Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Elections (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   List of Progun Democrats? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=876837)

Paul in Qatar 06-08-2019 09:14 AM

List of Progun Democrats?
 
I would have thought a list of all current Congresscritters with their NRA rating would be easy to find. I would have been wrong. The lists I can find are all old.

Is there any obvious way to compile a list of governors and members of Congress based on their attitudes towards guns? This ought to be easy.

Chronos 06-08-2019 10:06 AM

Do you want NRA ratings, or do you want the candidates' positions? So far as I can tell, the NRA's evaluation consists entirely of "does the person have a D or an R after their name?".

Paul in Qatar 06-08-2019 10:17 AM

Well, I am arguing elsewhere on the internet. I was hoping for an easy way to generate a list of progun Democrats. The NRA ranking would just be a means to that end.

(Let me see if I can go at it the other way, got to an anti-gun group for their ratings.)

Paul in Qatar 06-08-2019 10:21 AM

Nope. Brady and Everytown gave me no obvious list.

Bijou Drains 06-08-2019 12:11 PM

not a politician but Bill Maher has said he owns a gun for protection, I assume it's a handgun.

pkbites 06-08-2019 12:14 PM

Never mind the NRA. Go to Gun Owners of America site and check their Congressional ratings. They are far more accurate than the NRA’s.

bibliophage 06-08-2019 02:07 PM

NPR has a chart of past votes on gun control laws, organized by state: https://www.npr.org/2018/02/19/56673...d-on-gun-bills It's more than a year old, so includes some people who aren't in Congress any more (e.g., Heitkamp of North Dakota).

Bone 06-08-2019 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bijou Drains (Post 21687626)
not a politician but Bill Maher has said he owns a gun for protection, I assume it's a handgun.

Owning firearms is no measure of being pro gun. Lots of people are of the attitude, okay for me but not for thee.

iiandyiiii 06-08-2019 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21687876)
Owning firearms is no measure of being pro gun. Lots of people are of the attitude, okay for me but not for thee.

Assuming one isn't for banning all handguns, there's nothing hypocritical about supporting some increased gun control measures and owning a gun. If they own an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and want to ban AR-15s and 30 round magazines, then that's hypocritical, but not simply owning a handgun while being broadly in favor of gun control measures.

Kent Clark 06-08-2019 05:09 PM

Here you go, from the Washington Post, as of February.

Four Democratic senators have at least an A- rating from the NRA.

Joe Manchin III (W.Va.)
Joe Donnelly (Ind.)
Jon Tester (Mont.)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D)

However, Manchin co-sponsored the bill to stiffen background checks after Sandy Hook, and Donnelly and Tester supported it.

Bernie Sanders, who insists he's a 2nd Amendment supporter, got a D- from the NRA in 2012, the last time he was rated by them.

Bone 06-08-2019 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21687887)
Assuming one isn't for banning all handguns, there's nothing hypocritical about supporting some increased gun control measures and owning a gun. If they own an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and want to ban AR-15s and 30 round magazines, then that's hypocritical, but not simply owning a handgun while being broadly in favor of gun control measures.

Sure. Not hypocritical, but not pro gun. More like the white moderate that King talked about in his letters from a Birmingham jail.

Just like someone can't be pro choice and want to make abortion illegal after 10 weeks of pregnancy.

JXJohns 06-08-2019 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21687887)
Assuming one isn't for banning all handguns, there's nothing hypocritical about supporting some increased gun control measures and owning a gun. If they own an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and want to ban AR-15s and 30 round magazines, then that's hypocritical, but not simply owning a handgun while being broadly in favor of gun control measures.

I would challenge this by changing the issue from gun control to abortion. Is there room for someone to be labeled "pro choice" yet support restrictions on abortions? Maybe there is... As a litmus test for a candidate however, I can't think of any D seriously running for President who is considered pro choice but supports any of the new laws being passed across the nation or any real restrictions on abortions. I feel the same to be true considering gun control.

I think it is difficult to call someone a "pro gun" candidate who supports any increased gun control measures, or being broadly in favor of same. They are neutral at best and whether they own guns personally is neither here nor there for me.

