Sebastian at the Pennsylvania-focused Shall Not Be Questioned blog posed an interesting question for gun owners a few days ago: as a political group, has our vote been ‘captured’ by the GOP? No, we’re not talking about GOP enforcers coming along and physically taking us hostage. We’re talking about the minimum effort the party needs to guarantee that a political bloc will vote for its candidates; once the party believes that the ‘captured’ group’s votes are locked down, and they don’t have anywhere else to go, well, that’s that — kiss future progress for your agenda goodbye. This has happened to other political blocs — primarily on the left — in the past, and it hasn’t necessarily worked out for them.
For example, in a recent article for FiveThirtyEight.com, Farai Chideya opines that the African-American vote has pretty well been captured by the Democrat Party…and it’s generally been a disaster for them. The Democrats take their votes for granted, the GOP figures it can’t compete for them, so it largely doesn’t bother, and — with few exceptions — as a group they get a lot of lip service and not a lot of benefit.
The captured group theory was put forward by Princeton political scientist Paul Frymer in a book first published in 1999, “Uneasy Alliances: Race and Party Competition in America.” He argued that politicians focus their attention on white swing voters, and that the two-party system is structured to push aside the concerns of black voters because they consistently and overwhelmingly favor one party….
Are black voters really “captured”? They certainly meet one part of the definition: In recent elections, more than 90 percent of the black vote has gone to the Democratic candidate for president.
Ms. Chideya cites a law review article that found one phenomena of this ‘captured’ effect: African-American support for Congressional legislation actually decreases that legislation’s chances of passing. “As white support increases from 0% to 100%, the likelihood of adoption increases from about 10% to about 60%. As black support rises from 0% to 100%, though, the odds of enactment fall from roughly 40% to roughly 30%.”
Obviously, there are other factors at play in the huge swamp that is American ethnic and special interest politics. But are gun owners in danger of a similar fate? Lowball estimates and polling indicate that somewhere around 100 million Americans own firearms. But of that total, those who actually prioritize the right to keep and bear arms are far fewer.
Gun rights wasn’t always such a partisan issue. There were times when the lines were pretty blurry. The Democrats may have included Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein, but it was also the party of folks who fought for the Second Amendment like John Dingell. The GOP had far more on the pro-2A side, but it also had people like Massachusetts Governor William Weld, who saddled Massachusetts with gun control laws while in office. And arguably hasn’t changed his spots since. And don’t forget Richard Nixon who was down with banning handguns in their entirety.
Since then, the GOP — despite its many, many flaws — has become a much more solid ally on the Second Amendment. At the same time, Democrats have become a more solid enemy. Surely this polarization can’t be a good thing for us in the long-run. If the GOP chokes due to issues unrelated to guns, gun rights supporters will sink with it. If the GOP candidate goes soft on gun control, well, we have a situation like the Pennsylvania Senate race this year.
The Keystone State’s voters have a choice between a strongly anti-gun Democrat in Kate McGinty and a mildly-anti gun Republican, Pat Toomey. McGinty has been endorsed by severals gun control organizations. Toomey, on the other hand, has been endorsed by…billionaire plutocrat Michael Bloomberg.
It’s a tough choice for Pennsylvania gun owners. For whatever it’s worth, I suspect the best choice might be to stick with Toomey, warts and all. After all, he has lined up with the NRA by opposing a vote for President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. And while we certainly can’t count on him on background checks, half a loaf is better than nothing, right?
On the other hand, “Don’t worry, he’s really with me when it matters,” sounds a lot like something Hillary might say about Bill after he comes back from a visit to Dennis Hof’s place in Nevada. It also sounds like something a group whose votes have been ‘captured’ might tell themselves.
So has the gun vote become a captive of the GOP? And if so, does it matter?
If you have blood pressure medication handy, you can cruise over to the more crazy prog sites like media matters, daily kos, DU, et al and you can see why there aren’t many pro gun dems at a national level anymore. For example, if a D candidate for the U.S. House doesn’t toe the progressive line 100%, I have seen open conversations where posters discusses being okay with a Republican elected for a term and running a “better and more pure” progressive candidate in 2 years to better push their overall
progressivestatist agenda.To answer the overall question, yes, it is a bad thing that pro gun dems are a rare breed. Guns really shouldn’t be a political party issue. I find a bit of irony that many Dems are truly convinced Trump is the second coming of Adolf Hitler, but still only want the government to be armed. As I’ve said before, Cognitive Dissonance is a tenant of the progressive religion.
A strongly pro-gun Democrat is an oxymoron given that the entirety of the Democrat party has been subsumed by progressive, i.e., fascist ideology. Since being genuinely pro-gun pretty much requires a political philosophy that is an odds with everything progressivism stands for, I can’t imagine her career path among Democrats would be all that rewarding. This leads me to suspect that her “strong pro-gun” stand is a convenient ploy to get votes. Don’t. Trust. Progressives.
