Did the "gun" vote have any effect?

[goju]

I havent seen any mention of it, I wonder if any locals from Pen, WV, AR, OH, etc etc have seen any local coverage of this issue?

Clearly the NRA made a push for bush and painted kerry a gun grabber. Did that have any effect? Would it have turned any state?

[bushisanidiot]

1. No. I think the NRA and the anti-choicers ironically cancelled each

other out.

they should combine their causes into one group: "if you can't kill em with a gun, they dont' deserve to die"

[goju]

4. Im confused

Are you saying NRA types are also pro choice? How could they have cancelled each other out. The general consensus, down here anyway, is that the NRA types are pro life, anti gay, religious types.

[bushisanidiot]

9. NRA voter + anti-choice voter = 1 voter

they are one and the same. so to ask if kerry's stance on gun issues hurt him, i say no because he was pro-choice and the NRA voters are all anti-choice anyway so they were still going to vote against him regardless of whether or not he uses a gun to go hunting.

[goju]

10. Ah, I got ya

Makes sense.

[BryanP]

28. Oh really?

Hmm. Time for a mirror check. Pro gun ownership / NRA member? Check. Pro-choice? Check.

There appears to be a flaw in your logic. Or rather you are stereotyping gun owners. That's the problem with stereotypes - they so often break down under any real scrutinization.

[pelagius]

2. The race was so close...

(despite this "mandate" talk) that any one of the Big Three (God, guns, and gays) could have tipped the balance.

[DavidMS]

17. I agree

I figure that denying the Guns part of the unholy trinity of the repukes will give us probably somewhere between an aditional 1 and 20 percent of the vote (depending on the locality). I doubt it will cost us very much vote wise (where else are they going to go)? And it won't cost us much where it counts (strongly democratic states).

So as an issue denying it to our opponents makes sense.

Any anywasy is there one good (undisputed) 'study' that claims that gun ownership rates dramaticaly affect violent crime rates?

[Hippo_Tron]

30. It was all three this time, but the gun issue was a bit different...

Bush basically found a cheap ass way to get out of renewing the assault weapons ban. Instead of vetoing it, he just told Tom DeLay to keep it off of the house floor. Then he basically came out saying "oh well it didn't do that much anyway." In a sense, he was doing exactly what he had been accusing Kerry of doing for months, FLIP-FLOPPING. The problem, is that Kerry couldn't really call him out on it for fear of pissing off gun owners who might have been leaning toward him (remember how tight this election was). Bush basically did what he needed to do on the issue, get the gun-nuts out to vote for him and prevent Kerry from calling him out on gun safety.

[MrTriumph]

3. Nope

Heard not a word. But then again I live in Texas and had only to endure local race where candidates like Martin Frost & Pete Sessions fought over who loved Bush the most.

[el_gato]

5. the gun grabber agenda has been costing us votes for a very long time

[AlinPA]

6. No numbers, but I have lived here for 60 years(W. PA) and "guns" is

a very huge issue. The first day of deer hunting season is a holiday here.

[WyLoochka]

7. Well at least one guy

in my office said, after I had asked him directly what had tipped him over to vote for an obviously incompetent, radical asshole and he said "guns." Almost our entire office was "you gotta' be kidding." "Your completely unfounded fear that John Kerry would take your quail and deer hunting guns away from you causes you to endorse the entire agenda?" "Man, your priorities and paranoia suck." and so on.

[slackmaster]

8. If all he said was the word "guns"...

...then where did others get the idea he had a "completely unfounded fear that John Kerry would take <his> quail and deer hunting guns away..."?

Did you leave out part of the story, or did y'all engage in a bit of assumption-making?

[iverglas]

11. oh yeah

If all he said was the word "guns"...
...then where did others get the idea he had a "completely unfounded fear that John Kerry would take <his> quail and deer hunting guns away..."?

Of course! Maybe he meant ... uh, maybe he meant ... I've got it! Maybe he meant "bad people with big guns made me vote for Bush"!

Right.

Some assumptions are reasonable (and some people making the assumptions really do have pretty good grounds for them, even if they haven't told you the whole story). Some critiques of assumptions are downright loony.

[slackmaster]

12. Thanks for your contribution iverglas

I'm much more interested in seeing what mesquite has to say about it.