It looks like someone else has posted a list of pro gun candidates so if this is a hijack, please disregard.

iiandyiiii 06-08-2019 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21688093)
More like the white moderate that King talked about in his letters from a Birmingham jail.

Comparing gun owners (or gun rights activists) to (routinely brutalized and even murdered) black people and civil rights activists strikes me as, at best, indicative of a gross misunderstanding of history.

iiandyiiii 06-08-2019 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JXJohns (Post 21688096)
I would challenge this by changing the issue from gun control to abortion. Is there room for someone to be labeled "pro choice" yet support restrictions on abortions? Maybe there is... As a litmus test for a candidate however, I can't think of any D seriously running for President who is considered pro choice but supports any of the new laws being passed across the nation or any real restrictions on abortions. I feel the same to be true considering gun control.

I think it is difficult to call someone a "pro gun" candidate who supports any increased gun control measures, or being broadly in favor of same. They are neutral at best and whether they own guns personally is neither here nor there for me.

It looks like someone else has posted a list of pro gun candidates so if this is a hijack, please disregard.

I wasn't quibbling with not calling them "pro-gun", just implying that they are hypocrites. It's not hypocritical to be in favor of restrictions on abortion, unless one has (or helps a daughter/girlfriend/wife have) an abortion that would be illegal under those restrictions.

Bijou Drains 06-08-2019 06:11 PM

It's likely you will find most Dems rated high by the NRA in the south. A lot of them switched to the GOP but not all of them.

Paul in Qatar 06-08-2019 09:05 PM

Thank you. My, wasn't that harder to find than you would have thought? People talk about NRA rankings all the time, but it is hard to find a clean list.

Chronos 06-09-2019 07:46 AM

Someone can be pro-<something> and still support reasonable restrictions on <something>. Someone who calls themselves pro-<something> and supports unreasonable restrictions on <something> is hypocritical. The point of contention is just which restrictions are reasonable. And on any issue, there will always be a few loud folks who call any restrictions at all unreasonable.

JXJohns 06-09-2019 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21688697)
Someone can be pro-<something> and still support reasonable restrictions on <something>. Someone who calls themselves pro-<something> and supports unreasonable restrictions on <something> is hypocritical. The point of contention is just which restrictions are reasonable. And on any issue, there will always be a few loud folks who call any restrictions at all unreasonable.

The word "reasonable" is truly key in this discussion.

With that being said, do you consider any of the viable D presidential candidates pro gun? I don't, nor do I consider Trump pro gun either FWIW.

Chronos 06-09-2019 12:12 PM

None of them is in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment, which makes them all extremely pro-gun, by comparison with the vast majority of the world.

thelurkinghorror 06-09-2019 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21687465)
Do you want NRA ratings, or do you want the candidates' positions? So far as I can tell, the NRA's evaluation consists entirely of "does the person have a D or an R after their name?".

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkbites (Post 21687628)
Never mind the NRA. Go to Gun Owners of America site and check their Congressional ratings. They are far more accurate than the NRA’s.

Eh, the GOA is more likely to base ratings on their party, so much that NRA As get Fs from them. Not that the NRA's ratings are necessarily honest.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent Clark (Post 21688026)
Here you go, from the Washington Post, as of February.

Four Democratic senators have at least an A- rating from the NRA.

Joe Manchin III (W.Va.)
Joe Donnelly (Ind.)
Jon Tester (Mont.)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D)

However, Manchin co-sponsored the bill to stiffen background checks after Sandy Hook, and Donnelly and Tester supported it.

Bernie Sanders, who insists he's a 2nd Amendment supporter, got a D- from the NRA in 2012, the last time he was rated by them.

I don't think that's from February consieridering Heitkamp was out of office in January. Also no current political position, but Jim Webb was the most recent one to run a campaign for President.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21688965)
None of them is in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment, which makes them all extremely pro-gun, by comparison with the vast majority of the world.

Quite frankly, "the world" doesn't have a say.

DrDeth 06-09-2019 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21688965)
None of them is in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment, which makes them all extremely pro-gun, by comparison with the vast majority of the world.

