything local and state where I live for 100 years. Hey, they were the KKK, the police, the mayors, reps, and governors. No Republican ever won anything. No one ever got a government job without being a Dem and donating their money also. But you never heard anyone speak of "gun control". What changed? Too much power too long? I guess I'm asking too many dumb questions, it is what it is. Its just that all other issues are second to my 2nd Amendment rights , including abortion. Whats the big deal anyway. People who don't believe in it won't have one. People who do will find a way, and anyhow, they are usually the kind of people I would prefer to not procreate anyway. In the last elections which gave both houses to them, there were many Dems elected who said they support 2nd Amendment rights. Many people believe this was one reason they carried the elections. But what happened is that now Democrats who run the Senate and House are able to bring forth any crazy legislation they want because of this majority. Maybe your good buddy Demo that you just elected is against it. But he's going to be outvoted or beat down until he goes along. So you lose anyway. A lot of people just try to think and analize too much. Dammit, the party that leaves my gun rights alone is the party I vote for. Period. I'm done.
  • Options
    HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    You got 8 years of Republican;
    What Gun Right did you get back ?

    The Republican knew that any futher gun laws would arouse the populace. So they attacked on other fronts....Specifically, Privacy Rights, Eminent Domain, allowing barbarians free access to America, Phone tapping, Imprisonment by the commands of high officials, the spending of BILLIONS of black dollars on black bag projects that I guarenndamn tee you is going to bite REAL Americans on the butt when they finally summon up the courage to resist tyranny...the list can go on and on.
  • Options
    salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote: Dammit, the party that leaves my gun rights alone is the party I vote for.


    Which Party is that?
  • Options
    HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Dangit, Salzo..how is it you can get so ugly..and so truthful..in just 4 (four) words ?[:D]

    http://www.gunowners.org/bihow.htm
    Go here and learn how your Republicans.and the NRA brought you the Brady Bill. Just a tiny sample of reality for you.MUCH more at the site.

    What Is Bob Dole Doing?
    Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole of Kansas is known as a player of political hardball. A former (and possibly future) presidential candidate, Dole did not rise so high by being deaf to strong lobbyists.
    But events in the Senate demonstrate that either (1) someone is not telling Bob Dole what to do or (2) Bob Dole isn't listening.
    Remember the political climate. On November 2, 1993, anti-gun politicians were bounced in both New Jersey and Virginia. (The defeat of just one Senator, Joe Tydings of Maryland, has been credited with killing gun control for over a decade.) These elections would seem to have put the chill on gun control for another decade.
    Yet the U.S. Senate has passed a ban on certain rifles and shotguns, a ban on magazines with over 10 rounds capacity, and agreed to a waiting period. All this in the same month as those elections. How did this happen?
    To the astonishment of most experts, Senator Dole and his fellow Republicans agreed to hurry up procedures for considering all the gun control bills. Opportunities to filibuster the legislation were mostly avoided. A number of killer amendments could have been added to make the filibuster work. For example, anti-gunners could have been forced to vote first on imposing the death penalty in the District of Columbia before they could vote for the Brady bill. It is entirely possible that the Senate would still be stalemated at that point, given such a choice.
    This strategy had worked well in past years so GOA asked a few Senate offices to have their Senators filibuster the bill. But GOA was told by one Senate staffer, who wishes to remain anonymous, that "The NRA asked us not to filibuster." We were told that Senator Dole's vote count was the basis for this decision.
    It should be noted that when Senator Dole and the GOP put principles over fear of being accused of gridlock, they successfully filibustered the President's economic stimulus package earlier in the year. Unfortunately, they did not hold the Second Amendment in as high as regard.
    It should also be noted that a determination to filibuster could have stopped the semi-auto ban from being attached to the Omnibus Crime Bill in the Senate, and could have slowed -- and maybe even stopped -- the Brady bill.
    At the most difficult point of all to filibuster -- on the motion to send the Senate -- passed Brady bill over to the House-two unsuccessful efforts were made to end the filibuster. This makes it clear that a filibuster could have succeeded had the Republicans (and a handful of Democrats) wanted to fight. As we have seen earlier, they decided that it would be unlikely that there would be consequences for deserting the gun owners.
    Then, with three senators on the floor, Senator Dole allowed the Brady bill to become law. Had he -- or any other Senator who had decided to stay around -- objected, the Senate would have been unable to act. The Senate needs a quorum to conduct business, and a single objection would have collapsed the charade of three Senators acting for the whole body.
    Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME) told a Knight-Ridder luncheon on November 30 that it is possible to mount six separate filibusters on any bill. These filibusters would each take time, perhaps even days, to be stopped. When a legislative body, like the Senate, approaches adjournment, every delay can mean victory. Yet many of these opportunities were lost by unanimous consent. Had Senator Dole, or any other Senator, really wished to stop the gun control express, all it would have taken was the no vote of one of them.
    Had Senator Dole been willing to organize a determined effort to block these bills, the Senate could still have been debating so-called "assault weapons" at the Thanksgiving break and Brady would not have been discussed until the start of 1994. Had Senators been allowed to offer amendments on issues that the anti-gun lobby hates, like Washington, D.C.'s lack of a death penalty, both gun control bills could have been blocked, or at least slowed down. According to the Associated Press, Senator Dole was willing to prevent "some Republican senators [from] keep[ing] open the option of filibustering Brady." Every delay works to our advantage -- yet our side was not delaying matters.
    The closer the vote is to the November 1994 elections, the more frightened politicians are of pro-gun voters. The closer the vote is to November 1994, the less time the other side has for counter measures.
    Yet even when our allies were finally allowed to filibuster and won on Brady twice (Friday, November 19), Bob Dole was reported, by Legi-Slate's Hill News Service on November 20, to be willing to negotiate. The dead Brady bill was suddenly revived.
    The "compromise" negotiated by Bob Dole was described by the Associated Press on November 20 this way:
    Gun control opponents, as part of the deal, had given up their insistence that the federal waiting period supersede longer delays approved by some states. Republicans who gave up their filibuster got little in the compromise, mainly the four-year expiration language.
    The "four-year expiration language" actually can become five years, simply by request of the Attorney General. So the only thing we got was . . . nothing. This is a compromise?
    The story being spread by some in Washington is that Bob Dole did his best to fight given the realities of the Senate. Given that the NRA had shown an unwillingness to punish anti-gun Senators (the other 99 need only glance at reelected Arlen Specter), they have a point.
    But the Dole compromise that got the bill moving was described by Majority Leader Mitchell as "a fig leaf so small it wouldn't cover a midget," according to the New York Times. And Senator Mitchell was correct. California still has a two-week wait. New York still has a six-month wait. Pro-gunners who fought waiting periods (and won) in places like Texas and Arkansas now find their victories snatched away in Washington. Had we made a similar "compromise" to end World War II, we would have given Japan the states of California, Nevada and Arizona in exchange for . . . nothing.
    But Bob Dole and company chose to give up many chances to fight these bills this year. In fact, Senator Dole was quoted in the Washington Post on November 21 (while the filibuster was going on) as saying: "We finally decided . . . let's get the Brady bill behind us." There was no need to help those who would take away our rights to do so more quickly. A football team that offers no resistance as its opponents march to the one-yard line, should not expect to keep them out of the end zone.
    And negotiations always favor those who are less willing to compromise. Yet during the critical November 20-21 period, what was Bob Dole saying? According to the New York Times of November 22: "Let's get the best deal we can and move on."
    Dangers of Endorsing Compromise Bills
    On Capitol Hill there is an unwritten rule: If you ask for something to be part of a pending bill and you get it, you are
  • Options
    kyplumberkyplumber Member Posts: 11,111
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by fideau
    Why are most Democrats anti-gun?


