Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I noticed in America, a politician can have great policies on various issues, but is a tad bit more strict on gun rights, he/she is suddenly considered an anti christ Socialist Nazi. It doesn't matter that they believe in equal rights for people of all races and genders and that they believe in the freedom of religion and to improve the public school system, if he or she has a slightly more strict stance on guns, they automatically lose the vote.

Meanwhile, you get despicable politicians and individuals(not going to name them but they should be obvious), who are homophobic, possibly racist religious fundamentalist who seem to get a lot support from many just for their stance on guns alone.

Why is that? Why is it that guns are the only thing that matter? I hear from people saying that they need guns to keep the government in check; okay but do you really think you can win against the US government? If the government REALLY wanted do, they could just take over everything as they do have access to every device connected to the internet not to mention the fact that they have the biggest most funded military in the world.

becuz

Because it doesn't work like that? There is a loud and obnoxious minority that votes purely based on opposition to gun control, but for most people guns are pretty far down the priority list. I'm guessing you're young and encountering politics for the first time? Perhaps you should study the situation more before you post wildly exaggerated "analysis" of it.

Your question appears to be, "Why does a politician who's anti-gun and supports other liberal policies not draw the vote of the primarily conservative pro-Second Amendment crowd?"

You don't tend to find a lot of candidates running on a mismatched platform these days. There will not be many guys touting the benefits of more government gun control while advocating smaller government and more personal and economic freedom.

The "anti-gun-folks-are-commie-nazi-Hitler-lovers" folks are not that numerous.

They are however loud and entertaining, so they will be on the news quite a bit and you could think that they are the majority of all the people since they get so much exposure by the stations that are trying to crank up their ratings.

You often get people that go "why are people so over-the-top, let me be over-the-top when talking about how over-the-top they really are" about many subjects. That could be for ratings, post counts, to get a rise out of people, or any other reason.

But those are the minority, you just notice them because they are in your face about it. Conservatives, Liberals, Bronies, could be anyone.

It appears that you have encountered the vocal minority on an issue. Please do not conflate them with everyone else

ATXMILEY wrote:
I noticed in America, a politician can have great policies on various issues, but is a tad bit more strict on gun rights, he/she is suddenly considered an anti christ Socialist Nazi.

I think the anti gunners have to ask themselves "why do they hate JeBus?"

Can't decide if you really have no idea what you're talking about, or if this thread is that intentionally trolly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ATXMILEY wrote:
.

Meanwhile, you get despicable politicians and individuals(not going to name them but they should be obvious), who are homophobic, possibly racist religious fundamentalist who seem to get a lot support from many just for their stance on guns alone.

So to you religious people are bad. Got it.

Hey, not all religious people are bad, just (and talking Christianity here) the ones who claim to be religious but by their actions make Jesus cry.

Why is that? Why is it that guns are the only thing that matter?

Its how we roll.

ATXMILEY wrote:
I noticed in America, a politician can have great policies on various issues, but is a tad bit more strict on gun rights, he/she is suddenly considered an anti christ Socialist Nazi. It doesn't matter that they believe in equal rights for people of all races and genders and that they believe in the freedom of religion and to improve the public school system, if he or she has a slightly more strict stance on guns, they automatically lose the vote.

Meanwhile, you get despicable politicians and individuals(not going to name them but they should be obvious), who are homophobic, possibly racist religious fundamentalist who seem to get a lot support from many just for their stance on guns alone.

Why is that? Why is it that guns are the only thing that matter? I hear from people saying that they need guns to keep the government in check; okay but do you really think you can win against the US government? If the government REALLY wanted do, they could just take over everything as they do have access to every device connected to the internet not to mention the fact that they have the biggest most funded military in the world.

The thinking goes that the 2nd amendment is the people's safeguard to protect the others, thus attacking it is attacking all the others. Then there's the arguments regarding self defense, and that the US has gone from having massive armies to very tiny ones several times before (after the civil war and after WW1) and may not necessarily always have a big large and expensive military, etc. Ultimately, the right to keep and bear arms is a right just like free speech, and isn't treated as such by many politicians.

