How to convert your liberal friends (to win next election)


PDA






drjoker
November 5, 2009, 02:28 AM
In order to win the next election, we have to do more than just preach to the choir. We have to convert our liberal friends. Here's how I converted a flaming liberal friend of mine to support the 2nd amendment. You may copy me, do something similar, or think something up original for yourself. The key to successful conversion is to have them think that they came up with the idea themselves. DO NOT preach to them nor pound them with facts. Allow them to arrive at the conclusion themselves emotionally. Without delving too much into psychology and sales techniques, the short version is that people make decisions on an emotional basis and then use logic to rationalize it. Very few people actually make logical decisions, so the most successful conversion is on an emotional appeal that allows them to arrive at the conclusion themselves, not a conclusion that is thrusted upon them.

I have this female friend (let's call her "E") and we went out for dinner together. This friend of mine is a flaming liberal who voted for 0bama. The topic of conversation was stalkers. I told her that I have this friend of a friend who was being stalked by an ex-boyfriend who threatened to kill her. "She should get a restraining order," was E's response. "She did, but it only infuriated him. He beat her up, robbed her, and warned her that if she didn't cancel the restraining order, he's gonna kill her," I replied. "Well, he beat her up, so she should go to the police and have him arrested," E replied. "She did, but he's out on bail and she's scared as heck," I answered. "What do you think she should do?" I innocently asked. E thought for a long second..., "I'm opposed to guns, but in this case, I think she should get one. Although most guns are used in crime and suicides, I think that in this situation, the benefits outweigh the risks." "Well, a concealed handgun license would take up to 9 months to get approved (my CHL took 9 months to arrive)," I replied. "Then, she should hire an armed guard to guard her at her workplace and make sure that nobody follows her home (this stalked friend of mine is a high-paid exec)," she replied. "I agree, but what if something like that happens to you? You can't afford an armed guard," I said. Silence. "You know what you should do? You should get a concealed handgun license as an insurance policy. That way, if something like this ever happens to you, you'll have the CHL when you need it, so you don't have to wait 9 months," I said. E nods her head in agreement, but she hesitates, "Well, guns are dangerous. I don't want to buy a gun." "No, you don't have to buy a gun. That's not what I suggested that you do. I suggest that you buy an insurance policy against stalkers and rapists. Just get the concealed handgun license so that it's there if you need it. Get the CHL without buying a gun. You can get a gun at any time, but the CHL takes months." She nods her head in agreement. "If you'd like, I can do you a favor. We can go to the range tomorrow and I'll teach you firearms safety. Then, I can teach you how to shoot an auto pistol without jamming it," I said. I explained that half the ladies in my CHL class had to re-take the shooting part of the exam because they jammed their Glocks (I didn't know that was possible). They flinched and limp-wristed. "Sure, I'd like that," she replied. "Let's go tomorrow. I'll pick you up at X o'clock," I said. "O.K." she answered.

Yay! Now, I'm hoping that she'll enjoy shooting so that she'll be a convert. At the very least, she'll be a CHL holder and elected officials look at things like the number of NRA members and CHL holders before voting on any gun control laws. So, whether she knows it or not, she's now supporting 2nd amendment rights right alongside me even though she's an 0bama voting flaming liberal!

Folks, we have to convert our liberal friends or our 2nd amendment rights will be taken away from us forever. Don't believe it can happen? Look at Australia, Great Britain, and ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES ON PLANET EARTH. America is the last remaining country that still has the right to bear arms. We are the last holdout. I invite you to suddenly realize that you have to convert your liberal friends and acquaintances. Failure to do so will mean our doom.

BTW, you know what would make a perfect holiday gift? Get your gun owning friends or family members who are not members of the NRA the gift of a NRA membership and/or a TSRA membership. Elected officials also look at the number of NRA and/or TSRA members before voting on any gun ban laws. The more members these organizations have, the more clout they'll have in Washington. NRA membership includes a neat NRA baseball cap and a subscription to a cool gun magazine.

C'mon people, let's get rolling so that we'll win the next election!

:)

P.S. Notice how I did NOT argue with her point that "guns are used in murders and suicides." Nobody likes an arguer and nobody likes to have ideas forced upon them. People only like ideas that they thought of themselves (or think that they thought of themselves). Notice how I manipulated her to come up with the idea to buy a gun. She thought of it and I did not mention it to her. Furthermore, the idea of getting firearms instruction appealed to her on an emotional, not logical level. Not only did this approach work with this female friend of mine, but I also used this approach to get my flaming liberal wife to agree to sign up for a CHL class. My wife is still won't allow me to have guns in the house and my liberal female friend still won't buy a gun, but at least I've persuaded them to support 2nd Amendment rights by signing up for CHL classes. Yay!

:)

P.P.S. I've noticed that this forum has some antis lurking here, posting personal attacks, etc. I invite you to just simply ignore them. I have not stooped to their level because I have not posted derisive remarks in return and I invite you to avoid stooping to their level as well. Just recognize them for what they are (closed-minded trouble-makers) and ignore them.

If you enjoyed reading about "How to convert your liberal friends (to win next election)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zombie_Flesh
November 5, 2009, 07:54 PM
I am wondering what state takes 9 months to get a CHL.

Kenpo
November 5, 2009, 08:15 PM
You guys have liberal friends? :confused::)

YaNi
November 5, 2009, 09:25 PM
You guys have liberal friends?

Ditto.

It's easier to just stop talking to someone than to try and turn a head full of mush into a human with reasoning and logic. Haven't looked back since :)

There aren't many conservatives in college tho. The only ones I've met are my friends.

RS14
November 5, 2009, 10:29 PM
You guys have liberal friends? :confused::)

We do. Some of us are even liberal ourselves.

There are a great many issues I care about and I'm not about to abandon all the rest just because I happen to believe in the right to defend oneself.

drjoker, congratulations on your success. The CHL statistics are useful, but I suspect that your friend will ultimately have the most impact with her other friends. I don't expect many people to vote only around 2nd Amendment issues, but she may at least convince others that self defense is compatible with other liberal causes, and thus aid those rare Democrats who don't support gun control. The best thing that could happen for the 2nd Amendment would not be an overwhelming victory for any single party, but acceptance of it by Americans of all political stripes.

Aristodemus
November 5, 2009, 10:57 PM
Yay! Now, I'm hoping that she'll enjoy shooting so that she'll be a convert. At the very least, she'll be a CHL holder and elected officials look at things like the number of NRA members and CHL holders before voting on any gun control laws. So, whether she knows it or not, she's now supporting 2nd amendment rights right alongside me even though she's an 0bama voting flaming liberal!

You can wins hearts and minds . . . one heart and one mind at a time.

There's a group of users on dailykos.com who are out to prove that you can be liberal/progressive AND a big 2A supporter.

They're attempting to post a new diary every Tuesday. You can search for it right here (http://www.dailykos.com/search?offset=0&old_count=30&string=RKBA&type=both&sortby=time&search=Search&count=30&wayback=20160&wayfront=0) (or just go to www.dailykos.com/search (http://www.dailykos.com/search) and put RKBA in the search field "stories and diaries"). Forward this link to any liberal friends you have who don't support RKBA.

Aristodemus
November 5, 2009, 11:04 PM
RS14 is also doing it right!

We do. Some of us are even liberal ourselves.

There are a great many issues I care about and I'm not about to abandon all the rest just because I happen to believe in the right to defend oneself.

We need to redefine our tent as "RKBA Supporters" rather than DEMs v. GOP, red vs. blue, liberal vs. conservative.

android
November 5, 2009, 11:15 PM
I am wondering what state takes 9 months to get a CHL.

The Texas Dept of Public Safety, which has "no flexibility or discretion"* in enforcing the law when someone is doing 5mph over the speed limit seems to have no respect whatsoever for the process deadlines imposed by the Texas state legislature with regards to CHL processing.

*Troopers exact words to a friend of mine that got pulled over for 75mph in a 70 zone and she asked about a warning ticket.

jeepmor
November 6, 2009, 01:30 AM
We need to redefine our tent as "RKBA Supporters" rather than DEMs v. GOP, red vs. blue, liberal vs. conservative.

I've always defined my support this way, no matter which way I leaned growing up. But I grew up with guns in the house and we shot them often as teens. Unsupervised even.. The best way to "redefine" that house is to build it thorugh the youth and others.

I have a couple liberal friends sold on the "yeah, we are free because of guns aren't we." And I'm in Portland, OR, liberal is the landscape and yet many embrace the intrinsical freedoms firearms provide against tyranny and oppression.

sig220mw
November 6, 2009, 01:55 AM
What Kenpo said

cyclopsshooter
November 6, 2009, 01:58 AM
RS14 is also doing it right!

Quote:
We do. Some of us are even liberal ourselves.

There are a great many issues I care about and I'm not about to abandon all the rest just because I happen to believe in the right to defend oneself.
We need to redefine our tent as "RKBA Supporters" rather than DEMs v. GOP, red vs. blue, liberal vs. conservative.


amen

dkk73
November 6, 2009, 03:13 AM
Yeah, mush in the head doesn't seemed to be aligned with any particular political self-identification.

And I look inside a lot of heads.

Although, I will say that more mush does seem to be associated with louder, simpler political ideologies. So that may be a warning sign that your attempts at conversion to RKBA are unlikely to succeed for a given individual. ;)

More thoughtful, polite people of any stripe seem to be most receptive, in my experience.

As I read firearms-enthusiast and RKBA sites on the web, I am beginning to think I would settle for our movement simply not actively pissing off more undecided people via gratuitous insults.

def
November 28, 2009, 07:36 PM
I think the word "converting" is a terrible way to approach to defending and promoting what you believe about gun rights. On both the left and the right, people become married to what their "side" says about gun rights (and every other political issue), then spews out rhetoric just to antagonize the other side. Sadly, it isn't very often that people sit down to really discuss--with an open mind--the issues, gun rights included. Further, keep in mind that the USA is a BIG, heterogeneous country and, as a whole, we will never fully agree on a stance on the issues. The least we can do is understand and appreciate the other side. I've got friends to the right and left of me. Again, I don't like the idea of "converting" people, but I have affected some of theirs views, as others have affected mine.

Also, well said, RS14. Most people view me as liberal because of my economic views, but I'm very libertarian (to me, the term "conservative" has been bastardized because it now seems to mean "small government... except for what the republican party wants it to be big for") in a civil and citizen rights sense, so I can empathize with you. I think it's a travesty that many on the left can be so staunchly anti-gun rights without really understanding the issue. It's nice to see another liberal who believes in the right to defend oneself.

BHP FAN
November 28, 2009, 08:01 PM
I just take them shooting.Done.Yer welcome.

mljdeckard
November 28, 2009, 08:31 PM
I have liberal friends. All of them are at a loss when I ask them to tell me how they reconcile being pro-fun with voting habits that are anything but.

cambeul41
November 28, 2009, 08:54 PM
Consider Classical Liberalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Liberalism

Pileatus
November 28, 2009, 10:33 PM
Mushy heads are not unique to any political party, there are plenty of them on both sides of the aisle; with regard to guns, you either support RKBA or you don't. As someone said earlier, what needs to be done is acceptance of the 2nd amendment as a whole and not among party lines. I myself am on the liberal side of the liberal-conservative divide and am a proud gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter. The two concepts need not be mutually exclusive...just do a search for the dictionary definition of liberalism.

