DarthRevan
NES Member
Still on the two party plantation?
-
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 May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
The Gun owner 'gap'.....in politics
- Thread starter Palladin
- Start date
Win
NES Member
A lot of partisan divide tracks like this over the course of the last 40 years. E.G. the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM in 1973. Now we have gay marriage, trans children, and other issues that are similarly divided like this.
Let's start with the premise that all polling is BS. Individual opinions on complex issues are far too nuanced to be accurately represented in pollsters' questions.
For instance, if a pollster were to ask if I support gay marriage; my answer would be no. If asked if I believe in the right for gays to get married, my answer would be no. However, that line of questioning would completely miss the fact that I believe no one has a right to government "Sanctioned" marriage. However, based on that belief, if the government "sanctions" marriage among one group (say heterosexuals), provides that group with a preferred status and conveys benefits based on that status, then the government cannot deny that benefit to other groups. I have never seen a poll which can capture that viewpoint.
As for guns, the article over-simplifies the issue. What the article misses badly is the difference in voter intensity.Yes, gun owners and non-gun owners tend to also hold other views that are at least tangentially associated with either owning or not owning a gun, the linkage between those other views and guns is stronger among gun owners.
A large portion of non-gun owning democrats live in urban areas where gun ownership is difficult if not impossible. Those people are not Democrats because the Democrat party represents their views on guns. The association of their Democrat voting preference is coincidental to their not being gun owners. This is likely true among many geographic areas of the country. For many Democrats, it is an easy choice between a pro-gun candidate who is pro-transgender rights and a candidate who is anti-gun and anti-transgender rights. The gun issue is far down the list of concerns for these voters. Most non-gun owners are not Democrats because the Democrat party is anti-gun. It is the intersection of other interests that brings them together.
A large number of gun owners, on the other hand, tend to vote Republican because this is where the most pro-gun rights candidates can be found. There are always outliers in any cause but, most members of the group are committed. At least among gun owners I know and associate with, we fit the stereotype of being single issue voters with that single issue being gun rights. The gun issue motivates us to come out to vote. This is where the NRA derives so much of its status from. NRA members are generally reliable voters on gun issues.
Democrats are not reliable anti-gun voters. Just ask Hillary. She ran a strongly anti-gun campaign however, her anti-gun stance did not motivate many of the "Obama" voters to show up for her. They failed to show up to vote and cost her the election. This dynamic is missed in the linked article. The lack of intensity on the gun issue for Democrats comes from the fact the correlation between people who don't own guns and their membership in the Democrat party is owed to an intersection of interests other than guns.
For instance, if a pollster were to ask if I support gay marriage; my answer would be no. If asked if I believe in the right for gays to get married, my answer would be no. However, that line of questioning would completely miss the fact that I believe no one has a right to government "Sanctioned" marriage. However, based on that belief, if the government "sanctions" marriage among one group (say heterosexuals), provides that group with a preferred status and conveys benefits based on that status, then the government cannot deny that benefit to other groups. I have never seen a poll which can capture that viewpoint.
As for guns, the article over-simplifies the issue. What the article misses badly is the difference in voter intensity.Yes, gun owners and non-gun owners tend to also hold other views that are at least tangentially associated with either owning or not owning a gun, the linkage between those other views and guns is stronger among gun owners.
A large portion of non-gun owning democrats live in urban areas where gun ownership is difficult if not impossible. Those people are not Democrats because the Democrat party represents their views on guns. The association of their Democrat voting preference is coincidental to their not being gun owners. This is likely true among many geographic areas of the country. For many Democrats, it is an easy choice between a pro-gun candidate who is pro-transgender rights and a candidate who is anti-gun and anti-transgender rights. The gun issue is far down the list of concerns for these voters. Most non-gun owners are not Democrats because the Democrat party is anti-gun. It is the intersection of other interests that brings them together.
A large number of gun owners, on the other hand, tend to vote Republican because this is where the most pro-gun rights candidates can be found. There are always outliers in any cause but, most members of the group are committed. At least among gun owners I know and associate with, we fit the stereotype of being single issue voters with that single issue being gun rights. The gun issue motivates us to come out to vote. This is where the NRA derives so much of its status from. NRA members are generally reliable voters on gun issues.
Democrats are not reliable anti-gun voters. Just ask Hillary. She ran a strongly anti-gun campaign however, her anti-gun stance did not motivate many of the "Obama" voters to show up for her. They failed to show up to vote and cost her the election. This dynamic is missed in the linked article. The lack of intensity on the gun issue for Democrats comes from the fact the correlation between people who don't own guns and their membership in the Democrat party is owed to an intersection of interests other than guns.
