Does the Democratic Party's perceived stance on gun control cost us votes?

[Redneck Socialist]

The Democratic Party is commonly perceived as being hostile to the interests of gun owners. I believe this perception, correct or not, significantly hurts us as a party, especially in national elections.

Yes, this poll is in response to this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1791620&mesg_id=1791620

Don't panic we'll all crawl back into the gungeon shortly. :)

[Selwynn]

1. Follow up: should we care, or should we stand for what's right anyway?

:)

[Redneck Socialist]

11. I guess that depends on what you think is right.

Elections are all about compromise in order to gain the most possible votes. The tipping point at which compromise becomes capitulation is different for everyone.

If I can agree with a candidate on 80% of the issues I feel I am doing pretty damn good with my vote. Unfortunately gun control is an issue that I have to compromise on all too often. I know many people for whom gun control is more important and who won't capitulate on that issue. As a result they vote for the pubs.

[tom_paine]

39. Exactly. And Gun Control is a loser of an issue

Plus, I think MANY pro-gun control types now understand a litle better, thanks to the Three Plus Years of Bush Occupation of Amerika, the necessity of a well-armed nation as a deterrent to tyrants.

Does anybody REALLY think , especially given the weak level of resistance shown by the Imperial Senate and the Imperial Subjects to oppose anything, that the Busheviks would be moving so slowly if they weren't aware of a Well-Armed Populace that might damage their prize before they get full control of it?

I don't. And I think many others are coming around to that point of view.

Ideally, if we could "get all of the guns at once and explode them to space", it might not be so bad. But getting rid of all of the guns at once is impractical, and we have all been given a tiny peek at the abyss of living in a Tyranny when only government has guns.

AND the Bushevik Tyranny hasn't even really trickled down to the common people yet. They are still busy disconnecting Constiutional Burglar Alarms (to paraphrase Vonnegut).

[billbuckhead]

2. Every stand that means anything costs us votes

Gay rights? Abortion rights? Women's rights? Lyndon Johnson said that civil rights bill would cost the Democratic party the South for several generations. Who among us would argue against it now. The European Union constitution now gives the right for preventive healthcare in it's citizens, I guess that would cost us votes too.

If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.

[sendero]

36. If there was something..

.... to be actually gained from gun control proposals and legislation,
I'd be for it. But there isn't. And putting your neck on the chopping block to accomplish NOTHING has never seemed like smart politics.

[tom_paine]

40. We are talking about one issue, not overall.

The simple fact is that a sizeable minority of Democrats are STILL pro-gun, in spite of efforts to drive those voters away.

But OUR voice is not heard within the Party, often.

That's going to change, one volunteer at a time.

Volunteer for a Campaign, pro-gun Democrats! That's how it starts!

[Wickerman]

3. Shouldn't htere be an option for

Because of the Democrats stance on gun control, the Democratic party GAINS votes?

Only want to be fair and all.

And what are all of you doing out and about? Didn't I lock the gate behind me?

[sangha]

5. And another option for

both gains and loses votes for the Dems.

Surprisingly, people disagree over this issue. Some will vote for Dems because they support gun control, and some won't.

[ElectroPrincess]

8. Yes, this is a complex issue

Believe it or not there's some of us loyal Democrats that are also Ex military and/or raised on a farm or other rural area. We like our shotguns, rifles and also enjoy maintaining a hand gun or two ;) . Gun ownership, if responsibly carried out, is not a threat to society. I'm very pro- Kerry and Democrat but I must admit that I also do not believe in overly restrictive Gun Ownership Laws.

[Redneck Socialist]

15. I was purposely trying to keep the option narrow.

I have no problem with people voting for an individual candidate based on their stance on gun control. What I am trying to get at is the general perception that the Democratic Party as a whole is actively hostile to the interests of gun owners and how that affects us electorally.

[sangh0]

46. No shit, Sherlock?

but the poll is still wrong. People vote for Dems because they think the Dems are for gun control, and people vote against the Dems for the same reason.

What I am trying to get at is the general perception that the Democratic Party as a whole is actively hostile to the interests of gun owners and how that affects us electorally.

If that's the question you want an answer to, then that's the question you should have asked.

[Seabiscuit]

21. Right

And if they're "one-issue" voters, they're ignorant morons and would probably vote for Bush anyway.

[FeebMaster]

6. You should check out my poll

and the one made in response to it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x542884

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x541677

[Wickerman]

9. they were decent

Thanks, now get back to the gungeon, dammit!