Contrary to popular belief, "Obama voting flaming liberals" don't have horns and forked tails, and some of them are perfectly fine with supporting the 2nd amendment, and not merely in passing. Trying to win people over to our side is fine, but don't set it up as republicans vs democrats. It won't work (people clam up real fast when political parties are involved) and it's an inaccurate characterization. Both sides have members who are pro, and both have their antis. A logical well-thought out argument that sticks to RKBA issues stays away from blanket statements regarding politics will go much further than the typical "if you vote such and such a way, you're an idiot" stuff you see on the news programs. This poster said it rather well: "We need to redefine our tent as "RKBA Supporters" rather than DEMs v. GOP, red vs. blue, liberal vs. conservative. "

KJS
November 29, 2009, 02:36 AM
Notice how I did NOT argue with her point that "guns are used in murders and suicides."

Actually, that was the subject of an editorial I got published last month in a self-described "progressive" paper, which means leans so far to the left we're shocked they don't tip over. My published editorial:

Fact: 66 percent of gun deaths in Wisconsin are suicides. Some claim that more gun control would reduce suicides.

Apparently, those who make such claims have failed to notice that Canada, Australia and Germany have suicide rates virtually identical to that of the U.S. This despite that fact that all of those nations have very strict gun laws that amount to virtual bans.

Fact: Japan has the highest suicide rate in the industrialized world. This despite the fact that finding a civilian-owned gun in Japan is harder than finding a needle in a haystack.

Suicides are always included to bulk up the death count to make guns look bad, even though a lack of guns clearly does not prevent death by suicide. Lack of access to firearms simply changes the suicide method, but they end up just as dead.

While gun control can legitimately be argued, the commonly used suicide argument against guns is clearly busted.

ArmedBear
November 29, 2009, 06:49 PM
In order to win the next election, we have to do more than just preach to the choir. We have to convert our liberal friends.

Actually, we just have to get them to take less interest in voting. That's how they won in 2008.

If someone can't be convinced, then don't piss him/her off. That will just make him/her go and vote (liberal demographics are also low-turnout demographics, most of the time).

atlanticfire
November 29, 2009, 10:49 PM
I was able to convert my in-laws. Not having much luck with the rest of the family though. All my side is cons.

dogngun
November 30, 2009, 11:00 AM
against the idea that "gun control" should be a Democratic program for several years. It seems the gun control organizations like to claim they have a lot more "liberal" support than they really have. In fact one of them just went belly-up a few days ago due to lack of support. Most of the left wing dems I know own guns and manycarry them. I have had a license to carry for over 15 years now, and as I say I am way to the left of any "liberal".
(Most folks I know online, including me, think Obama is way too conservative.)
The democratic Party is backing off the whole "gun control" theme - the GOP victory in Jersey really put the icing on the cake - Corzine supported gun control, and he lost.
No one is out to confiscate any guns - we own them, too.

Mark
Former Sp4, 1/504 PIR
Shooter for over 50 years

Philo_Beddoe
November 30, 2009, 11:37 AM
Despite all this rhetoric about how "we" lost this election no serious attempt at gun control has come from congress or the executive branch.

I personally am not to worried.

It appears the democrats did learn something from 1994.

NinjaFeint
November 30, 2009, 11:45 AM
So if I voted for Obama and a bunch of Republicans and a few Democrats on our state ticket, what does that make me? Do I need to be converted to being a die hard conservative? Am I moving from the center to the left with frightening speed?

Maybe I just don't vote on one issue only. I love my guns but I have to consider more in a national election. I also hate the assertion that us northern city folk aren't as American as small town people from the mid-west or wherever but that is a different argument for a different day.

Lou McGopher
November 30, 2009, 11:59 AM
xxxx

Ben86
November 30, 2009, 12:33 PM
Showing the sheeple how useful guns can actually be to their well being is one of the most effective ways to enlighten them.

Vonderek
November 30, 2009, 12:39 PM
Despite all this rhetoric about how "we" lost this election no serious attempt at gun control has come from congress or the executive branch.

I personally am not to worried.

It appears the democrats did learn something from 1994.
The gun control gremlins have been plenty busy since 1994. Just because they have held off for the last 11 months only means they are political pros. As we have seen, they have much bigger policy fish to fry before they commit political suicide by resurrecting gun control. When Obama becomes a lame duck and has nothing to lose, watch out. It could happen if the Dems lose big in the midterms and the writing is on the wall for him in 2011/12. Or it could happen later in his second term if he is reelected.

Don't be naive and think the likes of Pres. Obama, Sens. Feinstein, Schumer and Rep Pelosi have suddenly gotten 2A religion and are all for RKBA. They are just biding their time until it is politically expedient.

BTW-I don't understand how self-professed liberals in this thread can ignore the 2A by saying they have other issues of equal importance they consider in the voting booth. Personally, 2A is my litmus test. I will always vote for the candidate who is stronger on 2A regardless of party affiliation. If both candidates are equal on that subject then I start to look at the other issues.

Fremmer
November 30, 2009, 01:23 PM
In order to win the next election, we have to do more than just preach to the choir. We have to convert our liberal friends.

OK, if you say so....although I think your liberal friends are going to vote for liberal politicians regardless of the 2nd Amendment; conversly stated, they will vote for liberal anti-gun politicians with little (if any) regard for the 2nd Amendment. Those liberal politicians are anti-gun. They will not be converted to anything other than "reasonable" and "common-sense" "gun safety" "regulations". Because you don't "need" semi-auto handguns, assault weapons, etc. for hunting.

Personally, I think that it is a tremendous waste of resources and an exercise in futility. Put the resources into convincing independents to vote for pro-gun politicians. Well, pro-gun politicians who will actually do something to stimulate the economy other than tax, spend, and borrow from the Chinese. Independents will vote from thier own pocketbooks first. JMHO. I'm not trying to make anyone angry.

Philo_Beddoe
November 30, 2009, 01:27 PM
The gun control gremlins have been plenty busy since 1994. Just because they have held off for the last 11 months only means they are political pros. As we have seen, they have much bigger policy fish to fry before they commit political suicide by resurrecting gun control. When Obama becomes a lame duck and has nothing to lose, watch out. It could happen if the Dems lose big in the midterms and the writing is on the wall for him in 2011/12. Or it could happen later in his second term if he is reelected

Don't be naive and think the likes of Pres. Obama, Sens. Feinstein, Schumer and Rep Pelosi have suddenly gotten 2A religion and are all for RKBA. They are just biding their time until it is politically expedient.

I am sure that they would like to restrict RKBA, but they all know they dont have the votes to do it. Pelosi recently killed a bill introduced by the anti's, she didnt even allow it to get to the floor of the house.

I remain vigilant, but to me just because the democrats are in control doesnt mean our rights are any more secure, there are alot of anti Republcians too.


BTW-I don't understand how self-professed liberals in this thread can ignore the 2A by saying they have other issues of equal importance they consider in the voting booth. Personally, 2A is my litmus test. I will always vote for the candidate who is stronger on 2A regardless of party affiliation. If both candidates are equal on that subject then I start to look at the other issues. .

So if Hitler/Mao/Stalin made a baby and he was pro-gun, you would vote for him even if he shredded all other rights and went on a purge?

To me RKBA is just one issue among many that I weigh.

mountainpharm
November 30, 2009, 01:46 PM
We need to redefine our tent as "RKBA Supporters" rather than DEMs v. GOP, red vs. blue, liberal vs. conservative.

That would work if we didn't have the majority of one political party consistently working against the 2A and the majority of another political party defending it.

Sorry, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

KBintheSLC
November 30, 2009, 06:28 PM
"I'm opposed to guns, but in this case, I think she should get one. Although most guns are used in crime and suicides, I think that in this situation, the benefits outweigh the risks."

Ask her politely where she got this information. If in fact "most guns are used in crimes and suicides" then the gun deaths in the USA would be in the millions each year... considering that there are almost 400 million privately owned guns out there.

Its funny how these ignorant anti's are so painfully misinformed. They focus on the few thousand times per year that guns are used to do bad things, and totally disregard the MILLIONS of times they are used to do good, and the even more MILLIONS of times they are not used at all (except for fun).

Ask her politely how many millions of disarmed people have to be victims of violent perps so that they can "save just one life".

NMGonzo
November 30, 2009, 07:54 PM
Not all liberals are cut the same way.

Unless your world is full of monoliths ... like a 10 year old would see the world anyhow.

NinjaFeint
November 30, 2009, 08:00 PM
Ask her politely where she got this information. If in fact "most guns are used in crimes and suicides" then the gun deaths in the USA would be in the millions each year... considering that there are almost 400 million privately owned guns out there.

Its funny how these ignorant anti's are so painfully misinformed. They focus on the few thousand times per year that guns are used to do bad things, and totally disregard the MILLIONS of times they are used to do good, and the even more MILLIONS of times they are not used at all (except for fun).

Ask her politely how many millions of disarmed people have to be victims of violent perps so that they can "save just one life".
You can't ask the last question without being patronizing. Being patronizing doesn't really help the cause as most people will react to how you are talking to them rather than what you are saying.

I would also like to say that I have had a lot more people come shoot with me after stating my point in an inclusive manner rather than an "us v the anti's" sort of diatribe. This is not directed at the poster I have quoted but rather a comment on the debate in general.

A lot of so called "anti's" see it as black and white as a lot of you do and this makes them feel as if being ok with guns will change their entire value system. This should not be the case in a country that prides itself on having free thought. They aren't all anti's, more like unacquainted with the truth about firearms.

This is why I can never see myself voting on a party line as I agree and disagree with them all on firearms, rights and other issues.

Fremmer
December 1, 2009, 12:28 AM
And I guess you do have to try and convince people that guns shouldn't be banned and not just give up, so I thought some more about it. I suppose I wouldn't try and convert someone or to make some kind of an argument. Instead, maybe inform someone how much fun recreational shooting is, and let them try shooting a .22LR or an air gun. Just about everyone has fun popping cans with those! :) Perhaps a change of perspective is better accomplished by having fun.

NinjaFeint
December 1, 2009, 03:30 AM
And I guess you do have to try and convince people that guns shouldn't be banned and not just give up, so I thought some more about it. I suppose I wouldn't try and convert someone or to make some kind of an argument. Instead, maybe inform someone how much fun recreational shooting is, and let them try shooting a .22LR or an air gun. Just about everyone has fun popping cans with those! :) Perhaps a change of perspective is better accomplished by having fun.
My Ruger 22/45 is basically my "outreach" program. If someone can't have fun with one of those, they just can't have fun.

hso
December 1, 2009, 06:46 AM
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=270671

No more political side bars, please. It would be a shame to close this thread because of political drift.

docsleepy
December 1, 2009, 08:16 AM
Took my flaming liberal brother, and his inner-city "little brother" not only to the range during Thanksgiving, but had both of them try their hand a reloading! They had a great time.