As for me, I found the gun-related positions of both Bush and Kerry unacceptable. Kerry tried to simultaneously pander to the NRA crowd by pretending to be an avid hunter; and to the gun-banners by pretending to have a viable "assault weapons ban" proposal; engaging in the one- and two-syllable buzzword politics that work so well on the ignorant masses.

And Bush was a lose-lose for me on "assault weapons". If you took him at his word he was on the side of the gun-ban enthusiasts. Of course we all know he was lying; signs of a deeply flawed character. At least Kerry believed in his own pandering.

[mosin]

16. Well-founded fears

"Your completely unfounded fear that John Kerry would take your quail and deer hunting guns away from you causes you to endorse the entire agenda?"

It was hardly an unfounded fear, given Sen. Kerry's abysmal record on gun rights. S.1431, co-sponsored by Sen. Kerry, would ban my Remington 7400 hunting rifle and my Remington 1100 shotgun. He also voted to give the attorney general the authority to ban virtually every common type of hunting ammunition.

In fact, I challenge you to find one vote in his entire senate career in which Sen. Kerry did not side with the anti-gun extremist wing of the Democratic party--the wing that keeps costing us elections. On the margins, there are many blue-collar southerners and union members who will not vote for anti-gun elitists, my father among them. He voted for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time in his life.

[Dolomite]

13. It had nothing to do with guns?

Ohio went red becuase of all the geese lovers, right?

[beevul]

14. And what of WI?

Hey all.

I was wondering how long it would be until the question of the gun issue effect in this election was raised. Since I last checked in, I have had nothing to say. This election was such an impossibility for me, and I knew was, long before it happened. Before disappearing into my self imposed boycot of active involvement in politics, (from which I have still NOT returned) I recall saying, that I didn't think there would be a Democratic win without the support of a good chunk of the gun vote.

I said in that discussion with LB that I would NEVER vote for someone who opposed a womans right to choose, or for someone who did NOT openly and affirmatively support the second amendment as an individual right.

Those 2 are inseparable as issues - as far as I will EVER be concerned. I support a womans right to choose, and the second amendment - BOTH in principal (personal liberty) and as separate issues, effecting the lives of very real people.

I will chose not to choose, over choosing the importance of one over the other, and I know that I am not alone in that. Thats what I consider voting my conscience.

How many, like me, choose not to choose in places like the states mentioned in the original post, or perhaps WI (if WI did really go red as some in GD have been saying). Or worse, voted the opposition.

How many fence sitters, doubters, hunters, people who distrust hunting photo ops, people who read kerrys voting record on guns, and people like ME who just will not accept anything less that open and affirmative support for the second amendment - would have voted D presidentially, had some support been shown? (support being affirmative, open, and without ambiguity toward the second as an individual right)


For those who would flame me for not voting, hey, I am doing as my conscience allows, and I am honest and open about it, so be decent.

[alwynsw]

15. No flames here

It's not much of a statement, but I've known folks to write in themselves as a form of protest.

Aside from all that, you're still a poopie head - likeable, but still a poopie head.

(BTW, Miss Muttley, Queen of the world is up to 9lbs. 6 oz. and ruling the house.)

[beevul]

19. Glad to hear ...

that shes doing good.

We ...aquired ...a little girl pom puppy at a garage sale, and shes the cutest little thing anyone ever saw. Pound and 3/4 sweet little girl. And she "tells" you everything shes thinking...so vocal and intelligent even at 7 weeks. Shes momas baby!

[MrSandman]

21. I voted, but it was another undervote...

Due to the contradictions I was unable to reconcile, I abstained fro the Presidential Vote. I did vote as there are several local races which have a far greater impact on my life than the Presidential outcome.

OTOH, if my state were within the margin of error like OH I would have rethought my position and possibly behaved differently.

[Wickerman]

22. flame

:grr:

welcome back

:hi:

[Hippo_Tron]

31. The second ammendment argument is bullshit, unless...

You support a convicted fellon being allowed to own a fully automatic m-16 and a grenade launcher. Even the GOP does not support this and thus, they do not support the second ammendment in the form that "the right to bare arms" is a right guaranteed by the constitution. I support people being allowed guns for hunting. I don't support people being allowed to own guns that enable them to shoot dozens of cops before they can finally be caught.

[MrDifranco]

36. no it's not bullshit.

