I am a Democrat for RKBA

[ETXhiker]

If you side with the Statists, you're no friend to the 2A no matter what you choose to tell yourself.

Bingo. As a Texan also, I know lots of otherwise reasonable people who still vote Democrat, because they can't or won't accept how much their party has changed in the last couple of decades. The dems are now the party of Statism and have no respect for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Sadly, lots of Republicans in Washington aren't much better, but with new people like Ted Cruz joining their ranks I am hoping to see that change.

Our 2nd Amendment rights are the rights which guarantee all others. To vote for someone who is openly an enemy of those rights is foolish in the extreme. Your vote for Obama does more damage than any verbal support for the RKBA can make up for.

 

[Fastcast]

Both parties are beyond corrupt and believe in trampling rights. To believe voting lock step with one side or the other will somehow ensure your 2A, life, liberty, wealth and happiness is naive.

Either parties candidate can, will and do change their ideology on a whim. All one can do is vote what you know of today about each candidates past voting record, that you'll be putting your check mark by. Tomorrow has no guarantees.

May I suggest, stop worry about R's & D's and vote for the candidates that have a steadfast record of supporting 2A....as others have said, it's the measuring stick. If your local candidate is new, call their HQ and get their views on 2A, AWB, Hi-Cap mags, etc. If there's any wavering, there's your sign.

I don't do parties, I'm an independent thinker and don't need no stinking D or R establishment telling me whose side I must be on or who to vote for. They both speak with forked tongues!

Voting is like a chess match, one well thought out move at a time, trying to avoid annihilation.....Couldn't stand my congressman besides his 2A view but assumed I could at least count on him for that and with the dreaded thought that Obama might get a 2nd term, I knew the congress was gonna be important to stop any 2A assaults.....so I held my nose and sacrificed (like a pawn) some of my less important views and checked his box.

 

[Meta]

The destruction of this country will not come because of banning guns, it will come when a culture of dependency is so strong, and a hostility towards achievement and wealth becomes so great, that the country self implodes under the crushing weight of the state. The Democrats are wholly invested in the strategy to commit as many people to the agenda of dependency on the state. It's really that simple. They've succeeded with the black vote, now it's time for Hispanics. Fast forward a generation or so to the time when the governement cannot keep it's promises to all of it's dependants and you'll have a whole lot of very, very bad things happening. At that point the constitution will be a speed bump and law and order will be at the end of the fascist's gun barrel. All democracies end this way, sorry. We HAD a republic, governed by laws and the constitution but we started chipping away at that around the time Woodrow Wilson was around. Mob rule here we come.

 

[GiorgioG]

Here lies my problem with the vast majority of liberals. They seem to feel that if everyone doesn't agree with 'their' beliefs; then everyone should be 'forced' to agree with thier liberal believe system.

Aren't 'we' trying to force 'them' to agree with our belief system? (RTKBA, shall not be infringed, etc.)

Labeling people left/right, conservative/liberal is an oversimplification that does no one justice and doesn't create constructive discussions. I am fiscally conservative and I believe the government should stay the hell out of private life/decisions (gay rights, abortion, gun laws, religion, etc.)

How do you label me (and the many folks like me?) Like it or not, we're here...and everyday there are more of us.

 

[Yo Mama]

Both parties are beyond corrupt and believe in trampling rights. To believe voting lock step with one side or the other will somehow ensure your 2A, life, liberty, wealth and happiness is naive.

And yet here is the new list of cosponsors for Feinsein's bill are:

Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
Boxer, Barbara [D-CA]
Cardin, Benjamin [D-MD]
Carper, Thomas [D-DE]
Durbin, Richard [D-IL]
Gillibrand, Kirsten [D-NY]
Lautenberg, Frank [D-NJ]
Levin, Carl [D-MI]
Menéndez, Robert “Bob” [D-NJ]
Mikulski, Barbara [D-MD]
Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]
Reed, John “Jack” [D-RI]
Rockefeller, John “Jay” [D-WV]
Schatz, Brian [D-HI]
Schumer, Charles [D-NY]
Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]
Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
Franken, Al [D-MN]
(joined Jan 29, 2013)
Hirono, Mazie [D-HI]
(joined Jan 29, 2013)
Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
(joined Jan 29, 2013)

 

[JRH6856]

OP voted for Obama. OP is from Texas. ALL of Texas electoral votes went to Romney. As far as his one vote was concerned, it made no difference at all.