“A strongly pro-gun Democrat is an oxymoron…”
It may be worse than that.
I took lunch one day at the office with four of our self-advertised “liberals”. After they each stoutly proclaimed (due to my manipulation) how wonderful they were because they were liberal, I asked their opinions of self-reliance, self-control, self-responsibility, family finance, law and order. The “liberals” were all for each of those things I mentioned. Then I explained to them the items I questioned were self-evident truths for conservatives. Amazement all around. Then I asked their opinion on abortion. Eventually, all four admitted that abortion was the single most important issue in the nation for them. So, I asked why they claimed to be “liberal” when they adhered to so much of the conservative vision. Their near simultaneous answer was “abortion rights”. Then I asked them where in the words of the constitution could be found “abortion rights”. After much sputtering and opinion, they admitted the constitution did not specifically identify abortion as an individual right. After some uncomfortable moments, I asked about the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. And does the constitution have any wording regarding that right. Three did not know the constitution mentioned guns at all. When I explained that the Second Amendment clearly stated the federal government could not constrain the right of citizens to have firearms, the four were filled with all sorts of emotions, and declarations that guns were just bad for everyone. So then I asked why they believed in an imaginary right to murder unborn babies, but opposed the enumerated right of citizens to have guns. Lunch ended rather quickly, and none of them would ever allow me to go to lunch with them again.
Many conservatives are single-issue voters, even the conservatives who pretend to be “liberal”. The labels tell us nothing any more. I am convinced that conservatives playing like ‘liberals’ are politically more destructive that true progressives.
“the Second Amendment clearly stated the federal government could not constrain the right of citizens to have firearms”
I like that verbiage. Seems like Americans in general do not understand the meaning of the word “infringed”, any more. Or “the people”, for that matter.
There are many many pro-gun democrats who support Hillary Clinton. The don’t look like the big-truck-open-carry-AR15-ComeAndTakeIt crowd. Instead they look like moms who hunt, and dads who work long hours and want nothing more to get out in the woods. They are the grandparents who make sure their grandkids learn to hunt and fish when visiting. And they are the doctors and professors and engineers, and artists who live in Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Utah (yes Utah), and Idaho. They might be in the minority but they are alive and well.
If Republicans want to pat themselves for dominating the gun-side of things, then they have alienated yet another group to their peril.
And if you didn’t know it, I’m one of those pro-gun Democrats. Even got the ARs. And please don’t throw me out of here. I like what you’ve done with the place.
What you just described is the trap of the “guns are only OK for hunting and maybe target shooting” crowd. The majority of gun owners in the USA today do not look like what you described at all. Most of them do not hunt or fish. The newest and most rapidly increasing demographic group is women who are interested in self-reliance and self-defense. This is not a group who learned about guns from their grandparents or parents, nor a group that takes to the woods each November. By and large, most modern American gun owners are more concerned with self-defense and home defense, and go to the range to practice skills useful in that arena. The incredibly dramatic rise of concealed carry licenses issued in the last few years is further proof. No one needs such a license to hunt, and I doubt that most hunters trouble to get one. The same group is generally more concerned about the proliferation of anti-gun legislation like “Universal Background Check” laws than they are about public lands being set aside for hunting or fishing. As professed “Blue State Gun Lover” where do YOU stand on such progressive/socialist policies?
I’m not much of a fan of either party. Further, I strongly dislike politicians as a general rule. That being said, I know many pro gun Democrats. I work with many in the states you listed. As a matter of fact, I’m typing this from Casper, WY (sitting across from a pro gun Democrat) right now. My father and mother were both union members and registered Democrats when they lived in NYC. However, the Democratic party alienated them long ago. There is a reason I differentiate between self described “Progressives” vs self described Democrats. However, just like there are very few small government, fiscally responsible Republicans left at the national level, there are very few pro blue collar, pro free speech Democrats left at the national level. The problem, as always, seems to be a lack of admission on both sides that their respective party representatives actually suck and most partisans are really just voting against the other party at this point.
This is the one point the Republicans seem to have (at the national level) with even the most white-guilt-ridden Democrats that I know. I know several pro gun Dems that understand they can’t vote for Hillary and still expect to keep their AR’s. Some of them have decided to vote for Gary Johnson, some are leaning toward staying home on election day, and 2 have (gasp) decided to vote for Trump (who is really a NY Democrat IMHO). Only one has said she is begrudgingly voting for Clinton. Anecdotal? Sure. But the DNC doesn’t really seem to care much for the Democrats you described in those states. Their vote, as are most, are taken for granted. I think the gun issue is one of the reasons why Johnson is pulling more from Clinton than Trump right now. Clinton and her media lackeys are trying so hard to walk back her past statements on gun control. Maybe if she loses, the Dems will give up on it as a party plank for another 6 – 12 years like they did after Gore lost in 2000, but I’m not holding my breath.
And you expect to be able to keep your Ar and other guns if she’s elected and able to appoint at least two justices to the Supreme Court? Keep dreaming my friend.
