Gun owners oppose Democrats because they assume they support “gun control"

New poll cited by Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)

Winning the Gun Vote
QUOTE
Overview

* Americans widely believe that there is a right to bear arms but many -- gun owners in particular -- do not believe Democrats share this belief.

* As gun owners represent almost four in ten Americans this perception impedes efforts to create a durable Democratic majority.

* Silence is not the answer since Democrats who do not speak out on gun issues are presumed to oppose gun rights.

* By becoming both pro safety and pro gun rights, Democrats can do right on both the politics and policy and make a realignment of a sizeable portion of gun owners possible.

* These gains can occur without losing either Democratic base voters and while gaining among swing voters who reject the traditional GOP-backed alternative positioning.

UNQUOTE

Winning the Gun Vote, slide 17

QUOTE
Almost half of gun owners oppose Democrats because they assume they support “gun control".
UNQUOTE {emphasis added}

....as do half of the 4 remaining gun owning voters...

Seems like we ought to concentrate on not alienating the eight instead of pandering to the two loonies, don't it?

as do the majority of gun owners.

every time those claiming Gore lost due to gun control have been asked to provide any proof of that claim, it's been in the form of a newspaper article....which quotes some idiot from the NRA claiming that was the reason and ACTUAL Democrats disputing it.

perceived Democratic anti-gun position cost many Democratic candidates an election.

Surprising since it was all over the TV and newspapers. Perhaps you had them on ignore too?
I'd suggest reading "Jews for Buchanan" by John Nichols and "Too Close to Call" by Jeffrey Toobin.

Taken from various national polls after a quick google search:

90% support background checks
79% support mandatory trigger locks on all stored guns
77% support a ban on the sale of assault weapons
75% support registration of all handguns
68% support stricter regulations

Surveys can be engineered to produce any results.

77% support a ban on the sale of assault weapons

And 95% can't define what an "assault weapon" is.

"Surveys can be engineered to produce any results."


Lemme guess. Surveys that show that gun owners don't vote Democrat because they "assume" that Democrats advocate "gun control" excluded.


Too funny. How come I don't hear you lecturing jody on this fact? After all, jody's survey report came first.

.

has been provided with any number of surveys that show the same results, and always howls in rage when he gets them.

I admit I focus my logic-based attacks on posts that appear to have an anti-gun bias.

So what? My challenge stands in spite of your insulting come-back.

How come I don't hear you lecturing jody on this fact? After all, jody's survey report came first.

Jody provided a link. That's all I asked for.

in the old, "what is the definition of an assault weapon" game. I really love that one.

"Almost half of gun owners oppose Democrats
because they assume they support 'gun control'."


Is that the same thing as "gun owners who oppose Democrats would vote Democrat if Democrats persuaded them that they did not support 'gun control'"?


And I'm confused. Does this mean that the other half of gun owners *do* support Democrats? Or just that however many of them who don't, have other reasons why they *don't* support Democrats?


Is it possible that the reasons why those other gun owners *don't* support Democrats might be shared by the ones who (report that they) don't support Democrats because of the Democrats' "assumed" position on gun control? That is, would those people ever vote Democrat, or not vote Democrat even if the Democratic Party promised an assault rifle in every pot?


And, um ... are the DLC Democrats?

.

Many gun-owners are single issue voters. Even if they agree with democrats on 90% of the issues, they will still vote for republicans if they think there's a chance that the dem candidate is in any way indebted to the 'gun-grabbers'. On the other hand, people who are for gun-control are not fanatical about it. They do not vote for or against a candidate on that issue alone - witness Howard Dean. This is why the gun issue is such a loser, especially in the south. You gain very little, if any, but lose alot.

Being for gun rights also goes a long way to immunize a candidate to the 'too liberal' label that dem pres candidates are always smeared with every four years.

... think about nothing but winning elections?

Does it ever occur to any of you to discuss public policy -- what a government oughta be doing when it gets elected?? And the merits, or perhaps even feasibility, of those policies?

I'll bet that the Democrats could get elected if they persuaded all the car drivers in the US that they would remove all federal taxes from gasoline. And what a fine (and feasible) public policy that would make.


"Being for gun rights also goes a long way to immunize a candidate to the 'too liberal' label that dem pres candidates are always smeared with every four years."

Yeah, being "too liberal". Now that's a lable to be avoided at all costs.

.

