Equal Representation & Gun Control.

[GardoneVT]

I'm reading a chapter for class regarding equal representation,and I've noticed a peculiar problem regarding pro-gun laws.

So long as a state's urban population is balanced by it's rural voting base,the RKBA is recognized with minimal regulation.Once the larger cities in said state start accumulating people,the votes start tipping in favor of the urbanites and things go downhill fast.The rural gun owners protest ,but at the end of the day the city has the votes-and the city dwellers just don't understand the need for civil ownership of arms.

How do we solve this problem?The way I see it,if we do nothing we'll eventually become a nation of rural dwellers chained to the gun control culture of the nearest big city.Setting votes based on land area brings up ugly connotations of vote disenfranchisement.

What say you?

[Byron]

I'm interpreting your question as, "When everyone has an equal vote, things don't go the way I want. How can we change the voting system so that resulting policies reflect my views?"

[ToddG]

What say you?

That you're a few decades behind in figuring this out. (and that's being polite... see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise))

Large swathes of New York State are Republican-controlled and have a strong tradition of gun ownership; but the concentrated population centers, especially NYC, are so heavily represented that gun control happens.

Ditto California. Ditto Massachusetts. Heck, even my home state of Maryland is essentially controlled by Baltimore and a couple of heavily populated counties that border Washington DC.

That's one reason why the trend away from "old white guys hunting" to "young diverse women protecting themselves" is such a critical part of our future. Getting the urban and suburban non-nuclear families to appreciate and fight for RKBA is the only chance we have.

[GardoneVT]

That you're a few decades behind in figuring this out. (and that's being polite... see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise))

Large swathes of New York State are Republican-controlled and have a strong tradition of gun ownership; but the concentrated population centers, especially NYC, are so heavily represented that gun control happens.

Ditto California. Ditto Massachusetts. Heck, even my home state of Maryland is essentially controlled by Baltimore and a couple of heavily populated counties that border Washington DC.

That's one reason why the trend away from "old white guys hunting" to "young diverse women protecting themselves" is such a critical part of our future. Getting the urban and suburban non-nuclear families to appreciate and fight for RKBA is the only chance we have.

Im only 27 and have been shooting for only the last 5 years,so I'm still a newbie at the political details.

But if I'm reading your response correctly, this would imply that the days of the RKBA are numbered.The demographics of immigrants,minority,and women voters all are on the rise while the conservative,nuclear rural family which is the bread and.butter of the GOP is quickly fading into obsolescence.This wouldnt be so bad,except those aforementioned groups vote Democrat.

One day the "Old White Guys" will be dead white guys-and even in my conservative state,I'm seeing signs of the ice beginning to crack beneath our feet.The son of a Minnesota farmer argued in my senior level political science class that the RKBA is obsolete.

Any ideas on "spraeding the good word" on self defense?

[GardoneVT]

I'm interpreting your question as, "When everyone has an equal vote, things don't go the way I want. How can we change the voting system so that resulting policies reflect my views?"

So your point is that we should let the system be,regardless of outcome to the legal recognition of the RKBA.

Fair enough.Is that because you respect the rights if the collective to set policy over individual freedom?I'm not trying to be snarky or sarcastic that question-I really want to understand your view on this .

[jlw]

I'm reading a chapter for class regarding equal representation,and I've noticed a peculiar problem regarding pro-gun laws.

So long as a state's urban population is balanced by it's rural voting base,the RKBA is recognized with minimal regulation.Once the larger cities in said state start accumulating people,the votes start tipping in favor of the urbanites and things go downhill fast.The rural gun owners protest ,but at the end of the day the city has the votes-and the city dwellers just don't understand the need for civil ownership of arms.

How do we solve this problem?The way I see it,if we do nothing we'll eventually become a nation of rural dwellers chained to the gun control culture of the nearest big city.Setting votes based on land area brings up ugly connotations of vote disenfranchisement.

What say you?

I-285 is the "perimeter" around most of metro-Atlanta. Problems that arise "inside the perimeter" often result in an "Atlanta solution to an Atlanta problem that is forced on the rest of the state" regardless of the fact that it isn't a problem anywhere but Atlanta. Apparently, the notion of passing local legislation escapes many.

---

Of historical note, we used to have an electoral system for Governor called the County Unit System. It was basically an electoral college type system for electing the Governor; however, each county was worth the same number of points. So, a county with 4,000 people was equal to winning a county with 400,000 people. This was challenged in court under the equal protection argument and was tossed. Fortunately, the Electoral College is written into the Constitution.

[HCM]

Im only 27 and have been shooting for only the last 5 years,so I'm still a newbie at the political details.

But if I'm reading your response correctly, this would imply that the days of the RKBA are numbered.The demographics of immigrants,minority,and women voters all are on the rise while the conservative,nuclear rural family which is the bread and.butter of the GOP is quickly fading into obsolescence.This wouldnt be so bad,except those aforementioned groups vote Democrat.i

One day the "Old White Guys" will be dead white guys-and even in my conservative state,I'm seeing signs of the ice beginning to crack beneath our feet.The son of a Minnesota farmer argued in my senior level political science class that the RKBA is obsolete.

Any ideas on "spraeding the good word" on self defense?

Keep an open mind - for example Mexican Immigrants here in TX tend to be pretty pro gun and pro hunting.

[HCM]

I-285 is the "perimeter" around most of metro-Atlanta. Problems that arise "inside the perimeter" often result in an "Atlanta solution to an Atlanta problem that is forced on the rest of the state" regardless of the fact that it isn't a problem anywhere but Atlanta. Apparently, the notion of passing local legislation escapes many.

