Why do so many Liberals Love Firearms


PDA






colemanw
February 16, 2009, 07:50 PM
I am a moderate liberal, I love firearms, and believe whole heartedly in the right to keep and bear arms RKBA!!

I am not looking for political fighting!!

I just want to hear from other liberals why they exercise their right to keep arms.

I want liberal firearm lovers everywhere to stand up with our right of center brothers and write to our elected officials.

Tell us why you feel the way you do and what you can do to protect our rights!!

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do so many Liberals Love Firearms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cbrgator
February 16, 2009, 07:57 PM
Because the desire to protect yourself and your family transcends partisanship.

pugmug
February 16, 2009, 07:58 PM
I guess I am a lib on some things,mid ground on others and cons on most.Libs are loud about their stance but most of the time need to shut the hell up!

colemanw
February 16, 2009, 08:01 PM
yeah, our liberal lawmakers tend to run at the mouth... we need more liberal gun lovers like ourselves to stand up and let them know how we feel... if the only people making noise are conservative its little wonder that they don't listen.

rbernie
February 16, 2009, 08:09 PM
So what do you suggest we do to encourage the more liberal of the politicians to abandon their efforts at gun control?

Do you have a specific topic that we should address, or a letter than you can provide as a template?

cbrgator
February 16, 2009, 08:14 PM
Writing letters to them won't accomplish anything. The only thing I've ever known to open their eyes is a trip to the range. It adds a human element to firearms they'll never otherwise grasp. Liberals blame guns themselves for crimes without really thinking about what they are doing. Drivers get blamed for auto accidents, but guns get blamed for shootings. Once you take them to a range, and they have to operate the gun, and see others operating them as well, it puts things into perspective a little better. They see firsthand that guns are tools requiring human operators and that guns are inanimate objects requiring someone to pull the trigger. Then they can better understand that it not the guns we should be scared of, but who's holding them.

So take a liberal to the range before he/she runs for office and bans them!

colemanw
February 16, 2009, 08:18 PM
If enough of their base stands up we will see change... as far as I can tell, only 30% or so of the liberal base is die hard anti gun... My hope is that some ideas for letter points can be come up with on this thread...

if someone has a letter (right or left) that has been sent in, post it! we can corral the good ideas-

colemanw
February 16, 2009, 08:20 PM
the biggest thing i can think of is that there are many more good citizens armed than criminals... why would we want to change that?

pugmug
February 16, 2009, 08:36 PM
Since the dawn of human kind people kill people.What difference does it make how?Wild animals,by the way we humans are also, will keep doing so for what ever reason we deem just,period!

sig220mw
February 16, 2009, 08:38 PM
Not all liberals are Washington type liberals. The Washington type (left wing anti-American) liberal is anything but liberal. True liberals want to hear all points of view and encourage people to dialogue. The liberals in charge of the Democrat party today shout down or censor opposite points of view. They only have room for their own dogma. You are right, more mainstream liberals such as yourself should make yourselves heard and known. Let them know where you agree with them but also where you don't. The ones they are hearing now are the extremists in Washington, big news organizations and Hollywood.

FullEffect1911
February 16, 2009, 09:01 PM
I like the enthusiasm. On an individual basis I would say the single best way to change peoples minds would be to take them to the range. Teach them the golden rule of safety first, and make sure there are some good reactive targets.

In a more broad sense it would take a massive grassroots movement to organize some gun owning liberals and start an organization with then intention to expand it. Enough interested members (and i'm talking lots) would no longer allow the party as a whole to be anti 2nd. This would inevitably cause a rift in the party, but it would be change for the better.

Could you imagine an organization half the size of the NRA comprised entirely of liberal gun owners.... that would be pretty cool.

colemanw
February 16, 2009, 09:08 PM
Quote "Could you imagine an organization half the size of the NRA comprised entirely of liberal gun owners.... that would be pretty cool."

yes! thats the dream!

GRIZ22
February 16, 2009, 09:16 PM
Writing letters to them won't accomplish anything. The only thing I've ever known to open their eyes is a trip to the range.

I generally agree with this statement and relate many stories to support it. It's hard to get your governor or state and federal legislators down to the range.

Get the converts you can though.

JShirley
February 16, 2009, 09:55 PM
Wild animals,by the way we humans are also

No, this is a contradictory statement. Humans are animals by scientific definition, fauna rather than flora, but the phrase "wild animals" is used to differentiate between feral and domesticated. IOW, you're completely wrong.

John

colemanw
February 16, 2009, 09:55 PM
Here is a google group... lets rally there and see what happens- Anyone who wants to help liberal firearm lovers be heard is welcome to join :)

http://groups.google.com/group/liberals-for-firearms-and-safety?hl=en&lnk=gcimh

SHusky57
February 16, 2009, 10:07 PM
As a student at a predominantly liberal university, I am still amazed by the idea that gun's are capable of accidentally going off. In other words, they just go off by themselves. There is no cognizant recognition that negligence is the reason for any "accidental" discharge.

They also tend to be anti-CCW without realizing the process to obtain a CCW permit, which in my state includes - 8 hours of legal and firearm instruction, fingerprints at the local sheriff, and a thorough background investigation. Perhaps if they simply knew more about the topic, they wouldn't fear things out of ignorance.

I mean the anti-CCW is incomprehendible. If a criminal is going to use a weapon, they are not going to go through the trouble to get a permit nor heed posted signs. A law abiding person is put at a disadvantage - they cannot be trusted; while it is assumed that criminals will adhere to the posted signs and laws. I mean, if a criminal uses a weapon unlawfully they can be prosecuted for that in and of itself. We don't need further laws to prosecute them for "illegal possession of a weapon" because there are already laws against assault with a weapon.

Does anyone see what I am getting at here? The only way I can really understand the bias against CCW is that people simply do not understand the process and requirements of obtaining the CCW permit.

pugmug
February 16, 2009, 10:13 PM
Humans are the wildest animals because we can think, reason not go on,oh never mind!

JImbothefiveth
February 16, 2009, 10:16 PM
Why do so many Liberals Love Firearms
Because this is a firearm forum, and if they didn't, they probably wouldn't be here.

I believe the best way to convince anybody to be pro-firearm is to take them shooting, tell them how loosening firearm law has reduced crime,(give specific examples), and a few bible quotes if they are religious. (Every verse you can find on the topic, so they don't start thinking you are tryng to decieve them. Even the ones about not living by the sword)

I'm liberal on a few issues, like the death penalty, but generally conservative.

pugmug
February 16, 2009, 10:20 PM
JShirley,what does a notification in a P.M. mean?

gossamer
February 16, 2009, 10:20 PM
So what do you suggest we do to encourage the more liberal of the politicians to abandon their efforts at gun control?

