How can you support the right to bear arms and vote Democrat?

Question

Nearly everyone on this site seems to support the Second Amendment (the right to own and use lawful firearms) but many claim to be Democrats, despite the fact that many leaders of the Democrat party have as their top priority the registration and eventual confiscation of all lawful citizens's personal firearms.

My question has nothing to do with Dick Cheney's hunting accident.

I do not believe and did not state that all who vote Democrat want to confiscate legal firearms. However, this is and has been a very high priority of Democrat Senators Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstien and others. Dianne Feinstien once said, and I quote ...."Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in". Washinton, D.C. and New York City (both Democrat strongholds) have long ago declared many personal firearms illegal and the State of California (another) is beginning to do the same.

Answer 1

I think your assumption about the Democrats top priority is incorrect. Clinton, Gore and even Kerry made their positions on gun control quite evident. They supported the right to bear arms, with a few reasonable restrictions on assault weapons only.

Answer 2

I could write on this issue for at least weeks.

The bottom line is politicians, granted Dems are worse than Reps but not much, all of them, want your guns. They are afraid that at some point the antics they pull will so infuriate the American People that they will take their government back. We are headed to Pre-WWII Germany status. Hitler's words, not mine, "locate and confiscate all privately owned firearms".

TxSup is a scary example. The Second Amendment ends with the words "shall not be infringed". I have read it countless times, I assure it contains no remarks about "reasonable restrictions on assault rifles". Incidentally, I am retired military, an assault rifle is full auto capable. Machine guns have not been legal in the US since the 1930's.

This CRAP started in 1968 with a law making it unlawful to mail order a gun. 15 years ago when I gave up on the issue, this country had nearly 60,000 individual laws covering firearms. When a person is required to jump through that many hoops, how can it not be called infringement. We stepped onto a slippery slope shortly after the assassination of President Kennedy and have been sliding downhill, ever faster, since then.

Remember the following:
An armed man is a citizen.
An unarmed man is a subject.
A disarmed man is a prisoner.

And by the way, this country is well on the way to being disarmed, that is all but the criminals and the cops. When that happens will you be more afraid of the criminals or the cops???

Answer 3

You have to go back to the wording of the constitution to understand why the socialists in the Dem party want your guns.

The intent of the founders in requiring that we bear arms was to protect us from a tyrannical government, like the Brits taxing us without representation, just like the congress does today.

Our congress is right on the verge of becoming tyrannical and those who intend that to be the endgame are seeking to take your arms. You listed a few but the list is much, much longer. These socialists cannot take control of the means of production or anymore or your income unless you are disarmed. I truly believe that we are closer today than ever in our history to having another revolution, free men against the socialists in our congress.

It is unfortunate that many who vote democratic and are moderate allow this to happen in their party. For all who have answered as Dems but support the 2nd Amendment, why do you let your party try to disarm the free citizens of this country? Why??

My guess with the voters as with those who allow it in their party in congress is they do not have a backbone to stand up and say this is wrong.

For those idiots who want to label a particular weapon as being more dangerous than another let me tell you that a smoothbore lead ball and powder started and ended the first revolution. Had the Brits had weapons that the citizens of this country did not have you would be bitching today about throwing Blair instead of Bush because we would have lost.

It is a crime for a criminal to have a weapon, yet they do and you want to write more laws. Are you stupid? Do you thing if you overwhelm criminals with laws that will stop crime? Get a grip, and get a grip on your personal weapon, that WILL stop crime. Police do not protect us, they ONLY ACT after a crime has been committed. Clinton did not protect us from 911 yet he wants to treat terrorists as criminals.

Currently a free citizen can own a full automatic weapon, legally and when that freedom is taken from you by the socialists you had better head for the hills because they will take everything next.

Answer 4

I am not a democrat for that reason alone. I believe they have a very good domestic agenda. and make more common sense.
however I do not trust them to uphold and defend the constitution and its amendments as written by our forefathers of this great nation. Instead new ways have been found to gradually eliminate the means of producing ammunition. Already hundreds of ammo manufactures are forced into complying with the United Nations call for dis armament. there are other groups that pressure our government to this New movement to disarm. Hillary Clinton is enemy to the second amendment she is a two faced liar and will tell the people whatever they want to gain their confidence.
What our government ceases to realize is that we as an armed populace we are the Countries last line of defense in the event that another superpower may find a window of opportunity, as our nations capitol when is session, bicker and never agree on anything. We the people have a real problem that has infiltrated our government and it is those who wish to slowly erode our rights and freedoms we enjoy. Thanks, for letting me share my view.

Answer 5

Well, I think the most pertinent answer to your question is the fact that there does exist, for both parties, a gulf between party platforms and leadership on one end and the actual citizen on the other. Of course, there are those individuals who follow their party platforms to the letter, but many, even the majority, are not so easily categorized. Most individuals are far more influenced by more local sources, like family, local culture, etc, than by national political standards. To give an alternative example, I know of a few Republican women who have had abortions, regardless of party stand. People are more complex than any party platform, and more varied than its leadership.

Answer 6

Just because your a Democrat or a Republican doesn't mean that you agree with the members of congress or your particular party on everything. Theres a difference between the right to bear arms and having control so a wack job dosent get one. You have to take all the issues at hand and prioritize then align yourself. I I'm registered a Dem but I know consider myself a Constitutionalists.

Answer 7

There are many gun-totin' Democrats. I live in Pennsylvania where hunting is big. It'd be political suicide for any person outside the inner cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to vote to make a gun registration list no matter how badly it's needed.
In fact, many PA legislators are Democrats and gun-owners.
Of course, there are those at the national level who do support common-sense rules of ownership, but that doesn't mean that each individual legislator supports the rules.
Take a look at what Bush is doing right now. He's trying to line up support for torture. However, some in his own party are against it.
It's OK for any person in any party to not agree with leadership 100% of the time.

Answer 8

Just like i can be pro-choice and vote republican. I don't have to agree with everything a party "seems" to stand for. I vote on issues not party lines I also vote according to who I believe has a majority of my issues at heart.

Rule 1.. Freedom of speech.
Rule 2.. protect Rule 1

Answer 9

Things are seldom as "black and white" as you seem to think. It is silly to assume that all Democrats want to confiscate privately owned firearms, just as it is silly to assume that all Republicans are members of the NRA. A great example is Howard Dean. No doubt, he is one of the most way-out left wingers in the country, and yet he is a staunch supporter of gun owners' rights. And I'm a Republican, conservative on most issues, making this observation. You simply can't paint a whole party with the same brush. Things are always more complex than that.

Answer 10

just like not all republicans believe in god........i know personally a dem state rep from illinois who not only supports the 2nd amendment but is an active hunter as well. even tho i am a rep i still vote for the man. we dont agree on every issue but i dont agree with every issue any other pol has. and to rebel gal.....guns are not dangerous. its the piss-heads that use them to commit crimes or ones like you who probably dont even know how to handle one correctly that are dangerous. and you show your true ignorance by throwing out that ridiculous automatic weapons statement. automatics are not readably available to just anyone. you have to have a class 3 license and to get one of those you have to submit to a rather extensive background check. you cant have any bones in your closet to get one of those. and as for registration.......why should i have to register my weapons when the criminals dont???