In many cases also it's not simply a case of being "a tad bit more strict on guns", but openly hostile to them and wanting to make it as difficult as possible for otherwise law abiding citizens to obtain them. Not always, but often. Politicians like Bloomberg, Feinstein (who flat out admitted she would have confiscated all guns if she could have gotten the votes), De Blasio, etc. Actually, in a somewhat amusing turn of events, one of CA's most ardent anti-gun advocates who otherwise was extremely progressive was arrested for attempted to illegally traffic guns...look up Leland Yee

This bears itself out in state gun laws. If you go to many of the more "Liberal" (I hate political terms like this) states, they're very open on race/gender/religion/etc issues, but firearms are not only heavily restricted but also restricted in often incomprehensible ways (e.g. CA's handgun roster where an otherwise identical pistol with a different metallic finish can be illegal, most assault weapons laws are simply built around cosmetic features, etc) and in places like New York City, which otherwise is a cool town, your 2nd amendment right basically doesn't exist because to even own a gun you have to go through many hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars in fees and months of waiting time with the NYPD and no less than five in-person trips to NYPD HQ just to have a permit which can be denied (with no refunds) on something as simple as moving violation from many years past, and then have to pay more and take more trips for every new firearm you purchase. We can look to CA also, where I can legally own an AR-15 of just about any type, so long as it isn't one from Colt with a specific model number, or I can own one type of Bulgarian AK but not another because of the model name. Or if I change the grip type a rifle goes from being an "assault weapon" that can get you a felony conviction, to an apparently harmless OK rifle.

A lot of these laws are knee-jerk reactions to events that would have done nothing to prevent said events, nor would they stop anyone intent on obtaining such weapons (as a hop over a state border isn't impossible), they just make things harder/less obtainable for law abiding citizens. A lot of the laws passed after the 2012 Newtown shooting are an excellent case of this. There were all sorts of restrictions on weapon features and new laws disqualifying people for firearm ownership and new background check rule, but that's not going to do anything to stop someone who murdered the legal owner of a firearm and then stole said firearms for a shooting rampage.

Personally, I'm typically very left leaning, however I do enjoy my 2A rights and it's very frustrating when it comes to voting when one set of politicians wants to restrict one set of rights and another wants to restrict a different set of rights.

Welcome to 'Hot Button' Voters.

You can have fiscal conservatives who are pro-choice and will vote for the biggest tax and spend democrat who they disagree with simply because they support their hot button issue.

Same with Guns... People want their right to bear arms and if you don't agree with that one issue, the rest of your platform is a non-starter to them.

Lots of people have a hot-button issue and will vote purely on that one issue.

How does that line go for the Libertarian party? "I support gay married couples' rights to defend their pot farm with firearms?"

Americans suffer from paranoia like badly. Everything and everyone is out to get them and thats that... they are crazy man.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Americans suffer from paranoia like badly. Everything and everyone is out to get them and thats that... they are crazy man.

Maybe we don't like people taking away our freedoms? That might have something to do with it.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Americans suffer from paranoia like badly. Everything and everyone is out to get them and thats that... they are crazy man.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

 cincydooley wrote:
Can't decide if you really have no idea what you're talking about, or if this thread is that intentionally trolly.
.

Silly cincy,

he can be both!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Americans suffer from paranoia like badly. Everything and everyone is out to get them and thats that... they are crazy man.

Maybe we don't like people taking away our freedoms? That might have something to do with it.

stop making so much sense...

remember, you are responding to someone who had his Canadian right to own firearms taken away, replaced with an extremely arduous and legally entangling privilege process, and politicized into a bogey man class if you still manage to become an owner after that.

 Frazzled wrote:

ATXMILEY wrote:
I noticed in America, a politician can have great policies on various issues, but is a tad bit more strict on gun rights, he/she is suddenly considered an anti christ Socialist Nazi.

I think the anti gunners have to ask themselves "why do they hate JeBus?"

I thought it was "Whhhy do DEY hate da babi Jesus"

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
How does that line go for the Libertarian party? "I support gay married couples' rights to defend their pot farm with firearms?"

Which part of that is the bad part?

 daedalus wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
How does that line go for the Libertarian party? "I support gay married couples' rights to defend their pot farm with firearms?"

Which part of that is the bad part?

Ill tell you the bad part the whole "Rights" Part. We neeed to get past this idea that people have rights. Like The right to privacy, Freedom of speech or to the silly idea of freedom of thought

Guns guarantee the ability to resist a tyrannical government.