“Cognitive Dissonance is a tenant of the progressive religion.”
Here’s a fun question; Did he really mean “tenet”, or did he mean just what he said? I kinda feel the original is more fun!
The Libertarian Party has traditionally been savagely Pro-2A, though the current candidates seem pretty mushy. I’ve been a gun guy my whole life and a libertarian since about ’81, and am not at all locked up by the GOP. Especially not by the GOP as configured this year.
Johnson’s VP pick is anti-gun. Both are LINO’s. I believe the Libertarian party was ‘hacked’ to syphon votes away from the GOP.
Or, considering how SJW-friendly they’ve been posing…perhaps the Democrats.
The only thing the Lib Party REALLLLLY believes in is getting stoned.
Never been stoned in my life, but think you should be able to do whatever you want to your own body. Small government, strict adherence to the Constitution, and natural rights. Wasn’t too long ago the GOP was fine with 2A, as long as you were white. Now the GOP candidate has been on all sides of the issue. The LP platform has always been consistently Pro-2A.
Actually it was the white Democrats that pushed Jim Crow that attempted to make the Second Amendment a white only privilege. The laws were in place, but they were only ever enforced against the black population. A white fellow found with a pistol was just keeping protection close to hand, and a black one was up to no good and was generally arrested and prosecuted.
“The LP platform has always been consistently Pro-2A.”
“Has always been” is not the same thing as “is”. You need to look at the history and current pronouncements of the VP candidate, and the absence of any objection from Johnson. The party in 2016 is anti-gun. And I have voted for Johnson before.
“…Everybody must get stoned…”
“Well They’ll stone you and say that it’s the end
They’ll stone you and then they’ll come back again”
-TGBD
What’s the definition of a “Libertarian”?
Someone who’s son was arrested for Marijuana possession.
If only! That would net us most of the Dem leadership….not that we’d want them.
The Libertarian party is strictly a vanity project for the people running.
The GOP is trying to figure out how it’s configured this year; perhaps this will be the best thing to come out of this election cycle. That and kabash on HRC.
Straight from the DNC platform:
“Preventing Gun Violence
With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible
action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many
communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the
rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success of
the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks
and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of
Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections
gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war such as assault weapons and large
capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM’s) off our streets. We will fight back against attempts
to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal
licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists,
intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health
issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun
violence as a public health issue.”
Straight from the RNC platform:
The Second Amendment:
Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms
We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a natural inalienable right that
predates the Constitution and is secured by the Second Amendment. Lawful gun ownership enables
Americans to exercise their God-given right of self-defense for the safety of their homes, their loved
ones, and their communities.
We salute the Republican Congress for defending the right to keep and bear arms by
preventing the President from installing a new liberal majority on the Supreme Court. The confirmation
to the Court of additional anti-gun justices would eviscerate the Second Amendment’s fundamental
protections. Already, local officials in the nation’s capital and elsewhere are defying the Court’s
decisions upholding an individual right to bear arms as affirmed by the Supreme Court in
Heller and McDonald
. We support firearm reciprocity legislation to recognize the right of law-abiding
Americans to carry firearms to protect themselves and their families in all 50 states. We support
constitutional carry statutes and salute the states that have passed them. We oppose ill-conceived
laws that would restrict magazine capacity or ban the sale of the most popular and common
modern rifle. We also oppose any effort to deprive individuals of their right to keep and bear arms
without due process of law. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and the current Administration’s illegal harassment of firearm dealers. We oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners, registration of ammunition, and restoration of the ill-fated Clinton gun ban. We call
for a thorough investigation — by a new Republican administration — of the deadly “Fast and Furious”
operation perpetrated by Department of Justice officials who approved and allowed illegal sales of
guns to known violent criminals.”
Take your pick. I’m as pissed off at the Republicans as anyone, but at least you can try to hold them to their own words.
Dems are Fudds.
We’ve covered this here before.
” There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun
violence as a public health issue.”
Recall a few days ago Bloomie donated *300 Million Dollars* to UCLA to kick-start the study of gun violence as a public health – public policy issue.
There is a sea-change in blacks as a group on attitudes toward gun ownership, over the last 20 years it has doubled in favor of gun rights.
I’m convinced more and more members of the black community aren’t buying the line that Democrats have their best interest at heart. As POTG, we better not ignore this change of heart…
Look at what just broke on the Drudge Report:
New York Post – “Black voters are turning from Clinton to Trump in new poll”
“Donald Trump is gaining support among African-American voters — whose enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton is eroding, a tracking poll released Saturday revealed.
Trump saw a 16.5 percentage-point increase in backing from African-American voters in a Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California tracking poll, up from 3.1 percent on Sept. 10 to 19.6 percent through Friday.
Meanwhile, the same poll showed Clinton’s support among that group plummeting from 90.4 percent on Sept. 10 to 71.4 percent.
