TexasCHLforum.com

Well, bear in mind, people are not, generally speaking, single-issue voters.

In fact I think those who vote are more likely no-issue voters. I think they tend to vote based on name recognition and also upon a great misunderstanding as to the intended role and effect of government. If there are any "issues" that people vote, they are things like this:

1. What is this politician going to do that will specifically and temporarily benefit ME
2. What did this politician succeed in doing, or claim to do, in the past that did or would have temporarily benefited ME
3. Is this politician a likable person, or do they effectively oppose other politicians whom I find less likable?
4. Does this politician profess philosophical agreement with me on one or another moral issues which stand almost no chance of ever actually impacting public policy?

So as close as most people get to voting issues is #4. Sad to say, gun rights are in #4, along with abortion, stem cell research, taking "God" out of all parts of public life, the death penalty, repealing the income tax, privatizing this or that (notably schools), so-called "gay rights", etc.

So for example, let's say Candidate X supports abortion, government funding of stem cell research, increasing taxes on "corporations" and lowering taxes on "the poor", gay marriage, and supports an assault weapons ban. Candidate Y supports school vouchers, across-the-board tax cuts, overturning Roe V. Wade, and RKBA. Well who is the gun-owning, gay, pro-abortion welfare recipient going to vote for?

anygunanywhere wrote:Mr.72, if what you said was true the bailout would have never passed because IIRC over 60% of us did not want it.

Really? Which bailout?

When it was happening, there was definitely a tone nationally of "we need to do something NOW". I was in D.C. that week. I spoke with my Congressman after I got back. Trust me, they thought that the bailout was a winning move.

However it is a moot point since mostly these politicians only honor those desires of their own party. It was easy at the time of the bailout, final months of a campaign, etc. to misinterpret what is a split opinion that did not occur along party lines. The bailout issue was supported in large numbers (if not majorities) by both Democrat voters and Republicans. It was not supported in large number by Libertarians. The bailout only had one alternative, which was no-bailout, which, in the minds of our mostly economically-uneducated citizens, equated to collapse of the financial institutions.

Yeah sure in retrospect I think most of us think the bailout was a bad idea.

But this is really drifting off the thread. Some politicians may pay for their bailout vote in 2, 4 or 6 years. But Pelosi and most other career politicians have a longstanding history of being re-elected and knowing exactly what position to take to ensure that it continues to happen. Some can get away with murder or at least manslaughter, grand larceny, fraud, prostitution, and a host of other things without it costing them their office. Clearly there is something they are doing to support the voters' will. I think Pelosi et. al. positions on gun control are an absolute reflection of their constituency.

Actually, I think Pelosi probably professes support for anti-gun legislation because her support results in votes. If all of the sudden the people in her district were to start voting against anti-gun candidates then she would flip like Shamu. I think this is probably true for 99% of all politicians, at least incumbents. They are elected in districts or parts of the country where the constituents in majority are aligned with one or the other party platforms, so within the context of that platform, they will support whatever fires up the base. They will do whatever necessary to stay in office. Very few will stand on principle, simply because generally speaking standing on principle, if that happens to depart from the opinion of your constituents, results in a career change for politicians. Standing on principle only matters if it is is counter to the polls. I think this is why you don't see people like Rush Limbaugh not running for public office, and people like Jesse Jackson losing when they run.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that most career politicians actually have firmly held beliefs. That's the wool you are seeing before your eyes.

I think it's more like, he doesn't intend to take away:

1. guns we already own
2. our ability to buy new guns, provided they meet with whatever "commonsense" requirements that new gun purchases are going to be subjected to in the future

And I believe that Mr. Obama also does believe in the 2nd Amendment, defined as the right we all have to own, if we choose, at least one gun. Restrictions on what type of gun that is, how many, if any, more than one, the means by which it must be bought, the method of storage, and whether we can carry that gun outside of our homes besides on a bona-fide hunting trip, are all subject to regulation as "commonsense restrictions".

So in this case, when he says "gun owners have nothing to worry about" is a half-truth. It's probably true that he doesn't intend to take away guns we already own legally. However if you might want to purchase another gun (that is, you may not already be a gun owner, or you are already a gun owner and would like to have >1 guns), then you might have something to "worry about".