If I've learned anything over the past two years it's that the grass roots matter. The key to getting liberal politicians to re-evaluate their stance on guns is through their constituents. And the key to getting democratic constituents to understand this issue is getting them to see firearms, the RKBA and gun ownership as a concrete, practical reality rather than an abstraction. Most of the liberals I know who are anti-gun don't own them, don't use them, have very little if any experience with guns good or bad.

It's an abstraction so they just decide, I'm against them. (I used to be a lot like this but never really was outright anti-gun.)

However, when people see guns as a reality, as a concrete truth, as a practical tool in self defense, sport or fun, they understand the idea of passing laws to limit them is basically ridiculous.

That's why my tactical approach is to make guns NON-iconic, NOT unreal, to talk about them and interact with them as I do a cat or a motorcycle or a guitar. Are they for everyone? nope. Can they be harmful if misused? yep. Should we outlaw them on that basis? There's no need to.

I also really try to get the politics OUT of the issue. It's why I get so weary of all of this "they'll take your gun" or "they just want to have a gun" millieu. It's not helpful.

I try to talk about these things as just practical realities, tools, experiences. No icons, no demagoguery, no politics.

It's a lot like all the wedge issues in our society: race, sexual orientation, abortion. I find that when people experience these things as a reality they can appreciate one anothers' position and yet not find the need to take away one anothers' rights. Our constitution observes restrictions on certain rights, and part of respecting the constitution is respecting that fact. I accept that as a law abiding citizen. And also, as a law abiding citizen, I have stand against the outright removal of the rights of lawful people.

I also try to remind fellow Democrats of what one of their own said, as quoted in my signature line:

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), who declared that the purposes of the Second Amendment "include self-defense, hunting, sport, and some certainly would say, as would I, the protection of individual rights against a potentially despotic central government."

JShirley
February 16, 2009, 10:23 PM
pugmug, notification of a PM means you should read your private messages. Go to the tech support forum if you can't figure out how.

colemanw
February 16, 2009, 10:31 PM
I wonder if it would be possible to institute firearm classes in public schools or higher ed?... one solid class on firearm history, safety, practical training...

it would take generations... just like the civil rights movement...

grass roots education movement-

CPerdue
February 16, 2009, 11:18 PM
My answer to your original question is that 'liberal' used to mean 'free'. Free as in, '... all men are created equal...'. Mr. Jefferson also pointed out that our liberty stops where it begins to infringe on someone else's. Thinking a bit longer on the topic you realize that to maximize liberty, for everyone, requires structure.

Modern liberals, at least the 60's caricature version, forgot that. Fighting against (admittedly imperfect) social structure lead to distaste for the ultimate tool for imposing one's will on others. I mean lawyers.

Seriously though, fuzzy, wishful thinking may have lead many to curse the tool which could serve them well. I think pragmatists, liberal or otherwise, see that the world is a rough place and good people need guns to uphold the structure of society which enables so many of our freedoms.

I don't think many of the true gun haters are liberal at all because true liberals want people to be free. The ones I fear are not the fuzzy thinkers but the calculating tyrants who would use them.

taliv
February 16, 2009, 11:22 PM
I need full auto high capacity, duh

IndianaBoy
February 16, 2009, 11:46 PM
seriously, who really needs full auto high cap anyway?

Hold it right there chief. I am on board with being cordial with liberals for the purpose of 2A.... Until you started negotiating away my rights through creeping incrementalism.

This type of crap is exactly why there is such a divide. Why should I compromise my rights? Are you willing to infringe the 1st amendment? Gun owners are already putting up with laws which violate the Constitutionm

DesmoDucRob
February 16, 2009, 11:49 PM
...doesn't really answer the question, but it is some food for thought: I took a JROTC class as an elective in high school and one of the skill sets that was introduced was rifle marksmanship. .177 caliber air rifles were used to introduce basic marksmanship skills to students whose only experience with firearms had been television. I suspect that many of them liberal or not, view shooting as a sport rather than a threat, because of that high school experience. ...kinda like gossamer said, it adds a tangible aspect to previously foreign idea.

bensdad
February 16, 2009, 11:54 PM
seriously, who really needs full auto high cap anyway?

He had you guys goin' for a while there, didn't he? Some take longer than others... some are smoother than others... but, well you know.

HeavenlySword
February 17, 2009, 12:47 AM
who said that when? i think he edited it out!

Second Amendment Liberal
February 17, 2009, 02:16 AM
I like to look at everything through a scientific perspective. firearms are just tools that uses a chemical reaction to propel a projectile, nothing more. I think alot of people don't like guns because they let irrational feelings get in the way (the loud noise guns make is scary!). it's the same with nuclear power. yes, fission nuclear power produces dangerous radiation, but if we can learn how to harness fusion nuclear power, it would be the most efficient, clean energy source we can use (all it does is release helium instead of radioactive isotopes!).

now, the modern "liberals" you see in washington, like nancy pelosi, hilary clinton, etc. etc. are nothing but soccer moms and dads. a true liberal wouldn't want to ban "violent video games", they would know it's a parent's responsibility to know what their child is up to, not the law. I personally identify with "cold war liberals" that were ready to fight if necessary, e.g. adlai stevenson.

Bud Tugly
February 17, 2009, 02:18 AM
I'm mostly liberal on social issues while conservative on fiscal ones and also a life-long gun owner. IMO it's a huge mistake to think all liberals are anti-gun and all conservatives are pro.

Some of the most anti-gun people I know are staunch conservatives who are terrified of guns and want them banned, while I know lots of pro-gun liberals. IMO it has an awful lot to do with how you were brought up.

I was raised with guns in the house and learned to shoot very early on, but I was also taught to treat guns with great respect. People I've seen who were raised in gun-free households tend to fear guns rather than respect them.

What we need is more programs to introduce kids and even adults into the shooting sports in a way that isn't intimidating or threatening. The average person unfamiliar with guns would probably never dream of dropping in at their local shooting range since those places can seem awful unwelcoming to inexperienced folks.

Maybe gun clubs could sponsor open house days at a range and invite the general public to come in and try their hand at shooting for just a minimal fee. If advertised heavily with an emphasis on fun and safety, it might spark more public interest.