The 16-year old thought the 22LR semi-auto pistol was a blast. He loved to load up 10 rounds and fire through them lickety-split. (So do I!)

The 52-year old thought the recoil from the 20ga shotgun was a bit much, but he LOVED the 9mm semi-auto pistol. And he was a pretty good shot with it also.

After having them get frustrated trying to hit a target at increasing distances with a handgun, we moved to the rifle range, set up a Savage 12FV on bipod and bag, with handloaded ammunition, and put the first shot through the bullseye of a 100-yard target. They were amazed.

I agree. With the women, work on getting them to see how it would benefit THEM or other women. With the men, get them some trigger time. By the end of the afternoon (I spent an hour on gun safety previous night, had them handle every weapon unloaded, practice clearing, practice carrying etc) they were completely at ease with shotgun, rifle, pistol and revolver.

Done.

30mag
December 2, 2009, 11:52 AM
Oh, and I find that one the most powerful persuaders is the Model 60.

hso
December 8, 2009, 07:15 AM
Pruned the thread.

Let's try to stay on topic, please.

dogngun
December 8, 2009, 08:54 AM
May come as a shock to some here, but many leftist Democrats I know have taken advantage of the "Appleseed" program, and have greatly improved their skills.

I learned to shoot in that uniformed, paramilitary organization, the Cub Scouts, over 50 years ago,later got a marksmanship merit badge in Boy Scouts. I don't know if they even do that stuff anymore.

This came in very handy in the Army later in life.

mark

30mag
December 8, 2009, 07:01 PM
Boy Scouts still had the rifle and shotgun shooting merit badge when I was in.
I'm 19 now.
No shooting in cub scouts though IIRC.

McCall911
December 8, 2009, 07:56 PM
I'm less concerned with converting liberals, whom I think are in the minority anyway, than I am to getting the rest of the voters to wake up.

charlie505
December 8, 2009, 10:17 PM
9 months for a CHL!!

NYC is easier than that - just have to be a friend of the mayors, a celeb, radio talk show host or a millionair - bingo - your license in a few days!!

me - a working class joe - i am screwed - but hey - my mayor knows what is best for me!!

My gun club is loaded with young women learning to shoot - guess they relize the police will not magically appear at their door when they need help!!

Sage Thrasher
December 8, 2009, 10:30 PM
I've probably converted two dozen liberals to become gun owners over the years simply by taking them to the gun range. Works wonders. Those who would violate our rights don't care what our political outlook is; more than a few liberals understand that.

The liberal anti-gun thing hasn't been an accurate guide for quite a while anyway. It's more about regional differences, e.g. San Francisco vs. Butte. California's R governor is the one who just made an ammunition purchase registry; Montana's D governor is supporting a lawsuit to exempt Montana from having to follow federal gun laws. Do your research & keep the individual in mind when you go to the polls.

Bronx
December 8, 2009, 11:49 PM
I got to say this.

Now their certainly is folks who are the very definition of the stereotypes as described by "Right Wing/ Conservative" or "Left Wing/ Liberal".

Those folks in a great many cases are the enemy of freedom as well as reason.

BUT

To simplify how you see other citizens of this grand nation as being such is a disservice to what the word American means.

Divide and conquer is an axiom employed by tyrants everywhere now and throughout history. Cool heads and common ground are where true strength in numbers comes from.

The one thing I think most of us can agree on is that our government no longer works for us, they work for the highest bidder.

MertvayaRuka
December 8, 2009, 11:49 PM
Okay, this is where you lose those of us on the left. When you start claiming that we're mentally diseased because we don't agree with you politically. When you start saying things that essentially boil down to "Lefties are vegetarians! You know who else was a vegetarian? HITLER, THAT'S WHO!". Screaming about the authoritarianism of one side while ignoring that of your own wins you no converts. How many of you know what the Mulford Act is? How many of you know that Nazi Germany didn't ban the possession of firearms for anyone but Jews and other "enemies of the state" and in fact relaxed the draconian firearms laws imposed on them by the League of Nations? I don't blame most people for believing that one really. It's probably a lot more comforting to believe in a completely disarmed populace, helpless against the machinations of the Third Reich and forced to stand by and do nothing while millions were slaughtered than it is to contemplate an armed populace standing by and doing nothing and complicit in the slaughter of millions of their countrymen.

That's an unpleasant thought, isn't it: the idea that the people of an entire nation, able to be reasonably well-armed under the laws of their government, might sit by and do nothing while that same government engages in mass murder. They weren't helpless. They weren't inhuman monsters. They were regular people who nevertheless turned a blind eye to the abuses and atrocities perpetrated by their own government because that government figured out how to sell it to them. This is not a new phenomenon. But it works. It worked in Hitler's Germany. It worked in Stalin's Russia. It worked in Mao's China. And don't delude yourself for a moment that it couldn't work here. What did it take? A minority of the population, singled out as the enemy within, as the cause of every ill, working against the perfection of a nation because of their inherent evil. That's it. You'll be hard pressed to find a nation, having descended into totalitarianism, that didn't end up there by following that path, by chasing the enemies authority gives them.

This is why, in any society, the right to bear arms is worthless without the full compliment of freedoms we're all born deserving. Without the other rights enumerated by the founders of this nation, the right to bear arms is nothing more than a super-tacticool rifle hanging on the wall in a house that's all ready been looted and picked clean. And that's why you lose people on the Left. You focus solely on the right to bear arms as inviolable while disparaging or ignoring the other rights due all of us. We see support for warrantless wiretaps, for torture, for police brutality, for all sorts of government abuses as long as it's directed against the right people.

I offer this as a Left-wing gun owner. Want us on your side, so we too can help convince our less-rational and fear-motivated political peers that gun ownership is not solely the province of racist, sexist, homophobic and reflexively violent thugs? Don't revel in acting like you are, even if you aren't, just because of some childish impulse to upset the people on the other side of the aisle. Ask yourself if putting a thumb in their eye over affirmative action or global warming or same-sex marriage is worth sacrificing your right to defend yourself, your family and those around you. If you're going to be ambassadors for firearms culture, act like it. You'd be surprised how many people you won't alienate by simply laying out the case for responsible firearms ownership and self-defense instead of railing about how Obama is the new Hitler.

Thanks for your time folks. We're all in this together, after all.

hso
December 9, 2009, 12:00 AM
Posts missing? Leave the Hitler debate to PMs and don't hijack the thread. If you want to debate what Hitler and Nazis were or weren't, pick a different place to do it.

NinjaFeint
December 9, 2009, 12:57 AM
Okay, this is where you lose those of us on the left. When you start claiming that we're mentally diseased because we don't agree with you politically. When you start saying things that essentially boil down to "Lefties are vegetarians! You know who else was a vegetarian? HITLER, THAT'S WHO!". Screaming about the authoritarianism of one side while ignoring that of your own wins you no converts. How many of you know what the Mulford Act is? How many of you know that Nazi Germany didn't ban the possession of firearms for anyone but Jews and other "enemies of the state" and in fact relaxed the draconian firearms laws imposed on them by the League of Nations? I don't blame most people for believing that one really. It's probably a lot more comforting to believe in a completely disarmed populace, helpless against the machinations of the Third Reich and forced to stand by and do nothing while millions were slaughtered than it is to contemplate an armed populace standing by and doing nothing and complicit in the slaughter of millions of their countrymen.

That's an unpleasant thought, isn't it: the idea that the people of an entire nation, able to be reasonably well-armed under the laws of their government, might sit by and do nothing while that same government engages in mass murder. They weren't helpless. They weren't inhuman monsters. They were regular people who nevertheless turned a blind eye to the abuses and atrocities perpetrated by their own government because that government figured out how to sell it to them. This is not a new phenomenon. But it works. It worked in Hitler's Germany. It worked in Stalin's Russia. It worked in Mao's China. And don't delude yourself for a moment that it couldn't work here. What did it take? A minority of the population, singled out as the enemy within, as the cause of every ill, working against the perfection of a nation because of their inherent evil. That's it. You'll be hard pressed to find a nation, having descended into totalitarianism, that didn't end up there by following that path, by chasing the enemies authority gives them.

This is why, in any society, the right to bear arms is worthless without the full compliment of freedoms we're all born deserving. Without the other rights enumerated by the founders of this nation, the right to bear arms is nothing more than a super-tacticool rifle hanging on the wall in a house that's all ready been looted and picked clean. And that's why you lose people on the Left. You focus solely on the right to bear arms as inviolable while disparaging or ignoring the other rights due all of us. We see support for warrantless wiretaps, for torture, for police brutality, for all sorts of government abuses as long as it's directed against the right people.

I offer this as a Left-wing gun owner. Want us on your side, so we too can help convince our less-rational and fear-motivated political peers that gun ownership is not solely the province of racist, sexist, homophobic and reflexively violent thugs? Don't revel in acting like you are, even if you aren't, just because of some childish impulse to upset the people on the other side of the aisle. Ask yourself if putting a thumb in their eye over affirmative action or global warming or same-sex marriage is worth sacrificing your right to defend yourself, your family and those around you. If you're going to be ambassadors for firearms culture, act like it. You'd be surprised how many people you won't alienate by simply laying out the case for responsible firearms ownership and self-defense instead of railing about how Obama is the new Hitler.

Thanks for your time folks. We're all in this together, after all.
Seconded by a "Center" dwelling gun owner.

goon
December 9, 2009, 01:14 AM
MertvayaRuka - well said.

Philo_Beddoe
December 9, 2009, 01:18 AM
I'm less concerned with converting liberals, whom I think are in the minority anyway, than I am to getting the rest of the voters to wake up.


Actually in 2004 the democratic party had 72 million registered voters and the republican party only had 55 million.

And I am sure that number of democrats has gone up proportionely since 2004.

However republicans are more politcally active and vote much more frequently.

If the democrats actually voted as frequently as the republicans, the democrats would blow away the republicans assuming they voted down the party line.

McCall911
December 9, 2009, 05:30 AM
Actually in 2004 the democratic party had 72 million registered voters and the republican party only had 55 million.

And I am sure that number of democrats has gone up proportionely since 2004.


I see democrat and liberal/leftist as different things, just as I see republican and conservative/moderate/libertarian/rightist as different things.
I think some mistakenly see recent democratic victories as a collective victory for the left or liberalism, but I suppose time will tell.

Philo_Beddoe
December 9, 2009, 07:51 AM
Gotcha, most people dont make that distinction, but the truth is that a democrat from your state is most likely more conservative then a republican from NYC or Chicago.

Alot of this is stuff is pretty regional.

hso
December 9, 2009, 08:57 AM
Getting an RKBA supporting person elected is important regardless of affiliation. If getting an RKBA supporting politician elected from your favorite flavor of party isn't possible then focus on making sure the person from the other party that is likely to be elected is an RKBA supporter. Moving the balance point on 2A may be more about shifting the position within a party.

