If Only Democrats Supported the 2nd Amendment

a reply to: Metallicus

I think you're right, Metallicus, and at the very least, the Democrats would theoretically be much more competitive in rural and southern districts than they currently are if they'd simply dump gun control from the national platform. Those who support the 2nd Amendment and the private right to firearms ownership have a strong tendency to make it one of their primary voting issues. Do the antis make it one of theirs? Not really. Unlike those who support 2A, most of them are not directly affected by gun rights. They just don't like the idea of anyone owning a firearm. But because of that, it tends to be more of a back burner issue for most of them rather than something that drives them to the voting booth. By contrast, those who strongly support 2A will crawl over broken glass to vote against someone who threatens their 2A rights.

The point being, the Democrats could dump gun control from the national platform and likely pick up far more support than they lose...though at this point, it could just be that they've so burned that bridge with most gun owners that they realize it can never be rebuilt. I, myself, will never vote for another Democrat in a national election for that reason, no matter how many times they try to tell me that they're pro-2A, because I don't trust them at all on the issue. I'm sure I'm far from the only one that feels that way.

originally posted by: Esoterotica

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Metallicus
I know the 2nd Amendment is my #1 issue as it is for many other people I know.

Not education, not the economy, not poverty or crime

Metalli is a libertarian & libertarians really don't give a crap about any of the quoted topics or society as a whole in general.

And you know this how?

We care, but we also believe that at some point, as person has to take some responsibility for themselves and their own education for example.

I worked an inner city school. I saw kids who could have been sent to the hallowed grounds of an elite private institution and they would have spat on the privilege. It was "acting white." At what point do you admit that a person's determination to remain ignorant is sometimes of their own making and not necessarily because society didn't care enough for them?

And if that person made the decision to tune out and drop out, then they wind up in poverty in almost all circumstances. It is not society's fault that they turned down one of the most effective tools for lifting themselves out of poverty and then wind up in it. It was at least partially their own choice to turn their back on what was offered them.

What about addiction? No one forces that first hit into your veins or up your nose ... You make that choice on your own. It is your responsibility.

Libertarians simply acknowledge this truth and own it.

Leftists run away from it and prefer to blame everyone else for their own failures.

originally posted by: Esoterotica

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Metallicus
I know the 2nd Amendment is my #1 issue as it is for many other people I know.

Not education, not the economy, not poverty or crime

Metalli is a libertarian & libertarians really don't give a crap about any of the quoted topics or society as a whole in general.

This is true for the most part.

My rights and liberty are the most important things to me. I can take care of myself and don't need 'society' or want the Government to 'help me'. However, not really the topic here.

The point is since you and so many other people apparently don't care about my gun rights then why do people keep making it an issue to take them away? Maybe not you specifically, but the Democrats in general could do themselves a favor by simply letting people exercise their Constitutional rights.

a reply to: vor78

Thank you SO MUCH for actually addressing my OP and the point of this thread. You actually get it and for that you have my gratitude.

a reply to: Metallicus

Letting people exercise their rights presumes that they want to let go of the power. Letting people exercise their rights gives the citizens of this country a ton of power. If the Democrats admit to one originalist interpretation, then they have to start looking at others ... what happens when the 9th and 10th Amendments roll into town?

The Feds are looking mighty shaky then and the whole house of power cards starts to come apart.

Not that those of us with a more libertarian mindset would care, but a lot of people here who need to feds to handhold them and force the rest of us to comply would be terrified of that freedom.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Yeah if everyone in poverty would just get their s*** together then there'd be no poverty!

I would bet that if you dropped your average rich person into a poor neighborhood with nothing and a poor person into a wealthy life that in 10 years the rich person would be rich again and the poor person would be poor again. It is about attitude and personal responsibility and not about where someone starts.

Self-Deleted.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Prezbo369

I would bet that if you dropped your average rich person into a poor neighborhood with nothing and a poor person into a wealthy life that in 10 years the rich person would be rich again and the poor person would be poor again.

And I'd be willing to bet that if you dropped a rich person into a poverty stricken area they'd be eaten alive (calm down not literally). Rich folk aren't the superhumans you consider them to be.