Clinton’s nearly 20-point crash began Sunday, said Dan Schnur of USC. Sunday was the day Clinton was recorded collapsing while entering a Secret Service van at a 9/11 event.”
http://nypost.com/2016/09/18/black-voters-are-turning-from-clinton-to-trump-in-new-poll/
It looks like the surge towards Trump in the polls has some legs to it…
🙂
I suspect a lot of voters are turned off watching Hillary spaz out after she left 911 event.
I wouldn’t consider the Dems as “Fudds” given their unwavering desire to limit magazine capacity or ban semiautomatic firearms.
Uhhmm, that’s a Fudd, almost by definition.
The answer is yes. Much like those aganist abortion have solidly left the DNC. As a Black Republican; I would note the Gop has a issue on the local level. Low registration in cities & uncontested races. Most state rep races for example have no challenger. And unlike the Dems, I have never seen a active registration effort. This lack of a local party face meant views of the party are shaped by the top of the ticket. Hard to vote for something that is not there. Goldwater’s run in ’64 thus turned the Black vote off for 30 years. Trump will do the same to Hispanic support sadly and doom the party long term. As for Toomey? He is dancing a fine line. Trying to win swing votes yet not annoy the base. What plays in Elk county, does not win in Philadelphia. While better than a Democrat, the gun voters want his hide with rage.
So far Hispanics have acted like all past European groups. As they become prosperous they tend toward the GOP. However, If they get trapped in the welfare culture like blacks did then they will be lost.
You cant lose what you never had, and the GOP has never had the Hispanic vote. They will never break Republican in any meaningful way..ever.
Courting Hispanics is a losing proposition in every way for America.
I’m half Hispanic and I can count on one hand how many Hispanic family and friends have or would ever vote R.
Most are very religious and conservative in every way, but vote D because “free” stuff and open borders. Hate to be like that, but a spade is a spade.
My mom is one of these people, she is very conservative, super religious, and a gun owner, but votes D every time, sad to say.
As a resident of California, I can tell you Hispanics are mostly Mexican in heritage and 90% (or more like 95%) Democrat single-issue voters: free passes for illegal immigration.
Unless the GOP endorses illegal immigration and taxpayer funded programs for illegal immigrants like college tuition, Obamacare, voting rights, sanctuary cities, drivers licenses, no prosecution or penalty for driving without insurance, the Democrats have the Hispanic vote “captured” for good.
On the topic: today’s LA Times tracking poll…
Trump +7% overall
among Hispanics: Hillary 51%, Trump 31% (that is close to Texas/Spanish-speaking GWB’s high-water mark in 2004, FWIW.)
Among African-Americans: Hillary 70%, Trump 21%. That may not sound like much, but I think that would beat any GOP candidate’s black vote total since Nixon. In 1960.
If it’s accurate. Polling is probably a fool’s game this year.
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
Ballot box stuffing is a time-honored tradition in inner cites run by Democrats.
As in where a precinct may have have 1,000 registered voters and 1,500 ballots get counted. For the democrat candidate, of course.
I expect a lot of that ‘stuff’ to be happening election night.
I fully agree with your overall point. This election is going to be *far* more transformative to American politics than Obama’s election was in 2012.
If anyone could have thought that was possible…
Putting forth abortion as an example should be terrifying — the pro-life groups are arguably captured, and their agenda has gotten scant attention at the national level.
I don’t think the analogy is a good one, frankly, since selling restrictions on freedoms (for good or ill) is a harder sell than selling liberty from the same. But if the pro-life group bolted the GOP, where would it go? Where *could* it go? The right to keep and bear arms would get a better audience in the modern Democrat party than the pro-life folks could. And that says a lot.
For the record: I believe that “Hispanic” and “Latino” are bullshit terms, and the mindset behind them goes back to the days of British North America, where anyone south of Georgia was a “Spaniard”. People from Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, Argentina, etc. all have different cultures and different experiences when coming to America. Mexico for instance is run by a white ruling class who lord it over the darker-skinned folks descended in part from Aztecs and others. Argentina was settled mostly by folks from southern Europe (Italy, etc – there’s a neighborhood in Buenos Aires called “Palermo”, for instance.)
Lumping them together only benefits those who want to think (and hope) that such a grouping would vote as a bloc because of the language tie. (If you’ve ever watched the rather mediocre film STARSHIP TROOPERS and asked: “Hey, how come all of these Argentinians look like white people?!?” you’ve fallen into this trap.) I had a friend in college who was born in Ecuador — his skin was a noticeably lighter shade than my own.
My thoughts are no doubt influenced by my own background: My grandma was born in Mexico and was brought here by relatives living in Texas after being orphaned by a flood. She crossed the border illegally, of course — that made mom an ‘anchor baby’, in the parlance of our times. And she was dark-skinned enough to be asked on more than one occasion if she was black by bureaucrats in northern Louisiana. If mom were still with us, I suspect she’d be a Trump voter. One of those ones with bumper stickers plastered all over her car and giant signs in the front yard.