 

[Takem406]

You contradict yourself, sir.



The arrogance of this statement and much of your post is so typical of liberals. It's 'my way or the highway'. You will NEVER convince everyone of anything. Frankly, you should set the goal of convincing ONE person of what you believe. Good luck with that.

Hahaha you can't truly support freedom and not be an NRA member or at least SAF. The NRA has many faults but so do I and everyone else. Do they need to change how they rate elected officials? Obviously because that's there big fault.

If you still can't stand the NRA then SAF is amazing. I've been a member for years and between them and ILA they are leading the fight.

If you can't stand either might as well join the Brady Campaign!

In God and Glock we Trust

 

[herkyguy]

herky,

Your 2nd sentence contradicts your 1st. Pretty sure it's not the Dems who try to fuse church back into state schools, and wanted to modify the Constitution to ensure gays were incapable of receiving certain rights.

An attack on one right is an attack on all. The red and blue just tend to attack different rights.

John

point taken.

I used "liberals" since that was the party under discussion in the thread. I would consider myself an independent. I've voted for both dems and the GOP in the past, although not for BO in either election. I have disagreements with both parties, but see the liberal progressive group as the greatest current threat.

I wholeheartedly agree that our problems are far more complex than a simple red vs. blue. And yes, to your point, an attack on one is an attack on all.

 

[6.5x55swedish]

Good post HM. I am with you.

Romney was more anti-gun than Obama is... His own words and actions have confirmed that.

Republican Rep Pat Llodra is pushing for a ban on all "assault weapons" and testified Yesterday that they do not belong in civilian hands.

 

[kerreckt]

I agree with much of what the OP stated. Not all but much. Many want to portray President Obama as being anti-gun and I will agree with that. I heard many people saying that they were going to vote for Mitt Romney because of Obama's stance on guns. I found this to be laughable because as governor of Mass. Romney signed most if not every anti gun bill that came before him. You can't honestly say that about Obama. I don't believe he has signed any anti gun bills although there is much talk that he will. There is a reason why Mass. is one of the most anti gun states and Mitt Romney deserves much of the credit. To give Obama credit he stated his position on guns which I don't agree with. I can accept that much easier than I can accept someone who says what he thinks that particular audience wants to hear and then lies about his record. I voted for neither of these men but have much more respect for someone who consistently states the same thing regardless of the audience. Obama is bad but Romney would have been disastrous based on his past record which is public record no matter how much he lies about it. We are in the frying pan but avoided the fire.

 

[Phatty]

I, like many other members here, have very diverse political views and don't match up issue for issue with either party. I fully understand that people may vote based on a wide range of issues and not just a single issue.

So, when the OP states that the 2A right is just one of many issues that he considers before voting -- I can understand that. However, in the case of President Obama, that viewpoint only makes sense if the OP is willing to completely forego the 2A right altogether in exchange for electing a president that lines up more closely on other issues.

People seem to forget that only a single vote on the Supreme Court was the difference between us currently having a 2A right at all. If the four "liberal" members of the Supreme Court had their way, none of us would even have a 2A right. Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor, voted against the 2A right in McDonald v. Chicago. Without a doubt, Obama's other nominee, Justice Kagan, would do likewise if given the chance. God forbid one of the pro-2A justices dies in the next couple of years, Obama will put another anti-2A judge on the Supreme Court. That will tip the scales and you can say "so long" to your 2A rights.

 

[gossamer]

Honestly -- I don't know what party you're looking at, but you don't think that the far wing of the Democrat Party is driving their policies?


.

The ACTUAL far-left, gun-grabber wing of the Democratic party -- not the one the uninformed love to think Obama is a part of, but the ACTUAL Liberal wing -- actively calls for and wants Obama and others to stand firm for a repeal of 2A and MUCH stronger restrictions. They want the Obama DOJfind a way to shift interpretations of 2A back to the "Militia" interpretation that both the NRA and Federal Government were fine with prior to GWB/Ashcroft changing the Executive position and Heller finding otherwise.

So, no. I get to read a lot of what the far-left wing of the party really wants in the gun debate. Read Daily Kos. The far-left wing of the party is obviously not driving these policies because these polices are - by their horror - far too "timid" and allow too much gun ownership. They were apoplectic that Obama's EAs didn't go far enough to curtail 2A for citizens.