...gasoline would be. But that really would be worth alot of votes *drool* :-)

Its unfortunate that the term liberal is so maligned in politics these days. But thats reality. I f you want to have any chance of winning an election, its somehting you must avoid.

I am one of the few Democrat gun-owners that I know. Even I check a Democratic candidate's record on gun-control before I vote for him. If he is stridently anti-gun, I won't vote for him. I won't vote for the Republican either, I just hold my vote on that particular race.
If the pro-gun Dems would proclaim themselves to be, and follow that up with actions, we will gain much ground as a party. We will be able to win back the majority.

the vast majority who want gun control to pander to the shrillest and most extreme spliter group in the Republicans' bughouse.

"f the pro-gun Dems would proclaim themselves to be"
All six of them?

"and follow that up with actions"
Gee, Warner in Virginia claimed to be pro-gun...and he still got slandered and spit on by the lunatic "gun rights" crowd.

:hi:

The Ted Nugents of the world do not speak for all firearms owners, just as the BanHandgunsNow.com crowd does NOT speak for all people who seek truly reasonable and meaningful control on US firearm proliferation.

"The Ted Nugents of the world do not speak for all firearms owners"
WHO are you trying to kid? Hell, yes they DO.

"the NRA, the major group representing gun owners"

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V119/N26/NRA_26.26w.html

"To ensure that America's gun owners are always actively involved in the battle to protect freedom, NRA- ILA's Election Volunteer Coordinators (EVCs) stand ready to answer the call. In the electoral arena, EVCs act as the liaison between pro-gun candidates and NRA members and gun owners in their districts, working to spearhead ILA's volunteer activities to ensure that pro-freedom candidates have sufficient volunteers for campaign-related activities."

http://www.nraila.org/VoterInfo.asp#EVCbyZIP

Ted Nugent is a member of the board of directors of the NRA and its spokesperson.

What about the next largest group of gun owners? Well, it's the GOA, which is basically Larry Pratt, a guy so racist that even Pat Buchanan had to flee his company.

Who are the leading voices in public life spouting gun rights hooey? Well, it's the Trent Lotts and Tom DeLays of the world...basically Ted Nugent in a coat and tie.

...grassroots - who many, I expect, voted for Warner because he wasnt perceived to be a threat.

With REALITY. :-)

If the media would just show a few stabbings and butchered-people, I'd bet that the anti-anythingthathaseverbeenusedtohurtsomethingorsomeone
would have a new cause to rally behind. And, their rational would be just as ____ as their anti-2nd Amendment rights opposition.

only (authorized, fully licensed) Chefs and Butchers will have kitchen knives. Next, they'll come after your Boy Scout knife, pocketknife, and even your bladeless knives. Where will it all end, Alfie?

Why you must be a gun grabbing, anti-constitution, anti-patriotism, anti-mother and apple pie liberal commie.

You won't be alienating anybody. There is no gun-control voting block. They don't really care that much. But there is a GUN-RIGHTS VOTING BLOCK, and they vote en masse. Thats why stating that majorities believe this or that doesnt matter. The DLC is correct.

"there is a GUN-RIGHTS VOTING BLOCK, and they vote en masse."
And they're a tiny fringe group that hate Liberals, Blacksand Jews almost as much as they love their guns. As this survey shows.

I'm Jewish, Liberal, and I oppose gun control. Sorry.

The mush brains who absorb all the drivel spewed by the NRA and Rush Limbaugh will believe anything their false prophets tell them. Obviously they need psychiatric care. It's too bad we don't have a committment to providing mental health care to all who need it.

the Democratic Leadership Council or do you prefer to ignore the fact that voters' perceive Democrats as anti-gun in spite of the fact that our party platform says:
QUOTE
Strong and Sensible Gun Laws. A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them - in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners.
UNQUOTE

If gun-grabbers didn't exist, Karl Rove would have to create and finance them to help Republicans win elections.

the question.

I'm not activist, I'm not militant. I'm a part-time farmer turned professional, husband and father of 3 with not enough time or money to donate to damned near any cause, except for the local fund drives.

I also vote regularly. And I assume the Dems want broad range gun control. Given that assumption, I won't be voting Democrat.

That won't make a few of ya to happy, but (thankfully) my vote counts just as much as yours does.

(editted to correct spelling)

gun bans. My state Democratic party is pro Right to Keep and Bear Arms and we support our state constitution which says "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."

