8,000,000 new anti-gun voters

Status
Not open for further replies.

BSA1

member
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
7,492
Location
West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
WOW! I never thought of it this way;

"Immigration reform will add over 8,000,000 anti-gun voters to the voting rolls. There may be as many as 11.5 million persons illegally in the United States. And, a Pew poll from last year indicated that if illegal immigrants were given citizenship, they would vote for liberal, anti-gun candidates by an 8-to-1 margin."

Oh, I know Obama and the Libs say that the illegal that are given amnesty won't have the right to vote...just like you get to keep your Doctor with Obamacare.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...mmigrants-will-have-guns.html?cmpid=yhoo.view
 
8 million is one very conservative estimate. I have seen as high as 20 million illegals. Also anyone who thinks that illegals don't contribute to the voter fraud already, needs a reality check.
 
I don't think it is accurate to portray them as anti-gun.

More like anti-republican party.

Which is why pro-gun advocates would do well to find ways to divorce gun issues from party alignment. Republicans lose lots of voters on lots of issues, very few who vote Democrat do so for gun issues.

I voted for a Democrat, gun rights did not figure into that decision. Pro/anti, other issues are more important to me and most other people.

You need some pro-gun, pro-gay marriage candidates. Pro-gun, pro-immigration reform candidates. Etc. Etc.
 
I voted for a Democrat, gun rights did not figure into that decision. Pro/anti, other issues are more important to me and most other people.

And look where that got us. A vote for Obama and being a gun owner are diametrically opposed ideas. I hate most Republicans just as much as I do Democrats (I'm neither), but if you don't prioritize gun rights in your voting, there won't BE any gun rights in ten years. With minimal choices, one has to do what one can to preserve what is our single most important right, even if it means voting for someone you otherwise don't favor.

Larry
 
A, but if you don't prioritize gun rights in your voting, there won't BE any gun rights in ten years.

Right... b/c after 200+ yrs of constitutionally enshrined gun rights and the vast majority of people voting one way or another for reasons other than gun rights, they are going to suddenly evaporate in ten years?

You do remember that the last major gun legislation (which only called for background checks) was voted down, right?
 
Right... b/c after 200+ yrs of constitutionally enshrined gun rights and the vast majority of people voting one way or another for reasons other than gun rights, they are going to suddenly evaporate in ten years?

You do remember that the last major gun legislation (which only called for background checks) was voted down, right?
Traitor....turn in your green card! :eek:
 
I don't think it directly translates into anti-gun voters, but it does indirectly. I read somewhere that virtually all immigrants to this country, legal and illegal, come from countries with governments far more liberal than ours.

For most of us we see a clear distinction between liberal and conservative politicians and the political parties they represent. To most immigrants they see Democratic politicians as quite conservative, and Republicans as just too radical. As a result, they tend to vote for anti-gun politicians.

For most of us gun ownership is of great value and we look hard at where politicians stand on the topic. I'd bet most immigrants are not anti-gun, it is just that for them it is not such an important consideration when voting.
 
The above by jmr40 is about it.
Many immigrants may not hold established anti-gun feelings, but the net result of immigration reform as proposed by the administration will be an anti-gun electorate.
 
This is all part of the cultural shift that half of the country supports, and the other half is fighting against. There's no doubt that the more diluted the population of traditionalists becomes, the more quickly the country will swing towards the "progessive" side.

Consider these lyrics, which we all should know:

My country tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing.
Land where my fathers died.
Land of the Pilgrims pride.

<etc>:

I have in my collection the musket used by a forbear to shoot a redcoat at the Battle of Brandywine. Our family came over on a little boat called the Mayflower, and left Massachusetts with Roger Williams to found what is now Rhode Island, before heading south to colonize Oyster Bay Long Island and finally Cape May NJ. As a kid I just knew this, and took it for granted. "land where my fathers died" means something: We fought for it, and it's ours. My worldview is that if you immigrated after that time, you are sitting at a table laid by the blood of my forbears, and you best respect the fact. As a result we vote a certain way, and expect certain behaviours in life.

