Ammo For Sale

« « I once caught a rocket this big | Home | More discussion of Heller 2 » »

Democrats and guns

I’ve said before that the way to win the gun issue is to get support of lefties and democrats. Bitter reminds us that very blue districts can be pro-gun. Some aren’t convinced and urge caution. I don’t disagree but, like most folks, other issues can sway me. My ideal is that all candidates are pro-gun and then I can choose based on other issues.

4 Responses to “Democrats and guns”

  1. Bitter Says:

    There’s still an important factor that isn’t being considered by some critics: some of these races don’t even have an alternative party running. Someone is going to fill these seats anyway, so why should we sit out of the game? You can have someone with whom you might disagree on some issues, but who will at least vote for your gun rights or you can have someone who you will disagree with on some issues and who will vote to take your guns.

  2. Sebastian Says:

    I don’t think either of us are really that single issue in our own voting. For instance, there’s a few Dems in this state we’re not going out of our way to help this year because of their votes on Health Care. But either way, there’s a lot of districts in Pennsylvania, really most states actually, that are just not competitive for the GOP. So you don’t really have a choice between a conservative Republican and liberal or moderate Democrat. You have a choice between a moderate Democrat and a liberal Democrat, or in a few of the races we’re facing this year between a Democrat who’s pro-gun and one who’s spent the last few years humping Bloomberg’s leg, and wants to end preemption.

  3. Sailorcurt Says:

    I agree that, if there’s no Republican running, it can’t hurt to at least try to get a pro-gun dem.

    The problem is in getting pro-gun dems elected over moderate or even anti-gun republicans.

    They person you elected may wish to cast votes the way you want, but most State legislators are run in such a way that the leadership can prevent bills from ever getting to the floor for a vote.

    If the leadership is anti-gun, it doesn’t matter one whit the way your particular representative goes because they’ll never get the chance to cast that pro-gun vote.

    That bit us in Virginia this year. We have clear majorities of pro-gun legislators in both houses, with a pro-gun Governor, but the Senate is in the hands of the Democrats. The Senate leadership happens to be part and parcel of the very small anti-gun minority, so they just changed the rules to keep a raft of pro-gun bills from ever getting a vote…essentially killing them by fiat.

    At the national level, we have the same problem. We can elect all the blue dogs we want, but as long as the Democrats are still in the majority, Nancy Pelosi and friends are going to have a huge impact on what bills see the light of day.

    It’s not just important to vote for the most pro-gun candidate, but to also be aware of the stance of the leadership of the party they belong to. If the leadership is anti-gun and you give them the majority, you’re could very possibly be in worse overall shape than had you just gotten the anti-gun guy, who’s leadership supports gun rights, elected in the first place.

    Just one more reason to hate politics.

  4. Sebastian Says:

    It’s a fair concern federally, but the PA House leadership is pro-gun, and the Senate Dem leadership is also pro-gun. Even on other issues they are moderate, as in not nutty progressive Democrats.

    We’re stuck in a bit of a different boat than a lot of red states, because you can’t really hold the line on guns or other liberty issues without some buy-in from Democrats. Our legislative bodies and governors mansion swings back and forth between parties, so if you want to get anywhere you need to have buy in from both parties. The big problem we have right now is we have an anti-gun Governor, which has prevented much from getting done.

    Though we passed carry in state parks and a few other things even with Fast Eddie by taking the same approach we took with Obama — putting it on something he had to sign.