Who is gun friendly on the Democratic side?
Dave
Dave
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Democratic party...
- Thread starter nhclubowner
- Start date
Which is something I can never understand. It's a fact that die-hard anti's would never vote Republican. So for the Dem leadership to tell those people to piss off wouldn't really reduce their voting base in any way. I would guess that they would be able to attract more votes from the "fly-over" states if they did that.
pdm
NES Member
More of a political philosophy than a party these days. And one that influences precious few in either party.
Richardson would most definitely cave to the anti crowd plus he is very socialist in his other views, go look at his record and stance on the issues it will make you puke.
There is no Democrat that would be friendly to gun owners if it came down to signing some new anti legislation.
There is no Democrat that would be friendly to gun owners if it came down to signing some new anti legislation.
Jared Barrios says he's a Libertarian.![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
That's kind of amusing, considering that RKBA support is virtually a
anchor/immutable requirement of Libertarianism. There are other
things libertarians are sometimes flexiable about (eg, the application
of military force, eg, war, etc.) Barrios saying that is not much
different insanity wise than a Christian saying they don't believe in
Jesus Christ.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
-Mike
That isn't completely true. There are several dems in
gun friendly states that are pro RKBA. They almost HAVE
to be- in some districts if you vote anti, you can kiss your
re-election possibilities goodbye. A lot of the seats that flipped
in the last election congressionally have gone to pro gun
dems. While I realize it's an exception rather than the rule, it's
foolish to think that -every- dem will vote along party lines.
-Mike
These links should help you. GOA and NRA ratings of House and Senate members.
GOA Ratings
NRA Ratings
Note: GOA rating is only for 2006, while NRA rating is lifetime. For example, Lieberman recieved a 100% from GOA for 2006, but still gets an F from the NRA due to his past voting record.
GOA Ratings
NRA Ratings
Note: GOA rating is only for 2006, while NRA rating is lifetime. For example, Lieberman recieved a 100% from GOA for 2006, but still gets an F from the NRA due to his past voting record.
Last edited:
True but I was referring to the current presidential candidates.
ETA: I still think most of the ones you talk about would follow party lines if it came to it, I don't trust a damn one of them.
![[hmmm]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/009.gif "Hmm [hmmm]")
Last edited:
That I agree with- Richardson has no chance and both hitlery and
obama are hardcore antis/commies.
ETA: I still think most of the ones you talk about would follow party lines if it came to it, I don't trust a damn one of them.
Only if they like political suicide. After what happened WRT the
fallout of the last AWB, I don't see every dem toeing the party
line on gun control. It's just not going to happen. The moonbat
incumbents will of course, but that's a given- they can do/say
whatever they want and the constituents will just nod in approval
as long as the next welfare check or inflated promise comes true.
-Mike
kevin9
NES Member
+1, don't even get me started on the comparison between gun-grabbers and religious hypocrites....Barrios saying that is not much
different insanity wise than a Christian saying they don't believe in
Jesus Christ.
I think what you are saying is true for the current moment but if there is a gun control movement in the future having these so call pro-gun democrats in office will only guaranty passage of new laws.
When it comes to gun control, democrats will follow party lines and/or popular demand if it means taking or keeping their office.
Just for clarification I am referring only to the federal level of government.
J
Jose
At the national level, nobody.
At the state level, it greatly depends.
A pro-gun state Democrat in Mass might be rare, but they are not actually quite that rare elsewhere.
Ohio's Governor Jim Strickland and Attorney General Marc Dann are both Ds and NRA A to A+ rated.
I didn't vote for Strickland because Republican Ken Blackwell would have been even better, but voting in Marc Dann was a no-brainer over his bitch RINO opponent Betty Montgomery (who was rated C- by the NRA).
At the state level, it greatly depends.
A pro-gun state Democrat in Mass might be rare, but they are not actually quite that rare elsewhere.
Ohio's Governor Jim Strickland and Attorney General Marc Dann are both Ds and NRA A to A+ rated.
I didn't vote for Strickland because Republican Ken Blackwell would have been even better, but voting in Marc Dann was a no-brainer over his bitch RINO opponent Betty Montgomery (who was rated C- by the NRA).
Unsure...
I want to see the war stopped and troops brought home where they belong. Too many American families have been broken apart because of Bush's war. The only people that gain from our being in Iraq are corporations, such as oil companies, etc. The Democrats say they will do this. The Republicans (of which I am one) will continue what big business wants and stay in Iraq throwing taxpayers money and lives away.
I was thinking about voting for Edwards.
Dave
I want to see the war stopped and troops brought home where they belong. Too many American families have been broken apart because of Bush's war. The only people that gain from our being in Iraq are corporations, such as oil companies, etc. The Democrats say they will do this. The Republicans (of which I am one) will continue what big business wants and stay in Iraq throwing taxpayers money and lives away.
