I have to agree with Bitter here that it’s a really bad idea for the gun rights movement to tie their fortunes to the Republican Party. If recent history is any indication, that ship, if not actively sinking, definitely has more than a few holes in the hull.  The Republicans might be out in the political wilderness for a while.  I liked the Republicans more as a minority party than a majority party, and I hope that they will find their mojo again and start standing for things people actually want to vote for.
Until then, we have to find a way to work with Democrats, or our gun rights are doomed. This isn’t the time to be snubbing pro-gun Democrats like Bill Richardson.
I think I’ll stick with the party whose majority is friendly to gun owner. Too many Democraps are anti gun, socialist minded, power grabbers.
Thanks for the chance to vent.
As you should, if that issue is important to you, but it’s important for gun rights groups, like the NRA, to woo Democrats. We may favor one party over another because of their stance on gun rights, but we’re in a lot of trouble if we aren’t willing to work with Democrats who are pro-gun.
Good post Sebastian.
Am going to put one of my own up too, but wanted to chime in here that this is an especially critical time considering that Hillary looks more and more likely to be a shoe in – but Richardson is more and more likely to be her VP. If the NRA plays its cards right, they coukld have as much sway under Hillary as they do under any of the likely Republican candidates – more so even cause Hillary has proven herself to be an astute politician (and like Pelosi, a deal maker first and doremost) who needs the NRA to keep quiet far more than any Republican needs them.
And that’s coming from someone who just landed an official role with Fred’s campaign (on the same day I was invited to go duck hunting in the swamps of the south with some very senior Democrats).
We have allies all around, we need to embrace them.
You may be able to work with individual Dems, but you cannot work with the party or the hierarchy of the party.
Only surrender of our rights is what they consider cooperation. That has been made abundantly clear for decades and there is nothing in evidence to the contrary.
A spineless Republican party has not been our friend, but the Democrat Party is definitely our enemy.
My father used to vote mostly Democrat while he lived in California (~70s-80s), until he got pissed with them, then he switched to Republican. Now, he’s pissed at the Republicans as well.
Point being, that the Republicans gained members, and then lost them, for a reason.
I’d rather build a new ship rather than jump from a sinking ship to a sunken one. Bush’s opinion polls haven’t done the Republican party many favors, but the Democratic party hasn’t exactly been batting a thousand, either.
The rarity that is a pro-gun democrat doesn’t help, either.
My thinking as that if the Republicans can count on the votes of people for whom gun rights are important–if they can take those votes for granted, then they no longer have to court us.
I’m not trying to tell anyone to vote Democrat, but voting for a Republican merely because he or she is “less anti-gun” than the competition will serve only to set the bar for support of gun rights lower and lower. That, I submit, is not a recipe for success.
I don’t disagree Straightarrow… the leadership are no friends of ours. But you want to help the Dems who want to help you. If you can help them stay in office, eventually they’ll be in leadership positions, and things will change.
The point I was making wasn’t to suggest that Democrats are better than Republicans, as a whole, on gun rights. They are not. It was to suggest we need to be treating pro-gun Democrats as well as we treat pro-gun Republicans, even if we may have issues with them in other areas. I don’t, for instance, like Richardson’s foreign policy ideas; they are downright nutty in my view. But from a pro-gun point of view, he’s as good or better than any of the other Republicans.
This old cowboy sure had a way with words…
“There is something about a Republican that you can only stand him just so long; and on the other hand, there is something about a Democrat that you can’t stand him quite that long.†—Will Rogers
The NRA does endorse Democrats in state and congressional elections. In Kentucky, the main proponent for concealed carry is Rep. Robert Damron, D-Nicholasville, and a majority of our Members of Congress are pro gun. When you look at the output of state legislatures, they are considerably to the right of the national Democrats. If inroads are going to be made in the Democrats, it’s going to come on the state and local level. Why?
The national Democrat party has abandoned the Second Amendment. MoveOn.org and the far Left drives national Democrat politics and someone like Richardson doesn’t stand a chance for the nomination. Even if he were nominated and elected, you couldn’t depend on him to veto anti-2nd Amendment bills that would come out of the Democrat-led Congress.
Practically speaking, hardly any of us are one issue voters. And Right or Left, there are other factors we consider when we vote. But since the national Democrats pretty much want to take all our 2nd Amendment rights away, that pretty much leaves the Republicans on that issue. And they will continue to court us because they are afraid we will depend on the other issues when we cast our votes, and they can’t be as sure of those as they are the 2nd Amendment issues.
I didn’t think you were saying Dems were better. I was trying to point out that any pro-gun Dem that gets to Capitol Hill will have his legs cut out from under him by his own party or he will cave and play the game.
That could happen… for sure… but it has to get to the point where the Dems don’t need those guys anymore to stay in power. Right now, the Democrats need the Jim Webbs, the Jon Testers, and the Bill Richardsons, because without them, they don’t have a majority.
But I would agree if more anti-gun Democrats find their way into power, we could get screwed.