The fact is, even the center-left of the party (of which, if you look at his actions in total any reasonable-thinking student of political history would agree Obama is a member) has been pushing for what's on the gun-control agenda now. The wing wants it way worse for us.

 

[feedthehogs]

I too am a VERY Liberal and voted for Obama twice. I also am the President of my own Corporation which means I own a small business which I've run for two decades (the most successful 4 years of which came from '08-'12), I grew up in a very religious Catholic household, I am an Eagle Scout. I also happen to be staunchly pro-gay rights, pro 2A, own as many guns as I can afford and don't support any AWB, BG checks, etc..

I agree with you and am glad you wrote what you wrote and support the pro-2A cause. I support this cause not because of something as petty as political ideology. Nor do I even support it PRIMARILY because it's something guaranteed as a right under the constitution. My reason for supporting it are two fold.

1) From a sheer practicality and utility standpoint, the best method man has invented for personal defense and protection of self and others is the firearm. The evidence for this is the millions and millions of men and women all over the world who have professionally and non-professionally defended themselves and protected themselves with firearms.

2) I see my possession and use of firearms for defense of self and others closely linked to my sense of community. Protecting my family and our home is not self-contained. It ripples out into my community because my responsibility as an owner and user of firearms means I always have to be vigilant, aware of my surroundings, and in control of my faculties. Because if I'm not, my defense could have dire consequences for others. My job is to make sure that the effect of those ripples is ALWAYS ALWAYS positive. I also find that my advocacy for 2A benefits other in my community by helping them to defend themselves and their family. I see it as, if I do not do my job, someone else is n my community may be deprived of their own self defense.

So for me, being Pro-RKBA fits naturally into the communitarian beliefs that undergird my Liberal political ideology.

Many people on THR are going to try to shoot down (no pun intended) your rationale and try to convince you you are wrong for being a Liberal. But then, I find that like anywhere in this world, many people here don't seem to accept other peoples' points of view as acceptable simply because the disagree with them. They think it's their place to argue with you about your outlook.

What you've done here is move into a Conservative neighborhood and put up an Obama yard sign. There will be lumps. But, I hope people show you the respect you deserve that comes along with the VERY American and very CONSERVATIVE ideal of individualism. I'm sure if I read the preceding 4 pages of comments in this thread my hope will be dashed.

But a man's gotta have hope. (let the petty make some political snark about that word -- if I gave a <deleted> I wouldn't have used it.)

In other words, good on you, HM.

I don't know if you realize it but in your first paragraph your background and beliefs and actions all contradict themselves.
Not untypical of the supposed pro gun current president voters.

 

[JRH6856]

The destruction of this country will not come because of banning guns, it will come when a culture of dependency is so strong, and a hostility towards achievement and wealth becomes so great, that the country self implodes under the crushing weight of the state. The Democrats are wholly invested in the strategy to commit as many people to the agenda of dependency on the state. It's really that simple. They've succeeded with the black vote, now it's time for Hispanics. Fast forward a generation or so to the time when the governement cannot keep it's promises to all of it's dependants and you'll have a whole lot of very, very bad things happening. At that point the constitution will be a speed bump and law and order will be at the end of the fascist's gun barrel. All democracies end this way, sorry. We HAD a republic, governed by laws and the constitution but we started chipping away at that around the time Woodrow Wilson was around. Mob rule here we come.

^^^This!

But it is a Progressive/statist agenda, not Liberal or Democrat. And lets not forget that our first Progressive President was a Republican — Theodore Roosevelt.

 

[Phatty]

Romney was more anti-gun than Obama is... His own words and actions have confirmed that.

Romney is no hero to gun rights and may even be "anti-gun" as you mention, but I disagree that he is more anti-gun than Obama (is it possible to be more anti-gun than a person wanting a total gun ban?).

But, a good point was made earlier in this thread that President Romney may have resulted in a worse outcome. Although I don't believe that Romney would have come out as strongly against guns as Obama did after the Sandy Hook shooting, he would have readily compromised with the gun grabbers. The Republicans in Congress would be more willing to go along with a president in their own party than they are with Obama. Even if some Republicans are inclined to vote in favor of some new gun restrictions, they probably fear the repercussions back home from people accusing them of going along with Obama. That fear would be much less if they were simply going along with a Republican president.