Booker comes pretty close. And maybe Harris, but her official position is kinda moderate for dems. I think calling for Heller to be gotten rid of is fairly close to calling for repeal of the 2nd.


and there's this: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...cond-amendment

and this:
https://psmag.com/social-justice/dem...didates-do-not
Just look at the most recent National Rifle Association ratings for a dozen of the presidential candidates: Harris, Booker, Joe Biden, and John Delaney rate a seven on the NRA's one to 100 support scale. Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Sanders, Warren, Beto O'Rourke, and Sherrod Brown all rate a 13. Governor John Hickenlooper got a failing grade from the NRA for his work to pass bipartisan gun control in Colorado. Only Montana Governor Steve Bullock pulls decent NRA ratings—a 43—but he doesn't look to be anywhere close to the top tier of candidates right now.

This agreement on gun-control issues marks a remarkable shift for the party. A little over a decade ago, most national Democratic candidates didn't want to bring up gun control on the stump. Democrats were largely convinced that their support for gun control had cost them control of the Congress in the 1990s and the presidency in 2000, and they radically retreated on the issue, while the NRA became far more aggressive and more explicitly partisan in its support and its messaging.


Of course the NRA ratings are pretty worthless.

JXJohns 06-09-2019 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21688965)
None of them is in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment, which makes them all extremely pro-gun, by comparison with the vast majority of the world.

Good to know. Thanks for the international insight.

ElvisL1ves 06-10-2019 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror (Post 21689056)
Quite frankly, "the world" doesn't have a say.

If everybody around you is telling you you're mistaken about something, don't you need to listen?

The OP would have benefited from defining "anti-gun" - using the NRA's definition is one way, sure, but it's not illuminating. Neither is defining any measures at all as being anti-gun, as some would have it.

ElvisL1ves 06-10-2019 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21688100)
Comparing gun owners (or gun rights activists) to (routinely brutalized and even murdered) black people and civil rights activists strikes me as, at best, indicative of a gross misunderstanding of history.

Even the implication that gun owners are the victims of persecution is ridiculous.

Chronos 06-10-2019 08:37 AM

Quote:

Quoth DrDeth:

I think calling for Heller to be gotten rid of is fairly close to calling for repeal of the 2nd.
So the US had no significant legal protections for guns until 11 years ago?

Bone 06-10-2019 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21688100)
Comparing gun owners (or gun rights activists) to (routinely brutalized and even murdered) black people and civil rights activists strikes me as, at best, indicative of a gross misunderstanding of history.

On the contrary. I find the comparison quite reasonable, especially given that part of the motivation for the 14th amendment was to guarantee freed slaves the right to arms in order to resist those that would harm them. If you want to stack rank fundamental civil rights that can be an interesting exercise, but I'm comfortable with the analogy.

iiandyiiii 06-10-2019 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21690028)
On the contrary. I find the comparison quite reasonable, especially given that part of the motivation for the 14th amendment was to guarantee freed slaves the right to arms in order to resist those that would harm them. If you want to stack rank fundamental civil rights that can be an interesting exercise, but I'm comfortable with the analogy.

That you appear to believe that gun owners or gun activists face anything, in terms of risk to life, limb, and a fair chance at success, even remotely in the same ballpark as faced by black people during the early and mid 20th century, tells me a lot about why you're so focused on gun rights. If I thought gun owners and activists faced anything close to that, I'd be in your side on every gun issue.

ElvisL1ves 06-10-2019 08:55 AM

That only makes sense if there is an inalienable right to gun ownership, but not to anyone else's life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. And if gun ownership was an immutable, inborn characteristic, not a lifestyle choice. And if gun owners were actually being persecuted in any detectable way. But none of those things are true, are they?

IOW, you're presenting the absolutist single-issue ideologue's view, not that of a responsible member of society. It should be no surprise if you rate any politician with something less than that fervor as "anti-gun". And Dr. King would be appalled, I'm fairly sure.

Ravenman 06-10-2019 08:57 AM

Yeah, let's just get this straight: the people who drafted the Constitution and its amendments had quite a few very good ideas, and several really stupid ones. The idea that black Americans could resist discrimination by blowing oppressors away, Dirty Harry style, is 100% laughable.

I mean, someone has to be fucking bonkers to think that Emmitt Till would have been fine if he had been armed.

bordelond 06-10-2019 08:59 AM

Democratic Louisiana governor John Bel Edwards considers himself pro-gun.