More and more people are raised in cities or suburbs these days instead of out in the country. That means if something isn't done to promote gun sports we're likely to see gun ownership drop drastically over the next generation or two, and that would be a shame.

BHP FAN
February 17, 2009, 04:39 AM
Some of you folks who describe yourselves as 'Liberals' really sound like Libertarians.Do you not know the difference? Good on you for liking guns,either way,anyways.

colemanw
February 17, 2009, 04:58 AM
libertarians are borderline anarchists... do whatever feels good-

BHP FAN
February 17, 2009, 05:25 AM
Wrong.Personally,I'm a Republican with strong Libertarian leanings,but listen to this:
''1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition...''

Prion
February 17, 2009, 08:12 AM
I'm not liberal or conservative. I find that both parties run at the mouth and stick to the party line rather than thinking. Party bosses and the party loudmouths are the ones that set the agenda and everyone else follows. It is easy and makes a person feel good and secure to judge and condemn others. Gun ownership is used as another 'us against them issue'. There is too much feeling and not enough critical thinking surrounding the RKBA. I wish we had a valid third party. I can't stand Libs or Repubs but I am no anarchist either.

ronwill
February 17, 2009, 09:40 AM
The Second Amendment isn't a partisan line, many Republicans are anti. If you look at the following definitions of Liberal and Republican there is no real stance on the 2A.

Liberal - Represented by the Democrat party, or the political Left. A Liberal is one who generally leans towards Democratic Socialism and even some degree of Marxism. They support the welfare state, Social Security and Socialized Healthcare. They believe that by raising taxes, and redistributing wealth, Government can eliminate the social inequalities they abhor. Their champion is probably Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Republican - often called "Conservative" and represented by the Republican party, or political Right. One who generally favors economic liberty, free markets, private property and lower taxes. They encourage personal responsibility, want less, or limited Government and privatization of business. They prefer personal freedoms over equality and they support a strong national defense. Their champion is probably Ronald Reagan.

Source: http://www.ircpolitics.org/glossary.html

Second Amendment Liberal
February 17, 2009, 10:07 AM
I don't consider myself a libertarian because I don't believe in an unregulated economy. plus, libertarianism seems unusually dogmatic for a political philosophy.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
February 17, 2009, 10:28 AM
The entire question and thread is sketchy from the get-go, due to the incredibly nebulous definition of "liberal", but the easy answer that works regardless of definition, is "for the same reasons non-liberals love them".

In any event, not activism.

CPerdue
February 17, 2009, 11:06 AM
Why does a common man need a stirrup?

Surely a serf can plow his field without such. And should a free man of means decide to ride for pleasure, again a stirrup is of no necessity. Some may even wish to join in the hunt; Bah I say, let them apply to their Lordship's master of hounds then when need for beaters arises.

The godless Mongol hordes have shown us what evil a stirrup can do as a weapon of war. It allowed that ignoble mob to wreak great carnage on our brethren, the knights of Hungary. Why should we allow this asp at our breast? For our posterity we must keep the stirrup from common hands.

'nuff said? Damn right, full auto rock and roll. Where is my grenade launcher?

gossamer
February 17, 2009, 11:26 AM
This type of crap is exactly why there is such a divide.

Um, with respect, no.

The reason there is such a divide is because of over-emotionalizing and name calling and posturing on BOTH sides. In as much as the "question" of "who needs a hi-cap?" is actually a passive-aggressive statement of rejection, your post is just as passive aggressive if not overtly so.

You demonstrate the source of the divide and venom as much as anyone when you malign someone for their position and impugn that they're dishonest. Not everyone's trying to get one over on you.

Maybe a great tactic to start with is torealize that we are NOT going to convince anyone of firearms' viability in defense and protection when we use the very issue of firearms to attack and divide.

rbernie
February 17, 2009, 11:36 AM
Hmm. This is NOT sounding like Activism Planning.

You guys wanna take one more shot at this? Feel free. On the other hand, if you keep up the poly sci chatter I will lock down the thread.

If you wanna talk about the poly sci topics, feel free to mosey on over to APS (the link is on the top right of every page) and chatter away.

hso
February 17, 2009, 11:54 AM
I doubt this thread will stay open very long unless everyone stays focused on what the requirements are for Activism. We're supposed to be working on developing a plan of action, not just yacking.

General discussions about why you have firearms or why you support RKBA really belong in General.

How self styled liberals (whatever in the world "liberal" means to you) can make a contribution to RKBA, the general means are much the same regardless of political/social views. Letter (yes, pen on paper) writing, visits to the politician as a constituent, participating in boards and committees that influence politicians, working in political campaigns to assure RKBA support, grassroots organizing, working with local media to normalize the community view of firearms owners, working with groups to increase the number of responsible recreational shooters, and taking individuals who have no real idea what we do out to the range and introducing them to shooting in a fun responsible manner. These are the same regardless of political/social view.

I would think that the unique advantage a liberal might have is the ability to start the conversation at all these levels with people that may not be as supportive and to demonstrate to politicians that their support comes from people who might work against them in the primaries to put politicians from their own party in their seat who do support RKBA.

VegasGeorge
February 17, 2009, 12:05 PM
I'm willing to bet that most so called "liberals" who love firearms would score as "conservative" on an objective issues test. I know from experience that lots of Democrats will give you conservative answers to simple straightforward questions. But they seem to go all stupid when it comes to casting their votes. It's some kind of logic disconnect that prevents them from seeing that they are supporting candidates and political platforms that run contrary to what they actually think. Their politics seems to be emotionally based, rather than reason based. In their personal lives, a lot of them are responsible, conservative people. It's no wonder they love firearms.

JImbothefiveth
February 17, 2009, 12:15 PM
seriously, who really needs full auto high cap anyway?
Don't fall for the anti gunner's lies! Full autos have been illegal to manufacture for civilian sale since the 1980's.

Semi-auto high capacity guns, which some people want to ban, can be good for elderly or weak people. The AR-15 in particular, and other guns in the .223 cartridge, have very little recoil, good stopping power, are often lightweight, and have high capacity, making them ideal for people who are too weak to handle, say, an 870.

I doubt this thread will stay open very long unless everyone stays focused on what the requirements are for Activism. We're supposed to be working on developing a plan of action, not just yacking
Here's my plan: Don't vote for them unless they change their stance on guns. For instance, I won't vote for anti-gun RINOs.