I was thinking about voting for Edwards.
Dave
Edwards is a total hypocrite and would be worse tha Hillary or Obama. You need to do a little research, Dave. Do you honestly believe the Dems are any less beholden to their own business interests than the Republicans?
Your right, but...
The Republicans have been outright hostile with their big business kissing; example gas prices up and down according to public outcry. And trying to do away with Social Security. I can't rememer the Dems financially shoving it to the public, except for taxes.
The Clinton's are in bed with big business, but I didn't think Edwards was. Obama talks and talks and doesn't say anything understandable. Basically, if Hillary ever won then Bill would be president again (God help us).
Dave
The Republicans have been outright hostile with their big business kissing; example gas prices up and down according to public outcry. And trying to do away with Social Security. I can't rememer the Dems financially shoving it to the public, except for taxes.
The Clinton's are in bed with big business, but I didn't think Edwards was. Obama talks and talks and doesn't say anything understandable. Basically, if Hillary ever won then Bill would be president again (God help us).
Dave
The Democrats took over the House & Senate & several Governorships based on your logic.
They currently have an approval rating below GWB - because they have done nothing , and plan to do nothing. They voted in a 3 day work week for themselves , though.
They used "undecided voters " like you , as pawns. The question remains : Are the Undecided anti Iraq war voters going to fall for it twice in a row ?
They currently have an approval rating below GWB - because they have done nothing , and plan to do nothing. They voted in a 3 day work week for themselves , though.
They used "undecided voters " like you , as pawns. The question remains : Are the Undecided anti Iraq war voters going to fall for it twice in a row ?
I guess we can just agree to disagree- I mean principally, I don't
trust them either.... but thats in the same regard that I don't trust
a lot of so called "republican" politicos that didn't toe the party
line on the AWB the last time. I just think that dems who got
partially elected by the NRA are probably more likely to be interested
in self-preservation. Any pol who doesn't think a
AWB backlash wouldn't happen again is fooling themselves and
is ignorant of history. The last time the AWB came to pass the
dems lost like 20 seats because of it. Will they be that
dumb again?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the antis aren't going to
make more attempts, they're just going to be a lot more sly about
how they do it. They will try nibbling away at a lot of other
areas. I doubt we'll see what I would consider a "serious" attempt
(read as- something other than the mcarthy moonbat
attempts ) over the next 4-5 years to renew the AWB. I don't
doubt that they'll try something like passing a dumb law which
prohibits private sales at gun shows, or other crap like that, or
that they'll try tacking on a simple AWB renewal onto anything
gun related that happens to be passing through (like what they
tried to do with the manufacturer protection thing, which the
NRA wisely ended up killing the first time around because of the
obvious poison pill attached to it. )
-Mike
J
Jose
You make no sense.
BTW, privatizing Social Security is one of the few things Republicans have attempted lately that I agree with.
But for all my disagreements with the Republican Party at the national level, IT WILL BE A COLD DAY IN HELL BEFORE I VOTE FOR ANY DEMONRAT AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.
![[troll]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/016.gif "Troll [troll]")
+1... it was one of the few things Bush and other
republicans tried to do that would have made a real
difference.
I agree with it too, or at a minimum at least reforming it so the
system makes more sense. Problem is right now the whole thing
is basically a joke- its just another tax that pols take pork
money from. Problem is the far left easily managed to scare
a bunch of old people and aging boomers into believing that their
check wasn't going to come if the system changed.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Sonow unless something is done, they'll get to watch the whole
system collapse under its own weight anyways.
I generally agree with this, with one exception. If theres a RINO
incumbent that waffles in the direction of gun control, and a pro
RKBA dem is running against him (eg, like an NRA endorsed one) I
am sure as hell not going to vote for the RINO. While the RINO
might be better on the other issues, I'm not going to vote for
someone who agrees with stripping my rights away. Taxpayer
theft is one thing but interference with natural/civil rights is an
entirely different, more fundamental, matter.
As long as I'm in MA I'll never be dealing with that choice, though.
All the dems running for fed offices here are 110% communist or
otherwise terrible; and on top of it none of the MA seats are really
volatile, so decades may pass between opportunities to change a
seat. The incumbents in this freakin state stay in the seats till
they die, retire or get different jobs.....
![[puke]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/023.gif "Puke [puke]")
-Mike
J
Jose
Mike, maybe I said what I said because most of Ohio's Ds are the national level are flaming moonbats.
Dennis Kucinich and Sherrod Brown are sterling examples.
Dennis Kucinich and Sherrod Brown are sterling examples.
The biggest problem with the AWB is the terminology. I've talked to many people who support an assault weapons ban. If you ask them why you get something like "because civilians shouldn't own fully automatic weapons." or "People shouldn't be able to go to Walmart and buy a machine gun". If you ask many of them if they'd support a ban on semi automatic rifles, their answer is typically "no".