I know a lot of you guys are pro-gun, but unfortunately, you seem terribly outnumbered within the Demcratic Party at this time.
With noteable and outspoken members, such as the fine Mr. Benchly, et al, it's hard to hear the 2nd supporters speak. Until your respected opinion on this matter becomes the party line, we may be at odds for quite some time. Just keep fighting the good fight, and best of luck to you.

"I also vote regularly. And I assume the Dems want
broad range gun control. Given that assumption,
I won't be voting Democrat. That won't make a few
of ya to happy, but (thankfully) my vote counts
just as much as yours does."

Indeed it does. There is no accounting for, and no way of influencing, what people "assume" (or claim to "assume") -- and there is no weighting of votes based on either the intelligence or the good faith of the voter. You're absolutely right.

And now if you could explain what qualifies you for membership in a discussion forum peopled by people with concerns about a wide range of social, legal and economic justice issues, not to mention foreign policy and various other affairs of state -- about all of which you appear to give not a shit -- I'd be most curious to hear it.

.

"And now if you could explain what qualifies you for membership in a discussion forum peopled by people with concerns about a wide range of social, legal and economic justice issues, not to mention foreign policy and various other affairs of state -- about all of which you appear to give not a shit -- I'd be most curious to hear it."

1. I stated on my very first post that I was a consevative. I also stated that I wanted level headed and open minded discussion. I want to see your side as objectively as possible. I also posted that I knew I was violating rules, and expect to be booted at any moment, but the mods, so far, have been kind.

2.I stated my stance on gun control only. Why on earth would you assume that I have no "concerns" about socio-economic issues, environmental issues, foreign policy, AS WELL AS local issues?

I hope that properly decribes my qualifications, "assuming" of course that they are required. In case you might believe me a "knuckle dragger", I am twice degreed, professional, and life experienced. I know physical and emotional pain, I watch the news, (both Drudge and CBS) regularly. Cynical? YES. Stupid? NO.

I have to say that I'm finding as many closed minds here as I find on the gun boards that I frequent. It's too bad we can't discuss with good intent.

"It's too bad we can't discuss with good intent."

I never assume the "good intent" of anyone who acknowledges making electoral decisions based purely on such a purely self-interested motivation as you have stated -- which you have plainly stated to be the determining factor in those decisions

And I have to assume that someone who is (and isn't just claiming to be) "twice degreed" doesn't have stupidity as an excuse. Although, given that you stated that your electoral decisions are based on an assumption (or claimed assumption -- which, even then, you stated in only the vaguest and least meaningful terms), one might leave the door open on that one.

Drudge and CBS, eh? My, what a range of information and opinion you do expose yourself to.

As to why you're still here: beats me. There just does seem to be a higher tolerance of misfits here in the dungeon than one would expect, based on the rules stated, doesn't there?

.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=582303


Q: has your employer tried to brainwash you to vote Repub?

jame: Nope. Did it on my own. My 401K is through the roof.


Gosh. What was I saying about self-interest? What were you saying about "good intent"?

.

How much can we truly know as fact? We have to base decisions upon information provided by the constantly wavering media. It's ALL assumption. Hell, philisophicaly, all economies are based on assumptions. Facts and theorems are science. Political maneuvering is not science, it abstract art.

"Drudge and CBS" were only examples, fer God's sake. Again, another display of a closed mind.

Why I'm still here? Don't know. I try to be reasonable, and some members have noted that they enjoy LEVEL HEADED debate, not the questioning of one's educational credentials, or life experience.

If you're able to objectively question every claim I make, you should question every claim made by ANY member on any board.

I get the distict feeling you're looking for a fight. Not gonna get it. I promised I would be well behave, and I (as always) intend to follow through, so I guess I'm open....

flame away.

"It's all "assumptions".
How much can we truly know as fact? We have to base decisions
upon information provided by the constantly wavering media.
It's ALL assumption. Hell, philisophicaly, all economies are
based on assumptions. Facts and theorems are science. Political
maneuvering is not science, it abstract art."

Lordy, one of those degrees musta been in metaphysics.

What on earth did you suppose I was talking about when I said:

"There is no accounting for, and no way of influencing,
what people "assume" (or claim to "assume")

and

Although, given that you stated that your electoral decisions
are based on an assumption (or claimed assumption -- which,
even then, you stated in only the vaguest and least meaningful terms), ...