The Second Amendment isn't a partisan line,
I believe one party officially supports gun control, and one doesn't

Bellevance
February 17, 2009, 12:47 PM
There's no inherent contradiction between political and social liberalism and belief in the fundamental rights of gun owners.

In my experience, the divide is more broadly cultural than it is political or philosophical. That is, a person's attitude toward firearms and gun ownership largely depends on the immediately surrounding culture and on where he or she was reared. It's only natural that if a person grows up in a home where there are guns and in a community where guns are used for hunting, protection, and target work, he or she will naturally understand that guns as tools of a special sort, deserving of respect and care and affection.

People tend to fear what they do not know. A person who is familiar with guns from childhood won't fear guns and won't seek to curtail gun owners' rights. The more liberal areas of this country tend to be the more urban areas as well. In urban areas, most of the people do not own guns; indeed, many people who live in the cities or the nearby suburbs have probably never even handled a gun.

I live in Vermont, perhaps the most liberal (and least religious) of the 50 states. Vermont is also this country's most rural state--and that is probably the most pertinent characteristic in determining what attitudes a person forms with respect to firearms. Gun laws in Vermont are among the most liberal in the country. Vermont and Alaska are the only states that have no laws governing the concealed carry of firearms. Not all of my neighbors are gun owners, but most are. Our two US Senators, Leahy and Sanders, are among the most politically liberal--and yet, as Vermonters, they both firmly support the rights of gun owners. Leahy, in particular, is a proud gun owner and Second Amendment supporter.

To modify the attitudes of people who reflexively dislike guns and who would further limit gun owners' rights, we must find friendly, inviting ways to educate the considerable portion of the country's population who, because of where they live and where they grew up, simply know nothing whatsoever about guns. Those who are curious and interested need to be given easy, safe opportunities to handle and shoot guns. A person who can come to know guns will lose his fear of them.

It's really not so much a matter of liberal versus conservative. It's truly more a matter of culture--and, unfortunately, in the cities nowadays the prevailing gun culture is the gang culture.

gossamer
February 17, 2009, 12:56 PM
But they seem to go all stupid when it comes to casting their votes. It's some kind of logic disconnect that prevents them from seeing that they are supporting candidates and political platforms that run contrary to what they actually think.

Do you think I'm going to side with you when you say I am stupid for my vote? When you say that my vote makes me illogical. When you say Liberals aren't REALLY liberal, they just vote that way. What am I, a unicorn?

Here are a few tactics:
How about giving liberals who are pro-RKBA the credit they deserve for actually knowing what their own political ideology is. How about giving them credit that their ideology and candidate choices are grounded in the same things yours is grounded in: life experiences, world view, preferences, upbringing, and thoughtful consideration by intelligent minds.

This casting liberals as intellectually dishonest, illogical, or "stupid" because they vote for someone you don't vote for doesn't help advance the RKBA. It makes you look one sided, petty and uninformed -- JUST LIKE ANTI-GUN PEOPLE LOOK.

To continue to imply or overtly state that Liberals/Democrats/Progressives are having the wool pulled over their eyes on the basis that YOU know better the true intentions of Democratic candidates that Democrats do just smacks of elitism. And as Democrats learned from 1994 - 2008, elitism doesn't bring anyone around to seeing your issue with any clarity.

So, if we want to continue to have a plurality of Americans respect and uphold the 2nd amendment, it starts with growing up ourselves and realizing that one politcal ideology doesn't corner the market on protecting 2A rights and having the candidates to do that.

I'm sorry, but the hypocrisy from the "right" I'm reading on this issue is overwhelming and growing tedious and if it's any sign of the tactics this group is interested in employing to protecting RKBA . . . well . . . good luck with that.

CPerdue
February 17, 2009, 01:46 PM
I get the point that this is not activism - a newbie started it in the wrong place and I didn't check before responding. Mods, move the discussion?

IndianaBoy
February 17, 2009, 03:31 PM
Hypocrisy?


Look Gossamer, if you share the ideals of Pelosi, Feinstein and Obama on every single issue except for firearms law... that is well and good.

You are entitled to your opinions and your vote. And I would venture to say that there is no reason to doubt that you are as well informed as any voter can be.

Now there are plenty of exceptions in the House and Senate of 'liberal' politicians who have a healthy respect for firearms rights.

But there is no doubt that taken as a whole, a vote for a liberal (modern definition - borderline socialist, not classical liberal - freedom) is a vote against gun rights.

If your value system is such that you can throw 2A rights under the bus because you value other 'liberal' policies more, that is fine.

But don't expect me to believe that you give a fig for 2A rights if you voted for Obama. The original poster edited his post without comment when called out on the 'full auto hi cap' nonsense.

If you sensed venom in my post, good for you. It was there. 'Liberal' groups like AHSA have been trying to undermine and divide gun owners for quite a while now. You are getting easy to spot.

gossamer
February 17, 2009, 05:32 PM
If you sensed venom in my post, good for you. It was there.

If that is one of your tactics to try to get more people to support the cause of RKBA then it's really no wonder Democrats are winning elections and efforts to erode gun rights have been successful. Because efforts like yours to protect them include spewing venom an alienating people who feel the same way as you on this issue.

If those are your tactics, do me a favor and keep them to yourself. As has been proven over and over, there's very little ground gained with petty, venomous, and disrespectful tactics intended to increase support for rights.

BHP FAN
February 17, 2009, 05:45 PM
Well,I'm a single issue voter.The 2A is important enough to me that I use it as a litmus test for my vote.If I agree with a candidate on every single issue but thier stance on gun control,I won't vote for them.And I think if more 'pro-gun' folk really were PRO-gun and VOTED that way,we wouldn' have a anti-gun 'community organizer' in charge now.

Ben86
February 17, 2009, 05:59 PM
From my observation the only liberals who like firearms have:

1, Actually shot a gun and discovered how fun it really is.

2, Realize the advantage a firearm gives to the security of himself and family.

3, Realize that gun control only works on those concerned about the law, and it is more about control than about guns.

It's nice to see liberal with common sense about the 2A.

Here's a question: How can liberal Hollywood actors take anti-gun positions yet profit off of glorifying gun violence?

IndianaBoy
February 17, 2009, 06:29 PM
If that is one of your tactics to try to get more people to support the cause of RKBA then it's really no wonder Democrats are winning elections and efforts to erode gun rights have been successful. Because efforts like yours to protect them include spewing venom an alienating people who feel the same way as you on this issue.