---

Of historical note, we used to have an electoral system for Governor called the County Unit System. It was basically an electoral college type system for electing the Governor; however, each county was worth the same number of points. So, a county with 4,000 people was equal to winning a county with 400,000 people. This was challenged in court under the equal protection argument and was tossed. Fortunately, the Electoral College is written into the Constitution.

Building on this, isn't the purpose of a constitution to preserve core values / principals such as the RKBA in the face of what is popular at the moment?

[ToddG]

But if I'm reading your response correctly, this would imply that the days of the RKBA are numbered.

That's not what I said.

And for God's sake, man, put a space after you type a period. This is an online discussion forum, not a 100-character text message. :cool:

[Byron]

So your point is that we should let the system be,regardless of outcome to the legal recognition of the RKBA.

Fair enough.Is that because you respect the rights if the collective to set policy over individual freedom?I'm not trying to be snarky or sarcastic that question-I really want to understand your view on this .

My entire post was a stated interpretation of your position. Quite frankly, I was perplexed by the way you framed the issue (i.e. a problem of vote counting, rather than a problem of culture, migration patterns, society, infrastructure, or the million other factors that go into this). I thought my interpretation might be an oversimplification of your position that would be corrected, but it appears not.

How you drew that conclusion of my "point" is well beyond my comprehension, but it is a sobering reminder of why I don't usually participate in discussions like these.

So with that said, I'll respectfully bow out.

[jlw]

Building on this, isn't the purpose of a constitution to preserve core values / principals such as the RKBA in the face of what is popular at the moment?

Constitutions and legislatures don't always travel in the same direction...

[Dagga Boy]

Personally, not just RKBA, but everything is upside down. What it really comes down to is something the founders really understood, and we have eroded in the last couple hundred years. Taxation without representation and property rights. Those who are not paying property taxes have as much or more say in how tax money is spent in their local communities, AND, those who are not paying anything into the system have equal or more input than those who do. It is a system where the few are providing for the many, and the many get to vote on what the few are paying for.

[RoyGBiv]

How do we solve this problem?
You are describing a symptom, not the problem.
You won't "fix" this trend by trying to change the trend, you need to change the underlying fundamentals.

It will take a precipitating event to change the current "tyranny of the majority" course we're on.
War, famine, insurrection, invasion, economic collapse, ELE-type natural disaster, etc.
The "Low Information Voter" will not awaken without some such event.

As Franklin (and others) predicted* (http://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html), we are descending into despotism. Votes in favor of petty tyrants are purchased with your money and mine, family values are asunder, the separation of powers ebbs and flows with the life of one Supreme. It is now mandated that we participate in the economy (ACA). It is easier to do nothing than to work** (again, Franklin (http://www.historycarper.com/1766/11/29/on-the-price-of-corn-and-management-of-the-poor/)). The Fourth estate is complicit (even Bill "the Bloviator" O'Reilly).

The fact that despots (from politicians to environmental groups, to you name it) are handing over free stuff to able-bodied voters who don't contribute, rounding them up (metaphorically) in urban centers, is a trend that will not be reversed without some precipitating event.

Mark Levin (http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Restoring-American/dp/1451606273) (I'm not always a fan, but in this case) proposes that the States convene to offer amendments to the US Constitution (http://www.redstate.com/2013/08/13/mark-levins-liberty-amendments/). This is the third way the Constitution can be amended (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html). We currently have 30 GOP Governors. Enough?

I would add one to Mark's list...
11. Anyone receiving direct aid (welfare, food stamps, housing, etc... NOT Social Security or Medicare.. the latter are paid-for benefits, like them or not) from the government cannot vote in any election for a period of 5 years following the termination of receiving said benefits.

*I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

** I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. — I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.

[Default.mp3]

It will take a precipitating event to change the current "tyranny of the majority" course we're on.
War, famine, insurrection, invasion, economic collapse, ELE-type natural disaster, etc.
The "Low Information Voter" will not awaken without some such event.
Something to consider is the idea that today's voters are most likely far more educated and well-informed than they were in the past, it's just that people are rarely educated and well-informed in an non-biased manner. Studies have shown that people who know much about a topic (which does not mean by any means that their knowledge is well-rounded and unbiased) are often the ones with the strongest opinions on them. It's not a lack of information or knowledge that's causing people to be irrational about issues; rather, the problem that the vast majority of people who have a strong political view look for information about a particularly issue as a way to validate their own views, rather than to form a nuanced outlook on said issue.

[RoyGBiv]

Something to consider is the idea that today's voters are most likely far more educated and well-informed than they were in the past, it's just that people are rarely educated and well-informed in an non-biased manner. Studies have shown that people who know much about a topic (which does not mean by any means that their knowledge is well-rounded and unbiased) are often the ones with the strongest opinions on them. It's not a lack of information or knowledge that's causing people to be irrational about issues; rather, the problem that the vast majority of people who have a strong political view look for information about a particularly issue as a way to validate their own views, rather than to form a nuanced outlook on said issue.

I'd wager the majority of low information voters do not fit this description. When Al Sharpton and his ilk say "Zimmerman is a white Hispanic racist", it takes only a modicum of thought to see the BS in that description, yet how many bought in? All it took for the low information types to jump on the climate change bandwagon was some finger pointing and descriptions of a dire scenario from Al Gore and the media.

I would agree that people tend to believe that which reinforces the opinions they already hold. But, I also believe a growing number of people abdicate thinking to their favorite politician, newscaster, rabble rouser, celebrity, etc. And it's not because they're well educated or too well informed.

[Tamara]

I-285 is the "perimeter" around most of metro-Atlanta. Problems that arise "inside the perimeter" often result in an "Atlanta solution to an Atlanta problem that is forced on the rest of the state" regardless of the fact that it isn't a problem anywhere but Atlanta.

Atlanta, however, is a donut, with its actual population concentrated in the bedroom communities outside 285, especially north of town. I grew up there, and the liberals we sent to Congress included Gingrich, Barr, and that pinko Democrat, Larry Frickin' McDonald. (Joke: I-75 through Cobb County is the Larry McDonald Memorial Freeway. But only the Right two lanes.)

This might might be why the RKBA in Georgia is as threatened as it is in IL or NY. ;)

( My earliest explicitly political memory is helping my folks put out Larry McDonald lawn signs, which is awesome, in retrospect. There was a guy who made Ron Paul look like a middle of the road type.)

[Default.mp3]

I would agree that people tend to believe that which reinforces the opinions they already hold. But, I also believe a growing number of people abdicate thinking to their favorite politician, newscaster, rabble rouser, celebrity, etc. And it's not because they're well educated or too well informed.
Sure, there are probably more people these days who are simply parroting their favorite pundit's views, regardless of the qualifications of that pundit, but then I have to ask, what about people in the past? Did they have a much stronger tendency to actually educate themselves about issues, and form their opinions independently? Or did they simply remain apathetic, and did not care about the issues? I'm much more inclined to believe the latter, as studies done as far back as the 1940s have shown that the people with the most political knowledge also had the strongest party identification. Thus, in my view, the people today who are simply empty vessels for media consumption are, technically speaking, much more educated and informed about various political topics these days compared to the apathetic stance taken by the masses in the past, even if said education and information are grossly biased and generally totally devoid of context. As Pope said, a little learning is a dangerous thing.

[RoyGBiv]

Thus, my view the people today who are simply empty vessels for media consumption are, technically speaking, much more educated and informed about various political topics these days compared to the apathetic stance taken by the masses in the past, even if said education and information are grossly biased and generally totally devoid of context. As Pope said, a little learning is a dangerous thing.
Paraphrasing.... "People have better access to more bad information today, thus they are better informed." <Question Mark>
I DO see what you're saying... I can't agree that more information is anything that equals "good information".
But I think we're largely arguing semantics here so...

[Josh Runkle]

I think this will only change with a focus on changing the minds of minorities about guns. Instead of "get rid of the illegal immigrants" (which isolates huge sections of legal immigrants), groups like the NRA should take the stance, "You left your country for new freedom; gun ownership is one of the greatest freedoms in the world; become an American and enjoy your new freedom". (Unfortunately, most people aren't aware that it's nearly impossible to emigrate here, but I digress, if a polite spin is put on guns, freedom and emigration, it WILL affect actual emigrants and they will connect guns with freedom)

[Tamara]

Paraphrasing.... "People have better access to more bad information today, thus they are better informed." <Question Mark>
I DO see what you're saying... I can't agree that more information is anything that equals "good information".

...and people who have access to information I agree with are righteous dudes who are alert to the dangers facing us, while people who have information with which i disagree are misinformed sheeple. It's pretty much internet 101.

[Tamara]

I'll add that I live in a state with a population of 6.5 million. The metropolitan area of the city in which I live is about 2.3 million and unquestionably dominates state politics, but the city itself is less than a million. The city itself is, in the terms dictated by the MSM since '00, "Blue" but the 'burbs are equally "Red".

The state itself has some of the most liberal gun laws this side of Vermont or a handful of Western states, and they've been steadily improving every legislative session.

[jlw]

Atlanta, however, is a donut, with its actual population concentrated in the bedroom communities outside 285, especially north of town. I grew up there, and the liberals we sent to Congress included Gingrich, Barr, and that pinko Democrat, Larry Frickin' McDonald. (Joke: I-75 through Cobb County is the Larry McDonald Memorial Freeway. But only the Right two lanes.)

This might might be why the RKBA in Georgia is as threatened as it is in IL or NY. ;)

( My earliest explicitly political memory is helping my folks put out Larry McDonald lawn signs, which is awesome, in retrospect. There was a guy who made Ron Paul look like a middle of the road type.)

Those guys were all on the national level. The state carry laws prior to 2010 were a quagmire or undefined terms with felonies attached to them. It's better now, but the laws still have some pitfalls in them. GA has a reputation of being a gun friendly state, and that is only a partially accurate description.

[RoyGBiv]

...and people who have access to information I agree with are righteous dudes who are alert to the dangers facing us, while people who have information with which i disagree are misinformed sheeple. It's pretty much internet 101.

If you can show me where I said that, you win.

[Tamara]

GA has a reputation of being a gun friendly state, and that is only a partially accurate description.

I only keep in touch vicariously, of course, since I left back in '00. I'll grant that, from my wookie-suited perspective it's only about a C+/B- on gun friendliness. The lack of a training requirement and low cost of a permit puts it ahead of places that are traditionally associated with being "gun friendly", like Florida or Texas. I'm glad y'all're ironing out the arglebargle of prohibited places that used to take a paragraph of fine print and a lot of judicial interpretin'. ;)

Still and all, if I ever get back to Georgia, I'm gonna nail my feet to the ground.

[Tamara]

If you can show me where I said that, you win.

You didn't.

You did say "I would agree that people tend to believe that which reinforces the opinions they already hold. But, I also believe a growing number of people abdicate thinking to their favorite politician, newscaster, rabble rouser, celebrity, etc. And it's not because they're well educated or too well informed," and have consistently used as examples "low information voters" with whom you disagree on the issues.

How about the low information voters with whom you agree? Where are they getting their bad information? Obviously not from Al Sharpton or Al Gore...

Would you agree that you "tend to believe that which reinforces the opinions (you) already hold"?

[Default.mp3]

Paraphrasing.... "People have better access to more bad information today, thus they are better informed." <Question Mark>
I DO see what you're saying... I can't agree that more information is anything that equals "good information".
But I think we're largely arguing semantics here so...
Largely, yes, it's just semantics; when I mean "well-informed", I merely meant that they had a lot of valid information, not that the information was being interpreted correctly or that they were actually knowledgeable about said topic. My usage of "educated" might be a poor choice, but I'll stand by "informed"; the way I see it, most people lack the means to interpret data to form opinions, but with information, they can, despite the fact that the information might be lacking in context or suffer from bias. However, they lack the knowledge (DIKW pyramid and all that jazz) to form a nuanced opinion, as they don't know what they don't know.

I'm harping on this, because people always make the Jeffersonian argument about the informed electorate, and how the free dissemination of information, as done by present-day mass media/communication, is inherently somehow a good thing for democracy, when there are clearly many signs that suggest otherwise (e.g., hostile media effect, echo chamber formations as Tam alluded to, etc.). Of course, the creation of partisanship in the place of apathy certainly does create a more participation in the electoral process, but I'm not sure that's a good thing, given the arguably lower "quality" of voters.

[jlw]

Still and all, if I ever get back to Georgia, I'm gonna nail my feet to the ground.

I see your Grizzard and raise you a "Delta is ready when you are."

----

Georgia's lack of specificity in its gun laws was intentionally done to disarm the black population and didn't apply to white folk... that is until it did.

[Tamara]

Georgia's lack of specificity in its gun laws was intentionally done to disarm the black population and didn't apply to white folk... that is until it did.

How come modern liberals never want to acknowledge the racist roots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special#History_of_regulation_attem pts) of many of the gun control laws in this country?

[RoyGBiv]

You didn't.
Thanks...


You did say "I would agree that people tend to believe that which reinforces the opinions they already hold. But, I also believe a growing number of people abdicate thinking to their favorite politician, newscaster, rabble rouser, celebrity, etc. And it's not because they're well educated or too well informed," and have consistently used as examples "low information voters" with whom you disagree on the issues.

How about the low information voters with whom you agree? Where are they getting their bad information? Obviously not from Al Sharpton or Al Gore...

Would you agree that you "tend to believe that which reinforces the opinions (you) already hold"?
You took a lot for granted in that extrapolation and missed.

Ignorant people are still ignorant, even if they agree with me.

[Tamara]

You took a lot for granted in that extrapolation and missed.

I'm generally on your side, and given how partisan your examples were, that's how it came across to me.

Imagine how it sounds to someone who didn't vote almost entirely R and L in the last election?

I'm just throwing this out there.

[MDS]

11. Anyone receiving direct aid (welfare, food stamps, housing, etc... NOT Social Security or Medicare.. the latter are paid-for benefits, like them or not) from the government cannot vote in any election for a period of 5 years following the termination of receiving said benefits.

I agree, and I think it's a workable idea in theory. I don't see it actually happening, but I have given it some thought.
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?p=110686
The 28th Amendment

[Chris Rhines]

How do we solve this problem?The way I see it,if we do nothing we'll eventually become a nation of rural dwellers chained to the gun control culture of the nearest big city.Setting votes based on land area brings up ugly connotations of vote disenfranchisement.
What say you?

I'd start by somehow convincing the Republican party to unlock the social conservative anchor from around their neck.

Living in the DC area, I've taken a whole bunch of young, multiethnic, hipster urbanites out to the range. To a man/woman/whatever, they've all enjoyed it greatly. These people genuinely like guns and shooting, and they don't want to see more gun control enacted. But come voting time, they're gonna pull the lever for the donkey, because the elephant hates their gay friends.

[Tamara]

I'd start by somehow convincing the Republican party to unlock the social conservative anchor from around their neck.

Living in the DC area, I've taken a whole bunch of young, multiethnic, hipster urbanites out to the range. To a man/woman/whatever, they've all enjoyed it greatly. These people genuinely like guns and shooting, and they don't want to see more gun control enacted. But come voting time, they're gonna pull the lever for the donkey, because the elephant hates their gay friends.

^Word up.

[MDS]

I'd start by somehow convincing the Republican party to unlock the social conservative anchor from around their neck.

Living in the DC area, I've taken a whole bunch of young, multiethnic, hipster urbanites out to the range. To a man/woman/whatever, they've all enjoyed it greatly. These people genuinely like guns and shooting, and they don't want to see more gun control enacted. But come voting time, they're gonna pull the lever for the donkey, because the elephant hates their gay friends.

Would that be terribly different from the libertarian platform? If the Democrats unlocked the fiscally liberal anchor from around their neck, would that make then more palatable?

[JAD]

You might think they could take a clue from Francis: "...it is not necessary to talk about these things all the time."

[Tamara]

Would that be terribly different from the libertarian platform? If the Democrats unlocked the fiscally liberal anchor from around their neck, would that make then more palatable?

Theoretically? Sure. But that ignores the historical reality that the economic issues are the modern core of the two parties. SoCons weren't married to the GOP until 1980.

[MDS]

You might think they could take a clue from Francis: "...it is not necessary to talk about these things all the time."

Lucky for you even the nsa never reads this far into a thread like this. ;)


Theoretically? Sure. But that ignores the historical reality that the economic issues are the modern core of the two parties. SoCons weren't married to the GOP until 1980.

+1 - that's why I mostly vote libertarian, though I'm a registered republican so I can vote for the least socon of the bunch in primaries.

[fixer]

How do we solve this problem?The way I see it,if we do nothing we'll eventually become a nation of rural dwellers chained to the gun control culture of the nearest big city.Setting votes based on land area brings up ugly connotations of vote disenfranchisement.

What say you?

The root cause of the voting trend you describe is an ignorant perception about firearms.

A gun is good to have on the farm. A gun is good to have in the burbs. A gun is good to have in the city.

What has to happen is that urban folks (with the voting power you describe) deeply understand the need for access to firearms is for their own damn good.

The local PD can't logically protect you on demand. Crime and threats to personal safety are not simply going to vanish with 1000 more well intentioned laws by slick talking politicians.

Once the urbanites realize they are on their own for personal safety, firearms won't have the negative stigma they have now, and the Second Amendment will become as sacrosanct as the First.

In the process of making the above happen, gun-rights will need to fully transcend the stupid D vs. R thing. RKBA issues are going to have a uphill battle if it is always tied to Republicans in some way.

[ford.304]

Once the urbanites realize they are on their own for personal safety, firearms won't have the negative stigma they have now, and the Second Amendment will become as sacrosanct as the First.



Unfortunately, I've had a hard time convincing most urbanites that they should know how to fix a flat or a leaky sink themselves. City living encourages specialization. If the police can't be there quickly enough, the problem isn't that you should handle things yourself, it's that you should be spending more on a better police force, or social programs to keep people from being criminals.

Which, sure, yeah, those are all possibly very good things, but they don't solve the immediate problem.

[Dagga Boy]

Biggest thing I like about the Tea Party....Fiscally conservative without the social issue opinions. I stopped caring about my fellow man after the last election and feel much better.

[jc000]

Living in the DC area, I've taken a whole bunch of young, multiethnic, hipster urbanites out to the range. To a man/woman/whatever, they've all enjoyed it greatly. These people genuinely like guns and shooting, and they don't want to see more gun control enacted. But come voting time, they're gonna pull the lever for the donkey, because the elephant hates their gay friends.

Then I guess they deserve who they elect?

I don't get all the social conservative hate and fear. Clearly, as illustrated from the comments above ("the elephant hates their gay friends"), the left's misinformation campaign has done its trick.

Living in the DC-area myself (for my entire life, in fact) I've run across my fair share of young, multiethnic, hipster urbanites and for plenty of them, social conservatism resonates.

It's time for conservatives to stop scrambling to "add voters" and instead try sticking to their principles. Ron Paul proved it can be done on one level, now it's time to take it to the next.

[Kyle Reese]

Biggest thing I like about the Tea Party....Fiscally conservative without the social issue opinions. I stopped caring about my fellow man after the last election and feel much better.

It took you till last election to stop caring? :cool:

[RoyGBiv]

Biggest thing I like about the Tea Party....Fiscally conservative without the social issue opinions.
Obviously you and I are attending different meetings.
While topically the local TP folks stay on target, I've found them to have a very strong religiously-driven socially-conscious undercurrent that's deterred me from committing fully.

[Tamara]

Biggest thing I like about the Tea Party....Fiscally conservative without the social issue opinions. I stopped caring about my fellow man after the last election and feel much better.

I just figure grownups can go to hell in their own way just so long as they're not expecting me to pay for it. ;)

[Tamara]

Clearly, as illustrated from the comments above ("the elephant hates their gay friends"), the left's misinformation campaign has done its trick.

Living in the DC-area myself (for my entire life, in fact) I've run across my fair share of young, multiethnic, hipster urbanites and for plenty of them, social conservatism resonates.

It's traditional to wait for the next post to contradict yourself rather than just the next sentence. :confused:

[jc000]

It's traditional to wait for the next post to contradict yourself rather than just the next sentence. :confused:

Ok, I give up... You win... Where's the contradiction?

I'm not seeing it. But I want to. :)

[Tamara]

Ok, I give up... You win... Where's the contradiction?

I'm not seeing it. But I want to. :)

You say the elephant doesn't hate my gay friends, that's just leftist MSM propaganda. Then you say that my young, multiethnic, hipster urbanite friends find social conservatism, the idea of their gay friends not having their committed relationships protected and recognized, being prevented from adopting (or in the more extreme wings of the GOP, even being around) children, resonant.

Either that, or you have some new definition of "social conservatism" with which I am unfamiliar, because the one I'm familiar with is about as hip and urban as a 700 Club convention.


EDITED TO ADD: The ironic thing is that, as the GOP hardens around Social Conservatism as its core issue, it's attracting Democrats who are fine with taxes and income redistribution, but don't like the gays and the 'bortion. Take a hard look at Huckabee and Clinton on the fiscal issues and you'll see that their big differences are social, not fiscal. Governor Cornpone is the embodiment of everything wrong with the GOP and why it polls poorly with anybody who knows "dubstep" isn't a kind of running board for a '57 Chevy.

[GardoneVT]

Then I guess they deserve who they elect?

I don't get all the social conservative hate and fear. Clearly, as illustrated from the comments above ("the elephant hates their gay friends"), the left's misinformation campaign has done its trick.

Living in the DC-area myself (for my entire life, in fact) I've run across my fair share of young, multiethnic, hipster urbanites and for plenty of them, social conservatism resonates.

It's time for conservatives to stop scrambling to "add voters" and instead try sticking to their principles. Ron Paul proved it can be done on one level, now it's time to take it to the next.

The young women I know at my college all voted Democrat in the last election.Why?

Abortion.And I don't blame them.Im a registered Republican,but if they ran a candidate who promised to tax a man every time he had sex,I'd be a proud Green Party supporter .

Tamaras got a point.But...the flip side of that coin is there are millions of ,shall we say,"ignorant voters" ,who still think America should be a biblical theocracy.One way or the other,the GOPs going to alienate somebody-which is why Todd's point is so correct.We need to make the RKBA an American institution,not a party platform.

[ford.304]

Obviously you and I are attending different meetings.
While topically the local TP folks stay on target, I've found them to have a very strong religiously-driven socially-conscious undercurrent that's deterred me from committing fully.

I think that from a public organizational issues standpoint, they are standing on economic issues only and keeping religious ones out of it.

However, it's tough to get around the fact that the cultures tend to go together, and that a large number of the individuals making up the movement also agree on social issues.

Can people from vastly different social cultures work together on an issue? I'm not sure yet. Even if we all agree to put aside our differences to only work on economic issues... it's not going to make anyone feel more comfortable at the local meetings. Even if I can get all of my traditional republican neighbors to work on abortion as a social issue instead of a legal one, or to be ok with keeping gay marriage out of their churches instead of their court houses... there's still going to be a lot of really awkward moments at the fundraising dinner, on both sides.

I don't mean to single out social conservatives here - the same awkwardness happens whenever I go to a dinner party hosted by academics and someone brings up gun control when the point of the meeting is educating the underprivileged. But there's a truth that there are a lot of real different underpinning assumptions in different worldviews that don't go away because you agree on a couple issues. It's easier to form coalitions when you can convince people to vote on a single issue... but even a lot of people who think gun rights are awesome aren't going to sacrifice their views on war, economics, abortion, or gay rights to push it. Really the only reason I do personally is that I know none of the politicians I vote on are going to actually agree with me on any of those other issues.

[RoyGBiv]

I think that from a public organizational issues standpoint, they are standing on economic issues only and keeping religious ones out of it.

However, it's tough to get around the fact that the cultures tend to go together, and that a large number of the individuals making up the movement also agree on social issues.

Can people from vastly different social cultures work together on an issue? I'm not sure yet. Even if we all agree to put aside our differences to only work on economic issues... it's not going to make anyone feel more comfortable at the local meetings. Even if I can get all of my traditional republican neighbors to work on abortion as a social issue instead of a legal one, or to be ok with keeping gay marriage out of their churches instead of their court houses... there's still going to be a lot of really awkward moments at the fundraising dinner, on both sides.

I don't mean to single out social conservatives here - the same awkwardness happens whenever I go to a dinner party hosted by academics and someone brings up gun control when the point of the meeting is educating the underprivileged. But there's a truth that there are a lot of real different underpinning assumptions in different worldviews that don't go away because you agree on a couple issues. It's easier to form coalitions when you can convince people to vote on a single issue... but even a lot of people who think gun rights are awesome aren't going to sacrifice their views on war, economics, abortion, or gay rights to push it. Really the only reason I do personally is that I know none of the politicians I vote on are going to actually agree with me on any of those other issues.

Exactly....

So.... How do we get folks to focus on the fiscal and Constitutional goals and leave their Social baggage with the porter?
Will Rand Paul be able to pull it off? Has there been a viable Libertarian candidate since, ever?

[jc000]

You say the elephant doesn't hate my gay friends, that's just leftist MSM propaganda. Then you say that my young, multiethnic, hipster urbanite friends find social conservatism, the idea of their gay friends not having their committed relationships protected and recognized, being prevented from adopting (or in the more extreme wings of the GOP, even being around) children, resonant.

You and I don't share the same definition of social conservatism.

For instance, do I find the in-your-face positioning of flagrantly gay (meaning their "gayness" is portrayed as their prime differentiator) characters/individuals on main stream TV shows distasteful? Yes. Do I feel that gay people should have the right to join in civil unions with their partners, but that calling that "marriage" is more about an attempt to push an agenda across? Yes. Do I feel that it's inappropriate that any tax money should go to the introduction of ANY kind of sexuality in the classroom, particularly for the elementary level? Yes.

Does this mean I "hate gays"? Not on your life!

On the one hand, I am very happy that two colleagues/friends of mine live in DC and are able to marry. At the same time, I also appreciate that Virginia sticks with a traditional definition of marriage. I see that, on a local level, people should have a say in their community standards. Ultimately, do I agree that gay couples in Virginia should be able to have the same legal protections as married couples? Sure, I do. But why the focus on calling it "marriage"?

I have met and interacted with people of all ages, ethnicities, sexual orientation, and backgrounds and have found social conservatives of all types. In the example of the married couple above, one of the guys was a huge Ron Paul supporter. Why? Because he understood that freedom means that sometimes you will run up against challenges presented by other peoples' biases, and it's better to work hard and fight back against those challenges than to expect an ever-intrusive government to "fix" it for you.

[BLR]

Biggest thing I like about the Tea Party....Fiscally conservative without the social issue opinions. I stopped caring about my fellow man after the last election and feel much better.

exactly.

Though it didn't take me long to give up on everyone.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

[Robinson]

I only keep in touch vicariously, of course, since I left back in '00. I'll grant that, from my wookie-suited perspective it's only about a C+/B- on gun friendliness. The lack of a training requirement and low cost of a permit puts it ahead of places that are traditionally associated with being "gun friendly", like Florida or Texas. I'm glad y'all're ironing out the arglebargle of prohibited places that used to take a paragraph of fine print and a lot of judicial interpretin'. ;)

Still and all, if I ever get back to Georgia, I'm gonna nail my feet to the ground.

It has gotten a lot better in recent years here. When I moved to GA 5 years ago it was a state to avoid for some folks because the gun laws were so vague and restrictive. Getting rid of the vague "public gathering" language was a huge step, and the restrictions have eased as well. It's actually not too bad in GA now -- as long as you are aware of the few restricted areas it's not real difficult to carry a gun here. It seems more and more law enforcement agencies are making it a priority to make sure officers are trained on the gun laws too -- the lack of which was a problem right around the time the laws started changing.

[jlw]

It has gotten a lot better in recent years here. When I moved to GA 5 years ago it was a state to avoid for some folks because the gun laws were so vague and restrictive. Getting rid of the vague "public gathering" language was a huge step, and the restrictions have eased as well. It's actually not too bad in GA now -- as long as you are aware of the few restricted areas it's not real difficult to carry a gun here. It seems more and more law enforcement agencies are making it a priority to make sure officers are trained on the gun laws too -- the lack of which was a problem right around the time the laws started changing.


Your welcome. :cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

[MDS]

You and I don't share the same definition of social conservatism.

For instance, do I find the in-your-face positioning of flagrantly gay (meaning their "gayness" is portrayed as their prime differentiator) characters/individuals on main stream TV shows distasteful? Yes. Do I feel that gay people should have the right to join in civil unions with their partners, but that calling that "marriage" is more about an attempt to push an agenda across? Yes. Do I feel that it's inappropriate that any tax money should go to the introduction of ANY kind of sexuality in the classroom, particularly for the elementary level? Yes.

Does this mean I "hate gays"? Not on your life!

First, I think too-flagrant display of ANY kind of sexuality can be downright rude, and you have every right to eject someone on your property for offending you that way. Just like Starbucks has the right to eject offensive OCers from their private property. There are even laws limiting the flagrantness of sexuality displays, and AFAIK they apply more or less equally across sexual orientations.

But if you don't like they gayness on TV, you can change the channel, no? Or are these comments more about how ubiquitous flagrant gayness as such (i.e., stereotypically gay activity as separate from gay sexuality; e.g., same-sex couples holding hands or waving rainbow flags) is generally undesirable in society...?

As for public school classrooms, I'll wait until the introduction of ANY information before I debate specifically about sexuality-related information. :eek:


On the one hand, I am very happy that two colleagues/friends of mine live in DC and are able to marry. At the same time, I also appreciate that Virginia sticks with a traditional definition of marriage. I see that, on a local level, people should have a say in their community standards. Ultimately, do I agree that gay couples in Virginia should be able to have the same legal protections as married couples? Sure, I do. But why the focus on calling it "marriage"?

I'm glad I can claim all the aspects of marriage to describe my relationship with my wife - legal, social, traditional, the whole thing. So on the one hand, if my wife were a dude, I'd probably want all those values just the same, no? And then I have to wonder, why the focus on not calling it marriage? So on the other hand, would you happier for your friends if they called it "life partnership" in DC, instead of marriage? :confused:


I have met and interacted with people of all ages, ethnicities, sexual orientation, and backgrounds and have found social conservatives of all types. In the example of the married couple above, one of the guys was a huge Ron Paul supporter. Why? Because he understood that freedom means that sometimes you will run up against challenges presented by other peoples' biases, and it's better to work hard and fight back against those challenges than to expect an ever-intrusive government to "fix" it for you.

What I loved about Rand Paul was that, in spite of strong opinions about tradition and social issues, he recognized that it is not the place of government to codify these things in law. If there's such a legal concept as marriage, then it should be applicable to everyone - even if some of those applications offend your sense of tradition. You can call them life partners if you don't want to call them married, but the legal concept should be identical. Anything less strikes me as using the legal system to conserve social values... which is, uh, social conservatism. No?

Not trying to poke the bear or anything, just pointing at spots in your post where I couldn't find internal consistency, and hoping you can clarify or correct me.

[RoyGBiv]

What I loved about Rand Paul was that, in spite of strong opinions about tradition and social issues, he recognized that it is not the place of government to codify these things in law. If there's such a legal concept as marriage, then it should be applicable to everyone - even if some of those applications offend your sense of tradition. You can call them life partners if you don't want to call them married, but the legal concept should be identical. Anything less strikes me as using the legal system to conserve social values... which is, uh, social conservatism. No?
How do we turn this understanding into votes?

<sarcasm>what's the best sound bite to get low information voters to line up? </sarcasm>

[jc000]

Not trying to poke the bear or anything, just pointing at spots in your post where I couldn't find internal consistency, and hoping you can clarify or correct me.

Sure, man--thanks for the questions.


But if you don't like they gayness on TV, you can change the channel, no?

Yes, that's exactly right. And that's one of the reasons why we choose to not have TV in our house. There are people, however, that would equate my decision to keep TV out of our house due to concerns over "degenerate" (my word) content, hateful. I'm saying that this isn't the case.


I'm glad I can claim all the aspects of marriage to describe my relationship with my wife - legal, social, traditional, the whole thing. So on the one hand, if my wife were a dude, I'd probably want all those values just the same, no? And then I have to wonder, why the focus on not calling it marriage? So on the other hand, would you happier for your friends if they called it "life partnership" in DC, instead of marriage? :confused:

Well, it certainly doesn't keep me up at night. That being said, I am extremely distrustful of the left. I know that language is used to push agendas, and in our present state of the nation, those agendas concern me. Case in point, this article (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/30/what-is-government-elementary-students-taught-its-your-family/). I think language is being used here in a insidious way. Why not push back against attempts to propagandize language?

In regards to marriage, the word means what it means, and attempts to change that are really attempts to normalize behavior that in my opinion, isn't "normal". Therefore I respect that the citizens of DC have their views on this matter, but I am glad that in my state, our legislature has held it's ground.

So, I'm probably not making a great argument here. As mentioned, it's not something that weighs too heavily on my mind!


What I loved about Rand Paul was that, in spite of strong opinions about tradition and social issues, he recognized that it is not the place of government to codify these things in law. If there's such a legal concept as marriage, then it should be applicable to everyone - even if some of those applications offend your sense of tradition. You can call them life partners if you don't want to call them married, but the legal concept should be identical. Anything less strikes me as using the legal system to conserve social values... which is, uh, social conservatism. No?

I think Rand Paul feels it's not the place of FEDERAL government to codify these things in law, not government in general. And I would readily agree with that. I can see how residents of Dallas may not decide to govern themselves in the same way as residents of San Francisco. And that's ok!

I also agree that legal protections should be universal, but I see how "words" are used to actually grant EXTRA-legal protections to some folks. Aren't attempts to call committed gay relationships "marriage" perhaps a backdoor way to undermine religion? And in that case, is that not perhaps a state-sponsored infringement on the religious beliefs of some Americans? Where does it end?

I say apply legal protections across-the-board, but let communities decide on intricacies of language and values. The beauty of America is that if you find a community more welcoming to your personal ideologies, you have a pretty open ability to move there.

Sorry, kind of rambling, but hope I clarified things a little.

[ToddG]

So.... How do we get folks to focus on the fiscal and Constitutional goals and leave their Social baggage with the porter?

Go back in time to right before we climbed out of the trees and start over.

Seriously, look at the oldest legal systems and you'll see they're based on moral codes with limits on things we'd consider "social issues" today. Societies (and thus their governments) have also traditionally been heavily influenced by prevailing religious beliefs and most religions have very strong "social issue" concerns and rules.

The idea of a limited government is gone. While many people want the government to stay out of their freedoms, most of them also support government going in and "fixing" things they don't like. That's just as true for social conservatives as social liberals.

[Default.mp3]

I also agree that legal protections should be universal, but I see how "words" are used to actually grant EXTRA-legal protections to some folks. Aren't attempts to call committed gay relationships "marriage" perhaps a backdoor way to undermine religion? And in that case, is that not perhaps a state-sponsored infringement on the religious beliefs of some Americans? Where does it end?
I think the big stumbling block there is that there are two distinct definitions of marriage: the secular one as applied by the government, and the ritualistic one applied by religion. I mean, do you feel that divorce strongly undermines Abrahamic religion? How about purely secular weddings with zero religious overtones? Should two avowed militant atheist heterosexuals be allowed to marry, or should they simply settle for civil unions? How would you feel if the state removed itself from the institution of marriage, and instead gave all benefits that previously came with marriage to any couple that joined into a domestic partnership (basically, marriage by another name)?

Your argument that a gay marriage would be a state-sponsored infringement on the religious beliefs of some Americans would also works the other way around: the refusal to allow gay marriages could be seen as a state-sponsored infringement on the religious belief of some Americans, as there are religions that allow for gay marriages. What about the fact that the government does not ban the human consumption of pork, is that somehow an infringement on the beliefs of Muslims? Does the fact that the government allows people to perform work on Saturdays an infringement on the beliefs the Haredi? Allowing gays to be married under the terms as set out by the government isn't saying that they were joined in some kind of sacred bond that only God can make or break, but merely that two people have formed some kind of legal contract; if the government were forcing religious institutions to bless gay marriages against said institutions' will, your argument holds water, but as of now, I don't see much merit in the whole "infringement" argument.

[jc000]

Your argument that a gay marriage might be a state-sponsored infringement on the religious beliefs of some Americans would also works the other way around: the refusal to allow gay marriages could be seen as a state-sponsored infringement on the religious belief of some Americans, as there are religions that allow for gay marriages.

FIFY, but that's kind of my point...


How would you feel if the state removed itself from the institution of marriage, and instead gave all benefits that previously came with marriage to any couple that joined into a domestic partnership (basically, marriage by another name)?

...and that probably is the best solution overall.

[RoyGBiv]

How would you feel if the state removed itself from the institution of marriage, and instead gave all benefits that previously came with marriage to any couple that joined into a domestic partnership (basically, marriage by another name)?


...and that probably is the best solution overall.
Just prior to my wedding ceremony (~20 years ago) we sat down and signed a "Marriage Certificate". Basically, it was a civil contract that said both parties (wife and me) agree that we are married and agree to be bound by civil law governing such a relationship (at least that is my recollection). Immediately afterward we joined our friends and families and had a "Religious Service", affirming our bond before God.

I have only one experience committing to a marriage. Am I wrong in assuming that ALL marriages are done this way.... In 2 parts.?

I've always felt that "marriage" is a religious institution and that the "marriage contract" I signed was a purely civil matter, perhaps (given current circumstances) improperly named. But my semantic differentiation is clearly not shared by all.

Gay Marriage advocates would have been wise to pursue these two things separately, IMO. The general public would have more strongly supported homosexual couples rights to a legal "civil union" separately from any religious right to "marriage". The marriage part would have come naturally, as it seems to be gaining traction in an expanding number of religious circles.

Bringing this back on topic....

Perhaps the LGBT community shares with the OC community the error of having sacrificed better tactics in favor of standing on principles (and generating more media).

[MDS]

While many people want the government to stay out of their freedoms, most of them also support government going in and "fixing" things they don't like. That's just as true for social conservatives as social liberals.

That's what's interesting to me about where this thread has gone. Folks - even folks who self identify as inclusive and open minded - think it's cool when laws forbid activities that don't reflect their traditions and social mores about marriage and sexuality. Then they cry foul when liberal urbanites pass laws that forbid ccw, which doesn't reflect that group's traditions and mores about violence and self-defense. (Over simplifying because phone keyboard, but hopefully I'm clear.)