That means, no name calling, demonizing or threatening posturing.

Mikil
December 9, 2009, 09:23 AM
Although sometimes hard to do you have to support someone from the other party if your party does not have a candidate and won't have one this time that supports 2a.It also seems to me that if someone does not support 2a a lot of the same don't completely support 1a. I catch a lot of flack for not being completely loyal to one party but you have to have your priorities.

sanerkeki
December 9, 2009, 09:26 AM
just because someone ownes a gun does not mean they are not liberal. Just let them watch Glenn back few times :)

NinjaFeint
December 9, 2009, 11:34 AM
just because someone ownes a gun does not mean they are not liberal. Just let them watch Glenn back few times :)
Glenn Beck is an entirely different subject.

jreagan
December 9, 2009, 12:01 PM
Hi, first time poster but this thread has piqued my interest. MertvayaRuka's post was excellent.

I consider myself liberal but I'm also a gun owner. My GF (also a liberal) are both 2nd amendments supporters. We both think that gun ownership is very important. I don't carry but I support those of you who do.

I've argued with my other liberal friends that 99.99% of gun owners are responsible people (stupid YouTube videos not withstanding)

Both sides paint with a wide paintbrush.

benEzra
December 9, 2009, 12:07 PM
I see democrat and liberal/leftist as different things, just as I see republican and conservative/moderate/libertarian/rightist as different things.
I think some mistakenly see recent democratic victories as a collective victory for the left or liberalism, but I suppose time will tell.
Do also keep in mind that the most extreme anti-gun Democrats aren't the liberals like Russ Feingold et al, but the centrist "Third Way" communitarians, many of whom are affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council. Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, etc. are considered corporatist DINOs by many liberals; what characterizes them isn't where they lie on the left-right spectrum socially or economically, but how they view Authority; they typically see More Authority as the cure for all social ills, support things like the Patriot Act and other surveillance-nation legislation, the DMCA, supported the tightening of individual (but not corporate) bankruptcy rules a few years back, and so on. Those are things that most liberals (in my experience) tend to oppose.

MertvayaRuka
December 9, 2009, 02:44 PM
Do also keep in mind that the most extreme anti-gun Democrats aren't the liberals like Russ Feingold et al, but the centrist "Third Way" communitarians, many of whom are affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council. Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, etc. are considered corporatist DINOs by many liberals; what characterizes them isn't where they lie on the left-right spectrum socially or economically, but how they view Authority; they typically see More Authority as the cure for all social ills, support things like the Patriot Act and other surveillance-nation legislation, the DMCA, supported the tightening of individual (but not corporate) bankruptcy rules a few years back, and so on. Those are things that most liberals (in my experience) tend to oppose.

You are on the right track here.

It's about rejecting authoritarianism whether it promises hope and change or whether it promises a return to traditional values.

McCall911
December 9, 2009, 02:48 PM
It's about rejecting authoritarianism whether it promises hope and change or whether it promises a return to traditional values.

Agreed.
Pardon me for my prejudice against the left. Long story, but it's hard for me to shake.

MertvayaRuka
December 9, 2009, 06:22 PM
Well, if you want allies, you're going to need to shake it. Or, you're going to have to deal with the fact that you're just going to keep making more committed enemies for yourself and other firearms owners.

As long as those left-of-center keep seeing members of the firearms owning culture directly or indirectly advocating violence against them, claiming their political beliefs as being part of a clinical diagnosis of mental instability or deficiency (or moral deficiency, for that matter) or as an indicator of being in the thrall of Ultimate Evil, it'll be that much harder to win them over. And that is where this board is a step in the right direction.

Every other firearms-related board I've ever seen has been more than comfortable providing a home for such divisive rhetoric, rhetoric that further confirms the negative image of firearms owners that those in the mainstream Left currently hold. It doesn't just turn off the antis; they're all ready against us and every bit of belligerent chest-thumping just backs up their strongly-held but incorrect conclusions. No, it also turns people like me off. People who are on the Left but have ZERO problems with responsible firearms owners but nevertheless can't or don't want to deal with all the nasty baggage that's been tacked on to firearms ownership by people who ultimately care more about their social or moral beliefs having primacy in this country than they do about EVERYONE'S inherent right to be able to defend themselves, their families and those around them. They don't want to be in an atmosphere of unbridled hatred towards them that has squat to do with their position on firearms ownership and everything to do with who they are or what they think. That's where this board gets it right and almost every other gun forum, gun show and gun shop gets it wrong. They cling bitterly to ideals that have little or nothing to do with firearms ownership but are acknowledged anathema to the Left and as such, make it seem that the Right claims firearms culture as its own and no one who holds any beliefs to the contrary need apply. So, that's why I'm here. Because I know that right is as much mine as anyone else's, no matter what my position is on anything else.

Again, thanks for your time folks.

Philo_Beddoe
December 9, 2009, 07:15 PM
wise words ^

"You catch more flies with honey than vinegar",

stchman
December 9, 2009, 07:21 PM
Thing is all my friends think the same way or similarly. I don't hang out with liberals at all.

USA
December 14, 2009, 04:19 PM
What are we trying to win here exactly? I'm a conservative but even with the Democrat congress I don't see gun rights being restricted on a federal level. Besides Obama, the most prominent Democrats (Pelosi & Reid) are pro-2A. I would like the Republicans to win the next election based off of economic issues but not because I feel like our gun rights are in trouble... I think we won the gun battle on a national stage already and with McDonald vs. Chicago we'll be able to win on 90% of state/local stages as well.

Autolycus
December 14, 2009, 04:31 PM
Actually USA brings up a valid point. Under Obama we have actually seen a large expansion of gun rights with the ability to carry firearms in national parks. Under Reagan and Bush Sr. we saw a huge loss of gun rights.

I am not to worried about the Democrats in office now. It seems like they have other fish to fry such as healthcare and ending the Iraq war. Not to mention Obama seems to be desperate to repair the international image of this country after Bush destroyed it.

I want to know why the original poster chose to put "Liberal" instead of "Anti-gun" friends as I consider myself a liberal and pro-gun. As do many of my friends.

USA
December 14, 2009, 04:39 PM
^ Not to mention right to carry reciprocity failed by ONE vote in the Senate. That should get through next year because in my state CT, Dodd will lose and he voted against. Should be able to get 60 next year if they bring up the Thune Amendment again.

MertvayaRuka
December 14, 2009, 10:23 PM
Actually USA brings up a valid point. Under Obama we have actually seen a large expansion of gun rights with the ability to carry firearms in national parks. Under Reagan and Bush Sr. we saw a huge loss of gun rights.

I am not to worried about the Democrats in office now. It seems like they have other fish to fry such as healthcare and ending the Iraq war. Not to mention Obama seems to be desperate to repair the international image of this country after Bush destroyed it.

I knew I was going to like it here.

If we're going to preserve our very basic right to self-defense and personal security, the artificially-created and -maintained division of Right and Left on this issue must end. The Left (and I have to say it's mainly the moderate Left on this one, oddly enough) needs to realize that not all gun owners are fascist thugs and the Right needs to realize that the Left isn't trying to round them all up and put them in homosexual atheist re-education camps.

Ohio Gun Guy
December 14, 2009, 10:25 PM
They all need to know that the town halls from this summer would be "The good Ole days" if they cross that line.:scrutiny:

Nico Testosteros
December 15, 2009, 10:08 AM
If I could vote, I'd vote Democratic mostly (due to lack of options. How can a country of 300,000,000 people have only 2 real political parties?).
I have on multiple occasions let my liberal Democratic Congressman know that gun control is a losing issue. I'm pretty sure that the national level Dem leaders know it as well.

benEzra
December 15, 2009, 10:09 AM
Every other firearms-related board I've ever seen has been more than comfortable providing a home for such divisive rhetoric, rhetoric that further confirms the negative image of firearms owners that those in the mainstream Left currently hold. It doesn't just turn off the antis; they're all ready against us and every bit of belligerent chest-thumping just backs up their strongly-held but incorrect conclusions. No, it also turns people like me off. People who are on the Left but have ZERO problems with responsible firearms owners but nevertheless can't or don't want to deal with all the nasty baggage that's been tacked on to firearms ownership by people who ultimately care more about their social or moral beliefs having primacy in this country than they do about EVERYONE'S inherent right to be able to defend themselves, their families and those around them. They don't want to be in an atmosphere of unbridled hatred towards them that has squat to do with their position on firearms ownership and everything to do with who they are or what they think. That's where this board gets it right and almost every other gun forum, gun show and gun shop gets it wrong. They cling bitterly to ideals that have little or nothing to do with firearms ownership but are acknowledged anathema to the Left and as such, make it seem that the Right claims firearms culture as its own and no one who holds any beliefs to the contrary need apply. So, that's why I'm here. Because I know that right is as much mine as anyone else's, no matter what my position is on anything else.
Well said. One reason I like it here as well.

Gatorbait
December 15, 2009, 12:24 PM
Nico, You can vote. Just tell the ACORN guy at the door--you'll recognize him; he's the one with the baseball bat--that you sneaked in from Messico.

dogngun
December 15, 2009, 12:28 PM
Bronx: You are certainly right about our Congress - I guess none of them ware able to live on the little bit we pay them, and have to rely on the people they really represent-the lobbyists-for extra cash.

I'd love to see some of them try to live on my retirement income......


mark

Nico Testosteros
December 15, 2009, 03:54 PM
Gatorbait,

ACORN has had very funky lists of registered voters.
But I've never seen where Donald Duck, etc. have ever actually been proven to have voted.
Not that it relates to this topic at all.

For what it's worth, I have no problem with voters being required to show ID.

MJU1983
December 15, 2009, 07:29 PM
If I could vote, I'd vote Democratic mostly (due to lack of options. How can a country of 300,000,000 people have only 2 real political parties?).
I have on multiple occasions let my liberal Democratic Congressman know that gun control is a losing issue. I'm pretty sure that the national level Dem leaders know it as well.

What, why?

Have you read These Dogs Don't Hunt: The Democrats' War on Guns? I have a copy sitting on my kitchen counter, it's scary what some Democrats think about your gun rights and the 2nd amendment.

Just vote Libertarian, problem solved. :)

jreagan
December 15, 2009, 09:39 PM
I've traditionally voted Democrat as well with some exceptions now and then. I'm also a gun owner (which is why I'm here of course). On many things I'm more Libertarian, but I can't actually vote that and influence the current political balance.

In general, while there are some loud mouth blowhards on the Democrat side, I don't think they represent the mainstream nor would they survive politically if they tried to actually follow through on some of their crazy views. I sure wouldn't support them.

MJU1983
December 15, 2009, 09:59 PM
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it." -U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat

or,

"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all." -U.S. Rep Henry Waxman, California Democrat

Two people I can't stand are in charge: Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. No thanks!

USA
December 15, 2009, 10:11 PM
^ They have bad reputations but Pelosi is on record THIS YEAR saying no new gun laws and Reid brought the Thune Amendment on carry reciprocity to the Senate floor where it fell by ONE SINGLE vote. I'm no Democrat or liberal but I do not fear this Democratic congress restricting our gun rights. There are some antis in the congress but they have no power comparatively speaking and not nearly the votes to do anything about their positions.