Today a being a 'convicted fellon'[sic] is somewhat a misnomer
as so many things are now considered a felony.  If someone is
a danger to society, then why would we as a society release
them from prison?  There used to be a concept that once a
person has completed their prison sentence then their debt to
society is paid.   

So why wouldn't they have all their rights restored to them
like any other free citizen? This includes voting, etc.?

[DoNotRefill]

18. Well it sure as hell didn't HELP.

eom

[enfield collector]

20. 95% of NRA endorsed candidates won. BTW they endorse

pro-RKBA dems as well.

[MacDo]

23. Until we leave guns

alone, we will not win. Kerry can't say he supports guns, but yet votes for every gun control law.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Clinton was for gun control as was Gore

Both of them were elected president.

[MrDifranco]

37. It's hard row to hoe

The Democrats must have a positive stance for gun rights as a
party, then must develop a record as party to promote gun
rights in order to cleanse themselves of their past.

I am discouraged to vote for a Democrat that is 'pro-gun
rights' because of the (D) after their name.  Because I know
as bills pass through congress many votes go down party lines.
 With the likes of Senators Kennedy, Kerry, Schumer, Boxer,
Feinstein, Lautenberg these people pretty would like to
restrict Firearms ownership to Military, Police and maybe
allow private security firms (rich people) as well.

[Blue_Tires]

24. didn't really matter

even if Kerry was pro-gun and had an official NRA endorsement, the repubs would have stressed one of the other wedge issues (gays, abortion, school prayer, etc.)...a change in the gun stance would have made NO difference the repubs couldn't have made up from some other issue exploitation...it's that simple

[Redneck Socialist]

25. Maybe so, but that is an experiment that I would like to try

I'm convinced that there are plenty of folks who would vote Dem if not for the gun issue. There are a lot of gun owners out there that are pro-choice and don't give a rat's ass about gay marriage. I suspect that many of them view those issues through the same individual liberty lens that they view guns. I would be curious to see if a pro-gun Dem could pick up those votes.

[slackmaster]

26. I disagree

On some of the gun-related forums I read there are some people who openly express anger at GWB over the Iraq war situation. If they didn't see Kerry as a threat to their guns some of them might have been swayed.

I think it's worth a try - Find a candidate with STRONG leadership traits who has a track record of supporting ALL individual liberties and tolerance of others: Lifestyle (e.g. gay couples), religion (any you choose including none), guns (own them, carry them, or don't allow them in your own home), abortion (if you don't like them don't get one, OTOH don't force people who object to them to pay for them), school prayer (pray if you want to in designated areas), etc.

There's enough room in this country for everyone to tolerate everyone else. You don't have to like others but in exchange for your own quirks and traits being tolerated by others you must tolerate other people.

We need a natural leader. If you've ever served on a trial jury you've probably met one - Out of 12 people it's usually pretty obvious who should be the foreperson.

[aikoaiko]

27. Yes -- itmade me vote repub for house of rep

As a registered democrat, i voted for a republican house of rep to help ensure no more federal legislation to ban or limit firearms.

Otherwise, I voted democrat.

[Trumanway]

29. You bring up a good point,

Democrats need to win election in the smaller races too, congressional, state, county. This millstone of gun control hung around the neck of Democrats by association is hurting everywhere.

Radical gun control does little good for American society, but the cost to Democrats is noticeable.

A believable position of no further gun control, would help the party attract gun issue voters nation wide.

[LinuxUser]

33. It cost Kerry (and Gore) the White House and cost the Dems congress

But otherwise it didn't have any real effect.

Seriously, there are a LOT more NRA members than HCI members, and a lot more of these NRA members are likely to be single-issue voters than HCI members will be. The huge number of HCI members in Ohio are why Kerry won, right? Oh, wait...

I'll never vote for someone who doesn't trust me with a gun of my choice. Ever ever ever. Under any circumstances. A lot of people here in the US agree with me on that. How many people are there that would say "I'll never vote for anyone who doesn't want to disarm all of us"? Maybe Sarah Brady and Diane Feinstein feel that way, but that's only two votes, not enough to win the presidency.

[Blue_Tires]

35. whenever did kerry say that he

"wanted to disarm all of us"...and how does that (false) perception spread?