The reality is most people don't give a shit about being an anti, to make things a bit simpler. There's a handful of people in big dump cities and moonbat enclaves that make a lot of waves over it, but after that, that's about it. Being an anti, as a politician, at a national level, will not help you win an election. If anything it will always make you lose votes, and not gain anything. I mean seriously, whens the last time you heard most dems say they wouldn't vote for a pro gun democrat? Fun example- for all his douchebaggery, Bernie Sanders has had a better record on guns than anyone running for the dems in like decades; yet, tons of dems and so on were not scared by this, and hitlery basically had to rig the primaries with superdelegates in order to win.
One huge annoying thing about antis is they have succeeded into making people believe they have more support than they actually do. We even have people right here on NES that have sucked for it, acting like Shitberg and co are some omnipotent monolith, when the reality is more like the entire anti gun agenda is funded by a few rich *******s throwing bologna at the wall and hoping it will stick. These people suck so much they literally have to pay for protesters and coathanger types to ride on the bus with them to come onto anti gun whining tours, etc. They've launched a lot of "initiatives" and stuff since sandy hook BS, and most of them have failed or are in the process of failing. Not all that long ago a report leaked out that the "moms" group is in shambles because a bunch of their people think that Watts is a piece of shit, so it smells like they are self destructing.
-Mike
kevin9
NES Member
IMNSHO the decline in Democrat gun ownership correlates with the decline of the Southern and white blue-collar wings of the party, many of whom had a gun-owning tradition (even if it was mostly Fudd-like). The Democrat party has become one run by liberal coastal elites, supported by patronized non-whites, and an activist sub-group of heavily-millennial socialists, all pushing the whole party left. These 3 main Democrat groups have no history of legal gun ownership, in fact, quite the opposite. It almost amazes me there are any self-admitted legal gun-owning Democrats left.
Then it is reasonable to infer that 2A does not motivate your voting.
This is a good analysis. That said, regardless of the individual Democrat voter's motivations the party bosses are fundamentally fascist (for those starting to hyperventilate I'm following the dictionary definition of the word). The gun control push is only one facet of the quest for total government control of our lives. FWIW, the ACA is another. Given the present direction of the people running the show, supporting the Democratic Party is supporting an end to the USA as we know it no matter the individual motivation.
headednorth
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2012
- Messages
- 26,750
- Likes
- 49,406
According to the chart above, right around 1990/1995 or so, gun ownership among Democrats began to accelerate its decline while gun ownership among Republicans reversed its decline and has been rising ever since.
kevin9
NES Member
Yep, that's about when the second wave of New Democrats, fiscally moderate and socially liberal (ex. anti-gun), took over from the more conservative Boll Weevils and original Blue Dogs.
Democrats generally believe that only people like themselves should be allowed to own guns. They think everyone that is not a democrat is mentally ill and cannot be trusted to own a gun: sat next to someone like that on a plane. They believe only they know how everyone must live and seek to have laws past mandating that everyone live as they dictate. This applies to all areas of life, not just gun ownership. If there wasn't a huge swath of democrats that loved pickup trucks and SUV's they ban them for everyone except those who can demonstrate a need for them for work.
*******
The Dems are obstructing his agenda and the moderate Republicans are being wishy washy so it's amazing he's getting anything accomplished.
StevieP
NES Member
Why not? Trump has only spoken out about ILLEGAL 'immigrants'. Please tell us, if you can, (if you did), why you'd vote for Hillary?
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2017
- Messages
- 54
- Likes
- 7
I actually did not vote for her .I did vote bernie as he wanted to give free education in college .America next challenge is less skilled labour. College is so expensive that bright kids do not Innovate and lead the world . Now they are not even given an opportunity. For me that one cause was enough to vote.if he had pulled it off . It is the best for my children ,country .
Hillary was just bad.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
There is no such thing as free. You voted to take money from some and give it to others with no requirement to pay it back or to validate if it will be used well (not on a useless degree), or that the recipient has the necessary aptitude.
You do know that most private universities could lower rates if they wanted to. Harvard has sufficient endowments to cover 100% tuition for 100% of their students indefinitely. IF they wanted to.
My sister paid for most of her education (JD) with grants and scholarships, she had to work hard to find and get them, and had to work hard in class as well. But she got through it with little debt.