My Congressman is a Democrat but he was the only guy from my state to vote for "allowing" us to carry weapons in National parks. That vote pretty much secured him my vote in 2010, unless the HC bill is really bad.

hso
December 15, 2009, 10:35 PM
It's going to be difficult, but please abide by the NO POLITICS rule in this forum if you want your posts to remain.

goon
December 15, 2009, 11:35 PM
Just a thought...
The more liberal gunowners there are, the safer our gun rights get.
If no one on the left or the right can take action against the Second Amendment without worrying about getting voted out during the next election... well I don't see how that's a bad thing.

Autolycus
December 16, 2009, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by MJU1983:
California Democrat

or,

"If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me very nervous that these people have these weapons at all." -U.S. Rep Henry Waxman, California Democrat

Two people I can't stand are in charge: Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. No thanks!

You seem to be ignoring a lot of the facts and other things of historical importance.

Don't Blame Liberals for Gun Control. (http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm)

NinjaFeint
December 16, 2009, 01:52 AM
I am going to try to put this in a way that will be ok with the mods.

Conversion of any person to having an interest in or positive perception of firearms is a good thing. The more people who have an interest from any party and the more our legislators from any party will need to abide by the will of the people. That's how democracy works.

The rhetoric about people either being anti or pro doesn't work here in the Northeast. I have found that people can be converted to have an interest in shooting through an inclusive argument and some plinking, not a divisive diatribe. Those who have no interest in shooting can be "converted" to support gun rights if a reasonable argument is presented. No need for "doom and gloom" or "rape and murder defense" scenarios, a simple explanation of why these rights are vital to our nation and how taking away rights is a slippery slope. The folks who are not interested in this argument also don't care about the "doom and gloom", "rape and murder defense" and other more extreme arguments.

Again, this is my experience in the part of the country where I was raised and live.

USA
December 16, 2009, 01:57 AM
Oldskoolfan, point well taken and I was unaware of those facts (don't blame me I'm only 24, I don't remember much before Clinton) however I will point out the first ever Federal gun control NFA of 1934 was signed by FDR and the GCA of 1968 was signed by LBJ. Those are the two most important gun control acts in this country.

MertvayaRuka
December 16, 2009, 02:17 AM
Oldskoolfan, this one quote from the link you just posted rings right out at me:

But the monolithic commitment America’s "ruling classes" have shown toward gun control makes one wonder whether even a president is free to buck the current.

There's the key right in there. Ruling classes. That's what it's about. It's about the powerful maintaining their ability to do what they will at the expense of all of us. This is done not only by stripping us of our right to defend ourselves and those around us, it is also done by fracturing us along political, racial, social and class lines. Pick a big group, set them against a smaller and less powerful group that's artificially inflated into a threat. Pick a belief system and tell them they're on the verge of being wiped out despite all evidence to the contrary. Pick a crisis and propose a solution that looks good on the surface even though you've gutted it so that it only benefits you and your own, no one else. We have a political system in this country in which it is patently impossible for anyone to run for higher office without being vetted by the powerful and the wealthy. They benefit from any and every government foray into authoritarianism, whether it's the further proliferation of corporate-run prisons, the development of "less than lethal" crowd control devices, looser regulation of surveillance, the militarization of police departments and naturally, gun control. They benefit and we lose.

In my mind, and I think I'm not alone here, there is no single earthly reason why someone can't be pro-firearm and pro-same-sex marriage, or pro-firearm and pro-choice, or what have you. The idea of being able to own a firearm for the purposes of self-defense does not conflict with a single thing I believe in. If anything, it lines up perfectly with them. It is a continuation of the idea of being secure in my own person and rejecting any and all attempts by authority to constrain behavior that harms no one and is frankly none of their damn business. Why more people don't see this, I'm not sure. What I do know is, I'm going to continue changing that whenever possible.

NinjaFeint
December 16, 2009, 09:55 AM
Oldskoolfan, this one quote from the link you just posted rings right out at me:



There's the key right in there. Ruling classes. That's what it's about. It's about the powerful maintaining their ability to do what they will at the expense of all of us. This is done not only by stripping us of our right to defend ourselves and those around us, it is also done by fracturing us along political, racial, social and class lines. Pick a big group, set them against a smaller and less powerful group that's artificially inflated into a threat. Pick a belief system and tell them they're on the verge of being wiped out despite all evidence to the contrary. Pick a crisis and propose a solution that looks good on the surface even though you've gutted it so that it only benefits you and your own, no one else. We have a political system in this country in which it is patently impossible for anyone to run for higher office without being vetted by the powerful and the wealthy. They benefit from any and every government foray into authoritarianism, whether it's the further proliferation of corporate-run prisons, the development of "less than lethal" crowd control devices, looser regulation of surveillance, the militarization of police departments and naturally, gun control. They benefit and we lose.

In my mind, and I think I'm not alone here, there is no single earthly reason why someone can't be pro-firearm and pro-same-sex marriage, or pro-firearm and pro-choice, or what have you. The idea of being able to own a firearm for the purposes of self-defense does not conflict with a single thing I believe in. If anything, it lines up perfectly with them. It is a continuation of the idea of being secure in my own person and rejecting any and all attempts by authority to constrain behavior that harms no one and is frankly none of their damn business. Why more people don't see this, I'm not sure. What I do know is, I'm going to continue changing that whenever possible.
Well put...and you are not alone here. I think there are many people of the same mindset all over, we just don't feel threatened enough to try to force our beliefs on everyone else. Frankly, that would go against the whole point anyway.

That said, I try to get people I know to enjoy shooting because it is something I can share with them. It's more of "Try this because it's fun" than a "You need to do this or you are un-American" sort of situation. As for telling people firearms are not dangerous, this is generally because they are a part of my life and so are firearms. This doesn't work for everybody. I am currently pro-firearm, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice and pro-death penalty so I am used to having everybody disagree with me on something.

Carne Frio
December 16, 2009, 11:29 AM
I don't have any liberal friends.

MJU1983
December 16, 2009, 01:22 PM
Oldskoolfan, you are right.

My apologies, I am not a fan of either party (R or D). To me they are exactly the same.

I would vote for anyone who is a strong supporter of the Constitution and 2nd amendment specifically.

I'm more of an anarchist, I want little to no Federal Government involvement in my life. They are out of control, and have been for the past 100 years...Political Party need not apply because it is BOTH of them.

group17
December 16, 2009, 01:57 PM
I think now a days the label liberal or conservative has more to do with politics and social issues and little to do with gun rights. I have many friends who considered themselves Liberals who carry or have semi auto weapons at home for self defense.

At a class reunion a female friend I would have called a "hippie" was telling me her husband bought her, "his and her matching lugers for christmas".
She loves to shoot.

Conservatives are not the only ones armed to the teeth.

GEM
December 16, 2009, 04:39 PM
The ruling class comments are well taken - one can search on Goldman Sachs folks wanting pistol permits to protect from a 'populist' revolution. Also, Harper's magazine, IIRC, had an article on why progressives should support the RKBA.

I also discuss the issue in one of the URLs in my blog. The necessary connection of social conservatism and the RKBA is a terrible handicap for the RKBA and those who put it forward as a litmus test are missing the picture on firearms rights.

hso
December 16, 2009, 07:34 PM
This is why dividing gunowners into "liberal" and "conservative" camps is just another tool to subvert all of us.

"Get the fools bickering among themselves and no one has to bother worrying about them."

We better get smart if we want to restore our rights to everyone.

Hollowdweller
December 30, 2009, 05:50 PM
I'm a liberal and a democrat and I've probably owned guns longer than a lot of people on this board.

I know tons of democrats who are pro gun and own guns.

I think the pro gun thing really cuts across party lines.

Really with the exception of Brady and the AWB which expired, since 1980 I think that at least in my perception gun laws and even the polling are mostly pro gun.

If you look at the pro gun stuff passed by the democratic congress you can see that #1 the Dems know anti gun legislation is a loser for them and #2 Given that firearms laws overall have progressively got more LENIENT and yet the crime rate continues to GO DOWN there is really no factual basis for instituting any more regressive gun laws.

The anti gun people by and large in my view are more of an urban/rural issue. The city people see guns mostly only used in crime and have no history of understanding how fun shooting and collecting guns is. The country people know this.

Recently turned a pal who has lived in NYC all her life and never held a gun onto shooting. Broke out the 10/22 in my yard and made the cans dance. She loved it. A couple years ago a few pals not liberal but their kids had never shot guns. Got them to do some shooting and they loved it.

I think it's not as much converting liberals people should be doing as educating the public about guns and how much good clean fun they are!!!:D

happygeek
January 3, 2010, 01:59 AM
Leftist and Liberal are NOT the same thing! Heck, most of the political labels have been twisted far away from what they mean in the dictionary.

And by win the next election, is the OP talking about 2010 or 2012 and what candidate is he proposing? Myself, I plan on voting for just about any 3rd party candidate [within reason, they can't be a raving lunatic] in 2012 for Pres. I regret not voting for a 3rd party candidate last election as a protest vote.

It does surprise me that the "hippie" friend would have his and her Lugers. My sister seems to be leaning towards the hippie persuasion and she has t-shirts that say "arms are for hugging" and another one with a pic of a rifle with a rose in the barrel. I gave her the strangest look when she showed me some of her t-shirts when me and the wife visited at Christmas.

My sister also seems to think it's abhorrent to shoot at silhouette type targets :confused: She did finally come around to being ok with her husband getting a rifle though, so that's a start. I almost got her out to the range while I was there to try out my tacticool 22LR.

shockwave
January 10, 2010, 07:13 PM
I am a liberal Democrat and worked my ass off to get Obama elected. I worked really hard. Door knocking, phone banking, and making food for my local Democratic Party headquarters. The most important thing in the world was to get this country on a better track. And we did it.

I'm a member of the NRA and have been for a very long time. My branch of the Democratic Party is very focused on the Second Amendment and what we do is keep the Democrats away from gun control issues. Gun control legislation loses votes and we've learned that. On this board, it is very, very important that you do not make the mistake of thinking that Democrats are opposed to CCW, private ownership, or any restrictions at all against gun ownership.

This is not a political issue. We are the Americans who take personal responsibility for our own safety. I'm on your side. You're on mine. The most important thing is that we are skilled and trained and worthy of the powerful instruments we possess.

cambeul41
January 10, 2010, 07:22 PM
I am a liberal Democrat and worked my ass off to get Obama elected. . . . The most important thing in the world was to get this country on a better track. And we did it.

http://www.nraila.org/OBAMA/

NinjaFeint
January 10, 2010, 07:30 PM
http://www.nraila.org/OBAMA/
The NRA is a lobbying group with a singular agenda of which I am a member. That said, the post you are responding to is alluding to the fact that there were others issues with this country he thought Obama was more equipped to deal with. Your link has nothing to do with anything you quoted and very little with what he said in the post. I agree with the NRA on many things but they are not my sole guiding light for my political decisions.

