Economic Appeal: isn't keeping your house better than keeping your gun?

[bobweaver]

Can't the low-income and/or working-class voters who went for Bush be convinced somehow that the Democrats are the ones who are fighting for them economically? Is making your house payment more important to them than whether someone 3000 miles away had an abortion? Isn't having food on your table - that you paid for free and clear, not on credit - of greater importance than whether or not the 2 men next door got married? Doesn't the bottom line mean anything to these people? Or are they going to wait until they lose their house and are starving in the freezing cold before they make the connection to their situation and the Republican policies? Which is really more important, keeping title to your house or having a gun in your house? What good is a gun to defend yourself and your property if you HAVE NO PROPERTY to defend?

[Jack_DeLeon]

1. A gun can come in handy if you dont have a home...

[Peak_Oil]

2. I don't think their priorities are your priorities.

And candidly, I don't think the Democrats are doing much for working-class Republicans. Minimum wage laws, yes. There is that. OTOH, our Big Dog passed NAFTA which absolutely screwed working class Republicans right next to the working class Democrats. I'm not so sure I'd stack up recent Democratic economic packages as a net benefit to any working class people. Hell, we're in the middle of trying to extend NAFTA with CAFTA and any other XXFTA we can come up with to hurt workers and help investors as much as possible.

They want their guns. That's what they want. 80 million of them have guns. You try to take guns from 80 million people, you are simply not going to have a majority. That's 30% of our population.

Maybe I'm finally seeing the light on this. Is gun ownership a right-wing thing? I've never understood this. I always thought the right wing was about authoritarian power structures, ownership in the hands of the few. Keeping RKBA strikes me as being decidedly left-wing. It decentralizes power by putting tools of violence in the hands of the many. Am I nuts? I would think that concentrating power in the hands of a few is a right-wing thing to do. Hmmm. Maybe I'm wrong. Or is it a cultural thing? I'm going to start a new thread about this. I don't think I really understand the question.

[forgethell]

3. Well, that argument

can apply both ways. We could also be expected to give up the social issues for the economic ones.

And it is obviously wrong or Bush wouldn't have been re-elected, fraud or no fraud.

Not that I know what the answer is, but telling people they don't know what their own interests are is not it, IMO.

:)

[hollowdweller]

4. I don't think they should have to make a choice.

I think most people I know don't believe that the Dems help them any more than the repubs. Especially so many kids in their 20's and 30's that can never remember what it was like in the 60's and 70's when there were good union jobs.

Part of it is the Dems don't really get out what they ARE doing. The other part is they aren't really doing much.

[BiggJawn]

5. Oooh! If I give you my guns I'll magically have enough for a Mortgage?

S'Yeah, right....

News flash for ya, Bob ol' buddy. Liberals own guns.

[jdj]

6. you cain't use a house to shoot a librul homo.

so there.

And I'm from gun country.

This is another red herring.

[ChairOne]

7. lol - you're under the misguided assumption that...

... these are *reasonable* people....

If that were the case, our country wouldn't be in the pickle it's in, would it?

sigh.

It's like "convincing" people that fast food is bad for them. You can talk til you're blue in the face - at which point they'll head for the nearest McDs...