|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 9, 2018, 10:10 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
Why 2A Rights are now a Partisan Issue...
Ok, I had to weigh pros and cons on posting this. I don't want to delve into partisan politics, but I found some tidbits in this article that merit discussion.
THIS SOURCE IS A BIASED AND PARTISAN SOURCE. I KNOW THIS. VALID POINTS ARE MADE IN THE ARTICLE AND THE OVERALL TONE IS CIVIL. IT DOES NOT DENIGRATE A POLITICAL PARTY The article is here... https://townhall.com/notebook/bethba...ntrol-n2498272 It basically discusses how gun ownership has evolved over time to be as partisan of an issue as it is today. My take-away now is that since we are at the point that Pro-2A is almost entirely Republican issue and gun control is almost an entirely Democrat issue, we have reached a critical mass where it can't separated from partisan politics. Having a pro-NRA stance as a Democrat candidate means you likely will not win a Democratic primary in most areas. Supporting any form of gun control as a Republican means you are likely doomed in any Republican primary. Because of this, we are likely to see no Democratic party support for 2A rights. In other words... neither party is likely to change their tune. What struck me in the article is it shows this evolution. In 1993, 50% of Democrats had a favorable view of the NRA. Today? 24%. Once upon a time, gun control wasn't as partisan as it is today.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 |
July 9, 2018, 11:04 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,946
|
I suppose we could debate forever as to why things have evolved to this, but it does seem to be the case. I realize there are still some individual exceptions, but when you look at the national party platforms there is no doubt where the two groups stand. I know many gun owners who still vote for the party of gun control saying something along the lines of not being a one issue voter. I can understand that, but I wonder what philosophically allows one party to support the Second Amendment and one party to oppose what seems to be a clear Constitutional Right. I suppose we are seeing that difference in the battle to replace Justice Kennedy. Maybe the issues are less about gun control and more about how they see the Constitution and the rights/responsibilities of the individual over those of society.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
July 9, 2018, 11:15 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
A person's stance on one issue (like gun control) will frequently bleed over to other issues as well. If I disagree with someone on gun control, it is a pretty good bet that I will disagree with them on most to all other issues as well.
|
July 9, 2018, 11:41 AM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
Quote:
And my big question is how did one political party so effectively sell it's base on gun control over the last 25 years? That's one thing that I didn't really realize until reading that article. Gun rights has not always been a party line vote R vs D issue.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 |
|
July 9, 2018, 12:01 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
I'm sure there are a variety of reasons. Some people undoubtedly vote for party "x" for their whole life even though that party may not be the same as when they started voting for it. Some of it may be ideological. If you like to be personally responsible and independent, then you might not like big government.
|
July 9, 2018, 12:13 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 647
|
Quote:
|
|
July 9, 2018, 01:17 PM | #7 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,454
|
Quote:
I've spent lots of my life taking up positions that are unpopular amongst most of the sort of people I know. There is a process of virtue signalling wherein a person states an opinion to those around him primarily for the purpose of affirming group membership. I see Robert Deniro's most recent attempt at public speaking this way. It's also true that the COTUS is more likely to be discounted by people who see it as an impediment to what they would like the state to do. One can't be an enthusiast for FDR and the New Deal and seriously contend that the commerce clause is an important legal limit on Federal power to be read and applied literally. We have a decades long tradition of excusing away constitutional limits we dislike. There is also a notion about the perfectibility of human nature that is at odds with accepting that man is deeply and inherently flawed, and that smart government both accepts and reasonably limits the harm caused by those flaws. Quote:
A generous environment in which civil liberties flourish isn't man's natural setting. People don't need to be talked into destroying rights they don't think will help them; it's a natural myopia that drives people to empower the state to limit the freedom of those they dislike. That's why we should be stingy with excuses around constitutional limits; those limits are the fences around our freedom, such as it is.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
July 9, 2018, 01:43 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,237
|
Easy... media, politicians, corporations and celebrities wanted it that way.
|
July 9, 2018, 03:24 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
|
Interesting article, but one line jumped out early on that caused me to seriously doubt it's content.