[LinuxUser]

39. Some answers

He never has said that he wants to disarm us all, but he has a mighty record of voting to ban anything and everything he can come up with. Take a look at the Nov. issue of Gun Tests. They go through is voting record in detail, and it is frightening.

[iverglas]

41. really?

He never has said that he wants to disarm us all, but he has a mighty record of voting to ban anything and everything he can come up with.

I'll bet he could have come up with "handguns" without even breaking a sweat. Has he voted to ban them?

Would you look at the voting record of a politician who voted against, oh, invading Iraq, and say (I paraphrase your statement about Kerry's voting record on SOME firearms measures):

How many people are there that would say "I'll never vote for anyone who doesn't want to use our military to defend our country"?

I sure know some who would ...

[LinuxUser]

42. Why are the facts always so important to you?

It's intimidating.

Oh well, I honestly could not find my Nov. issue of Gun Tests, but fortunately, Google is right at hand:

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Gun_Control.htm

Nothing in that says "let's ban handguns", but it does talk a lot about requiring safety locks on handguns, and in the "goals for 2010" section, it lists: "Develop and require "smart gun" technology to prevent use of firearms by unauthorized persons and implement sensible gun control measures." These kind of "handgun safety measures" are often de facto bans. For example, California recently had a "handgun safety measure" which required handguns to be on some safety approved list. The result is a ban on most handguns here. Any handgun that isn't in current production can't really get onto the list, so it means that I can't buy that Colt Delta Elite from out of state. So it's basically a partial ban. The "smart gun" stuff is the same idea. "Smart guns" sounds so great, like "land fill" or "wise use". But in practice, there aren't any smart guns, and there aren't any promising and realistic "smart gun" technologies on the horizon, either, so there were a law that said "smart guns only in 2010" that would probably mean (in practice) "very very few, if any, guns in 2010". This is a case where "the devil is in the details". If "smart guns" means "has a firing pin safety block", then that's fine because all modern handguns already have that. If "smart guns" means "has a fingerprint reader on the trigger" then that's a ban, because there's no such thing nor is there likely to be. It's hard to say what the exact effect would be without seeing it in the form of a bill, but in practice, from my observations, these "handgun safety" measures are all partial bans and seem (to me) to be incremental approaches to banning all handguns.

Also, he did vote for the Assault Weapons Ban and he made a big campaign issue of his support for it. The AWB did not ban pistols per se, but it did impose a ten-round limit on magazines, and all modern pistol designs have higher capacity than that, so it left us with these horrible crippled magazines. Have you ever tried to use a ten-round Glock mag? They are just junk. So, it wasn't a ban, but it did decrease the availability of safe, reliable handguns for us. The "smart guns" stuff will do the same. People are smart. Guns aren't smart. Whatever kind of technology they somehow put into a gun to make it "smart" is just going to make it unreliable and unsafe. Guns are already not reliable enough and they are as simple and reliable as they can be made.

Oh, and also in your post: "How many people are there that would say 'I'll never vote for anyone who doesn't want to use our military to defend our country'? I sure know some who would ..."

Yes, one of those, right here. I won't vote for anyone who wants to use our military in pointless adventures half-way around the world.

[iverglas]

48. da da da da

One could just wait all day.

All that is all very nice, but what you said was:

He never has said that he wants to disarm us all, but he has a mighty record of voting to ban anything and everything he can come up with.

And that was just plain silly.

If you don't want to be constantly having to defend the silly things you say, why not just not say them?

Has Kerry voted for anything that is not now law, when it comes to firearms?

If everything (or practically everything) he has voted for, when it comes to firearms, is now law, and if there are still all those hundreds of millions of firearms in the US, great gobs of them legally possessed, how could you possibly say that he has voted "to ban anything and everything he can come up with"??

If he had, and given that at least practically everything he has voted for is law, how could there possibly be so many legally-possessed firearms, in the hands of so many lawful owners, in the US??


Oh, and also in your post: "How many people are there that would say 'I'll never vote for anyone who doesn't want to use our military to defend our country'? I sure know some who would ..."

Yes, one of those, right here. I won't vote for anyone who wants to use our military in pointless adventures half-way around the world.

Isn't it funny, though, how that IS NOT WHAT I SAID? Are you talking to some unseen friend?

I asked whether someone (let's assume someone rational, speaking in good faith, crazy though I know such an assumption might be), on hearing that a politician voted against invading Iraq, would say I'll never vote for anyone who doesn't want to use our military to defend our country.