If those are your tactics, do me a favor and keep them to yourself. As has been proven over and over, there's very little ground gained with petty, venomous, and disrespectful tactics intended to increase support for rights.


I gain ground by taking people shooting and introducing them to firearms, in a safe, fun and responsible manner.

Democrats have been winning elections because they do a better job of promising rewards in exchange for votes.

But it is nice of you to point out that electing democrats erodes gun rights. ;)

colemanw
February 17, 2009, 07:40 PM
QUOTE
"Here's a question: How can liberal Hollywood actors take anti-gun positions yet profit off of glorifying gun violence?"

I Love it! Right on!

EDIT MISHAP NOTE,
yes, i wrote, "seriously, who needs a full auto"
I deleted it because it came across a lot more inflammatory than i meant it to be... I did not want to start fights on here... This is supposed to be about cooperation from both sides on protecting the 2A-

I agree that going to the range will change a lot of anti gun minds...

But from where I'm sitting the single largest hope for putting this issue to rest (protected 2A) is for the 5%of extremeness to tone down their rhetoric- to moderates it is venomous and off putting...

sometimes its so bad i begin to think guns aint worth it... why would i want to be associated with ignorant loudmouths...

gossamer
February 17, 2009, 07:41 PM
But it is nice of you to point out that electing democrats erodes gun rights.

Exactly. Why would a pro-RKBA Democrat run for office if their just going to be attacked by fellow pro-RKBA folks like you?

Maybe you're catching on to my point, which is: Guess what happens when progressive Democrats who are pro-RKBA realize that they're just going to meet with the kind of venom folks like you are so proud of brandishing. THEY DO NOT RUN.

So you're left with a majority crop of Democratic politicians who are anti-gun. Because your version of "tactics" -- deny the bona fides and pridefully attack someone who supports your issue -- just makes it easier for anti-RKBA Dems to win.

Maybe you might find some sense in supporting pro-RKBA people, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE. Rather than pridefully spew venom at them, maybe you might consider the tactic of supporting them on that issue, at each and every turn. Ronald Regan personified the idea of "never talk bad about your ally." And guess what -- HE WON. He got his issues through a hostile congress because he REFUSED to attack his allies, regardless of what side of the aisle they were on. He embraced his allies on the issues he was pursuing. He didn't question the bona fides of people who were on his side of the issue. He didn't wring hands and "mother help me" every time someone supported his issue just because he thought they might be trying to pull wool over his eyes.

Maybe he just wasn't as afraid of people, all I know is it worked. Tactic #1, stop worrying about looking like a fool and start building coalitions. You don't build coalitions by belittling your allies.

IndianaBoy
February 17, 2009, 07:48 PM
The problem sir...


We have allowed plenty of infringing 'compromise' already. I personally am not willing to compromise my way to bolt action rifles stored at a gun club... Which is where we will wind up compromising with liberals.

You have already shown your dishonesty by choosing to hide your machine gun and 'hicap' comment. If that is what you believe... Stand by it. This ignorant loudmouth can tell when he is being fed a line of bull.

My idea of activism is positive growth of ccw laws in states like IL. Perhaps even one day the repeal of the Hughes amendment.

That does not make me an extremistm

IndianaBoy
February 17, 2009, 08:11 PM
Gossamer,

I am not a partisan. There are Democrats I support. There are fiscal and social considerations that would lead me to oppose a candidate regardless of their stance on firearms.

Time will tell where our predominantly democrat congress will get us regarding gun rights.

colemanw
February 17, 2009, 08:16 PM
indianaboy, im not saying you need to compromise your beliefs... just to tone down the antagonistic rhetoric

JImbothefiveth
February 17, 2009, 08:17 PM
Why would a pro-RKBA Democrat run for office if their just going to be attacked by fellow pro-RKBA folks like you?
I do not believe he was attacking pro-gun democrats, but their politicians in general, who are usually anti-gun.
I do agree that we shouldn't call pro-gun democrats anti-gun. (although, the possible exception is if they vote for anti-gun supreme court justices)

22lr
February 17, 2009, 08:27 PM
One of my collage profs believes that all citizens should be able to duke it out with a fully equipped marine, and should be trained to do so (through universal military training and automatic weapons). And at the same time he wants universal healthcare and all the standard lib points. I chuckle because im just not used to gun friendly liberals, but hey I know conservatives who say "they have no use for a gun" so its all good.

jws527
February 17, 2009, 08:37 PM
Consider the actual meaning of the word "liberal" - it's derived from the Latin liber, meaning "free." This country's progenitors were considered liberal in their day, for rejecting the ideas of absolute power and hereditary rule.

Unfortunately, the term has been corrupted over the years, and is now used primarily in a political context to describe a platform which does not necessarily correspond to classical liberalism. In fact, most self-professed "liberals" today are not "liberals" at all - a number may be in some sense or another, but it's a bit disingenuous to call yourself "liberal" if you support prohibitions or tight controls on speech, economic activity, or (to keep things relevant) the means to self-defense.

Of course, the ideas behind liberalism have not disappeared; they've simply been relabeled. The contemporary term for a classical liberal is "libertarian." :)

Gungnir
February 17, 2009, 08:39 PM
I'll add my $0.02 since I have a few minutes, and am reasonably bored. I ultimately don't care whether someone is republican, democratic, independent or martian if they really support the RKBA, I consider them at least to a degree an ally (I may disagree with some of their policies or none). I think the doubt that many here express about democrat's and Firearms can be shown in the laws concerning firearms during periods of higher democratic numbers in the House, Senate, or Presidency.

The RKBA is simple, its for the "people" to defend themselves against all enemies foreign or domestic. When it gets down to it, well regulated at the time could mean well equipped, as in the traditional well regulated militia, or well regulated army both apply the same. Similarly it could mean well run, interchangeably with well equipped.

By this it means that for the peoples defense they need access to all weapons currently used by the standard military, at minimum the same as used by an 11 bang-bang.

Extremism is in the eye of the beholder, unfortunately a lot of people consider getting the '86 NFA restrictions repealed as extreme, I mean why would someone need a Selective-Fire rifle for hunting :banghead: when hunting is not the purpose of the 2A. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I believe that the founding Fathers would support my belief that the 2A supports my right to buy, and arm a 155mm Howitzer, TOW Anti-tank missiles, Claymores, etc. for personal defense.