 

[Fastcast]

And yet here is the new list of cosponsors for Feinsein's bill are:

Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
Boxer, Barbara [D-CA]
Cardin, Benjamin [D-MD]
Carper, Thomas [D-DE]
Durbin, Richard [D-IL]
Gillibrand, Kirsten [D-NY]
Lautenberg, Frank [D-NJ]
Levin, Carl [D-MI]
Menéndez, Robert “Bob” [D-NJ]
Mikulski, Barbara [D-MD]
Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]
Reed, John “Jack” [D-RI]
Rockefeller, John “Jay” [D-WV]
Schatz, Brian [D-HI]
Schumer, Charles [D-NY]
Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]
Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
Franken, Al [D-MN]
(joined Jan 29, 2013)
Hirono, Mazie [D-HI]
(joined Jan 29, 2013)
Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
(joined Jan 29, 2013)

and the unPatriot Act was brought to us by whom? That's right, the other side. Both sides want every last bastion of liberty, all in the guise that they want to protect us. FEAR, FEAR, FEAR

 

[gossamer]

I don't know if you realize it but in your first paragraph your background and beliefs and actions all contradict themselves.
Not untypical of the supposed pro gun current president voters.

Gee. No. I had no idea! Thanks for pointing out that it is possible for a person to have diverse and varied interests and priorities that do not easily pigeon-hole them neatly into one political camp so it's more convenient to ridicule them.

How is it possible someone can be liberal and still own their own successful business? Surely it must be a contradiction I haven't thought about for the last 20 years as I've signed both the front and back of my paychecks and signed employee paychecks every week. Maybe I just missed it because I was too busy having the best financial success I've ever had over the last 5 year -- much better than the previous 8.

I own several guns, have a CCW and support RKBA and yet it's not the only thing I care about when I vote? How can this be possible?

I grew up Catholic and yet I think the church is as wrong on their stance on a woman's right to choose and gay rights as they were to cover up the priests who molested my friends when they were boys.

Yeah, it's a contradiction. Because I find that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- Emerson, Self Reliance

 

[6.5x55swedish]

The point that many of you are missing is that fact that Obama isn't a Dictator, his power as President is limited. Those of us who vote Democrat, but also are pro A2, take into consideration the balance of power when we cast a vote.

If Romney had won; our A2 rights would be in far more danger than they are right now. Many on the right oppose Obama just for the sake of Opposing him. many of the Bush policies they supported they started opposing as soon as Obama was putting those policies forward. Romney would have pushed for tighter gun regulations in the current climate, make no bets against that... and many of those Rs that are silent now would have signed right up.

Remember all the Executive Order rhetoric that was flying around a month ago? How many were saying that Obama was going to bi-pass congress and grab our guns? Guess what? You were wrong on that just like many of us left leaning gun owners stated. Not a single one of the 23 Executive Orders he signed grab anybodies guns or bi-passed Congress.

Sometimes I think Voters should be subject to a Government comprehension exam prior to voting... It is a shame we allow people who know nothing about our governmental system elect representative who also know nothing about our Governmental system.

 

[2ifbyC]

Aren't 'we' trying to force 'them' to agree with our belief system? (RTKBA, shall not be infringed, etc.)

The RKBA is not a belief system. It’s a right that is part of the Bill of Rights, the collective amendments to the US Constitution. Each of these rights has equal weight; no one has the authority to disregard any one unilaterally.

So are we forcing antis to abide by the Constitution? Yes, we most certainly are.

 

[shaggy430]

But, a good point was made earlier in this thread that President Romney may have resulted in a worse outcome. Although I don't believe that Romney would have come out as strongly against guns as Obama did after the Sandy Hook shooting, he would have readily compromised with the gun grabbers. The Republicans in Congress would be more willing to go along with a president in their own party than they are with Obama. Even if some Republicans are inclined to vote in favor of some new gun restrictions, they probably fear the repercussions back home from people accusing them of going along with Obama. That fear would be much less if they were simply going along with a Republican president.

Never thought about it that way. Good point.

 

[HOOfan_1]

A post with politics that go beyong RKBA...made it to 6 pages....WOW.