NinjaFeint
January 10, 2010, 07:31 PM
I don't have any liberal friends.
Congratulations?

Lou McGopher
January 10, 2010, 10:05 PM
I don't try to convert people anymore. I just try to discourage them from voting.

Do like I did. Get a bumper sticker that reads, "My vote cancels out y'alls!"

:-)

gossamer
January 13, 2010, 05:19 PM
We need to redefine our tent as "RKBA Supporters" rather than DEMs v. GOP, red vs. blue, liberal vs. conservative.

Amen to that.

If someone has the attitude that the only way to protect RKBA is to spend all their time generating a vote against Democrats then they can kiss these goals goodbye in the long run. The roughly 50/50 split between Rep and Dem isn't going to change -- both parties will make sure of that by holding on to their respective power. However, the numbers of people - liberals and conservative alike - who support RKBA are actually growing -- unlike the numbers of people actually changing parties.


I stopped posting here for months and generally stopped caring about RKBA protection because of posts dismissing "liberals" as people who don't actually support RKBA (I'm a liberal and I support RKBA). This assumption is ignorant of the facts, ignorant of real people's beliefs and attitudes, and generally offensive to anyone who might be on the fence about this one particular issue who resents being labeled as narrow-minded political party.

Some people who claim to be "pro-RKBA" are content to narrow their world-view and deign to accept only those who wear "red." That's a great way to lose more ground than you gain.

A house divided cannot stand.

Autolycus
January 13, 2010, 08:28 PM
Welcome back Gossamer. I too get frustrated at the way people just assume all leftists or liberals are anti-gun.

TT
January 13, 2010, 10:55 PM
shockwave: On this board, it is very, very important that you do not make the mistake of thinking that Democrats are opposed to CCW, private ownership, or any restrictions at all against gun ownership.

Here’s the 2008 Democratic Platform on firearms:
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

How does “reinstating the assault weapons ban” jibe with not being for “any restrictions at all against gun ownership“? Why would they mention “what works in Chicago” if they didn’t think Chicago’s handgun ban worked?

I know THR has a strict policy against saying anything negative about Democrats, but that shouldn’t mean we have to read nonsense about how Democrats aren’t anti-gun.

Aimpoint 223
January 14, 2010, 12:00 AM
If they can not covert you why you try to convert them??

Autolycus
January 14, 2010, 01:20 AM
TT: So how come Reagan was so anti-gun? Not only as a president but also as a governor? And why did Bush sign the import ban?

cesarv
January 14, 2010, 03:04 AM
The fact that I own a weapon and support the right to defend one's self is not more likely to make me vote for one party or the other. There are many more issues at hand.

BUGUDY
January 14, 2010, 06:47 AM
Reagan was a life member of the NRA, and no anti gun legislation ever reached the WH due to a sure veto from Pres Reagan, and after wards by Bush Sr. The Bradt Bill had to wait for the pres. following these two.

benEzra
January 14, 2010, 06:53 AM
Quote:
Here’s the 2008 Democratic Platform on firearms:
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

How does “reinstating the assault weapons ban” jibe with not being for “any restrictions at all against gun ownership“? Why would they mention “what works in Chicago” if they didn’t think Chicago’s handgun ban worked?

I know THR has a strict policy against saying anything negative about Democrats, but that shouldn’t mean we have to read nonsense about how Democrats aren’t anti-gun.
The mistake here is assuming that all Dems agree with the Third Way communitarian dolts who wrote the party platform, and that there aren't a whole lot of Dems and indies fighting tooth and nail to get that changed.

Half of US gun owners are Dems and independents. Linking gun ownership exclusively to political and social conservatism leaves half or more of US gun owners out in the cold. Regardless of our differences on other issues, we're all in this together on the gun issue.

Victor1Echo
January 14, 2010, 09:00 AM
Really, since JFK was killed by the CIA and friends, this country has been under control. There is no left or right. It's a false dichotomy. They are all in on it, and they script it to sound like there is a debate. Liberals cannot be converted, and the same is true for conservatives. For a democracy to really work--you need at least three viable choices. Liberals still believe that protests have an effect. America should be about liberty, not serfdom to some dumb ideology to a political party. The people who run for office in this county are vetted to make sure that they will do exactly as they are told.

hso
January 14, 2010, 09:25 AM
We're wandering off the topic into pure politics, which will get this thread closed.

Try to stay on topic.

hso
January 14, 2010, 09:43 AM
FOPA, which effectively banned civilian transfer of machineguns made after 1986, was developed during the Regan presidency and was finally signed during the Bush presidency. Brady was signed during the Bush presidency. AWB came about during the Clinton presidency. Both parties have controlled the Presidency and Congress when restrictions on RKBA have been born and signed. Make no mistake that there are Antis in both major political parties.

RKBA should be focused on all Americans, regardless of professed political affiliation since there's a wide range of gun rights positions represented within all political parties. Our goal should be to increase RKBA support universally by every means and we should avoid the oversimplification of saying "Party X is universally Anti while Party Y is universally Pro" lest we completely throw away an opportunities to advance freedom.

BUGUDY
January 14, 2010, 12:27 PM
The Brady Bill was signed in by Pres. Clinton. The history of gun control article:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=42516

gossamer
January 14, 2010, 02:32 PM
The Brady Bill was signed in by Pres. Clinton. The history of gun control article:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=42516

That so-called "history" completely ignores the fact that - when the pro-RKBA folks needed him the most - Ronald Reagan was at best ambivalent and at worst outright caved in his support of the 2nd Amendment.

She makes a big point of noting that Reagan was a life-long NRA member, WOW Ms. Froman, I'd like to point out that so is Michael Moore -- ever seen Bowling for Columbine?

Froman's article is blind to the threat to the 2nd Amendment that was posed by both parties after the Reagan shooting. And it's exactly the kind of thing that can lull us into thinking that one political party or another is either "completely on board" or "completely against." It's also a little revisionist history in how it recalls Reagan's "pro-2nd-amendment" value system.

The fact is, the Brady Bill - while signed by Clinton - was backed and urged by none other than Ronald Reagan (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/us/gun-control-bill-backed-by-reagan-in-appeal-to-bush.html?pagewanted=all) in 1991:

Mr. Reagan peeved his old allies in the gun lobby, some of whom questioned the influence of a former President in Congress. After his speech this morning, Mr. Reagan went to the White House, where he said he hoped to persuade the man who was his Vice President to support the bill. When asked later whether he had persuaded Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan replied, "I'm trying to."

Mr. Reagan said at a gathering at George Washington University marking the 10th anniversary of the attempt on his life by John W. Hinckley Jr. "... it's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law-enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to purchase handguns."

For pro-RKBA folks to assume that one party or another is either "for us" or "against us" not only flies in the face of history, but it blinds us to the fact that incremental steps towards curtailing the 2nd Amendment can come from anyone - be they Liberal or Conservative.

Rather than painting either party with the dubious broad brush because we read something called a "history" on the internet we should not take anyone's support for granted. This is because history has shown us time and time again that personal experiences, tragedies, societal changes, etc. cal alter a person's conviction to even the most basic rights we are supposed to enjoy in this country. In short, don't be fooled into believing you can or cannot count on anyone.

NinjaFeint
January 14, 2010, 03:01 PM
That so-called "history" completely ignores the fact that - when the pro-RKBA folks needed him the most - Ronald Reagan was at best ambivalent and at worst outright caved in his support of the 2nd Amendment.

She makes a big point of noting that Reagan was a life-long NRA member, WOW Ms. Froman, I'd like to point out that so is Michael Moore -- ever seen Bowling for Columbine?

Froman's article is blind to the threat to the 2nd Amendment that was posed by both parties after the Reagan shooting. And it's exactly the kind of thing that can lull us into thinking that one political party or another is either "completely on board" or "completely against." It's also a little revisionist history in how it recalls Reagan's "pro-2nd-amendment" value system.

The fact is, the Brady Bill - while signed by Clinton - was backed and urged by none other than Ronald Reagan (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/us/gun-control-bill-backed-by-reagan-in-appeal-to-bush.html?pagewanted=all) in 1991:



For pro-RKBA folks to assume that one party or another is either "for us" or "against us" not only flies in the face of history, but it blinds us to the fact that incremental steps towards curtailing the 2nd Amendment can come from anyone - be they Liberal or Conservative.

Rather than painting either party with the dubious broad brush because we read something called a "history" on the internet we should not take anyone's support for granted. This is because history has shown us time and time again that personal experiences, tragedies, societal changes, etc. cal alter a person's conviction to even the most basic rights we are supposed to enjoy in this country. In short, don't be fooled into believing you can or cannot count on anyone.
You are correct. The issue is for most people it is easier to have it black and white than one big gray area. They like to call everyone who doesn't own a gun "anti", which is not true. They like to think all the bad laws are made by "liberals" that are out to steal their rights. The truth is that it is all gray area and we damn well better stick together regardless of political party if we want to keep our rights.

Majik
January 14, 2010, 06:54 PM
Ok. You do realize that if mccain won, he's just another puppet like obama.

Do NOT get distracted by republican vs. democrat nonsense. The powers that exist want to take our rights anyways, and they have plenty of folks on both fronts.

The thing i HATE is how the politicians claim to stick up for gun rights, so that hunters can still hunt, and folks can protect their families from robbery. NONE of that has anything to do with our 2nd ammendmant. We have the right to keep and bear arms. Nothing to do with hunting, or home protection, or even concealed carry. It's our right as citizens of this country, no matter what any politician believes or says. They can't LEGALLY change it, but they will try and have done it successfully in the past.

jmortimer
January 14, 2010, 08:53 PM
Why play pretend. Sure there are some liberals who are not liberal on the RKBA but it is a tiny fraction. Why waste time. We would be better off focusing on the majority of right thinking American citizens who support the RKBA now but are not motivated. Health care is a prime example, the majority opposes the changes being jammed down our throats but due to the last election we get the shaft. Motivate people with common sense and ignore those who are worthless on this issue. Now it's 2010, an election year, and elections have consequences. The best thing we can do is change the make up of the Senate so we can block additional liberal Justices. Justice Kennedy is the only thing standing in the way of the destruction of the RKBA and he is nothing to write home about on this issue. SCOTUS is the key to the RKBA.

Prion
January 14, 2010, 10:14 PM
All political parties are primarily concerned with consolidating and maintaining power. You are their concern in as much as they need to appease you to get your votes. This is accomplished by scaring you. Not standing up for you. Politicians are by and large power mongers and fear mongers whose number one concern is their political career, status, power, and ego.

Take the Tea Party for instance. A brief glimmer of hope until it's first annual convention. Palin is being payed $100,000 to speak, tickets for the weekend are $600 or $400 just to hear Palin speak. Another movement usurped by the wealthy elite in an effort to consolidate more power.

My point? We need to be bi-partisan. Enough left vs right, it's pro 2nd Amendment against any anti-gunner. Don't assume anyone is on our side, or against us, just because of party affliliation. I will vote for those with a proven track record of 2A support. In the last election we were left with two poor choices.