??

Did you consider the possibility that I was talking about a very specific assumption -- the one that YOU had stated as being made by YOU, and that I had quoted:

"I also vote regularly. And I assume the Dems want
broad range gun control. Given that assumption, I won't
be voting Democrat."

??

What all this bibble babble now is, I have no idea.

How much can you "truly know as fact" about the Democratic party platform? About as much as you care to know, I'd think. Or acknowledge knowing, as the case may be. You apparently -- according to you -- prefer to make "assumptions", and you purport to base your voting practices on them.

"If you're able to objectively question every claim I make,
you should question every claim made by ANY member
on any board."

Sure. Got any in mind? In point of fact, I do question any claim made, about anything, that appears to be contrary to the available facts. That being precisely the situation I see here.

I was questioning the bona fides of someone who claims to vote according to an assumption the accuracy of which is easily tested, and yet seems to prefer not to test it, and seems to have quite other reasons for his/her voting decisions.

You see, I just don't happen to be persuaded that your voting decisions are determined by the Democratic Party's stance on firearms control, at all. I think that the thickness of your pocketbook, and how you foresee that being affected, has a whole lot more to do with it. And I cite (and have cited) your own words in support of my theory:

Q: has your employer tried to brainwash you to vote Repub?
**jame: Nope. Did it on my own. My 401K is through the roof.**

But hey, full marks for full disclosure.

You see, I think you're an excellent case in point, when it comes to the claims that the Democratic Party loses the votes of firearms fans that it would otherwise collect, were it not for the ... impression, or assumption, or whatever the hell it is ... that is allegedly held by said fans regarding the party's position on firearms control. I just don't think you'd vote Democrat no matter what that position was. And I must point out that I still haven't a clue as to what, exactly, it is in the position that you ... perceive, assume, whatever ... the party to have on that issue that you object to. As I said: your objection, i.e. what it is that you object to ("broad range gun control"??), was stated in about the vaguest and least meaningful terms possible.

"I try to be reasonable, and some members have noted
that they enjoy LEVEL HEADED debate, not the questioning
of one's educational credentials, or life experience."

And this has to do with the price of tea in China, how? Let alone with anything said by me. Forgive me if I assume that you don't have the first idea about anything that I have ever said about anything. But you should at least attempt to relate your responses to what you have in front of your face, at the time, that was said by me. I merely remarked that anyone who actually had the education you claim (which I do not question in the least) could not avail him/herself of, or be given the benefit of, the stupidity excuse, when it came to thinking/doing irrational or selfish things.

"I get the distict feeling you're looking for a fight."

Do you think? Again, I haven't a clue why here, either. Perhaps you're making assumptions again. I'm really not at all interested in talking to you. That was pretty much my point.

People who base their political decisions on self-interest to the exclusion of the interests of anyone else -- as you have made it quite plain you do -- are not people I generally waste my time talking to. I'd rather spend that time exposing them for what they are, so that anyone who might be fooled into thinking that such people have his/her interests at heart may be less likely to fall for whatever line they're attempting to sell.

"'Drudge and CBS' were only examples, fer God's sake.
Again, another display of a closed mind."

I give up. You offer something up as evidence of the wide range of sources of information you access, I remark on how what you offered represents maybe 5% of the actual spectrum of available sources, and *I* am the one with a closed mind??

And you'd better watch that profanity, or whatsisname will be over here clucking and chiding.

"Why I'm still here? Don't know."

Note, if you would, that I said that I didn't know why you were still here. I wasn't asking *you* why you were still here.

.

If you tell lies often enough, then people will start to believe them.
Republicans have been telling lies about Democrats for decades and some of the mud has stuck. Their lies about Democrats being un-patriotic, weak on national and local defense, and economically inept have convinced some that their lies are actually the truth.
Likewise, the incessant NRA lies about what Democrats think, feel, and believe about guns have convinced the convincable that we are going to do things to make people vulnerable to crime etc. etc. etc.
Not ironically, it is often the same people that have fallen for the lies about patriotism, defense, and economics, who are also falling for the lies about guns.

:hi:

He DID make an intelligent response...

"If gun-grabbers didn't exist, Karl Rove would have to create and finance them to help Republicans win elections. "
Gee, but what group is it that Karl Rove DOES suck up to? It's not the majority of Americans who want gun control.