However if you were to do the opposite I'd agree that the chances of the poor person blowing away a large portion of the wealth would be quite high.

It is about attitude and personal responsibility and not about where someone starts.

In your analogy you took a person that was already rich and another that was already poor....

a reply to: Prezbo369

That doesn't mean much. Do a little poking around and you'll discover that many of the rich in this country did not start out that way, meaning they become rich by their own initiative. If they can do it once, they may not become independently wealthy again, but they will certainly be able to handle their money well enough to avoid remaining mired in poverty if the attitudes and drive that made their first fortunes are still intact.

a reply to: Metallicus

I was under the impression that the democrats are the Gun And Ammo's biggest sponsors?

I have seen record profits set for the Gun And Ammo industry. under Democrat controlled gov't with very little changes?

a reply to: Metallicus

There are democrats that support the second amendment and ones that are even VERY constitutional.

They make acceptations though mostly when they do. My guy this election is a conservative democrat (yeah I know) He supports it with limitations on military grade weapons being allowed for security forces, police and the military only. He doesnt care about tactical looking hunting or sport rifles or small arms. He likes the fact that we have a strong self defense culture.

If you are interested in a clean and unaffiliated, former super delegate PM me. He is an underdog so its a vote based on principle. He is not going to win. BUT, its a vote you can absolutely trust. He is also very business savvy and has a great plan as far as our economy. His intended foreign policy is right on.

I wont say the name here since he is technically my bosses boss and the T&C may be an issue.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Prezbo369

Yeah if everyone in poverty would just get their s*** together then there'd be no poverty!

I would bet that if you dropped your average rich person into a poor neighborhood with nothing and a poor person into a wealthy life that in 10 years the rich person would be rich again and the poor person would be poor again. It is about attitude and personal responsibility and not about where someone starts.

Actually we had a politician over here tgat tried that as a experiment. And he cried uncle and gave up before he completed the first week!

a reply to: Looselungjones

Aren't you a ray of sunshine?

Feel free to hate me all you want.

a reply to: tadaman

I learned my lesson about pro-gun Democrats a few years ago, thanks to a congresscritter named Mike Ross here in Arkansas. This is a guy who was A rated by the NRA, was considered one of the most reliably pro-2A Dems in Congress, and even made a big media show of leading a group of Dems opposing Obama on the assault weapons ban and the UN Small Arms treaty in Obama's first term. I actually bought it and probably would have voted for him for Senate or Governor.

Then Sandy Hook happened and he quickly showed his true colors. He wasn't so much a 'Blue' Dog Democrat. He was a yellow dog. As soon as he thought he had some political cover, he sold us out and fully backed the AWB. At the time, it was perhaps the most damaging defection against 2A of any, given that he'd been one of the leaders of the small group of pro-2A Democrats in Congress in the recent past. As it turns out, though, it didn't quite work out the way he'd planned. As we all know, the Obama/Feinstein AWB ban failed in Congress, and as Ross found out when he lost the governor's race in a landslide in 2014 (he was term-limited in the House), his constituents weren't so happy about it, either.

That was the case that convinced me that there is no such thing as a pro-2A Democrat in government. There are Democrats who will tell their constituents what they want to hear, but when push comes to shove, they are totally, utterly and completely unreliable and will run back to the far-left, anti-2A Democrat establishment with their tails between their legs as soon as it becomes politically expedient.

originally posted by: crazyewok

I just think there are far more important freedoms and concerns to fret over.

It's also a largely symbolic battle. It's the last real battle line, in fact, because it's a battle line that was drawn specifically to place the balance of power in the hands of "the people" rather than "the government".

Sure, as people keep pointing out, the government have an incredibly well-equipped army that (posse comitatus to one side for the moment) could easily roll over "the people" if needed... but for as long as people are standing on that battle line and refusing to budge, there is still hope.

It's actually just as important as all the other things mentioned. Philosophically, in fact, many would say it's genuinely more important. The people who don't see it will probably never see it, which is why the debate usually devolves into mudslinging and name calling from both sides.