In any event, there’s nothing preventing assimilation of any of those peoples from Latin America, except the fact that the Democrat Party believes that it can win elections through demographic changes. That’s the agenda that is making immigration such a hot-button issue, I think.
“Mediocre”? Excise me? Isn’t that the source of “Take off and nuke ’em from orbit-it’s the only way to be sure!”? How can you call such brilliance “mediocre”?
I thought that was from aliens?
“Much like those aganist abortion have solidly left the DNC.”
Absolutely, and quite sensibly. I would think there would also be a considerable amount of pro-choice people leaving the DNC, as well, since the decision was made 40 years ago and is not in any danger, it is not a reason to vote against firearm rights, as an example, or to vote for more illegal immigration, larger government, or simply in support of lying scumbags. I suspect the migration would be more extensive if the RNC could stop pretending any changes are likely in the next 50 years. But, they do love them some boolits thru the foot.
Garrison/Jenner – 2016
Right. Taking votes away from the only candidate who has a chance to beat Clinton nationally, Trump, will show ’em right?
All that will elect Hillary Clinton for certain.
Let’s stay on Planet earth here shall we?
Or maybe you’d rather go down in flames with a bold spectacular failure and lose RKBA for good?
You do know you’re clueless, right?
Maybe you would have had better luck with Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich.
Giant Douche all the way!
(After a search of WTH is Garrison/Jenner) You watch South Park and then throw “clueless” around?
I only throw out terms like ‘clueless’ to people who have never heard of ‘Google’.
I think Garrison would take votes evenly from Johnson and Stein.
No, I am not smoking what you are smoking and I am quite lucid and in touch with the statistics of the national contest and electorate. I don’t watch or care about a fantasy television show which has no bearing on an election that could nullify an amendment to the constitution. Yes it is that serious.
I have no time to waste on fantasy cartoons (like South Park or other wastes of time) I try to stay in the real world.
The very action of not voting for one of the two parties is just throwing away your vote.
Rule #1 of a two-party system (which is what we have): any vote for a third or other tertiary party candidate, takes a vote away from the next closest candidate to the voters political position. HRC voters ain’t leaving her. So it is Trump or lose.
Well then, let me clue you in. Garrison/Jenner IS Trump/Pence. It’s called a ‘parody’. Political irony (aka Giant Douche). If you have no time for understanding political irony you probably don’t have time to actually understand the issues, candidates and how they are perceived by others or how they are propagandized. This kind of ignorance gave us Trump, the only candidate in the lot capable of actually losing to Clinton.
As to the 2 party system, the GOP began as a 3rd party. The 2 party system was not present at the time of the nation’s founding and is not enshrined in the Constitution. We can have as many parties as we want. Thinking like yours only shackles us to the same two parties no matter how corrupt they may be, no matter how much they ignore your wishes as to how you want to be governed. Had your kind of thinking been the norm at the time, there never would have been a Republican Party and slavery would have went on for generations.
If the party you’re voting for is taking your vote for granted, it’s time to look for another party. At least maybe your party will come back 4 years later with their hat in hand and beg you for your forgiveness.
Not getting the Southpark references is pathetic…you’re genious Gov.!
Gonna f*ck them all to death.
There is a slim to none chance that ANY Democrat candidate can survive the DNC vetting process and have ANY affinity for RKBA rights. And slim left town. We aren’t “captured” by the GOP, they are the only party with a chance of winning state and national elections who will even talk to us. Do they take advantage of that. Heck yeah. Do we have any leverage to counter that like maybe saying “Okay, I’ll vote for an rapid anti-gun Democrat just to show you who’s is boss!”? Not a chance.
As a PA-domiciled Person-of-the-Gun I’m facing this question with deep trepidation. Vote for Toomey (endorsed by Bloomberg) or vote for the out-in-the-open Democrat? The devil vs. the deep blue sea.
I agree with the premise that the GOP has “captured” the PotG. Now, what do we do about it?
I agree that it’s futile to search for a rare Democrat candidate who might be open to a conversation, let alone a little sympathetic.
So, apparently, we should simply accept that we are “captured” and settle in and accept our place at the back-of-the-line for GOP legislators.
No, I don’t accept this conclusion. I think we have one remaining power if we are brave enough to exercise it. We can vote against Republican legislators who have betrayed us. We must know full-well that by voting for an even worse Democrat that we will temporarily (2/6 years) put ourselves in a worse position. But how much worse? Is the Democrat really so much worse than Toomey? Or, will punishing Toomey send a valuable lesson to other Republican legislators?
Of course I recognize that a Democrat will vote for liberal SCOTUS nominees; and, so will RINOs vote for liberal SCOTUS nominees. Can we really count on Toomey in a confirmation vote? Or, will he only vote Nay because he has traded his Nay vote for some other Senator’s Yea vote?
As a “captured” voting block I see our only remaining power lying in our ability to punish every RINO who strays from full-throated support for the 2A.