[FeebMaster]

10. You'll never take me alive! (nt)

[Redneck Socialist]

13. I figured that was covered under the doesn't hurt option n/t

[Wickerman]

16. True enough, if you want to limit your findings

[Redneck Socialist]

22. I suppose

I know you're a stat guy and all but it seems pretty straight forward to me: either it hurts us or it doesn't. We can slice those options pretty thin but ultimately it comes back to that.

Perhaps we can work up a warning label for DU polls. Something along the lines of "For entertainment value only, not statistically significant. Respond at your own risk. Results may be twisted to fit preconceived notions." :P

[Wickerman]

35. Results may be twisted to fit preconceived notions

I like that. You could also post a warning - don't be such a pain in the ass, Lunabush.

[T Town Jake]

18. "And what are all of you doing out and about?..."

..."Didn't I lock the gate behind me?" LOL - Hi lunabush! :hi: Caught in the act of an attempted Great Gungeon Escape, LOL.

[Wickerman]

20. Get off that damn motorcycle, Jake, you ain't no Steve McQueen!

[T Town Jake]

23. LOL...I knew I was going to get...

...30 days in the cooler for trying this...LOL. Back to the Gungeon I go...
:evilgrin:

[maggrwaggr]

32. that's an excellent point. However ....

I'd like to know how many Democrats, since GWB and his cronies took over, have changed their mind about gun control.

I, for one, have never in my life contemplated owning a gun for anything other than hunting animals ..... until now.

[tom_paine]

43. I posted that poll long ago, maggrwaggr

Might be time for a new one. Go ahead and post it, if you like.

I can't find it, it was a GD poll (I'm a GD guy) and as I recall perhaps one-third of respondents said they were less inclined for gun control now that the Busheviks have "explained why the Founding Fathers wanted us to own them".

One person out of about 250 said they were now leaning MORE towards a gun control stance.

This is a real effect I am speaking of.

[tom_paine]

42. Good point. Although you'd have a hard time finding evidence

to back that up. Many experts agree that the NRA and Democratic Gun Control stances, cost us Ohio (or at least played a major role).

We win Ohio, and the Imperial Province of Florida can go piss up a rope...

(I'm not referring personally to the good people of Florida)

[Somawas]

4. I've become

pretty pro-gun as the result of a lot of study and reading on these issues. It's time that we as Democrats quit pooh-pooing it as a civil liberties issue. The Second Amendment was written by a crowd of freakin' radicals who had taken on the most powerful army on earth and whipped its ass in a Revolution. They wanted citizens to be well armed. And gummints to be nervous.

So now I no longer think the issue is just guns. It's Los Angeles Class Submarines.

Lock N Load!

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

7. Yes, but not with any electoral significance (nt).

[WildClarySage]

12. Actually, in 2000

gore was polling fairly well in WV until Charlton Heston came to Charleston and got the NRA/Hunter crowd convinced that Gore wanted to outlaw their guns. I'd say that since the electoral vote was narrow enough that had Gore won WV and made Florida irrelevant, that's pretty significant.

But what do I know? :-)

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

14. I stand corrected.

But with 2000, I think I could make the electoral argument on about 100 different issues.

But your point is well taken.

[Selwynn]

19. Turns out, not much really.

Trying to make the argument that Gore lost the election because he was perceived as soft on guns is a little bit of a stretch, I would say. And the other poster is right, you can pretty much argue that 100 different ways with the electorial situation in 2000.

[JayS]

47. Have you seen Gore's comment on this? Clinton's? n/t

n/t

[Fescue4u]

17. Not just votes...EVERYTHING.

The house, senate and presidency. The whole ball of wax.

[Selwynn]

48. Oh please...

:eyes:

I hope my country is not that fucking stupid.

[genius]

24. It gains us votes. Don't be fooled by the right-wing.

[JayS]

27. Should Al Gore and Bill Clinton retract their statements then? n/t

n/t

[MisterP]

25. yes: however, the perception is entirely due to lies

[JayS]

28. Lies like mixing in statements about machine guns in with...

...statements about the "assault weapons" ban or claiming to be a friend of gun owners while getting 100% support from the Brady Bunch? Yes, we get called on lies all the time.

[msmcghee]

26. No, what costs us votes is being equivocal about it.

There is a good argument for both sides of most issues.

For example, I am decidedly pro-choice. But that's because I don't believe an embryo deserves the status of personhood. If I felt that an embryo deserved the rights of a human being, well . . .

My point is, the majority of humans (voters) are swayed not by the intellectual details, examining the layers of relevance and the effect of the ethical choices that we make - they are affected only by the emotion of it all. See my sig line.