Saddest of all is to be living in a democracy and to be poorly represented by either party. To know how little the common man means to the power elite that runs this country. A power elite who fears an armed citizenry, you and me.

NinjaFeint
January 14, 2010, 10:18 PM
Why play pretend. Sure there are some liberals who are not liberal on the RKBA but it is a tiny fraction. Why waste time. We would be better off focusing on the majority of right thinking American citizens who support the RKBA now but are not motivated. Health care is a prime example, the majority opposes the changes being jammed down our throats but due to the last election we get the shaft. Motivate people with common sense and ignore those who are worthless on this issue. Now it's 2010, an election year, and elections have consequences. The best thing we can do is change the make up of the Senate so we can block additional liberal Justices. Justice Kennedy is the only thing standing in the way of the destruction of the RKBA and he is nothing to write home about on this issue. SCOTUS is the key to the RKBA.
In new england there are a lot of liberals/moderates who support RKBA. Just thought you should know. Ignoring them would not be a good strategy.

jmortimer
January 14, 2010, 10:43 PM
If a liberal nominates a Justice to the Supreme Court there is a certain vote against the RKBA and the Second Amendment. If a Conservative nominates a Justice it is at least an 80% chance or greater they will uphold RKBA and the Second Amendment. This is a fact beyond dispute. The DC gun ban as insane and idiotic as any gun law went down
5-4 - amazing and the newest Justice nominated by an Urber liberal upheld the DC gun ban which led to the Heller decision in SCOTUS. So again, lets play pretend and let the Second Amendment and the RKBA go down the toilet because that is exactly what will happen if more liberals are nominated as SCOTUS Justices. We need to change the balance of power in the Senate this year and the race in Massachusetts is the best place to start. The Chicago gun ban will go down 5-4 with Justice Kennedy as our only hope. That is one weak link to depend on. I find it hard to believe that anyone who values the Second Amendment could possibly think that reaching out to liberals is a sane course of action. The most effective course of action is to go after apathetic "independents" and move them to the right. There are more self described "conservatives" - way more - than self described liberals or even "independents" - so let's be real and stop playing pretend if we value the Second Amendment and the RKBA.

TT
January 14, 2010, 11:00 PM
Oldskoolfan: So how come Reagan was so anti-gun? Not only as a president but also as a governor? And why did Bush sign the import ban?

Reagan did indeed stab gun-owners in the back, and Republicans should remember that whenever his legacy is discussed. Bush Sr. also betrayed gun-owners, but here’s the thing- when Reagan and Bush did these things they were betraying the Republican Party’s advocacy of limited government and respect for the natural right of self-defense. When Democrats vote against gun-owners, they are properly representing their party’s communitarian principles. So while you can certainly dredge up Republicans who have failed to adhere to their party’s ideology, you’ve only illuminated individual failings; I, on the other hand, have pointed out the clearly anti-gun plank in Democratic Party’s 2008 platform, something to which you apparently have no rebuttal. I will give you credit though for not trying benEzra’s pathetic ‘the party platform doesn’t reflect the beliefs of the party members” absurdity. :rolleyes:

jmortimer
January 14, 2010, 11:47 PM
+1 What TT said

NinjaFeint
January 14, 2010, 11:53 PM
Reagan did indeed stab gun-owners in the back, and Republicans should remember that whenever his legacy is discussed. Bush Sr. also betrayed gun-owners, but here’s the thing- when Reagan and Bush did these things they were betraying the Republican Party’s advocacy of limited government and respect for the natural right of self-defense. When Democrats vote against gun-owners, they are properly representing their party’s communitarian principles. So while you can certainly dredge up Republicans who have failed to adhere to their party’s ideology, you’ve only illuminated individual failings; I, on the other hand, have pointed out the clearly anti-gun plank in Democratic Party’s 2008 platform, something to which you apparently have no rebuttal. I will give you credit though for not trying benEzra’s pathetic ‘the party platform doesn’t reflect the beliefs of the party members” absurdity. :rolleyes:
I am not sure how saying two of the last three Republican presidents betrayed their party is supposed to make me feel good about voting for a Republican. This is who the party selected and groomed for the top spot in American. That reflects on the party. My point is not to say Democrats are better or Republicans are terrible, my point is that depending on the Republicans to protect your gun rights has failed. Gun owners (of all political parties) need to stick up for gun owners because no politician will ever have your back when push comes to shove.

I can't remember an election where I didn't vote for at least one candidate from each party including an independent. I can't imagine being bound to one party.

NinjaFeint
January 15, 2010, 12:04 AM
If a liberal nominates a Justice to the Supreme Court there is a certain vote against the RKBA and the Second Amendment. If a Conservative nominates a Justice it is at least an 80% chance or greater they will uphold RKBA and the Second Amendment. This is a fact beyond dispute. The DC gun ban as insane and idiotic as any gun law went down
5-4 - amazing and the newest Justice nominated by an Urber liberal upheld the DC gun ban which led to the Heller decision in SCOTUS. So again, lets play pretend and let the Second Amendment and the RKBA go down the toilet because that is exactly what will happen if more liberals are nominated as SCOTUS Justices. We need to change the balance of power in the Senate this year and the race in Massachusetts is the best place to start. The Chicago gun ban will go down 5-4 with Justice Kennedy as our only hope. That is one weak link to depend on. I find it hard to believe that anyone who values the Second Amendment could possibly think that reaching out to liberals is a sane course of action. The most effective course of action is to go after apathetic "independents" and move them to the right. There are more self described "conservatives" - way more - than self described liberals or even "independents" - so let's be real and stop playing pretend if we value the Second Amendment and the RKBA.
So since I am Pro-Choice, Anti-Gun Control, Pro-Death Penalty, Pro-Gay Marriage, Anti-Government Healthcare (including Medicare and Medicaid), Anti-School Prayer, Pro-Medical Marijuana, believe in evolution over creation, against regulating a free market (with some exceptions) and think Michael Moore and Ann Coulter should be forced to live in a small cabin together for eternity:evil:What am I? Should I be considered a person worthy of defending RKBA?

jmortimer
January 15, 2010, 12:05 AM
It is not a party issue. It is a Conservative versus liberal issue. Party means nothing but TT's point is well taken. Let's put it this way - depending on the party currently in power is certain to fail and depending on the other party has at least an 80% or greater chance of success as it relates to the Second Amendment and the RKBA. And Ninjataint we will take what we can get and at least you are a free thinker. Your ideas are an amalgamation to be sure. I would class you as a Libertarian.

NinjaFeint
January 15, 2010, 12:18 AM
It is not a party issue. It is a Conservative versus liberal issue. Party means nothing but TT's point is well taken. Let's put it this way - depending on the party currently in power is certain to fail and depending on the other party has at least an 80% or greater chance of success as it relates to the Second Amendment and the RKBA. And Ninjataint we will take what we can get and at least you are a free thinker. Your ideas are an amalgamation to be sure. I would class you as a Libertarian.
I could argue with you all night on politics but like I said, I think us gun owners should stick together. Just keep an open mind for us "free thinkers" who own firearms and will defend RKBA, there are a lot more of us than you might expect.

Majik
January 15, 2010, 01:25 AM
Okay. I voted for Obama in the last presidential election. I'm not ashamed of it, heck, he lied to everyone. If some fellow running for president claims this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk

versus a set of candidates who say sh** like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUCQ8H8SkhI

Personally, I do not care who russia toys with as long as it aint me. us going to war with russia, most people don't realise that it would go nuclear almost immediately. There'd be little if any actual fighting. This would garuntee death to the vast majority of both the nations, something the world has never seen before. It's wreckless, and STUPID. I will NOT support that.



However, I firmly belive that America should not ever be a "democracy". America is to be a Republic. Any candidate that is a strict constitutionalist, I'll give my honest support to. Ron Paul would be infinitely better than McCain or Obama. Fact.

NinjaFeint
January 15, 2010, 09:54 AM
Okay. I voted for Obama in the last presidential election. I'm not ashamed of it, heck, he lied to everyone. If some fellow running for president claims this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk

versus a set of candidates who say sh** like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUCQ8H8SkhI

Personally, I do not care who russia toys with as long as it aint me. us going to war with russia, most people don't realise that it would go nuclear almost immediately. There'd be little if any actual fighting. This would garuntee death to the vast majority of both the nations, something the world has never seen before. It's wreckless, and STUPID. I will NOT support that.



However, I firmly belive that America should not ever be a "democracy". America is to be a Republic. Any candidate that is a strict constitutionalist, I'll give my honest support to. Ron Paul would be infinitely better than McCain or Obama. Fact.
As for people I know, Palin cost them a lot of votes.

jmortimer
January 15, 2010, 10:05 AM
That proves the point, Palin has more pro-Second Amendment and the RKBA in her pinky than the president and "Plugs" combined - both supported the DC gun ban- so if liberals dislike someone who is way Second Amendment and elect two anti-gun nut jobs then why waste time with liberals

gossamer
January 15, 2010, 11:58 AM
If a liberal nominates a Justice to the Supreme Court there is a certain vote against the RKBA and the Second Amendment. If a Conservative nominates a Justice it is at least an 80% chance or greater they will uphold RKBA and the Second Amendment. This is a fact beyond dispute.

The fact that a so-called Pro RKBA community relies on generalized "certainties" and extrapolate some "80% chance" of protecting RKBA by electing one party demonstrates exactly why the 2nd Amendment has been so curtailed to the point that it has in recent decades.

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm

"Guns are an abomination," -- Richard Nixon. Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

President George Bush, Sr. banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.

Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation’s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state.

This is not the Supreme Court signing these laws, this is the leadership of the so-called pro-second amendment Party over a period of 40 years signing these laws and making these statements. If "party platform" were truly worth the pixels it were written in, why did these party leaders who profess to support the 2nd Amendment take these actions? Because they don't care who's vote they get as long as they get it. And they'll even sign laws that udercut their own party platform to do it.

If the concept of "support for RKBA" means being duped into supporting any party that continues to elect leaders who sign anti-gun laws because of some mythical "80% or greater chance" - or even better "certainty" - then I want no part in that. Assumptions of certainty in the face of historical facts to the contrary are what erode documents like the bill of rights.

NinjaFeint
January 15, 2010, 05:22 PM
That proves the point, Palin has more pro-Second Amendment and the RKBA in her pinky than the president and "Plugs" combined - both supported the DC gun ban- so if liberals dislike someone who is way Second Amendment and elect two anti-gun nut jobs then why waste time with liberals

If the only thing that matters to you about Sarah Palin is that she is "way Second Amendment" and think not liking her as a candidate for vice president makes someone a liberal, you are out of touch with how a lot of people vote in this country. I can't support her solely based on one issue and cast a blind eye to her deficiencies.