I worked alongside a number of people who were professional advisors for those going to college. They help find money and get accepted, and have been doing this for decades. They always said the money is there, you just need to make the effort to find it and get it.
pastera
NES Member
Sorry but you can't give away what you don't own - Bernie can't give you free education but he can use the governments monopoly on violence to steal from producers to buy votes from the dregs of society.
My daughter will be starting at Bryant in the fall on a scholarship that makes the cost affordable if my wife and I help her out some. How did she do it? She worked her butt off to have 3.8+ COLLEGE GPA with 31 credits BEFORE graduating from high school.
You want what's best for your kids? Teach them there is no free lunch and anyone offering them one is trying to own them.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2017
- Messages
- 54
- Likes
- 7
This thread is nutz .shows how the lines are divided . My voting not for Trump had nothing to do with my support for the president. Once he became the president I have supported him with all the anti Trump maniac.
Maybe I see his point more now. Same goes for bush. In retrospect I have become a big busy supporter now.
I also am a realist ,the money is already gone and taken . It does not matter who gets elected . I guess it matters where it's spent.
Personally I am pro gun ,pro choice and pro everything. I want a no taxed small govt.
I come from a country where the brightest 20,% get education for next to free. Why cannot US do something a 3rd world country does. Blows my mind.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Maybe I see his point more now. Same goes for bush. In retrospect I have become a big busy supporter now.
I also am a realist ,the money is already gone and taken . It does not matter who gets elected . I guess it matters where it's spent.
Personally I am pro gun ,pro choice and pro everything. I want a no taxed small govt.
I come from a country where the brightest 20,% get education for next to free. Why cannot US do something a 3rd world country does. Blows my mind.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
pastera
NES Member
Did you read your own posts? You assert that Bernie is correct in his belief that EVERYONE should get free college and then state as a standard that your mother country gives "next to free" education to the top 20%.
Which is it? Do we educate everyone for free or just the top 20%?
There is no economic incentive to pay for even two years of college for a large percentage of US students as the ROI is demonstrably zero and the top 20% of students here actually get access to education that has a very high ROI if they are diligent in picking both the school and the major.
While I agree with you on the already gone and taken point, where we "spend" it does really matter. If the money is put into roads, everyone benefits and it is a program that can be downsized or revoked without complete political suicide. Once money is allocated to education the only way it moves is up no matter how bad the outcome, plans that demonstrate a zero or negative benefit to the student are impossible to defund without starting a bigger more expensive but equally useless plan to "fix" the first.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2017
- Messages
- 54
- Likes
- 7
Dude nothing is free. They take 33% of my salary on taxes. I want to spent one one good shit.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
pastera
NES Member
Not directed at Bt74 only but generally to all that have replied in the same manner
The guy is an immigrant who didn't grow up with our culture of self reliance and freedom from government intervention. Instead of slinging insults why not debate the negatives of his viewpoint in a manner that might win him over versus alienate yet another new gun enthusiast.
Mike S
NES Member
38% of gun owners voted for H?![[puke]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/023.gif "Puke [puke]")
There's a point to be made here that those of us in the NES bubble often miss. The 2A isn't a swaying issue for many people, at least not enough for those who might support it. If/when it becomes as important to the majority of the country as abortion is to progressives, we'll be in business.
babygorilla
NES Member
Your country (I am assuming India due to your name) does that for the higher castes to keep them in their country and to try to keep them from coming here. And MANY do, I know and am friends with quite a few (wife is in the IT field, am in in electrical engineering field). Additionally what they do, since the higher Caste is typically the "richest" in India, is rape (figuratively) the lower castes of any income to pay for their ability to go to school for "free". It is a slight of hand. The higher castes do better in school since they aren't starving, don't have to work like virtual slaves in order to survive, and thus can concentrate on their schooling, and do better grades wise. Do some of the lower castes get to become part of that "20%" as you state? Probably, but they do not comprise of 100% of the "20%". It's probably a LOT less. I would hazard a guess at less than 1% of the 20.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,421
- Likes
- 33,359
Yep. Just like if Republicans just figured out a reasonable immigration plan that didn't crap all over illegals, they could garner 80% of the Hispanic vote, if the Dems just backed off of gun control, they'd pick up 50% or more of gun owners in every election.
By reasonable immigration plan I mean one where guest-workers can work beyond a very short work visa without risking losing their jobs as well as a better plan to allow productive members of other countries to more easily obtain green cards and become US Citizens and thereby increase US worker productivity. (Good article in today's Journal about how we can't grow this economy b/c we can't get enough workers. Ariens plant was ID'd as a fascinating example of this.)
