HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Would you want the Dem ca...

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:04 AM

Would you want the Dem candidate for president to be pro-gun control if it costs them the election?

A) Yes. It's that important to stand on principle even if the election is lost

B) Obfuscate, then come out for gun control once elected

C) No. I suppose we have more public outreach to do before risking the presidency

D) Gun control is totally a winning issue!

E) I'm pro-RKBA so this is an easy choice for me

F) Other

37 replies, 2723 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 37 replies Author Time Post
Reply Would you want the Dem candidate for president to be pro-gun control if it costs them the election? (Original post)
Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 OP
Scuba Apr 2015 #1
leftofcool Apr 2015 #3
Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 #4
hack89 Apr 2015 #8
leftofcool Apr 2015 #2
mwrguy Apr 2015 #5
Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 #6
Lurks Often Apr 2015 #7
safeinOhio Apr 2015 #9
Shamash Apr 2015 #10
safeinOhio Apr 2015 #13
Shamash Apr 2015 #14
safeinOhio Apr 2015 #15
Shamash Apr 2015 #16
safeinOhio Apr 2015 #17
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply ?
gejohnston Apr 2015 #18
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2015 #11
stone space Apr 2015 #12
NaturalHigh Apr 2015 #22
stone space Apr 2015 #23
Lurks Often Apr 2015 #24
stone space Apr 2015 #25
Lurks Often Apr 2015 #26
stone space Apr 2015 #27
Lurks Often Apr 2015 #28
stone space Apr 2015 #29
Lurks Often Apr 2015 #30
stone space Apr 2015 #31
Lurks Often Apr 2015 #32
stone space Apr 2015 #33
Lurks Often Apr 2015 #34
stone space Apr 2015 #35
Lurks Often Apr 2015 #36
stone space Apr 2015 #37
ileus Apr 2015 #19
pablo_marmol Apr 2015 #20
LineReply E
NaturalHigh Apr 2015 #21


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:12 AM

3. Yes, but when was the last time a Republican controlled Congress card about what the people wanted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:14 AM

4. That is a poll. Reality, on the other hand, shows gun laws loosening a pols being recalled despite

Bloomberg's bank rolling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 09:01 AM

8. If gun control started and ended with UBCs, you might have a point

unfortunately, as we saw post Sandy Hook, Congressional Democrats have no self discipline and will drag out every gun control proposal imaginable if given the opportunity so they can impress their anti-gun constituents. Those are not the measures that will be popular in a national race where you have to win many pro-gun states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:11 AM

2. I think I will go with C.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:16 AM

5. False dichotomy

It would not cost them the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:40 AM

6. That would be choice D

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:52 AM

7. Ann Richards views on CCW probably cost her the 1994 Governor's election

 

which started George W Bush on the path to the White House.

One also has to wonder if Gore's gun control views cost him his home state of Tennessee in the 2000 election. For that matter, did Gore's views on gun control cost him any of the following states: NH, MO, OH or NV (all of which were decided with less then a 5% margin)?

If Gore had won in just ONE of those states, he would have won the Presidency regardless of what happened in FL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 09:09 AM

9. Would you want a Democratic candidate to be anti-gun if it would win them the election?

just asking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 09:45 AM

10. It's a good question but I would say "no"

 

For the simple reason that they were winning because they took a position against upholding people's rights. It is like asking:

"would you want a Democratic candidate to declare they would overturn Roe v. Wade if it would win them the election?"
"would you want a Democratic candidate to declare they make scary Muslims persona non grata if it would win them the election?"
"would you want a Democratic candidate to declare they would criminalize whistle-blowing if it would win them the election?"
"would you want a Democratic candidate to declare they would implement a national "stop & frisk" program if it would win them the election?"

I'd answer "no" to all of those as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shamash (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 09:55 AM

13. or, would you want a Democratic candidate that

wanted to remove licenses for CCWs and make it legal for everyone and anyone to carry
wanted to remove background checks for FFLs
wanted to remove restrictions of fully automatic firearms
wanted to remove restrictions on those that are now prohibited from owning or processing firearms.
wanted to expand "right to stand your ground" laws

The ones you answer no to having little or nothing to do with firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 10:31 AM

14. I don't see firearm rights as being more or less important than other rights

 

Nor do I think that just because something is a "right" does not mean it cannot have limits and/or regulations. I presume we both agree that Roe v. Wade establishes certain reproductive rights, but that probably does not mean that you think an abortion clinic should be completely without regulations. You probably feel the same way about guns being completely without regulations. As do I.

But there is a difference between "creeping prohibition" and "regulation", and if the rhetoric on gun control here at DU is any indication, when people say "control" they mean the former and not the latter.

But to refer to a specific question above, Vermont has no licenses for CCWs and it is legal for everyone and anyone to carry (adult non-felons, anyway). And they have the lowest firearm murder rate in the country, though that is a topic for a different discussion. So, how do you feel about Bernie Sanders(I-VT) as a candidate given that he has represented Vermont since forever, and voted to not allow gun manufacturers to be subject to civil suits for the misuse of their firearms. To be specific, he voted against it twice. He would be a perfect example of a candidate who has never spoken out against license-free CCW in his home state, which is if not support for the policy, at least non-opposition to it. Do you have a problem with him?