That first link, OnTheIssues.org, might be of use to the OP. I didn't see a neat-&-tidy list available, but you can look up any individual politician you like.

Chronos 06-10-2019 09:13 AM

Someone would have to be even more bonkers to think that Philando Castile would have been fine if he were armed.

ElvisL1ves 06-10-2019 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21690075)
Yeah, let's just get this straight: the people who drafted the Constitution and its amendments had quite a few very good ideas, and several really stupid ones.

It isn't their fault if someone today insists on ignoring or cherrypicking what they did write, or simply stating the opposite and attributing it to them. For instance, there are actual people here on the actual Dope who think the Constitution enables insurrections by "militias", even though it actually says the militia is there to suppress insurrections. How do you engage those types in any sort of useful discussion?

Ravenman 06-10-2019 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkbites (Post 21687628)
Never mind the NRA. Go to Gun Owners of America site and check their Congressional ratings. They are far more accurate than the NRA’s.

If one believes John McCain should have been graded an "F-" on gun rights.

They are the Westboro Baptist Church of gun organizations, which may be great for its members, but let's not pretend they are in any way a mainstream, objective, or generally respected source.

Snarky_Kong 06-10-2019 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21687887)
Assuming one isn't for banning all handguns, there's nothing hypocritical about supporting some increased gun control measures and owning a gun. If they own an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine and want to ban AR-15s and 30 round magazines, then that's hypocritical, but not simply owning a handgun while being broadly in favor of gun control measures.

I don't even think that's hypocritical. Where's the contradiction in owning something and also thinking it should be more difficult/impossible to own? I own a pistol because it's legal and easy to do so. However, I would much prefer that nobody in the US had handguns and would readily give mine up if such laws were passed.

Bone 06-10-2019 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21690045)
That you appear to believe that gun owners or gun activists face anything, in terms of risk to life, limb, and a fair chance at success, even remotely in the same ballpark as faced by black people during the early and mid 20th century, tells me a lot about why you're so focused on gun rights. If I thought gun owners and activists faced anything close to that, I'd be in your side on every gun issue.

I'm not comparing the magnitude so this is not on point. I'm making an analogy. Gun rights are civil rights. Gay rights are civil rights. Trans rights are civil rights. These so called pro-gun Democrats aren't really pro-gun just like the white moderates who King criticized weren't sufficiently supportive of the rights of black people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21690075)
Yeah, let's just get this straight: the people who drafted the Constitution and its amendments had quite a few very good ideas, and several really stupid ones. The idea that black Americans could resist discrimination by blowing oppressors away, Dirty Harry style, is 100% laughable.

I mean, someone has to be fucking bonkers to think that Emmitt Till would have been fine if he had been armed.

Certainly not for Till. And not for many - arms are not some magical talisman. But in general, do you believe that blacks post civil war would have suffered the same level of harm if they were on equal footing of arms with their oppressors?

As Southern Black Codes and the KKK were disarming freedmen in the south, the Freedmen's Bureau was extended, overriding presidential veto. The Freedmen's Bureau Act gave ex-slaves "any of the civil rights or immunities belonging to white persons, including the right to.....inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms."

When Bingham drafted and was arguing in favor of the 14th amendment, he said, that it would "enforce in its letter and its spirit the bill of rights as embodied in that Constitution." Bingham quoted the seventh section of the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, which provided that all persons shall "have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms."

The discussion of arms when the 14th amendment was debated was pervasive (not exclusive). Its author and supporters certainly believed that black Americans could resist oppression and had the right to defend themselves with arms.

Ravenman 06-10-2019 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21690311)
But in general, do you believe that blacks post civil war would have suffered the same level of harm if they were on equal footing of arms with their oppressors?

Without question, absolutely yes. I see a reasonable case for even more violence: today we see police shooting black men for fear they were reaching for a gun, which in too many cases is clearly an error, but in most cases is probably indicative of a bias or fear of the victims.

I have not a moment's hesitation that the corrupt racist power structures, especially of the segregationist police of the civil rights era, would have undertook a campaign of violence using the "black man is going to kill cops to defend himself" idea as a pretext for their clearly racist causes.