    So when they implement their social agenda you won't be able to resist.
  • Options
    RockatanskyRockatansky Member Posts: 11,175
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by kyplumber
    quote:Originally posted by fideau
    Why are most Democrats anti-gun?


    So when they implement their social agenda you won't be able to resist.


    Who's resisting now with all the guns?
  • Options
    gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
    quote:Originally posted by kyplumber
    quote:Originally posted by fideau
    Why are most Democrats anti-gun?


    So when they implement their social agenda you won't be able to resist.


    Who's resisting now with all the guns?


    They haven't yet been successful at implementing the worst of it. They want the guns gone, first.
  • Options
    fideaufideau Member Posts: 11,895 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    quote: Dammit, the party that leaves my gun rights alone is the party I vote for.


    Which Party is that?
    That is the best question yet. Anybody know where Ross is?
  • Options
    fideaufideau Member Posts: 11,895 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by fideau
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    quote: Dammit, the party that leaves my gun rights alone is the party I vote for.


    Which Party is that?
    That is the best question yet. Anybody know where Ross is?
    OK. So that was facetious. When you have only two choices how hard can it be? Protest voting put Clinton in, twice. I would rather have any chance than NO chance. I've been around government long enough to know that its almost impossible to undo legislation once passed. Do you think the recent ban would have expired if Gore had been elected? Keeping the wolves away from your throat by any means until the woodchopper gets there with his ax is a better route than electing the wolves by your high minded protest vote. Hurry up and shoot yourself in the foot while you still have a shooter. I'll take the Republicans and hope to at least hold back the flood until something better comes along.
  • Options
    gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by fideau
    quote:Originally posted by fideau
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    quote: Dammit, the party that leaves my gun rights alone is the party I vote for.


    Which Party is that?
    That is the best question yet. Anybody know where Ross is?
    OK. So that was facetious. When you have only two choices how hard can it be? Protest voting put Clinton in, twice. I would rather have any chance than NO chance. I've been around government long enough to know that its almost impossible to undo legislation once passed. Do you think the recent ban would have expired if Gore had been elected? Keeping the wolves away from your throat by any means until the woodchopper gets there with his ax is a better route than electing the wolves by your high minded protest vote. Hurry up and shoot yourself in the foot while you still have a shooter. I'll take the Republicans and hope to at least hold back the flood until something better comes along.


    Protest voting is a catalyst for the inevitable, and i would rather face off against them now: not later. I ain't getting any younger.
  • Options
    n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    I'll vote my views, my conscience and for someone who supports and defends the US Constitution. Anything less would compromise my principals and my integrity.

    Seems to me that the party better get its act together. I, for one, will NEVER vote the lesser of two evils, period.

    My vote, my choice.

    Every man has to make his own decisions.
  • Options
    jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    I am now in exactly the same boat as you lt. Never again will I vote lesser. There is no longer a net gain.
  • Options
    HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:Protest voting is a catalyst for the inevitable, and i would rather face off against them now: not later. I ain't getting any younger.
    I cannot say it any better.
    I have no children..a deliberate decision. I despise the corruption and march towards oblivion of this country.
    I would like, however, to take a hand in a move towards REAL freedom for your children.
    May never happen. May die in the first 5 seconds. So what ? Better by far to die for a REAL cause..rather then the manufactured ones by the Elites on top.
  • Options
    gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
  • Options
    Wagon WheelWagon Wheel Member Posts: 633 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    fideau:

    Here is one man's opinion on the subject:

    Mark Alexander - Pathology of the Left
    http://patriotpost.us:80/alexander/edition.asp?id=295

    Alexander holds graduate degrees in both psychology and public affairs:
    Mark M. Alexander's Bio:
    http://patriotpost.us/alexander/bio.asp
Sign In or Register to comment.