By reasonable immigration plan I mean one where guest-workers can work beyond a very short work visa without risking losing their jobs as well as a better plan to allow productive members of other countries to more easily obtain green cards and become US Citizens and thereby increase US worker productivity. (Good article in today's Journal about how we can't grow this economy b/c we can't get enough workers. Ariens plant was ID'd as a fascinating example of this.)
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2017
- Messages
- 54
- Likes
- 7
Actually it's just an open exam for post high school kids. Once you get your marks your slotted . Even the most expensive schools need to take 20 % from this list at a very low turion fee. Then the next 30 % is also slotted but pay full tution . The last 50%. Is sold as free market for the rich . So colleges make alot of money on selling these seats. So colleges are motivated in a free market system to provide the best as the best colleges get the most money from each seat. The side effect is someone like me get a great education for next to nothing. The sad truth is once I get out of college the job market not so helpful .
The problem was India had rich and poor , now with this system the middle class has grown tremendously .
In my opinion a healthy country needs a very powerful middle class and that comes with education. I have family and I am the only one saying go to college . All the kids here just want to learn a trade and make end meet. For them college is a wasted and useless dream.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,421
- Likes
- 33,359
You can't cut your tax bill and want a next-to-free education. Either everyone "suffers" under a tax cut or no one does.
I'd be OK with Uncle doing LESS for education. All he's done since he started in the 80's/90's was F it up and cause at least a DOUBLING of the cost, adjusted for inflation. The good news is that the reckoning is coming. Enrollment was down almost 2% this year. Good luck, scum-sucking coddle-schools! Hope Lizzie Warren is going to pay you all to stay open with no students.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2017
- Messages
- 54
- Likes
- 7
The biggest problem is the debt ceiling. Every time I see we need to raise it. I get pissed .
Right now 3.4 million employers use by the govt are contractors. Contractors get paid a hell alot more then full time folks. If it was a company they would hire more govt employees at cheaper price and let of the contractors. But do you think any republican can even mention this and win a election as it makes too much sense.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2017
- Messages
- 54
- Likes
- 7
I respect everyone's opinion and I am having a discussion . Maybe some of you will change my opinion or I will yours.
At the end of the day we live in the greatest country in the world. I even argue with anti gun people all the time.i think cell phones and texting kills more people then guns .. I hate I cannot get a AR or my shield trigger ... Living in Mass blows. I especially hate putting my motorcycle away due to snow.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
At the end of the day we live in the greatest country in the world. I even argue with anti gun people all the time.i think cell phones and texting kills more people then guns .. I hate I cannot get a AR or my shield trigger ... Living in Mass blows. I especially hate putting my motorcycle away due to snow.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
babygorilla
NES Member
In red above is the problem with this system, however. Who does better on the exam, the well fed kid who has time to study or the poor kid who works?
- - - Updated - - -
Satish, you're cool in my book. No sarcasm here. Dialogue is good. It's how we learn, especially about other cultures. And except for paying for college, you and I agree on everything else above, lol.
Winner winner chicken dinner!
My simple solution for illegal immigrants:
1. If you have a criminal record, you get 'exported' immediately.
2. You get no government benefits. No welfare, no food stamps, no unemployment.
2a. if you had a kid here, by law that kid is a citizen, so he can get food stamps. if you can't live on that, go back to where you came with your child.
3. you can't send any money you make out of the country.
4. you must pay a fine for either coming in illegally, or over staying your visa (which is how a large % are here, but still working). If you can't pay it, you go back.
5. you can get work permits, but you can never get citizenship. e.g. you can stay forever and pay us taxes, but you can't ever be a citizen unless you go through the channels legal immigrants do.
6. after 10 years of doing this you can then apply for citizenship through legal channels
7. you can sign up for military or volunteer work if you are of age and serve the country for say 5 years. Then you can also get citizenship.
What does the above do for us? It lets us keep people who want to be here, who pay taxes, who will contribute to society, etc. They can become normal productive members of society, just not having citizenship until they prove they deserve a chance at it.
There are lots of illegals here actually doing the above. They are paying taxes, not taking anything from the govt. Most came in on a legal visa, and over stayed and just continued working. They are a plus to the economy. They range from workers in the field to scientists who started out as students. It is stupid that we let someone come in for a college degree in a field we need more workers in, then won't give them a work visa or green card after a while. So we educate and train them, and then they leave with this knowledge.
The US is not expanding as a population to expand our GDP at the rate we want. As the WSJ said, we need productive workers. See what happened in Alabama at the seafood processing plants when they got rid of the illegals. Almost cratered their industry.