Quote:

The discussion of arms when the 14th amendment was debated was pervasive (not exclusive). Its author and supporters certainly believed that black Americans could resist oppression and had the right to defend themselves with arms.
I don't argue that the author was insincere in his beliefs. I'm saying his beliefs were completely and outrageously stupid. To put it another way, some politicians thought founding Liberia was a great idea to bring about justice, and that too was a stupid notion.

iiandyiiii 06-10-2019 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21690311)
I'm not comparing the magnitude so this is not on point. I'm making an analogy. Gun rights are civil rights. Gay rights are civil rights. Trans rights are civil rights. These so called pro-gun Democrats aren't really pro-gun just like the white moderates who King criticized weren't sufficiently supportive of the rights of black people.

I think this analogy is dismissive and flippant to those who have actually been brutalized and worse over these rights. Gun owners and activists have not been and are not under threat of brutalization for speaking up about their rights (unless they're black, interestingly enough). That's why LGBTQ-rights and the mid 20th CR movements are notable -- because these were people that were being brutalized and murdered. They did not have access to a fair chance at a successful life, or even in many cases a fair chance at a life free of state brutalization (and state tolerance of brutalization).

There's nothing close to that kind of challenge or obstacle facing gun owners and gun activists. Considering how thoroughly the gun rights advocates have won in court, over and over again, the continuing fight for gun rights appears to me as much more similar to "men's rights advocates" than to the civil righs movements of the last half century. You guys won and keep winning.

You're not Rosa Parks, fighting against oppression. You're (in a more apt analogy) the rich guy telling Ronald Reagan your taxes should be lower.

Bone 06-10-2019 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21690338)
Without question, absolutely yes. I see a reasonable case for even more violence: today we see police shooting black men for fear they were reaching for a gun, which in too many cases is clearly an error, but in most cases is probably indicative of a bias or fear of the victims.

I have not a moment's hesitation that the corrupt racist power structures, especially of the segregationist police of the civil rights era, would have undertook a campaign of violence using the "black man is going to kill cops to defend himself" idea as a pretext for their clearly racist causes.

That is what the corrupt racist power structures were already doing. Armed blacks were a motivator in passing the black codes across the south. Disarming this populace was necessary to oppress them. It's like some alternate history exercise I suppose, but I disagree that blacks would have suffered the same or worse levels of harm had they been well armed. This idea is not unheard of today - the Black Panthers armed themselves when existing power structures would not enforce their rights. The Pink Pistols motto is armed gays don't get bashed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21690342)
I think this analogy is dismissive and flippant to those who have actually been brutalized and worse over these rights.

I on the other hand, think it's precisely on point.

iiandyiiii 06-10-2019 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21690402)
I on the other hand, think it's precisely on point.

Carry on then, winner. Keep winning and "fighting" for what you've already won while never facing state (or state-tolerated) brutalization or violence! And be sure to pat yourself on the back, and liken yourselves to Civil Rights heroes, for this incredible stance of not risking or sacrificing anything and not facing any risk of bodily harm!

D'Anconia 06-10-2019 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kent Clark (Post 21688026)
Here you go, from the Washington Post, as of February.

Four Democratic senators have at least an A- rating from the NRA.

Joe Manchin III (W.Va.)
Joe Donnelly (Ind.)
Jon Tester (Mont.)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D)

Neither Donnelly nor Heitkamp are Senators anymore.

BigT 06-10-2019 11:34 AM

Even if you believe in gun rights, trying to compare them to trans rights or gay rights or anything else like that is a bad analogy. Those are about people. Guns are things. Trans rights is about giving trans people the same rights as everyone else. Gay rights is about giving gay people the same rights as everyone else. Gun rights IS NOT about giving guns the same rights as everyone else.

Gun rights are about granting people the rights to use guns. That is a fundamentally different concept. Ownership is not the same thing as equality. Trans rights is not about owning and using trans people.

I'm not even going to take a side. This should be something all sides can agree on. You cannot argue that the rights of an object are the same as those of a person.

It's just a quirk of language that we can use the same syntax to describe these different concepts.

DrDeth 06-10-2019 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21690025)
So the US had no significant legal protections for guns until 11 years ago?