I welcome any comment that explains where my reasoning might be in error.
That said, isn’t he still better than his Democrat opponent? At least he’s blocking the Garland nomination.
The time to push back is probably during the primary season, though…. Where was the serious primary challenge to Toomey? Hell, it would be fitting for him, since he was almost a perennial primary candidate against ol’ Arlen Specter. (Remember HIM? Gawd…Toomey was a vast improvement there!)
It was partly our fault, of course, for assuming that the Club for Growth candidate actually would go to the mat on the Bill of Rights. His priorities were not ours. That should have been obvious.
Nope, still wrong.
You fight in the PRIMARY. PRIMARY him out.
Where are RINOs useful?
Having a majority. If you have an R majority, gun control goes nowhere.
If you have a D majority, gun control might go somewhere.
The very fact that the speaker and agenda gets set by a group means that, in fact, a RINO is BETTER than a D.
Unfortunately. I used to think like you. But after really doing some thinking, it’s obvious.
Vote for Toomey. He may be personally repugnant, but his personal repugnance doesn’t matter- McConnell sucks, and I’m not a fan of Ryan almost kowtowing to the bratty sit-in, but the fact remains- if we had a Reid/Pelosi legislature when there was a push for the no-fly-no-buy bill, it would have passed. 100%.
If you can’t vote for Toomey, look for a third party. You know you can’t vote for the beyotch, and if you leave a blank on your ballot it will be filled in Dem, and you know it.
The GOP hasn’t “captured” anything.
The Democrats p!ssed in our faces and called us “deplorable.” That’s what really happened.
That was a blessing.
It clearly defines the battle lines for the next few decades of politics here in America. You are either a Globalist or a Nationalist. There is no room for moderates in the Republican party anymore.
Agreed.
How about a High Ho F U to every living air sucking democrat plying to remove citizens right to lawful self protection.
No. Just look at Northern New Mexico. Pretty blue. Lots of guns. Santa Fe is a bastion of left wing stupidity but outside the city there are a lot of gun owners who vote Democrat just because they always have and their daddy did before them.
At this point they generally vote against their own interests in terms of guns but the state doesn’t have a professional legislature so the really stupid bills that would probably pass in a place like NY don’t have time to be considered and voted on which kinda keeps the Lefties in check.
The “captured” political element is not the gun rights supporters. The “captured” GOP voter is anyone who considers themselves conservative, or, Republican (which are NOT necessarily the same). The GOP believes there are more than 20% undecided, and that group is the target. The “undecideds'” are considered to be those almost Democrats who just need to hear a pleasing message (Democrat lite?) and they will vote Republican.
When was the last time any ensconced Republican politician or apparatchik showed respect for the principles of conservatives? POTG are default “captured” (and can be ignored; party platforms are just prizes granted to those doing grunt work for the party) because POTG generally believe in exercising self-control and self-responsibility (i.e. conservative).
So where do POTG turn?
If POTG were placed in the position where a GOP candidate supported every conservative cause ever identified, but insisted on UBC, domestic violence confiscation of firearms, a universal gun registry, mandatory government-regulated firearms use and safety training, would POTG refuse to vote, or vote for the even worse other party? Or would POTG vote for the candidate that promises absolute gun rights, but adopts every other principle of the other party?
I am, as were the Founding Fathers before me (they just didn’t have the term back then), fundamentally a Libertarian by belief, and a pragmatic Independent by voting record. I have never before been a “single issue voter,” although I am becoming one now. I’ve been watching American politics for a long time; I’m old enough to have voted for Goldwater back before the Viet Nam War. I still remember the Democrat’s back then chanting “Vote for Goldwater in ’64; by ’68 we’ll be at war.” So I did, and sure enough we were! But I digress…over the years I have increasingly found that the issue of 2nd Amendment rights is a good indicator of a candidate’s true beliefs, and I believe it has now become a true “bellwether” issue. That is, it is an issue that indicates, with considerable accuracy, how a candidate will behave in a variety of other areas as well. I suspect that this is because of the underlying assumptions for PotG on the one hand, and “People Afraid of the Gun” (PAotG?) on the other. The underlying belief of both true conservatives and PotG, is that the ordinary American is essentially responsible, trustworthy, and likely to be able to rise to the occasion under stress. Given that belief, they believe everyone should be left alone to be as independent as possible. The underlying belief of the Progressives and PAotG, on the other hand is just the opposite. That’s why they oppose anything that would increase individual independence, particularly the ability to defend oneself with a gun. If you really think the average person is irresponsible, untrustworthy, and likely to come unglued under stress, you’d be crazy to want them to have a gun (or a vote, for that matter). Given these underlying beliefs, it is very feasible to predict what kind of policies each type of person/candidate would tend to propose and support. So, if you had to pick a single issue to show how a candidate thinks of his fellow citizens and how
(s)he would behave in office, the person’s true (not always the same as their stated) belief about the 2nd Amendment and gun rights is an excellent indicator issue to use. It is an even better predictor than the person’s political party affiliation (which is why folks have coined terms like “RINO”).
