Shouldn't "gun people' be wary of Generals as President?

[MGKrebs]

By "gun people" I'm generalizing (ack, no pun intended) to mean those who value their guns at least partly because of the potential scenario of having to fight an overly oppressive government.

It would seem that the most likely path to that horrible scenario would be a recently retired general with still strong active contacts in the military establishment.

And yet, my perception is that the gun people I am referring to respond more positively to ex-military in government than the general population (just my intuition).

Perhaps I am wrong, but if not, it may be another brick in the perceptual structure I am building that says that many (most?) people choose their candidate based on some emotional connection rather than logical analysis.

In the interest of fairness, I will say that I am a Dean supporter, and I have to accept that the same phenomena applies to him. Whether it's the perceived anger, the "outsiderness', or the perception of him as a straight shooter (so to speak), many are attracted to his candidacy more because of these qualities than his actual policy positions. There are several things I disagree with Howard about (although I justify my support by saying that overall he is still closer to my preferences than anyone else) but I am emotionally invested at this point and it would take a HUGE scandal or blunder for me to bail out.

Granted, there is a basic level of policy awareness that excludes or includes various candidates out of or in to the paradigm of a voter, but beyond that, it's more of a "feeling" or gut reaction.

Perhaps this is why discussions about the candidates rarely sway anyone's opinion, and often get nasty. And also why people like Ronald Reagan and Ahnold and GW Shrub can get elected.

So, finally, this would mean that "charisma" (whatever that is) may count more than anything else as far as being a "winner'.

Whaddaya think?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. So far, it's the civilian leaders that start the most wars

so, no.

[MGKrebs]

8. More on that, please.

How far do we want to look back?
WW2? We didn't start that.
Korea? How did that get started anyway?
Vietnam? Who do we attribute that to? Kennedy?
Gulf War1? G. Bush.
Kosovo? NATO.

[dobak]

2. I'm not scared of a General who is elected

[eileen_d]

3. I think your definition of "gun people" is a little blurry

I think lots of people want to have the right to bear arms for many reasons, but how many of those people are primarily concerned with the "potential scenario of having to fight an overly oppressive government"?

I know you say "partly" in your post, but this was my initial reaction.

Also, we have had generals as presidents who did not incorporate use the military against their own countrymen... right? So upon re-reading your post, a "gun person" would have to be pretty darn paranoid to follow that logic. If they are that paranoid, they are probably not voting R or D...

[Dookus]

4. I think it's a silly...

baseless charge that has no grounding in truth or reality.

[MGKrebs]

7. It's not a charge. It's a question.

It still may be silly (and probably naive). The logical path I am trying to explore is that a recent general would have an easier time rallying troops to follow his will, even if he went off the deep end, than a civilian would. This is not about Clark (he just inspired the question), it's about how voters choose their preferred candidate.

I just thought it kind of illuminated something that I, and maybe others, lose sight of- logic and technical policy details don't really matter to a lot of people.

Perhaps you didn't see my thread a few days ago about politics as a "team sport" . This is just another angle on the same theme.

[eileen_d]

9. Maybe it's the implication that any of our candidates

would "go off the deep end" and start assassinating his countrymen that makes it sound a *little* bit like a charge. :shrug:

[Democrats unite]

5. I am Democrat, and I am gay. I am also a gun totin American

You don't want to mess with a pissed off Queen!

I am a firm believer in the 2nd ammendment.

And to answer your question a General would not scare me, but actually make me feel safer.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. Actually,

I'm more frightened of the CURRENT government than I ever would be of a General who's elected. Clark has seen war. He has seen people die and I don't think for a minute he would inflict that on his country. Now, Bush?.....WHOA! THAT is the man you should be worried about.

[Jerseycoa]

10. Surely, gun people are already wary

Because Clark opposes concealed weapons carry laws, promises to prosecute federal gun crimes (for a change), such as illegal trafficking and sales to minors; supports the Brady Law, the assault weapons ban, gun safety, and retention of background checks as a criminal investigation measure.

Clark himself is a hunter and gun collector. He promises to fight for "laws that protect gun rights but also keep guns from those who shouldn't have them, and crack down on those who are arming criminals."

Some people will view this program as a threat to their freedom. It seems like a sensible gun policy to me, but I doubt "gun people" would warm to it, general or no general.

But most of the response I have seen on DU is from leftists who view the issue in terms of personal security against criminal acts and not that the government is going to war against them anytime soon.

There may be more or less to it. It wasn't anything I thought that much about until seeing it was being viewed as a states rights issue on DU and across the nation. I guess you've been in that Justice/Public Safety forum, but it was an eye-opener for me. I had considered it a right wing, Republican baby until then. Boy, was I not paying attention.


:dem:

[mikehiggins]

11. The overwhelming majority of gun owners in the US

firmly support the passage and enforcement of legitimate laws designed to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. The underlying reason so many NRA folks vote that party-line is because very many of those opposing the private ownership of guns are just as honest as those people saying they only want a restriction on "this particular kind of abortion."

Just as pro-choice people see clearly through such equivocation to the reality behind it, as in "no abortion, no way, no how", so do gun owners see what these "reasonable" restrictions on their rights are intended to do.

They are not designed to keep criminals from having guns, they are designed to lead to the criminalisation of gun ownership, one kind at a time.

In short, if people would be more honest and state their true positions, open diagogue could take place. As it is, there is no room for discussion between implacable opponents.

[funkyflathead]

12. Clark owns 20 guns or so he claims

So if you are implying that Clark would take over the US and force a civil war, forget it.

Clark is a gun owner.