"Having a gun in the home for hunting and/or self-protection is no longer common practice." That is a blatant lie. How much stock do you care to put into the rest of what the article has to say? So rickyrick omitted one reason in my opinion... propaganda.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter! |
July 9, 2018, 06:56 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 21, 2016
Posts: 629
|
"A person's stance on one issue (like gun control) will frequently bleed over to other issues as well. If I disagree with someone on gun control, it is a pretty good bet that I will disagree with them on most to all other issues as well. "
I agree with that for the most part but one area where republican voters tend to not see eye to eye on is when it comes to religious ideology. This is probably similar to why the democrats backed off a bit on gun control a decade ago, was deemed divisive within their voter population, as it often can be when a republican goes too far w/ christian ideals in regard to something like abortion - which is maybe why such has been so quiet and one thing that helped Trump (he is not so outwardly religous). Or another example might be the federal government's lack of action on addressing the inconsistency with how weed is dealt with - still as illegal as it always was but such laws are generally no longer being enforced federally, some states treat it as a dangerous drug, others treat it as you would alchohol - yet the federal government offically treats it as a dangerous drug, even if someone has a prescription. Nobody wants to trouch it - too divicisive, so we continue on with this odd environment of partial tolerance federally.. Like immigration, somebody should step in and grow a pair - enforce the law or change the law, but makes no sense to tolerate breaking the law or only partially enforce the law. |
July 9, 2018, 07:05 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,237
|
I’m a moderate, but often forced to vote republican. I don’t agree with all republican issues.
I’m a moderate as it was considered a few years ago, now even a left leaning moderate such as myself, is considered to be to far right. Seems there’s no enough room left in free country to have any freedom anymore. |
July 9, 2018, 07:15 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The NRA did it to themselves. They tied the organization to extreme conservative positions. It might have been a marketing decision to increase revenue from true believers. However, it was not a good decision for the USA in general.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 9, 2018, 09:16 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,237
|
That’s the worst thing about guns or any civil right tied to one party... a good portion of the country are deprived of a right or to by proxy.
|
July 9, 2018, 09:43 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 647
|
Quote:
What? Are you implying that Democrats don't own guns? Or they're somehow deprived or forbidden from owning them? Maybe Dems only have hunting weapons? Do they have to turn in their handguns in order to comply with the party line? If I change my registration to Dem do I have to destroy all my guns? Or can I sell them to recoup some cost? Your post doesn't make sense and isn't really even English. |
|
July 9, 2018, 09:49 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 647
|
Quote:
|
|
July 9, 2018, 11:20 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
|
WyMark:
Quote:
On the upside, a few months ago I was driving through Colorado Springs and passing a pickup truck with a "Black Rifles Matter" sticker on the back. Everything about it screamed "ignorant redneck!" but the guy driving was African American. Just when you think you have the world pigeon-holed, this country surprises you. I love living here.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time. |
|
July 10, 2018, 12:11 AM | #17 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
I don't see the NRA being to "blame", though I do recognize that Lapierre's leadership has been... less than optimal.
But consider this, where there are essentially only two effective political parties, and the people running one of them (NOT the rank and file, not the blue collar members) make gun control one of their party's political planks, I'd say they are the ones who made it a partisan issue. When one party does this, where else can gun owners go but to the other party? And because there is no other choice, the other party takes our support for granted, by and large, because they know they are the "only game in town". Gun owners and gun rights supporters in the Democrat party are trapped by their party elite, and either have to toe the party line, or lose support from the party (not the people). Dems have always pushed gun control as one of their social "concerns", but not exclusively, and not in lockstep as part of party loyalty, until recent years. THAT, I put squarely on the shoulder of those people running the party. They decided that they were going to make it a political "us vs them" issue, and they succeeded.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
July 10, 2018, 12:23 AM | #18 |
Member
Join Date: June 10, 2018
Posts: 67
|
Both parties have changed over time, while I will agree that not all Democrats or leftists are for gun control but it seems to be a big part of there agenda in today's time. Maybe not 50 years ago or even 30 years ago. They also use to be for state rights and smaller central government, we all see how that has did a 180 the other way. My point being the Republican party is leaning more and more towards libertarian beliefs (small government, less taxes, gun rights, and etc.) While the democratic party is leaning more and more towards a socialism or as they would call social democracy. They probably won't stay this way forever, I'm sure in 50 years it will all be different.