For many Democrats I know the only issue they agree with the GOP on is guns, so why would they vote for the party with which they have one point of agreement instead of the party with which they have a dozen?
The real problem here is that our Republic has been hijacked by 0.05% of the people whose approval is necessary to obtain any significant office — and those 0.05% have no real interest in whether or not the masses are armed… and on the Dem side of that tiny fraction, they don’t trust the people so they don’t want us armed. So no Democrat aspirant to office who thinks people should be armed has a prayer of making it to the official elections.
Well for dang sure the demtards OWN the _____— Americans. As in actual massa-slave/chattel.
The solution for gun rights voters located “behind enemy lines ” in Ststes like CA is simple. They need to vote as a block in democrat primaries. They also need to impose changes to the primary system that many blue states are wanting to make. The primary elections are the establishment’s biggest weakness right now.
Remember what bill Clinton said. “Support for gun control may run wide , but it don’t run deep. “. Most people who are for gun control in polls really don’t consider that one of their top issues. With proper orginaztion CA voters could make it so some districts simply couldn’t get the worst anti gunners on the democratic ticket to oppose a republican in the general. It wouldn’t take many a few state senators and a dozen or so house members.
It’s a helluva’ lot more complicated than capturing the vote. In Illinois D and R can be interchangeable. SEE: Mark Kirk(RINO). And sorry-I see the so-called “black” vote as a lost cause. Like Jewish folks disarmed-the vast majority will never leave the massa’s plantation…most will NEVER see the connection between R and the 2A. “Barack ain’t after my guns!”
Mark Kirk is a POS and a Fifth Columnist. Fortunately, his political demise is at hand. Unfortunately, that means that IL will get Tammy D!ckworth.
Pretty sure Tammy “I got my legs blown off in Iraq and went to work for Obama” Duckworth is worse than Kirk.A regular “apparatcheck” be-otch. Which means Illinois is screwed-what else is new?
One of the few things I’m able to say I enjoyed about my 8 year sabbatical to the Windy City is the fact that it enabled me to vote against Obama 3 times as opposed to twice.
Unfortunately Kirk is a Rino who I don’t believe ever fully recovered from his stroke. Even if he wins, he’s worthless on 2A issues and probably on Supreme Court nominees.
I think it’s been “captured” by the NRA, not the GOP.
The NRA has become the sole well known “gun rights” ground despite giving us bans on everything. They have no threat of no-existance despite a terrible record when it comes to protecting rights.
True enough. The NRA is far from ideal in their compromises.
But what other nationally-reaching, well-funded, lobbyist-rich, Congress-and-voter-connected gun rights group would you prefer we endorse instead that can outperform them?
Let me know and I”l consider them provided they can show they can do better.
Of all the groups that have opposed the obama/democrat’s agenda it has been the NRA that has done more than any other, followed at some distance by the Tea Party folks. The NRA has represented me in the manner I have come to expect and obviously to the consternation of obama & dems as they are the biggest “demon” they face. This level of commitment by the NRA and it’s members has ensured that the “Gun Vote” has not been owned. Unlike the “Pro Life” folks which don’t have the commitment or the single issue focus that firearms owners do.
If that was a serious question, I would suggest Gun Owners of America (GOA).
They correctly bill themselves as the only “no compromise” gun rights organization in the country, and have beaten the NRA on controversial gun rights issues several times, eventually forcing the NRA to go along with them. It is perfectly possible, even desirable, to belong to both organizations you know; I do. I get action alerts FAR more often from the GOA, and they facilitate sending E-mails to your congress-critters whenever they issue an alert.
If the NRA wasn’t a political force to be reckoned with, the libidiots wouldn’t demonize the organization at every opportunity.
Senior Republican party leader at private party meeting referring to capturing the gun vote:
“We got this sucker in the bag, man!”
(obscure reference to Cheech and Chong skit State versus Stoner)
I am of “Hispanic” origin. I grew up in the lib anti-gun northeast. I rejected liberalism at a young age. I remember when I was 18 and registered to vote for the 1st time, the nice grandmotherly bureaucrat behind the counter gave me back my paperwork and asked me if I had made a mistake, since the Republican box was checked. I said, no, not a mistake and that I was a Republican. Looks of scorn, anguish and hatred followed, as if I had betrayed her. I had grown up poor in a high crime area and the only ones with firearms were the crooks and the cops and there were times that these two groups were indistinguishable from one another. As I got older and I wanted to access the means by which I could defend myself and family I was subjected to red tape and threats from the police bureau charged with “issuing” the per-mit (as they pronounced them) and ultimately DENIAL of a firearms per-mit.