Contrast that to the worldview of new immigrants who came from a (more liberal?) place to come here. Why? Because their former place isn't working? And then demand that we change our cultural standing to meet their expectations? Over my dead body.



"For most of us gun ownership is of great value and we look hard at where politicians stand on the topic. I'd bet most immigrants are not anti-gun, it is just that for them it is not such an important consideration when voting."

Absolutely true. Where the traditional "Conservatives" have perhaps won the battle but lost the war is by not welcoming and then educating in our traditional values new immigrants to the Republic. Immigrants will come, that's a given. Why spend effort turning them into the cultural opposition rather than simply making it clear that we have a certain national worldview and that part of becoming a citizen is accepting and respecting that? I'm writing this from Miami Florida today. I had dinner on 8th last night, in little Havana. Cuban immigrants are strongy conservative, buy guns in huge volumes, and are for the most part model citizens. Their cultural assimilation is nearly complete, and they are a wonderrful part of the fabric of our society. Ask yourself why this is, and how they differ from the prototypical "immigrant" that we seem to think about when we discuss illegal immigration?

We have a cultural war in fact already being fought. Disarming the 3%-ers is the way the other side wants to ensure that it does not become the second armed civil war. Let's be frank: We've already fought one... it's not impossible to forsee a second. Making sure that it's not possible is the one of the goals of the left. Diluting the population to obtain more political power is one of the ways to accomplish that goal (among others).

A vote for the left is a vote for the enemy.


Willie

.
 
Last edited:
And... I assume the "Off Topic, Locked" will be coming soon.

UNLESS someone starts talking about how to involve new immigrants in the RKBA movement. Difficult to do if you view them as the enemy.

Or maybe talking about the impact of guns in the cultures immigrants come from.

Perhaps finding ways to promote candidates who are pro-gun AND appealing to new immigrant voters? Socially, many share more "traditional" values, but tough to overcome one party being welcoming, one being adversarial.
 
I voted for a Democrat, gun rights did not figure into that decision. Pro/anti, other issues are more important to me and most other people.

You need some pro-gun, pro-gay marriage candidates. Pro-gun, pro-immigration reform candidates. Etc. Etc.
The problem with pro-gun Democrats is that they don't stay that way when the party starts backing away financially and in terms of public support from anyone that doesn't parrot the party plank. If the Big D's want pro-RKBA folk to believe that a Democratic candidate can actually be trusted as pro-RKBA, they need to remove the notion that they want additional gun control from the official party plank.

And yes - that's no different than the Big R behaviors over other social issues (e.g. pro-life). Each party has dug its heels in over specific issues, and the divide gets worse. The losers are those that believe in actual liberty - you know, that pesky freedom stuff that suggests that the .gov ought to get out of my bedroom, out of my gun safe, and generally stop trying to make me think or feel a different way via legislative fiat.

Frankly, I've never understood why the Democrats choose to pantomime the notion of freedom via their self-proclaimed 'progressive' positions, but back away from the most fundamental of human freedoms - the freedom to say 'no', and mean it. And I've never understood why the Republicans choose to pantomime the notion of freedom via their self-proclaimed 'less government interference' positions, but back away from actually supporting the notion of individual choice in so many social issues.

Well, in retrospect I *do* understand why they don't choose to do so - because it's not about freedom at all. Regardless of party affiliation, it's about buying a semblence of control via social pablums, with little actual regard or vision for the long term consequences.

And that does not help the RKBA issue one bit.
 
Last edited:
Maybe we should take some of these new Americans (I say that because I fully believe the R will cave and allow full path to citizenship) shooting? Mexico isn't exactly a gun friendly country, but I bet Mexicans could learn to like guns as much as we do...IF we give them the opportunity to do so.

We can be proactive or we can be reactive. Google "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" to see why one is much better than the other.

I can't believe this thread hasn't been locked yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top