|
July 10, 2018, 04:38 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Guns aren't the only reason the NRA leans Right. The so-called campaign finance legislation that the Democrats heavily supported would have allowed organizations like the NRA to be censored during political campaigns. Since the NRA is a grassroots organization funded by its members, it would thus mean censoring the ability of ordinary citizens to be able to pool their resources to be able to run ads on television and such, and basically make such things a monopoly only of the Michael Bloombergs and Koch Brothers of the world, and the professional political class. If you look at the history of precursors to the campaign finance legislation that the Citizens United decision struck down, the argument from the Democrats was that they wanted it in particular so that they could censor the NRA during campaigns so that it couldn't run ads against Democratic candidates, and so that they could get more Democrats elected to pass gun control. The NRA covered the case extensively in their "America's First Freedom" magazine at the time.
I do wish though that the NRA could act more a-political though. My understanding is that they do a lot of work with the Pink Pistols however (gay gun rights group). |
July 10, 2018, 04:41 AM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
|
Quote:
44 AMP is once again, pretty much spot on. Don't believe for a second that either party is on anyone's side once it hits a point that it is no longer beneficial in the eyes of that party.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter! Last edited by turkeestalker; July 10, 2018 at 04:48 AM. |
|
July 10, 2018, 07:36 AM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
It changed during the runup to the 1994 elections. The "assault weapons" ban passed the US Senate by two votes. The US House vote was 216-214. 177 Democrats, one Independent and 38 Republicans, including the House minority leader, voted for the ban.
137 Republicans voted against the ban along with 77 Democrats. The NRA made the 1994 election a referendum on the Democrats, refusing admonish the Republicans who voted for the AWB. The 1994 AWB passed due to a personal appeal to every US House member by Ronald Reagan. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1994/h156 https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczy...8V0#.fl7kZ10A7 |
July 10, 2018, 08:02 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
There is a strong position among minorities for gun rights. The current NRA messaging should adopt it and praise it. The defense against tyranny has a strong evidential base in the history of African-Americans and civil rights. While the NRA supported some of that in the past, it is missing now. Mr. Noir and the gentleman who destroyed Robert Reich on the Bill Maher show, should be on the cover of the American Rifleman instead of yapping about Ollie North.
The continued use of the word 'liberal' as a negative is a terrible messaging mistake, even if it is a good niche fund raiser. No mention should be made of any issue not directly relevant to the RKBA. Some of said this before, what else is new. 44 AMP is correct that folks are being trapped by the fringes of their parties. You either join the crotch police or the holster police to be a member in good standing of either fringe.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 10, 2018, 08:18 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2017
Posts: 316
|
I believe 50% of the Dems would still support the NRA if we could get in the wayback machine to a time where owning a gun was about hunting and organized target shooting.
With the popularity of Self defense, CC and the firearms associated with it the opposition went militant, maybe because gun owners went militant about the guns they owned. Take a trip back in time through the Gun Digests of the 50’s-60’s and see what guns were popular, check out the prevailing attitude about small concealable handguns it may surprise you. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
July 10, 2018, 08:42 AM | #24 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 Last edited by 5whiskey; July 10, 2018 at 08:48 AM. |
|||
July 10, 2018, 08:52 AM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,657
|
Quote:
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 |
|
|
|