Deep down most liberals are well meaning racists who who view minorities with disdain and contempt. I don’t believe in any party or organization when it comes to safeguarding my natural rights. Political parties are run by men, at times corrupt and out for their own self-interest. But since one major party, DEMOCRAT, is committed to the destruction of my civil liberties concerning firearms, I will not EVER vote for them. Tomorrow it could be another right which they don’t particularly like. The modern liberal will step on your rights with a smile and if you are an incorrigible bastard, as I am, will most likely send you to some sort of political re-education camp, as history has taught us. Scratch a liberal and you will find a Mao, Castro, Pol Pot or Lenin waiting to get out and willing to break a few metaphorical eggs to make a politically acceptable omelette.
Thank you for commenting. I grew up in the southern US, and always felt the worst racists were the so-called enlightened liberals. In every instance of dealing with non-whites, the theme is that “these/those people” are so underprivileged/underdeveloped, that they always need special consideration and help. I called it “coming to the big house” for favors, and work, and food, and clothing, and everything else. There was always the implicit understanding that non-whites could not take care of themselves without help. We had terms for people who sought everything from “the big house”, but those words are illegal, now. The liberal/progressive cannot conceive of a world where “those people” will not need largess from “the enlightened ones”. If “those people” were allowed to become fully functional adults, “the enlightened ones” would have no purpose, and the shattering of their self image is unbearable to contemplate.
Exactly my point. They are not really about empowering people, but rather giving you invisible chains of dependence and the false hope of “equality”. There are lots of equally poor, destitute and deprived people in the socialist utopias which they wish to emulate. Liberty is their enemy.
The (D) are all about abortion, they can’t do anything without killing black kids through Planned Parenthood, who then sells the dead kids, because satan’s work is fulfiiling for them, but it won’t fund a Lamborghini.
Blacks are still a minority but they are the majority of aborted kids. There’s lots of causes for that. All are (D), and the (D) are F-ing psyched. They fund abortions overseas cause they can’t kill enough kids here, plus they are F-ing POS globalist mfs.
NO.
It’s been abandoned (like the RNC with Conservatism) by the evil POS (D)NC.
As Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” I helped out at the VCDL booth at a major public event. We asked everyone who came to the booth if they had a CC permit. An amazing percentage said yes. If they said yes, we asked them if they support universal background checks. Sadly, most said yes. Then we gave them a flyer with the facts about UBCs. I’ll bet we could have gotten similar results with “assault rifles,” mag limits, the no-fly list, etc.
I also see on gun forums a lot of people don’t consider 2A to be their top voting issue. And my guess is the percentage of pro-gun voters who get to the polls is about the national average.
If gun owners became a strong voting bloc, all the parties would court us.
Many of those same people support voter ID laws.
It’s hard to get people fired up over gun rights if they’re worried about their next paycheck and guns don’t put food on their table.
But as Ben Franklin famously said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither.” As someone who has studied and taught economics, I would add those people not only will deserve neither, they will get neither in the end. Liberty is a key to widespread economic success.
That Franklin line is a favorite, but few know the contest (not what you think).
Franklin was writing about a wealthy member of society who was arguing against higher taxes to contribute more money to the general defense of the colony, The individual was concerned that increased taxes would reduce his private wealth, things he wanted to keep safe (via the militia) but was unwilling to pay more for security. Thus, to keep secure his wealth, he was willing to risk having it taken due to lack of sufficient funding for the protection of the colony (against indigenous forces).
Franklin was not talking about a person trading personal liberty for a government promise to make the individual person secure(i.e. loss of liberty for larger police force).
Sam: Thanks for the history lesson. I did not know that. A lot of famous quotes have taken on meanings beyond their original intent. Even if that is not what Franklin intended, it works. I also think he might have agreed with it in the different context.
“…guns don’t put food on their table”
Then perhaps they are going about it all wrong?
As I explained in my earlier post, a candidate’s stance on gun rights is a bellwether for his/her basic beliefs about people, and this in turn, gives you the best estimate of what kind of policies that person will propose or support. The person who would deny 2nd Amendment rights is the same one who believes other people are basically incompetent and irresponsible, hence such a candidate can be expected to support policies that will be even worse for ordinary citizens in other ways as well, including economically. If your economic problems stem from lack of employment, vote for the pro-gun candidate because he will most likely support policies that will increase your freedom to work. If your problem stems from under-employment, vote for the same candidate, as he will most likely support policies that would reduce the burdensome over-regulation that keeps people from opening more businesses that might hire you. The pro-gun rights/personal freedom candidate is also the one most likely to stop constantly increasing the minimum age, which again, will improve your economic chances. If you are having trouble putting food on the table simply because you are lazy – then don’t vote; the rest of the country can’t afford to keep supporting you.
It’s funny to watch McGinty’s ads on Toomey’s record on guns. They make Toomey sound like he’s somewhere to the right of Ted Nugent on gun control.
This has happened to other political blocs — primarily on the left — in the past, and it hasn’t necessarily worked out for them.
The reason the NRA occasionally endorses Democrats, in a nutshell.