The 2A is in the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

If we compromise, restrict, license firearms to a greater extent than we currently do, then how can the people act in the way that Jefferson spoke? Licensing identifies those who have firearms, Himmler created a similar plan in Germany prior to WW2, then rounded up guns legally owned. Restrictions limit types of firearms, calibers of bullets, quantities of ammunition you can fire without switching Mags, or reloading. Compromise is agreeing that the RKBA is for purely hunting, and sporting purposes, and home defense against bad guys.

The first step in protecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the second amendment that defines it as an inalienable right; is to understand its primary purpose. To do that we all need to bear in mind what Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, and Madison all said about its purpose. Prior to the Revolutionary war the British began to round up firearms too... Do you think that this might have some bearing on their perspective on this?

Franklin: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Jefferson: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

A lot of people here fear what the government is going to do with their firearms. I do not hear many politicians speaking of their fear of the people, that does not yet mean that we have a tyrannical government far from it. However I think a lot of the fear we rightly feel is directed at the way we are heading, not that we've arrived there yet. The rumblings and rumors of heady democrats in congress cooing about a return of the AWB, does not help pro-RKBA democrats perceptions either.

Cyborg
February 17, 2009, 09:03 PM
To the OP of this thread:
Would not a better question be "Why do so many Liberals HATE firearms?"? If the OP really is a liberal then he/she could reasonably be expected to have a preponderance of liberals in their social network. I submit that the OP might want to poll his/her friends to see why they are so strongly AGAINST RKBA. I for one would love to see the results of such research into the attitudes of grass-roots democrat voters.

But let's get this back onto topic. The only means of safeguarding your rights - apart from armed revolt - is to be active in local politics and in communication with your representatives at all levels. Congress did not pass the law struck down by "Heller", a City Council did. Congress did not make the draconian laws that make KBA in New York state such a minefield; the New York State legislature did.

You can very easily contact your municipal representatives. I urge you to do so when they start encroaching on RKBA. You can also attend council meetings and even testify at such.

You can keep watch on what your state legislature is doing fairly easily these days. How hard is it to email - or :what: HORRORS - write/type out a comment and send it to your state representatives? And you can even attend and possibly comment at hearings on pending legislation.

It is also easy to keep abreast of what is happening on Capitol Hill and contact your Senators (they are elected from the state at large, after all) and the Representative from your district.

If it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, then it would seem to be a simple matter to squeak a lot - and enlist your friends to squeak also - to keep your elected representatives aware of the will of their alleged constituents.

For the record here, I am not a firearm "lover". For me firearms are just tools. But then I consider my computer to be only a tool - a highly useful one, to be sure - but ultimately only a tool. I derive no special pleasure from making noise and punching holes in paper targets. I do so only to maintain my skill level to the degree needed to discharge my duty to protect kith and kin, hearth and home. I am not disparaging folks who are "into" guns. I just am not one of those.

Someone here has a sig that includes words to the effect that "the difference between citizens and subjects is the RKBA". Ultimately we as individuals have to decide if we will/can be satisfied with being subjects. If an individual decides that it OK with them to be a subject, they need to remember that the divide between "subject" and "surf/slave" is mighty slim. That being the case Patrick Henry definately had the right of it.

Cyborg

gossamer
February 17, 2009, 11:24 PM
I do not believe he was attacking pro-gun democrats, but their politicians in general, who are usually anti-gun.

really?

IndianaBoy
If you sensed venom in my post, good for you. It was there.

don't expect me to believe that you give a fig for 2A rights if you voted for Obama.

I don't know about you, but to me that sincerely sounds like an attack and venom directed at a pro-RKBA democrat.

I go back to my central thesis: If you want to advance pro-RKBA, a good tactic is to NOT set about denouncing pro-RKBA anybodies.

Or maybe some think the "High Road" is to openly and pridefully spew venom at pro-RKBA Democrats. Fine. You just lost someone who was willing to fight for the cause from the left. Good work Indiana Boy, with allies like you...

rbernie
February 17, 2009, 11:46 PM
Or maybe some think the "High Road" is to openly and pridefully spew venom at pro-RKBA Democrats. Fine. You just lost someone who was willing to fight for the cause from the left.It is not the mission of THR, nor do I think that you give up that easily. You came here for debate, and you got it. You're doing well, and the venom here is far more tame than elsewhere.

Keep going. :)

I go back to my central thesis: If you want to advance pro-RKBA, a good tactic is to NOT set about denouncing pro-RKBA anybodies. The issue that creates the polarizing attitudes is that decades of 'reasonable compromise' are seen as having caused a creeping incrementalism in the loss of the RKBA. Like it or not, the self-proclaimed 'liberals' are usually seen driving that bandwagon moreso than the self-proclaimed 'conservatives'. Of great concern to the RKBA community right now are groups like AHSA, who proclaim to be a 'liberal friend' of the RKBA and yet who seek to incrementally dismantle it ban by ban and regulation by regulation. By coming here and proclaiming yourself to be a 'liberal gunowner', you immediately caused lots and lots of folks to look at you as they would look at anyone who proclaimed themselves to be a Greek Bearing Gifts. :)

Do I believe that this is a liberal-vs-conservative issue? Of course not. There are many self-proclaimed conservatives who scare the pants off of me just as much as Biden and Pelosi and Feinstein and Clinton do. But until you and others like you stop couching the debate in terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative', you have to expect that you'll get a debate of liberal-vs-conservative. It's simple common sense.

Now - what can you do as a 'liberal gunowner' to help the RKBA movement?

JImbothefiveth
February 17, 2009, 11:46 PM
really?
Yes, really.

Or maybe some think the "High Road" is to openly and pridefully spew venom at pro-RKBA Democrats.
Well, I believe doing so is against the rules.

I'm not against pro-gun democrats, for instance, I would support senator Casey for president before I supported, say, Giuliani. I think a lot of people here just don't like democrats because their party platform includes gun control.

BHP FAN
February 17, 2009, 11:53 PM
I'm afraid the time for ''reasonable gun control measures'', and ''friendly debate'' are long past.At this point, we've compromised and reasonabled our way to the brink,and most of us don't want to see what will happen if the RKBA is ''reasonabled'' any further.

rbernie
February 17, 2009, 11:56 PM
At this point, we've compromised and reasonabled our way to the brink,and most of us don't want to see what will happen if the RKBA is ''reasonabled'' any further.
Let's accept that premise as true, because if we don't this thread will never get anywhere.

The last election was proof positive that in order to stop the incremental loss of rights, we have got to engage those in power and convince them of the rationality of our worldview.

How are we going to do that?

Standing here shouting slogans will not get it done.