It was a rhetorical question, really. A rational person speaking in good faith would not say such a thing. The only reason for saying such a thing - that I can come up with - is to portray voting against the invasion of Iraq as not wanting to use your military to defend your country. And we know that this portrayal is FALSE.

Hell, not even you did that. You just twisted and rewrote the question -- would you vote for someone vote who wants to use our military in pointless adventures half-way around the world? -- and then answered it "yes". And that's just a really dumb waste of time, don't you think?

But what the heck. Not for me to comment on others' hobbies, I suppose.

[OnionPatch]

34. I think it did cost many votes

but this issue had been a factor for so long they don't even mention it that much anymore. It's just become sort of a standard issue.
I grew up in a rural area with lots of hunters, including my dad, my male friends and my husband. (Husband is smart enough to not be a single-issue voter.)
It's more than a fear of losing their "hunting" rifles. Actually, I think you're insulting their intelligence when you frame it that way. I think they know nobody will take their hunting guns away. It's the whole issue...Their guns make them feel less vulnerable in the face of the world. It's an anti-wimp factor. Also, they believe as I do...that we need to keep guns in case we ever need to stand up to a government gone awry. Or, that in some sort of emergency situation, they would be able to survive.
I wish we would drop the anti-gun stance and pledge never to start that bullshit again. Maybe, just maybe we will start to get some of these voters back again. I can count a handful of them that I'm pretty sure I could get back to voting Dem if this issue weren't in the way.

[Krs216]

38. Yes it did, without a doubt.

The NRA cost Kerry sooo many votes. Every slack jawed yokel in bubbaville went to the polls because of the NRA. They should be outlawed.

[Billy Ruffian]

40. So now you want to disenfranchise people?

Perhaps the message is that our party needs to reconsider its stance on gun control. Take that away from the Republicans, and the slack jawed yokels in bubbaville won't bother vote.

So, what should the penalty be for being a slack jawed yokel?

[iverglas]

43. so are you actually saying

that you interpreted this:

The NRA cost Kerry sooo many votes. Every slack jawed yokel in bubbaville went to the polls because of the NRA. They should be outlawed.

as meaning that SLACK-JAWED YOKELS should be outlawed???

Since you then said:

So, what should the penalty be for being a slack jawed yokel?

... it would really seem that if you didn't actually interpret it that way, you wanted to look as if you had.

Dim or disingenuous ... it can be so very hard to decide.

The closest noun to the "they" that began the last sentence is "the NRA"; it would not be unreasonable (in fact, it would be standard) to regard "the NRA" as the referent for "they" -- the noun to which the pronoun "they" was referring. "The NRA" is a collective noun, and so it is not unusual to see it referred to by a plural pronoun.

Consider: "The police catch criminals. They enforce the law" -- will you really say that I have just said that criminals enforce the law??

So try this, now:

The NRA cost Kerry sooo many votes. Every slack jawed yokel in bubbaville went to the polls because of the NRA. THE NRA should be outlawed.

You certainly don't have to agree with it, but you might be able to say something more intelligent/sincere about it.

[Billy Ruffian]

44. I'm so terribly sorry

that I don't meet your levels of erudition. I bow down to your superior intellect. I worship in the energy waves emitted from your cranium. I have been arrested by the grand high grammar police.

Big deal. Perhaps the poster was implying that the NRA should be outlawed. The point is that he apparently wants to silence a set of citizens. Sweet.

[iverglas]

45. huh

"The point is that he apparently wants to silence a set of citizens. Sweet."

Now, quite apart from the fact that I doubt that s/he wants to do that at all, or anything remotely resembling it ...

Baa-aa-aaooOOWOOOOO

... I'm surprised that the NRA is being characterized as "a set of citizens" and that it is being alleged that it has been proposed that said set of citizens be silenced.

Are non-citizens not permitted to join the NRA? Is the NRA (or whatever tentacle of it might be in issue here) not a corporate entity?

If the NRA were "outlawed", would the citizens who had formerly belonged to it lose their tongues?

[Billy Ruffian]

46. Everyone needs a hobby.

I guess yours is playing silly word games.

[iverglas]

47. hah

Everyone needs a hobby.
I guess yours is playing silly word games.

Only when someone deals the silly words out. Ta!