I am not a 1 issue voter either, but being a Libertarian, and being that our country is a firmly entrenched 2 party system, I have to pick the issues I am most interested in...and RKBA is pretty much at the top of my list. I just can not abide the liberal wing of the Democratic Party...they erode the rights I hold most dear.

 

[blarby]

One more thing. Equating Liberal with Godless or Godless with Liberal is just as bad. It turns out that if you step outside the feedback loop, you can be an atheist conservative who believes in RKBA because they believe in personal freedom.

Or, liberal atheist who is pro RKBA

I may have differing views with you about most things, but not about the RKBA. I don't view you as a lesser person for disagreeing

Thats the problem, just about everyone does.

This shouldn't be the time for Democrat/Liberal this and Republican/Conservative that, it should be a time for inclusion, not exclusion.

Inclusion strikes me as THR.

Hear hear. Spread that gospel. Get used to post #25, however- if you aren't already.

We, as gun owners, need to be a bipartisan group, or we will surely lose.

Read the wall- apparently not. We can afford to exclude anyone we choose. If worse comes to worse, we'll just shoot our way to freedom.

"Bipartisan" ? No thanks. Just "Tryharderson".

An attack on one right is an attack on all. The red and blue just tend to attack different rights.

THIS ! ^^^^^ ROFLMAO Why is it so hard to understand ?

Oh, because the only one we care about is the 2nd one- I forgot. I stand informed.

I am also not exempting the R's from culpability in our march to destruction

Good, because that parties' choice to look like biligerent, uneducated, ill-tempered and regressive back country hicks is why they can't win a popular vote without gassing certain percentages of the population, and win electorates mainly by redistricting.... If ya wonder why people look at us like we're crazy when we raise the gun, its not always the metal that causes the reaction... a lot of times its the sling and case.

A person's opinion of the 2A is usually a good barometer of where that persons stands on the rest of our rights

No, its a great test of their belief in the 2nd one.

The test of what they think of all of them is the constitution as a whole. It seems that no one likes the whole document anymore, I think thats kinda the problem. We'll trade away anything for a measure of security- even our future.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!! Where is the gray?

Apparently its somewhere between "pursuit" and "happiness" if you follow the news.

But a man's gotta have hope.

Amen. We're all in this boat together- like it or not.

 

[Pistol Ranch]

As I see it, the Democratic party favors:
1.Homosexual marriage
2.Gays in the Military
3.Increasing Taxes (On everyone,not just the wealthy)
4.Amnesty for Illegals
5.Global Warming Theory
6.Reduction in Military Strength.
7.Publicly funded birth control
8.Continued support for people able to work but refusing to do so.
9.Runaway spending/Defecit increases
10.Race based policies
11.Disarming the American public
12.Strengthining Unions/Union participation

All in the name of continuing their sorry asses in public office..
Makes me want to puke!

 

[ATLDave]

I'm another gun-owning, gun-rights-supporting Democrat. There is no party that I agree with on even 75% of issues, much less 100%. I'm ALWAYS in the position of voting for people with whom I disagree. I simply have to pick the party and person with whom I disagree less frequently.

I am very much against any new restrictions on the kind of guns that people can own. I am pretty neutral about background checks, and for improving the quality of data (esp. re: mental health) that gets put into the background check process.

I have a lot of friends and family members who are for 10-round limits, etc. They feel this way for the plain and simple reason that they think it will save lives. I believe they are mistaken, and have had many, many long conversations about why I think the world simply does not work that way. Are there some on the far left who truly believe that nobody but the government should be allowed to own sharp scissors? Sure, but that's not the majority. The majority of those who favor more gun control simply believe it will work, usually because of ignorance about the way guns work.

Stay calm, avoid name-calling, and try to get those people to come around. Move one out of 10 from that camp to ours and we're back to a solid majority disfavoring AWB, etc.

 

[Phatty]

The point that many of you are missing is that fact that Obama isn't a Dictator, his power as President is limited. Those of us who vote Democrat, but also are pro A2, take into consideration the balance of power when we cast a vote.

If Romney had won; our A2 rights would be in far more danger than they are right now. Many on the right oppose Obama just for the sake of Opposing him.

See my post above with the specific example of Obama's Supreme Court nominee voting against 2A rights. The greatest impact that a president can have on the 2A is via their Supreme Court nominees. The field of 2A law is in a state of flux right now and the composition of the Supreme Court will have a very real effect on the outcome of this field of law.