Byron Quick
February 17, 2009, 11:58 PM
gossamer, you are welcome here.

Fellow members, some of you need to lay off the venom and keep your comments within the bounds of civility.

Now the Republicans in Congress, at least, are mostly only RKBA in contrast with their political opponents. For example, name all the gun control measures they repealed when they held a majority in both houses of Congress. You can't name any? Wonder why? Some will say the AWB but it was sunsetted by statute not repealed by Republicans.

Personally, I can't see a lot of difference between Republican conservatives and Democratic liberals. Neither side seems interested in following plain language in the Constitution. They have these big ideological differences, arguments, and debates. What do these boil down to? To which areas of your life the government controls and how much control there should be. The Democrats want to control your economic life while leaving you relatively alone in your private life. The Republicans want to control who you sleep with and what else you do in the privacy of your own home while leaving you relatively free in your economic life. Now that's probably fine and proper to some of you. Not for me as I'm not a statist of any stripe. The issue for me is government control of my life and I am opposed to it. That means I'm opposed to most Republicans, most Democrats, and ALL members of Congress except of Ron Paul.

Democrats-heads, Republicans-tails, it's still a quarter that is not real money.

That being so, it still leaves us with the problem of getting Congressmen and Senators to be pro-2nd Amendment. That will be done by demonstrating to them that it is in their self-interest as politicians and in no other way. You will not find many ideologically pure people in Congress sitting on either side of the aisle. In my opinion, there is only one. That's a mighty small minority, folks. So, it comes down to either electing a whole bunch of ideologically pure people to the House and Senate or of finding ways to sway a majority to our view or to close to our view.

But in the interests of RKBA, the Republicans need to be watched very closely. Their track record isn't too reassuring over the past 25 years or so.

taliv
February 17, 2009, 11:59 PM
I go back to my central thesis: If you want to advance pro-RKBA, a good tactic is to NOT set about denouncing pro-RKBA anybodies.

if they are truly pro-RKBA, i totally agree. if they are john "i really hate these rednecks but i'll get my picture taken in an elmer fudd outfit if it buys me some votes" kerry, then no deal.

i completely agree with rbernie

IndianaBoy
February 18, 2009, 12:18 AM
I go back to my central thesis: If you want to advance pro-RKBA, a good tactic is to NOT set about denouncing pro-RKBA anybodies.

Or maybe some think the "High Road" is to openly and pridefully spew venom at pro-RKBA Democrats. Fine. You just lost someone who was willing to fight for the cause from the left. Good work Indiana Boy, with allies like you...



Please understand, as someone who has been active in grassroots activism and lobbying, and personally responsible for getting dozens of people to fire a firearm for the first time, several of whom now have carry permits, the rest of whom are fellow ambassadors for our cause.... I find it somewhat, galling, to be lectured by an individual who campaigned for Obama.

Humility is good for us all... so I will ask you:

I have attempted many times to take anti-gun 'liberals' to the range for a relaxing and educational afternoon with a 22. The idea is so anathema to them that almost universally, I have been turned down. And, honestly, I'm not that scary looking. ;)

So I ask you, what can I do to get the blind to see... so to speak? Do you take non-shooting liberals friends of yours to the range?

My goal is not to turn them into avid shooters. Although that would be great. Some people just aren't into it. I want them to understand that a handgun isn't an blued steel instrument of death that might 'just go off.'

On another topic:

A huge problem is the creeping incrementalism that has been mentioned. Typically, democrats are anti-gun. Typicall, republicans are gun-neutral.

We need pro-gun representatives. Import bans need to be struck down. The hughes amendment needs to be repealed. These ideas are not radical or extreme. No more extreme than the idea that a man should only be able to buy one gun a month. Or that two magazines that hold 10 rounds each are ok, but on that holds 20 rounds is bad.

The only way to do that is to educate the populace one person at a time. Frankly, the idiots in the beltway are a lost cause.

Babarsac
February 18, 2009, 12:55 AM
I'm liberal about many things.....including gun ownership :D

colemanw
February 18, 2009, 12:56 AM
We have quite a few Japanese exchange students at my university. Once per quarter our International Studies department offers new exchange students a trip to the local gun range to shoot .22s and .38s (trained by the range owner in co-op with the university) They LOVE it! Most of them are quite scared (Japan has very strict gun laws and the only firearm exposure these youths have comes from Hollywood) But once they do it they cant get enough... every weekend there are always a number of them in there renting used pistols and plinking away-

I read something by another THR member that said to the effect, "Dont try and train or coerce someone into becoming pro-firearm. The key is to go about your own firearm business in a responsible way. Dont hide the fact that you are pro, just don't flaunt it. In time the fearful will become curious on their own and look at you as a resource! Then you casually answer their questions... Over time they will inevitably ask you to teach them - only then, will you win them over "-

If we can do that for exchange students... well, ya know... :p

hso
February 18, 2009, 01:04 AM
There were a number of comments made about NRA's endorsement of some Democrats running for Congress this past election cycle. Some members here decried this support in spite of the the NRA's favorable rating.

The fact is that if we say our "litmus test" for a politician/individual is 2A support then it is important to accept that a pro-2A politician who wins and who is on the "winning" side does us a heck of a lot more good than one who looses. Is it really a litmus test or just another way to rationalize our choices. 2A supporting politicians with influence are more useful than those without it.

If we vilify and overgeneralize any 2A support we're shooting ourselves in the foot. I know folks that were very vocal in support of 2A right up until they learned about the Pink Pistols. Suddenly they didn't want to be associated with the cause. They still shoot, but suddenly lost their voice. Who's the worse for it? We are. The RKBA cause is.

So what can "liberals" do to support RKBA?

colemanw
February 18, 2009, 01:35 AM
Oh, there has been some discussion on this so I'm gonna put in my .02- I don't casually use the term liberal... or conservative... it just happened to seem the most effective, general way at getting this thread going. After all, not everyone who reads this thread will be well versed in the origins of the terminology nor the history of U.S. political parties. Over the decades, their fluctuating policies and outright reversals are quite complicated... Example: "If Lincoln were alive today he would be a Democrat." I'm sure there are a few here that would dispute that, but that's the beauty of free speech :)

Anything the government has done to incrementally remove 2A rights is all a result of dirty politics... A tool to further party desires... I bet that if the parties were reversed at the point in history that this first became an issue, the Dems would be the pro gun party today.... To politicians it is not a matter of civil liberties or making sheep of the people... its just a convenient political tool-

Regarding compromise and the slow erosion of gun rights-
Lets see what you all think of this:
(YES we have the 2A, but what if,
If we had a new re-written amendment that does away with the debate by guaranteeing the right of law abiding people to own, carry, and use "Firearms" including, revolvers, semi auto, full auto assault, shotguns... (basically everything, including ammo!) Couldn't it make sense to also require firearm registration and some amount of accredited training in safeties name?