Basically, whoever comes out with the dead-sure conviction that they are right and the other side is a bunch of immoral sleaze bags - and sells that message - will win.

Whoever tries to understand and convey the layers of objective reality will lose - or put everyone to sleep if it goes on long enough.

The right figured this out 20 years ago.

We still labor under the illusion that people are basically smart and if you give them the correct information they will make the right decision. Now, that's deluded.

We're not wrong, it's just that, like most artists, we're opposed to the idea that we might have to market our message.

[OnionPatch]

29. I believe in the constitution

ALL OF IT.
That includes the right to bear arms. I think the anti-gun stance our party takes hurts us badly and we should dump it in the interest of advancing our much more worthy causes. We'll never get rid of guns anyway. Pandora's box is already open. Better to just take a strong stand on gun safety. Just my opinion.

[Columbia]

30. Both parties are anti-gun, the GOP is only perceived as not

The problem is there are many voters out there who would otherwise vote Democratic if it wasn't for the gun issue.

Does anybody really think that Democrats would all of sudden start voting GOP if Democrats wholeheartedly embraced liberalized gun rights?

Considering almost all gun control legislation has not been proven to reduce crime or violence and instead serves to punish law-abiding, responsible citizens, there is no compelling reason to keep this losing issue.

Drop it and the Democratic party will once again control the Senate, House, and White House.

[JayS]

31. It costs us votes but at least it keeps the Republicans...

...laughing. :)

The "brand" of gun control adopted by the Democratic Party is, to put it kindly, pathetic. There are much better brands out there, ones that actually do something.

This is from another post of mine that illustrates the regional difference on the gun control issue:

I'll address a few issues on Kerry's statements on firearms and the Second Amendment. Note that this is not necessarily about either firearms or the Second Amendment. A candidate's "brand" of gun control speaks volumes about what that candidate feels is an effective way to combat crime. I have heard it said by many, including Gore himself, that much of the South was lost over the gun issue. That is simplifying it a lot. When a candidate is heard to say that the gun violence problem will be solved by tap dancing and farting, he/she will not get much support. Some of the "brands" of gun control supported by Clinton and Gore were in the TD&F category. This loss of confidence in one area spills over into all areas of the crime issue. The results are predictable.

And for a funny story before I go to bed. I was out with a friend of mine for a walk in our neighborhood. She is from a "gun control" state and was new to Texas. A friend of mine is a police officer and he stopped to talk to us for a bit. We tried the new computer system the patrol car had by giving it our license numbers. Mine showed four pages of info but hers had five. I asked what the extra page was about and it pulled up a screen for firearms owned. I thought this was odd and my friend made the statement "well, at least if the police stop someone they will know if the person is armed." The policeman and I laughed, thinking she was telling a joke. She wasn't. We had to explain why her statement was so funny to us.

Remember this if you wonder why the Democratic brand of gun control meets with aversion here.

[DFLer4edu]

33. I don't know

Add I don't know to the poll.

[Stephanie]

34. In Western and Southern states, hunting states, it is a problem

It's really a problem.

[stavka]

41. Coming from a hunting state....

It really really is...I can't get past that with some people who vote Republican even though it is totally not in their interest.

And it's not like the republicans are really that more pro-gun than the Dem's - but that is the perception created by BOTH Parties

[Redneck Socialist]

37. Kick with a bullet

for the daylight crowd.

I'll be back this evening to see how things are going and respond to a few posts.

[Trajan]

38. Simple: No ...

It cannot cost us votes when those who support complete gun rights typically vote conservative anyways ... The pitiful number of DU gun rights supporters represents a miniscule portion of DU, and a similar composition of Democrats ... the support for SOME regulation is overwhelming ...

You cannot pay for what you dont get ...

[Q]

44. I would bet that most Americans could give a...

...shit about gun issues. This is a wedge issue used by RWingers to keep Democrats from discussing more important things...like stolen elections and Bush* corruption.

[Redneck Socialist]

45. Kick

and I'll be back tonight to put this discussion out of our misery.

[DaveSZ]

49. It depends on the area and state

In Tennessee, West Virginia, Texas, Montana, and most other states with a strong hunting and shooting element, yes. Guns are a way of life in many areas.

I think the only places it really helps Dems are in a few metro centers like NYC, San Fran, and Chicago.

Nonetheless, gun control in these areas still only strips the ability from law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.

The criminals are the only ones left with the guns, since by definition, they don't obey the law anyways.