JohnRich 4 #1 October 3, 2011 News:Should Candidates Describe Themselves as Pro-Gun? Pollster Scott Rasmussen recently asked 1,000 likely voters the following question: "Suppose a candidate was described to you as pro-gun. Would you consider that a positive description, a negative description, or somewhere in between?" "39% see 'pro-gun' as positive label, 27% say it's a negative."Full story: Rasmussen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #2 October 3, 2011 So the short answer is no. Just because someone strongly agrees with you on one issue does not mean they will vote for you. On the other hand if someone strongly disagrees with you on an issue it stands a higher chance of being a valence issue for them wrt you. This is why so many moderate pols treat the abortion issue as poison. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,507 #3 October 3, 2011 Ya know, over the past 35 years of voting, a candidates position on guns, gays, abortion, religious beliefs, etc. have all been a flag that blows in the direction of the strongest wind during that particular election. In this one, I care about three things, 1) A Balanced Budget Amendment (cause all the talk and previous BB Acts ain't meant for naught), 2) Making America financially strong again through debt, deficit reduction (see number 1), and 3) Made in the USA (jobs) and I ain't talking about no stimulus package for the next election; I'm talking about a business plan for the next generation.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #4 October 3, 2011 I'd rather hear a candidate described as Pro Gun Rights. Pro-Gun doesn't make much sense. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #5 October 3, 2011 QuoteI'd rather hear a candidate described as Pro Gun Rights. Pro-Gun doesn't make much sense. someone that is "Pro Gun" is more likely to continue to support gun rights than someone who just says they support the 2nd Amendment. An example of the latter is when Hillary Clinton stressed how she hunts, and supports hunter rights. This is a common two step dance by gun control advocates when they run for office. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #6 October 3, 2011 QuoteNews:Should Candidates Describe Themselves as Pro-Gun? Pollster Scott Rasmussen recently asked 1,000 likely voters the following question: "Suppose a candidate was described to you as pro-gun. Would you consider that a positive description, a negative description, or somewhere in between?" "39% see 'pro-gun' as positive label, 27% say it's a negative."Full story: Rasmussen They should be honest. Politicians who will actively work to eliminate infringements on our right to keep and bear arms (change state laws on concealed carry from discretionary to shall-issue, eliminate bans on unpopular guns like .50 caliber rifles and sport-utility weapons) should identify as pro-gun. Those who will vote for neither anti-gun nor pro-gun legislation but should identify as abstaining if they exist. Those who will vote for anti-gun legislation of any sort should identify as anti. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #7 October 3, 2011 Only if they choose to label themselves. But in truth, most that claim to be "Pro-Gun" are not really. A good example is Romney. He claims to be 'pro gun' "We have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. … I won't chip away at them." - 2002. But then he signed an AWB in 2004. "I do support the Second Amendment. I would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state" - Jan 24, 2008 "Let’s get the record straight. First of all, there’s no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban" - May 15, 2007 So he CLAIMS to support the 2nd, then he acts 180*. Also look at Feinstein she has time after time voted against gun rights. Feinstein voted against the Vitter Amendment to prohibit Federal funds being used for the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during a disaster... Yet, she used to carry a handgun. "And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me." -- 27 April 1995 So you can't really take a politicians word on where they stand... you have to look at their voting record. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #8 October 3, 2011 Quotesomeone that is "Pro Gun" is more likely to continue to support gun rights than someone who just says they support the 2nd Amendment. An example of the latter is when Hillary Clinton stressed how she hunts, and supports hunter rights. This is a common two step dance by gun control advocates when they run for office. It's all semantics. "Pro-Gun" means, literally, that you like guns. It doesn't say that you are an advocate for the right to bear arms. "Pro Gun Rights" is a better descriptor. It also sounds less wacko. It's just like "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice". What stupid phrases. Labels like that are just attempts to control the rhetoric. They aren't accurate desciptions of anything. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 October 3, 2011 Quote It's all semantics. "Pro-Gun" means, literally, that you like guns. It doesn't say that you are an advocate for the right to bear arms. "Pro Gun Rights" is a better descriptor. It also sounds less wacko. I haven't seen too many Brady types that like guns. They tend to have an irrational fear of them. It makes it easier for them to ignore the Constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