I am obviously not as eloquent as Thomas Jefferson or James Madison but maybe I made a point...

Can we find common sense and common ground... what kind of requirements do you think we need for the effective legislation of this issue... I do think felons who committed violent acts be prevented the possession of a firearm... common sense right? or am I infringing on the 2A?

BHP FAN
February 18, 2009, 01:48 AM
Yes,you would be infringing on the 2A. Registration is a nessesary first step towards confiscation.Recent history proves this [Australia and the UK] as well as our own Revolutionary past, [British confiscation of American arms] just read a little history if you have any doubt on this score.

Jefferson Herb
February 18, 2009, 02:25 AM
If you want to keep your firearms,you will have to exercise your constitutional right and vote......... say no!no!no!

Gungnir
February 18, 2009, 09:28 AM
If we had a new re-written amendment

There is no need the 2A is clear, very clear. Heller confirmed "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" as the primary directive.

How more clear does this need to be? The "confusion" is when the Brady's of the world start discussing what "arms" means, and what "infringe" means. Changing the syntax is not going to stop them, they'll just select new ambiguities in the wording.


Couldn't it make sense to also require firearm registration


Firearm registration, why? Who gains from this, what is its purpose?

We can throw statistics at the problem and prove that the vast majority of criminals do not get firearms through approved channels, thus gaining no REAL benefit from registration. Since only the law abiding would register. There is also a great and historically justifiable fear that registration would lead towards confiscation down the line.

some amount of accredited training in safeties name?

Accredited training, who decides what is accredited, and who can perform this?

This is like censorship, who decides? When does it become a political pawn? When does it get restricted? You can use this requirement as a gate to prevent people being able to own firearms. No training, no gun, suppose it's decided that there is one training center per state, who now can legally own firearms? What about one in the US, who can now legally own firearms. Then of course who regulates these, and what is the actual training received.

I admit that on the surface it looks logical, however it also removes an element of responsibility, responsible gun owners have taken probably more training in safety, and firearm instruction than would be needed for the term accredited. This may not be "traditional" training, but from friends, neighbors, family members, as well as specific training courses run by the NRA or their local range. Ultimately regardless of training, if you screw up with a gun and shoot either yourself or someone else, it's your responsibility.

hso
February 18, 2009, 11:48 AM
Let's get back on track or this one closes. This is not an open discussion forum. We're supposed to be working on ideas to develop some plan of action. Focus on the question of how liberals in particular can contribute to the RKBA cause (and please don't waste everyone's time with "Don't be a liberal" foolishness).

kilo729
February 18, 2009, 11:59 AM
Consider the actual meaning of the word "liberal" - it's derived from the Latin liber, meaning "free." This country's progenitors were considered liberal in their day, for rejecting the ideas of absolute power and hereditary rule.

Unfortunately, the term has been corrupted over the years, and is now used primarily in a political context to describe a platform which does not necessarily correspond to classical liberalism. In fact, most self-professed "liberals" today are not "liberals" at all - a number may be in some sense or another, but it's a bit disingenuous to call yourself "liberal" if you support prohibitions or tight controls on speech, economic activity, or (to keep things relevant) the means to self-defense.

Of course, the ideas behind liberalism have not disappeared; they've simply been relabeled. The contemporary term for a classical liberal is "libertarian."

Spot on. Now if only people would stop referring to Democrats as "Liberals" and Republicans as "Conservatives".

IndianaBoy
February 18, 2009, 03:48 PM
Example: "If Lincoln were alive today he would be a Democrat." I'm sure there are a few here that would dispute that, but that's the beauty of free speech


Based on what?

I would like to understand your thought process behind this.

Gungnir
February 18, 2009, 04:07 PM
OK not sure whether the getting back on track was directed at me or not, kind of confusing, since the OP keeps throwing things in that are not specifically Activism related.

All I can immediately think of is
1) Take friends shooting who have not previously done so, recruit these people if at all possible to the cause.
2) Make sure your Reps both state and Federal know your position. Also make them aware that you will not support them should they effect the RKBA, also give them your philosophy on what the RKBA means to you.
3) Join the NRA and other gun support lobby groups.

Liberals can contribute to the cause the same way as everyone else. The one possible advantage they have is that they can say "we voted for you this time for these reasons, don't do X this time, or we'll not vote the same way again."

Ragnar Danneskjold
February 18, 2009, 04:21 PM
I am of the belief that you are who you vote for. One can talk about whatever views they want, but the only real way of causing action on those views is voting. If you vote for a person who holds certain views, you are supporting those views whether you want to believe it or not. Voting for anti-gunners makes you anti-gun. It doesn't matter if that's how you feel. That is your mark on the world.

HGUNHNTR
February 18, 2009, 04:56 PM
I am a liberal who enjoys firearms. I do not let my social and political tendencies sway how I feel about the pleasure I get from collecting, shooting, and handling a fine firearm.

My feelings on how I feel my country should be governed has no bearing on how I feel about firearms.

In reference to the above post, voting for a candidate based on a sigle issue would make sense IF that were the only issue of importance. For most people, especially those who care about the welfare of the nation and its people as a whole this is not the case.

rbernie
February 18, 2009, 08:35 PM
Having said all of this - I still do not see any plan forming to help further the RKBA cause within the ranks of the 'liberal' (their term) establishment.

Guys - we're not supposed to just bicker back and forth over terminology. Those folk who support the RKBA and with insights and inroads into the self-proclaimed 'liberal' community need to step up and create some actionable plan for furthering the RKBA. Anything less is just a waste of electrons.

Let's take Gungnir's list:

1) Take friends shooting who have not previously done so, recruit these people if at all possible to the cause.
2) Make sure your Reps both state and Federal know your position. Also make them aware that you will not support them should they effect the RKBA, also give them your philosophy on what the RKBA means to you.
3) Join the NRA and other gun support lobby groups.

I'll start with the last bullet. How many of the 'liberals' on this board are NRA members? How many are actively recruiting NRA members? If you're not an NRA member, have you bothered to write the NRA and tell them why?

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do so many Liberals Love Firearms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!