Since everyone is talking about Wisconsin:

[gejohnston]

found this over at Liberal Gun Club:
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/2012/06/06/a-wedge-issue/

A couple things before I get into the Wisconsin/Walker/recall stuff: I am not a Wisconsin resident. I was born in Janesville back in ’83 and I have a LOT of family living there now. With the exception of my dad and sister, they all work in the public sector too. I’m currently in the UP of Michigan, about a stones throw from the Wisconsin border.

What I’m going to discuss here is anecdotal. I don’t have numbers or statistics but what I *do* have are conversations with hunters and fellow ‘gun nuts’ from across that border. So here’s a few items (mostly paraphrased):

Guy number 1: this guy is very pro-gun and a BIG hunter. I discussed the deer hunting BS Walker is trying to pull, described in another diary here, and he went from being a staunch Walker advocate to hemming and hawing about who he was going to vote for and even IF he was going to vote today. This firearm enthusiast agreed with Doyle on most major issues EXCEPT on firearms (Doyle vetoed turning Wisconsin into the 49th state that allows some form of civilian concealed carry) and this was the major reason why he voted Walker in the last gubernatorial election. This was one of the MAJOR reasons why he supported Walker over Barrett (Barrett has a poor record with regards to gun rights).
*Verdict*: Not sure who he’s going to vote for. I’m hoping to talk with him today at lunch but I don’t know if he’ll want to discuss it.

and from there it goes to guy two and three. Basically the writer is saying he thinks Barrett would have done better in rural areas if he were more pro-gun and Walker would not have won if Doyle did not veto concealed carry.
BTW, what is the story with Walker and deer hunting?

[Hoyt]

1. And the folks in the cities said, "we don't want people like Walker strutting around with guns."

Fact is, people just didn't think much of a recall election and perhaps Barrett wasn't the best candidate. And there are a bunch of yahoos in Wisconsin, just like here, who are into guns and right wing ideology.

[gejohnston]

2. it is more complicated than that.

can you put some more thought in it?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. omg. I wish this was in GD. This is what I have been talking about on here.

This groupthink is LOSING us elections in RURAL AREAS!!!!!!!!

[russ1943]

4. Walker and deer hunting?

Wisconsin governor hires “deer czar” to save deer and hunters from Communism
By Ralph Maughan On May 30, 2012 • 23 Comments • In Deer, Politics, The Great Outdoors
....Man who hates public land and public wildlife gains heavy influence on Wisconsin deer management-
A last minute controversy in the unpleasant battle in Wisconsin whether to remove governor Scott Walker from office is the revelation that he has hired Dr. James Kroll, who embodies the Texas tradition that hunting should be on game farms and an activity for those with money. Public wildlife, held in trust by the state and managed by a state agency, is according to Kroll, “Communism.” So are public lands like state and national forests, parks, wildlife refuges, etc.
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/05/30/wisconsin-governor-hires-deer-czar-to-save-deer-and-hunters-from-communism/

Kroll’s “Communism” remark is said by some to have been made, tongue in cheek.

The AFSCME describes the issue; According to an article released last week, Wisconsin is about to go the way of Europe if Walker and his newly appointed deer czar get their way. If this happens, the group claims, public land hunters will get the shaft. The deer herd no longer would be managed as a public resource, but as the private property of wealthy landowners. Wisconsin will become like Europe, where hunting is the privilege of the wealthy.
http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=7&tag=Wisconsin&limit=20

Organization called “Concerned Wisconsin Deerhunters” has links at;
http://concernedwisconsindeerhunters.weebly.com/index.html

[gejohnston]

5. another reason not to move to Europe

or Texas. How many deer hunters voted to keep the asshole?

[Electric Monk]

6. Anyone who voted for Walker simply because of the 'guns' issue is a fucking idiot

This election was about so much more.

Single issue gun voters who care about nothing else disgust me.

[gejohnston]

7. and what about other single issue voters?

Last edited Wed Jun 6, 2012, 08:48 PM - Edit history (1)

basically I agree. My FIL was a pretty conservative guy for the most part. He voted Democratic for a single issue, he wanted single payer or socialized medicine.

Edit to add: That said, look at it from this stand point.

And then, finally, my tenth observation is that guns are
important elements of our history and our culture. Attempts to
control crime by regulating the ownership or use of firearms are
attempts to regulate the artifacts and activities of a culture that
in its own way is as unique as any of the other myriad cultures that
comprise the American ethnic mosaic. This is what is referred to as
the American gun culture, about which many have written, and, I
believe it remains among the least understood of any of the various
subcultural strands that make up modern society.
The existence and characteristics of the American gun culture
also have implications that are rarely appreciated. For one, gun
control deals with matters that people feel strongly about, that are
part of their background, and their heritage, and their upbringing
...and their worldview. Advocates for gun control are frequently
taken aback by the stridency with which their seemingly modest and
sensible proposals are attacked. But from the gun culture's point
of view, restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms amount to
the systematic destruction of a valued way of life, and are, in that
sense, a form of cultural genocide. Scholars, and criminologists,
and legislators, who speculate on the problem of guns and crime
and violence would, I think, profit to look at things, at least
occasionally, from the gun culture's point of view.
There are about 50,000,000 U.S. families who own firearms, and
hardly any of these families have ever harmed anyone with their
guns, and virtually none ever intend to. Nearly everything these
families will ever do with their guns is both legal, and largely
innocuous. So when we advocate restrictions on their rights to own
guns, as a means to fighting crime, we are casting aspersions on
their decency, as though we somehow hold them responsible for
the crime and violence that plague the nation. Is it any wonder
they object often loudly and vociferously to such slander?

James Wright, criminologist, Tulane University
before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary,
United States House of Representatives, March 31, 1995

[Atypical Liberal]

8. So why would any politician risk it?

Not only is it the right thing to do, but it's such a politically easy way to win support.

Think of it. The Democratic Party could turn the NRA into its own lobbying arm over night.

Any politician who throws away votes by pissing on the second amendment is taking a huge unnecessary risk.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. bingo. Take away This Power from The Repubs. Game Over. I would lay good money on it and I

am not a betting woman.

[ileus]

11. The south would do a 180 in one election cycle.

[ellisonz]

12. +1

[Kaleva]

10. The gun issue can certainly cost Dems votes.

I live north of Wisconsin and while some here may not like to hear it, the gun issue is very important to an important percentage of voters in this locale. I can't think of a single Dem from Upper Michigan who has or is serving in the state legislature who wasn't or isn't pro-gun.