More or less no. Each state or city was free to do whatever they wanted. Chicago, DC and SF all banned handguns. Altho the SF law was overturned just because CA state has authority over gun laws, not locals, Chicago and DC felt free to ban handguns. Up until then, no one had tried really widespread guns bans, only "nibbles".

DrDeth 06-10-2019 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21690075)
Yeah, let's just get this straight: the people who drafted the Constitution and its amendments had quite a few very good ideas, and several really stupid ones. The idea that black Americans could resist discrimination by blowing oppressors away, Dirty Harry style, is 100% laughable.

I mean, someone has to be fucking bonkers to think that Emmitt Till would have been fine if he had been armed.

I dont think we need another thread on guns, in general, maybe we shoudl try to stay more on Democratic candidates and their stances?

Mea culpa too.

Ravenman 06-10-2019 12:00 PM

Good point.

pkbites 06-10-2019 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21690184)
If one believes John McCain should have been graded an "F-" on gun rights.

McCain should have been rated “F-“ on every issue. He frequently talked out of both sides of his mouth and wasn’t dependable on any of his stances which he was subject to change. He cast some pro-gun owner votes, then he would talk about supporting gun bans. Some were dumb enough to find his Maverick title endearing when in fact it was disingenuous and dangerous to our Republic.

Ravenman 06-10-2019 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkbites (Post 21690527)
McCain should have been rated “F-“ on every issue. He frequently talked out of both sides of his mouth and wasn’t dependable on any of his stances which he was subject to change. He cast some pro-gun owner votes, then he would talk about supporting gun bans. Some were dumb enough to find his Maverick title endearing when in fact it was disingenuous and dangerous to our Republic.

If one cannot distinguish between the Second Amendment views of John McCain and Nancy Pelosi -- two politicians whom the GOA rates identically -- I would submit that ratings are merely frivolous expressions of grudges and other subjective criteria. Which was my point: the GOA ratings are nothing for anyone but a fringe to pay attention to.

I can't even tell from their ratings if they are based on votes or actual positions, as opposed to mere feeeeeelings about particular people. Like, the GOA opposes Trump's pick to head ATF because he doesn't want to abolish the current system for background checks on gun buyers. So, he's terrible.

RTFirefly 06-10-2019 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21687876)
Owning firearms is no measure of being pro gun. Lots of people are of the attitude, okay for me but not for thee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21687887)
Assuming one isn't for banning all handguns, there's nothing hypocritical about supporting some increased gun control measures and owning a gun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21688093)
Sure. Not hypocritical, but not pro gun.

Just to clarify, you would retract your "Lots of people are of the attitude, okay for me but not for thee" remark?

Bone 06-10-2019 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21690770)
Just to clarify, you would retract your "Lots of people are of the attitude, okay for me but not for thee" remark?

No. I don't consider the 'okay for me but not for thee' attitude necessarily hypocritical so I don't see a conflict.

iiandyiiii 06-10-2019 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bone (Post 21690786)
No. I don't consider the 'okay for me but not for thee' attitude necessarily hypocritical so I don't see a conflict.

Then what is "okay for me but not for thee" about being in favor of banning, say, 30 round magazines while owning a handgun with a 10 round magazine?

pkbites 06-10-2019 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21690705)
If one cannot distinguish between the Second Amendment views of John McCain and Nancy Pelosi -- two politicians whom the GOA rates identically -- I would submit that ratings are merely frivolous expressions of grudges and other subjective criteria. Which was my point: the GOA ratings are nothing for anyone but a fringe to pay attention to.

You didn’t read my post, did you? McCain couldn’t be trusted to maintain a steady platform of being pro-gun rights because of statements he made even in the face of pro-gun votes he made. He was unbalanced and couldn’t be counted on. Just because he happened to make more pro-gun votes than Pelosi doesn’t mean he deserved a better grade than her. He knocked his rating down doing and saying other things. There are several factors that are considered in those ratings. He simply wasn’t the 2nd Amendment defender the left paints him as. GOA exposed him for what he was and it pisses you off. So you label GOA owners as extremists and fringe. Oh, yeah? At least we didn’t roll over and play dead like the NRA does when it comes to compromising on our civil liberties.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.