If you think that firearm rights or any specific right exists in some separate continuum from other rights, I contend that you are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. And if a candidate holds that view, I think they are unsuited for public office, regardless of their political affiliation.

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." Said by this guy:

(link)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shamash (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 10:39 AM

15. Sounds reasonable if someone is trying to kill me.

However, if he is holding a bag of skittles, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 10:42 AM

16. No disagreement there. Zimmerman should be in jail. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shamash (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 01:09 PM

17. Only because of fear for his life laws

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to safeinOhio (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:15 PM

18. ?

That is the standard everywhere on the planet. Immediate threat, or reasonable belief of, death or grave bodily harm.
http://lawofselfdefense.com/the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense-in-a-nutshell/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 09:52 AM

11. B or D I suppose.

While it's certainly an important issue, it's not top tier. So as long as they aren't actually helping make it EASIER for idiots to get ahold of guns and shoot themselves, children, and people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, I don't mind a President who does nothing on making things better on gun control as long as they DO make things better on climate change and wealth inequality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 09:52 AM

12. 8 years ago it was gay marriage that folks wanted Democrats to run away from.

 

They said it would cost elections, but this time around candidates are including gay couples in their videos.

I don't worry about the fear mongers.

Democrats should just do what is right.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:08 PM

22. "Democrats should just do what is right."

Absolutely. Democrats should defend Constitutional rights, including the 2nd Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #22)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 06:26 AM

23. Guns do not have rights. Guns and corporations are not people (nt)

 

Last edited Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:08 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 09:17 AM

24. Still displaying your lack of knowledge on the subject?

 

For an alleged college professor I'm surprised you don't seem to understand that the United States Constitution, along with many state constitutions, state that ownership of firearms is indeed a civil right.

SCOTUS, the Constitution, the President, the vast majority of states in this country and the people who WROTE the Constitution view that ownership of firearms is a civil right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:11 AM

25. I have made no comments about any political or governmental document.

 

For an alleged college professor I'm surprised you don't seem to understand that the United States Constitution, along with many state constitutions, state that ownership of firearms is indeed a civil right.


Your personal attack here seems to be based entire upon a lie.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #25)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:18 AM

26. So you acknowledge owning a firearm is a civil right

 

even if you don't like that it is allowed.

You claim to be a college professor.

Given that most university and college professors have at least a Master's degree, one would think that the average university and college professor would have at least a working understanding of the basics of the US Constitution even if that wasn't their field of study.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #26)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:24 AM

27. This is a personal attack based on pure anti-intellectualism, plain and simple.

 

You claim to be a college professor.

Given that most university and college professors have at least a Master's degree, one think that the average university and college professor would have at least a working understanding of the basics of the US Constitution even if that wasn't their field of study.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #27)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:32 AM

28. Yet again you fail to answer a simple question

 

Do you acknowledge that owning a firearm is a civil right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 11:38 AM

29. No, I most certainly do not.

 

Do you acknowledge that owning a firearm is a civil right?


But this has absolutely nothing to do with your personal attack above, which is based upon nothing more than your own anti-intellectualism.

I have made no mention of any political or governmental documents that you may use as scriptural references.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 20, 2015, 12:08 PM

30. Expecting professors with Master's and Doctorates to understand

 

the basics about the US Constitution is "anti-intellectualism" and a personal attack? Ok then

And the US Constitution, state constitutions and US law are not "scriptural references".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #30)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 11:14 AM

31. You can expect anything you want, but claiming that...

 

...I said something about some political document when I didn't is simply lying, and the lies are apparently motivated by your anti-intellectualism, given how often you bash folks here simply for teaching at a public university.

We're apparently just a bunch of know-nothing egghead public employees to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #31)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 11:23 AM

32. Yes, I have LOTS and LOTS of posts bashing professors at a public university

 

In fact, I'm sure you can provide numerous links to all of those posts

I see you are back to making things up again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #32)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 11:29 AM

33. Then why did you bring up my employment and use it to bash me?

 

Your anti-intellectualism is on full display here in this thread.

There's nothing wrong with being a mathematician, but you act as if we are scum to be ridiculed for our profession.

And you make up lies in order to do it.

That's anti-intellectualism to an obsessive degree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #33)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 11:33 AM

34. You seem a little obsessive about taking everything personally

 

not everything is about you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #34)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 11:41 AM

35. I understand that it is not about me.

 

You seem a little obsessive about taking everything personally not everything is about you.


It is about your own anti-intellectual obsession.

I just happen to have a profession that you despise, and you want me to know how much you despise my profession, so you use it to bash me, that's all.

It's not about me at all. I'm just some random mathematician on the street.

It's all about you and your anti-intellectual obsession.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stone space (Reply #35)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 12:14 PM

36. Again with making things up and jumping to wild conclusions

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #36)

Tue Apr 21, 2015, 12:15 PM

37. You admitted yourself that it wasn't about me. (nt)

 

Last edited Tue Apr 21, 2015, 03:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 08:34 PM

19. I don't want any of our candidates pro-control...they should all be 2A progressives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 10:47 PM

20. ^^ This. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Sat Apr 18, 2015, 09:06 PM

21. E

I'm all for the right to own firearms. If I had my way, the Democratic platform / candidate wouldn't even mention it except to agree that it's a Constitutional right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread