There’s a strong correlation between gun owners and Republican voters. As we can see in The Washington Post-prepared graphic above based on exit poll data from the Virginia governor’s race. “Voters were about evenly split between those who live in households with and without a gun,” the WaPo reveals. “[Democratic candidate Ralph] Northam won voters in households without a gun by a . . . .
giant 73 to 26 percent margin, larger than Clinton’s 40-point margin over Trump last year and McAuliffe’s 35-point margin in the 2013 governor’s race. [Republican candidate Ed] Gillespie won gun-owning household voters by 24 points, almost identical to Trump’s 23-point advantage last year.
So if more voting Virginians were gun owners, Gillespie would’ve won! Or not. Because as the graphic above points out, correlation does not equal causation. Except, of course, when it does. In this case, does it?
Does being Republican make you more likely to own a gun, or does owning a gun make you more likely to vote Republican (and less likely to vote Democrat)?
If the latter’s true, the Republican party should be doing everything it can to create new gun owners. A GLOCK in every pot! Government vouchers for concealed carry classes! By the same token, if more guns equals less Democrats, no wonder Democrats are [only slightly abashed] opponents of firearms freedom.
What’s the truth here?
“Question of the Day: More Guns, Less Democrats?”
Yup…
Maybe the dems don’t want anyone to know they have guns. Republicans like to brag about their guns but I know many gun-owning dems would never answer that question. And I don’t blame them.
“…I know many gun-owning dems would never answer that question.”
That’s the key, *admitted* Democrat gun owners.
“And I don’t blame them.”
They know all too well how Democrats stigmatize gun ownership, so they STFU and ‘go with the flow’ of being a gutless Leftist P.O.S..
And it’s why I discount ‘studies’ that attempt to prove gun ownership is on the decline.
Something tells me there are *lots* of guns in Democrat households that were passed down from earlier generations and have ‘fallen off the map’ (Yes, dear, I got rid of that evil mint condition Colt Python gun of your father’s) as they were buried in th attic’s blown-in insulation or in a zip-lock freezer bag buried under the bird feeder in the back yard…
Neither of those constitutes proper storage of a Python.
“Neither of those constitutes proper storage of a Python.”
Literally *anything* that keeps a mint-condition Colt Python rust-free and not turned in to a Statist-controlled northeast US police department for destruction or outright theft by the cops qualities as “proper storage” for the weapon, in my not-so humble opinion…
I think that is true. Really exit polls consisting of a 20 year old guy or gal 10 feet from the polling place and every gun owner sis going to tell that stranger they own a gun? Only a very narrow demographic within gun owners is going to tell they they own a gun, specifically “social sport” gun owners who do target or hunting with buddies. The increasing number of people who own a firearm only for self/home defense, now 80% of firearms owners, will moslty not tell a stranger because modern firearm training says not to. So not only will the raw number be an undercount, but the distribution of the undercount will be higher among minorities, women and urban dwellers who are over 95% solely for self/home defense.
A gun owning African American woman Democrat in Richmond, a Hispanic Democrat guy in Arlington are more likly to say they don;t own a firearm when they do.
“More Guns, Less Democrats?”
I like your story, please continue. . .
People vote their interests. The races you pointed out all had a virulently anti-gun democrat. Had the democrat been more moderate on gun rights, or supportive, the split would have likely been different.
“People vote their interests.” People vote their illegally exercised voting abilities (not “rights”).
Your response makes no sense and does not address my point that people vote their interests.
The big story of the VA race was that it was engineered by compelling an influx of illegal aliens to the state in specific areas. Keep up.
I’ve only been a gun owner for a few years now and truthfully I didn’t care much about gun laws prior to that. But since that day I have tended to vote more on the republican side if only to preserve this one civil liberty from the left who constantly wages war on it. I voted for Trump in 2016 because I felt that 2A would be in great jeopardy in the hands of Clinton and left when it comes to appointing judges. I will vote for him again in 2020 if only to make sure that we keep anti-2A justices off of the supreme court. Once I know that gun rights are secure then I am willing to consider other issues.
The whole Constitution would have been in jeopardy. She stated in a debate that her criteria was not a record of following the Constitution, but judges with a record that reflected solutions to the “real world” (whatever that means).
Kinda ties in with what Jason up there said, people vote their own interests.
Consider the common Democrat voter: lives in the city. Does not hunt. Depends some or heavily on government support or employment. Has little experience with firearms except in a negative sense (they believe everyone they know who has a gun is a criminal).
So when a candidate says they will take away or infringe upon a civil right that has little use to them, their thought is likely more “sure, whatever” than “yeah! Do it!”. In other words, we can’t really interpret their support of a Democrat as an endorsement for more gun owner control laws, it is just as likely they voted for the candidate that promised them any number of other lies.
A gun owner, in contrast, has a tangible and very personal reason to vote AGAINST any candidate that so much as hints that they want to infringe on our civil rights, and we often let that one issue trump whatever other position a candidate may have on any other issue.
That’s the thing about firearms. If there’s one issue that more closely defines the totality of the relationship between the government and the imdividual than all others, it is firearms.
There are no guarantees, of course, but if a politician gets guns right, he or she is far more apt to get most of the rest right, too. Firearms freedom is the quintessential proxy issue because it blends individual accountability with personal responsibility, soaks it all in history and philosophy, and finally tops it off with a tempered view of government’s proper role in our society.
Some will just fake it and go along because of their constituency. If you have a politician who shows leadership, takes the media hits, and takes the initiative to advance firearms freedom, not just vote right whenever a bill comes along, then you probably have a good one representing you.
Tough call: easy to say that folks who trust themselves to defend themselves also know not to rely on government, thus making them less likely to vote for a statist.
Then again, once upon a time, many democrats owned guns – and generally used them to impose their will on minorities while wearing white sheets… 🤠
To paraphrase Paul Giamatti, “Guns don’t elect Republicans. But they sure do help!”
The truth is that almost all of these democrat terrorists support gun control. And nearly all republicans don’t. If you want to keep your guns, vote for republicans. If you don’t, vote for those filthy, subhuman, Liberal Terrorists™. (Yes, aberrations exist. Almost every gun control bill in the last 20 years has been exclusively initiated and supported by democrat terrorists- except Manchin-Toomey bill and the recent HR3999).
Or better yet – opt out because you realize that voting doesn’t really do a dang thing!
R or D doesn’t matter, two sides of the same coin.
Both want to tax you to death and fund their personal pet projects. It just so happens that Rs are highly invested in murdering and bombing people in other countries so they pay lip service to keeping people armed here.
But in reality they don’t do anything. How many times (google it) have the Rs controlled both houses of congress and the executive branch and yet we see no rollbacks of any previous infringements on our rights, 2a or otherwise. No, instead we get such awesomeness as the “patriot act”…
For recent proof just look at all the R support for bump-stock bans.
Anyone who is looking at any politician on either side of the aisle as an ally is either blind, foolish or both.
Yup, good cop bad cop, hopes and dreams. If any, now is the time for the militias that our founding fathers tried to apply, come into existence. Our States( they’re part of it tho) should demand the rights for a citizen militia, the States are indebted to Federal assistance and they cant. There’s more to it then Two Parties
Mmm… nah…
Simply not voting does exactly nothing. Indeed, it allows your vote to be replaced with another – and that vote will likely be for something you really won’t like.
If our system mandated that a minimum number of registered voters had to participate or the election would be invalidated- staying home might mean something, but what you’re suggesting is to give up without a fight, and no – those of you ready to respond with “I’ll buy more gunz!”, that is not in fact an effective way to implement change without outright rebellion. We’re not at that point yet, not by a long shot.
Not more gunz, open rebellion would be a disaster, especially futile without firearms . History may show that some decisions we made today, totally fucked it up 100 years later and your right back to Kings and serfs. I’m a conspiracy nut, I admit that, I truly believe voting is a waste and ” Somebody” knows, today, who the next president will be. These guys been in the business along time and Dems vs. Repubs a smoke screen to role it. Tombstone,, ” your all in it together, everyone of you sons a bitches, !!”
The Democratic Party Platform explicitly calls for more gun control. The Republican Party Platform specifically outlines Second Amendment rights.
This stuff isn’t that hard.
*Fewer
Indeed. Number, not amount.
At first glance, “more guns, less democrats” seems like a rather extreme yet very good idea. It would never pass constitutional muster. Plus, it would be socially and economically disruptive, and really messy. You do receive bonus points for thinking outside the box.
Well, more guns less Democrats would work for a while, but sooner or later we’d run out of bullets.
You win the interwebz Ralph!😆😆😆😆😆
Ralph, clearly you need to buy more ammo!
The white democrats including racial minorities and homosexuals are socialist progressive in their political orientation.
They totally believe in controlling the civilian population using government coercion. They will kill you or your family, if they believe they need to.
They fear an armed individual the most.
I live in MN and unfortunately meet a lot of socialists. They seem to think it will all be hugs and kisses and unicorns, not realizing that real criminals will rise to the top like in Nazi Germany or Stalin’s USSR.
Dems/Libs are consistent in their attempts to disarm America. Let’s have a short look at another Clinton gun-grabbing reflection:
Gun control was a major political issue in the first half of Bill Clinton’s first term and during that time he lobbied for, and signed, two major pieces of gun control legislation, the Brady Bill and the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
A case in point is the Clinton/Gore administration’s continued insistence that the Second Amendment poses no legal obstacle to the federal government confiscating every privately owned firearm in the United States.
Arguing before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2000, in the case of United States v. Emerson, the assistant United States attorney said exactly that, to an incredulous three-judge court.
Here’s the exchange:
Chief Judge Garwood: “You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?”
AUSA (attorney for the DOJ): “Yes”
Garwood: “Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?”
AUSA: “Exactly.”
Comments are closed.