Success is not guaranteed but the ability to resist should not be infringed.

The government's entire concept of permissiveness of anything..such as race, religion, free speech, gay marriage, equality, right to work is entirely tempered around their knowledge that and armed citizenry can and will make trouble of they become too heavy handed.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
How does that line go for the Libertarian party? "I support gay married couples' rights to defend their pot farm with firearms?"

Which part of that is the bad part?

Ill tell you the bad part the whole "Rights" Part. We neeed to get past this idea that people have rights. Like The right to privacy, Freedom of speech or to the silly idea of freedom of thought

I thiink you're being sarcastic. Wait about 15 years and we'll be there in several of those. We're already there on the privacy thing.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
How does that line go for the Libertarian party? "I support gay married couples' rights to defend their pot farm with firearms?"

Which part of that is the bad part?

Ill tell you the bad part the whole "Rights" Part. We neeed to get past this idea that people have rights. Like The right to privacy, Freedom of speech or to the silly idea of freedom of thought

I don't think you actually have the right to privacy or freedom of thought.

...that's a strange thing to actually type out. Those probably SHOULD be rights, but we're surprisingly loathe to change that thing that gives them to us anymore, even though it's within the power of certain people to do so.

Strange that they wouldn't, even though most people would agree that those should be things you have a right to. Almost like they don't reflect your best interests and yet there's some system in place that keeps them there in spite of it.

 cincydooley wrote:
Can't decide if you really have no idea what you're talking about, or if this thread is that intentionally trolly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ATXMILEY wrote:
.

Meanwhile, you get despicable politicians and individuals(not going to name them but they should be obvious), who are homophobic, possibly racist religious fundamentalist who seem to get a lot support from many just for their stance on guns alone.

So to you religious people are bad. Got it.

I said religious fundamentalists, you people like Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann who believe that the bible should be brought in the school curriculum


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Because it doesn't work like that? There is a loud and obnoxious minority that votes purely based on opposition to gun control, but for most people guns are pretty far down the priority list. I'm guessing you're young and encountering politics for the first time? Perhaps you should study the situation more before you post wildly exaggerated "analysis" of it.

If so, then why does every extreme conservative politician always appeal to the LOOK WE HAVE GUNS mentality

Now you're just being ignorant, but fully supporting what he alleged of you actually. Put down the Huffpo crackpipe.

Perry is not trying to "bring the Bible" into the school curriculum. It would be interesting to see what support you have for that statement.

f so, then why does every extreme conservative politician always appeal to the LOOK WE HAVE GUNS mentality

Why do lefties always want to take firearms from legal gun owners but never do anything about the actual issue?

Perry has called himself "a firm believer in intelligent design as a matter of faith and intellect", and has expressed support for its teaching alongside evolution in Texas schools, but has also said that "educators and local school officials, not the governor, should determine science curriculum."

Is probably what he's talking about.

Edit: Rick Santorum, oh him. He's fun.

 Frazzled wrote:
Now you're just being ignorant, but fully supporting what he alleged of you actually. Put down the Huffpo crackpipe.

Perry is not trying to "bring the Bible" into the school curriculum. It would be interesting to see what support you have for that statement.

Sorry I meant Rick Santorum http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-santorum-angry-academic-progressive-elitist-left-wants-ram-all-stuff-down-our-throat-an

That's a very good question, OP. I don't have a good answer. Most of the public seem to be ideologues with no legitimate reasons for their opinions. The issue is compounded by the fact that they voice them loudly through social media and smear campaigns.

Thats not bringing the Bible into schools. thats peddling for a few votes without doing or even being able to do anything.
(local school boards run Texas schools not the governor).

Now if you want to be annoyed about Perry (other then the stupid hipster glasses) is
1. He blasted a coyote with an LCP while jogging. Really? A coyote? What are you the roadrunner's hit man?
2. Look up the fun drama about the NAFTA corridor.

I didn't know it did.... probably because I am part of the population that doesn't really care.

People that want guns are going to have them if they are legal or not.

Bad guys are bad guys cause they don't care about laws, they will have them regardless.

I personally don't want to carry one. But if I am on a bus and someone pulls one for a bad reason and someone else on the bus has one and shoots him. I would be OK with that.