I think a lot of people need a candidate who has more than just supporting RKBA as a positive. This is honestly not the only issue in our country and you may want to consider that.

jmortimer
January 15, 2010, 05:28 PM
Simplistic analysis of 3 instances where liberal legislators passed laws that were signed into law. The fourth involved a lawsuit by NYC and the last is merely a quote. This is the best liberals can come up with. The 80% plus firgure is based on the fact that Justices on SCOTUS don't always do the right thing like Souter et al. Right, SCOUTS does not "sign" the liberal inspired laws like the idiotic DC gun ban or the stupid Chicago gun ban. These are the spawn of liberals that SCOTUS rules on. How could Heller have ever gone down 5 to 4 ? It is exhibit one as to how close we are to destruction of the Second Amendment - one man - Justice Kennedy who is marginal as a Justice on these issues. You cited no historical facts to the contrary just nonsense. You should consider the effect of the SCOTUS and the imapct of stupid liberal laws like the DC gun ban and the Chicago Gun ban. So, most liberals are against the Second Amendment and RKBA and most Conservatives are for gun rights. They say 3% of the population is gay and 3% of liberals support gun rights. Hardly enough to warrant wasting resources promoting gun rights to liberals. Any and all resources should be devoted to right thinking independents, the second largest ideological group behind Conservatives. It is the independents who will make or break this issue. The Supreme Court will make the ultimate decisions so it is important to understand that we have 4 good Justices, four bad (liberal) justices, and one (Kennedy) holding the balance of power - barely leaning in favor of gun rights.

jmortimer
January 15, 2010, 05:34 PM
NinjaFeint - If you like "Plugs" the lying gaffe machine more than Palin as a Vice President then so be it. The best way to support the Second Amendment and the RKBA is to support candidates who support gun rights not professed anti-gun politicians like the president and "Plugs." Gun rights and the Second Amendment is # 2 on my list so any anti-gun politicians like the president and "Plugs" are out - never get my vote.

gossamer
January 15, 2010, 06:06 PM
You cited no historical facts to the contrary just nonsense. They say 3% of the population is gay and 3% of liberals support gun rights. Hardly enough to warrant wasting resources promoting gun rights to liberals.

So because I wasn't dumb enough to try and prove a negative it's nonsense?

I'm not even sure what gay's have to do with this conversation. Nonetheless, if you want to continue thinking you can completely ignore liberals in support of the RKBA, then go for it.

That kind of binary, narrow minded ignorance of historical experience and outright evidence to the contrary reminds me how the 2nd Amendment came to be so curtailed in the first place; people like you stopped caring that people like me exist.

You ignore your allies to the detriment of nothing but your rights.

Enjoy your house divided.

jmortimer
January 15, 2010, 06:14 PM
Taking this to a more respecful level, how are we be "allies" if the politicians you vote for and elect work directly against gun rights in general and the Second Amendment and RKBA in particular. I live in California and feel the effect of this every day.

NinjaFeint
January 15, 2010, 06:44 PM
NinjaFeint - If you like "Plugs" the lying gaffe machine more than Palin as a Vice President then so be it. The best way to support the Second Amendment and the RKBA is to support candidates who support gun rights not professed anti-gun politicians like the president and "Plugs." Gun rights and the Second Amendment is # 2 on my list so any anti-gun politicians like the president and "Plugs" are out - never get my vote.

So by default I should support someone who is inept because she supported RKBA? RKBA is high on my list but the candidate not being an idiot is higher. Like it or not she ruined McCain's chances as much as the Bush fallout did. I do support candidates who support gun rights but that does not entitle them to unconditional support.

goon
January 15, 2010, 06:51 PM
Granted, the democratic party has anti-gun sentiments as part of its party platform. Does that make it more important or less important to gain the support of those who share your beliefs on gun ownership in that party?
What can a republican do about the democratic party's platform?
I would suggest that he can't really do a damn thing about it. Go ahead and write your democratic congressman complaining about how he alienated you... He's not gonna give half a pound of flying monkey crap because he never would have gotten your vote anyway if you're a republican.
Only those who belong to the democratic party really have the power to implement any changes.
I'm inclined to agree with gossamer's train of thought - pushing potential allies away is a really poor strategy.

gossamer
January 15, 2010, 06:57 PM
how are we "allies" if the politicians you vote for and elect work directly against gun rights in general and the Second Amendment and RKBA in particular.

So do you say the same thing to Republicans who voted for Reagan and Bush Sr and Nixon and Giuliani and Pataki? Because all of them "work[ed] directly against gun rights in general and the Second Amendment and RKBA in particular."

Judging by this thread you just save your condemnation for liberals and ignore Republicans who vote for candidates who do the same thing.

You can live in the world as it is, where both Liberals and Conservatives who support RKBA apply pressure to their respective candidates to protect their rights. OR you can pretend it's only the horrible liberals who threaten gun rights and blind yourself to the historically demonstrated fact that members of both parties will take any of our rights away in a second if it means furthering their political career.

Keep pretending that tyranny of the government only threatens it's citizens when their on the blue team.

Ingsoc75
January 15, 2010, 07:29 PM
Some people, most I would think, wouldn't vote solely based on what candidate supports second amendment rights.

hso
January 15, 2010, 08:07 PM
And blindly thinking that a political party will protect your rights is foolish.

Focus on promoting support for that right across the political spectrum and you'll be less likely to see any party get much traction in suppressing that right.

jmortimer
January 15, 2010, 08:30 PM
That is why I tend to focus on SCOTUS. That is where this will all go up or down. That is the bottom line. I support Conservative candidates which by definition means my candidate will try and put Conservative Justices on the SCOTUS and support the Second Amendment and the RKBA. With only Justice Kennedy between us and disaster we have much to lose if we compromise. And no I don't support "Republicans" I support Conservatives.

gossamer
January 16, 2010, 12:32 PM
That is why I tend to focus on SCOTUS. That is where this will all go up or down. That is the bottom line.

Focusing on the SCOTUS is a last-line-of-defense strategy it says that a law will be defeated when it's ruled on after it's challenged in court, after it's been passed, after it's been in effect, possibly after it's been ruled on by lower courts, appealed and agreed to be taken up by the SCOTUS.

Often times it takes several years before these laws are challenged, and heard before the court. This fact and relying on the SCOTUS truly discounts the damage to our RKBA that these various unfriendly laws do in the intervening time between law's passage and the court's ruling.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought that RKBA advocacy is about more than winning a battle in court. I was under the impression it's as much about public opinion, building advocacy for our rights AND -- at the very least -- building consensus that the Bill of Rights needs to be protected in it's entirety.

The people who pass the unfreindly legislation are politicians from all walks of life conservative and liberal (I don't think many would argue that Reagan and Bush Sr. were Conservatives - despite their respective laws enacting gun control), and those who have passed laws curtailing RKBA have come out of both parties.

Look at how many years passed between the time of various gun laws and the time they were decided on by the SCOTUS.

There is a LOT of damage done in terms of both public perception/opinion and support for the RKBA in those intervening years between the passing of a restrictive law and the SCOTUS possibly overturning them.

A strategy to only support conservatives or Republicans because they "will" appoint a conservative justice, opens the door to many years of curtailed rights before that SCOTUS strategy can be tested.

It doesn't prevent RKBA restriction, it only resolves it. It's a defensive tactic.

I prefer an "offensive" (or better yet, proactive) strategy of bringing people from all parties and all political convictions into this discussion. Engendering all the allies we can, supporting any candidate who supports the RKBA - regardless of their party.

I don't see any point in alienating, disregarding and using a proRKBA forum as a means for "shouting down" people -- like many in this thread -- who ardently support the RKBA but don't ascribe to "the correct political philosophy."

jmortimer
January 16, 2010, 01:56 PM
It is not a "strategy" it is reality. SCOTUS occupies a place never envisioned when the Constitution was adopted - it now functions as a "Super Legislature" and while a few years may seem like a long time, it was for those poor souls who suffered under liberal suppression of gun rights in D.C. until Mr. Heller came along and then the day came when SCOTUS did the right thing but it was a 5 to 4 decision. Why do think FDR tried to "Stack the Court" because the "buck stops" with SCOTUS. So one more liberal Justice and everything you claim to be working for will be "history" and the few years you complain about will be decades, a lifetime, or forever - i.e. as long as this Country exists. The liberal Jusices make up laws out of whole cloth and have now resorted to citing "international law" as authority over our own Constitution. I don't understand how you can ignore the freight train comming down the tracks even if it seems to be far off.

hso
January 16, 2010, 02:10 PM
Ounce of prevention vs. pound of cure? Makes sense.

Add that "conservative" and "liberal" don't have a lot of meaning these days, especially where RKBA is involved.

A rule of thumb doesn't ensure the rule of law. Make certain where every individual you can stands on RKBA, make certain that you do everything in your power to persuade them that RKBA is good for everyone and make sure you tailor your message to the audience.

PublicRelations
January 30, 2010, 07:59 PM
I may be mistaken but isn't there a "Pink Guns" organization (or something like that)? that is a gay RKBA org. It doesn't get much more liberal than that. Point is, some "liberals" support RKBA so writing off someone as anti-RKBA because they're liberal will only hurt our cause.

legaleagle_45
January 30, 2010, 10:02 PM
"Pink Guns"

"Pink Pistols"

JImbothefiveth
February 3, 2010, 03:57 PM
I think the answer is to convert liberals the same way you would convert anyone else. The only difference is that unless they will vote pro-gun, make sure not to do anything to encourage them to vote.

The people who pass the unfreindly legislation are politicians from all walks of life conservative and liberal (I don't think many would argue that Reagan and Bush Sr. were Conservatives - despite their respective laws enacting gun control), Can you please enlighten me on Reagan's anti-gun legislation?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought that RKBA advocacy is about more than winning a battle in court. I was under the impression it's as much about public opinion, building advocacy for our rights AND -- at the very least -- building consensus that the Bill of Rights needs to be protected in it's entirety.
All that consensus does is discourage politicians from making anti-gun laws. If the supreme court really hates guns bad enough, the consensus won't matter. It especially won't matter if despite the consensus, those people still vote for anti-gun politicians who appoint anti-gun judges.

So do you say the same thing to Republicans who voted for Reagan See above. and Bush Sr Maybe. and Nixon and Giuliani Yes, unless the other candidate was also anti-gun.

It doesn't prevent RKBA restriction, it only resolves it. It's a defensive tactic.
The only way to prevent it is to either not elect anti-gun politicians, or really scare them.

FOPA, which effectively banned civilian transfer of machineguns made after 1986, was developed during the Regan presidency and was finally signed during the Bush presidency. The machine gun ban was snuck in to a bill that was intended to protect gun owners. I think it's the same bill that stops registration. IIRC, the NRA supported this bill, it was to stop an out-of-control ATF.

Limeyfellow
February 3, 2010, 10:38 PM
Can you please enlighten me on Reagan's anti-gun legislation?

The big one would be signing the Mulford Act in 1967 banning Californians rights to carry guns on their person or vehicle in any public space. Then he signed the Gun Control law of 1986, Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act that was the bs about copkiller bullets and a few other bits and pieces throughout his political career.

Then there was the old being one of the biggest spokesman in support of the Brady bill including the big speech he did in 1991 "I support the Brady Bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay." There are many myths about Reagan being some big conservative hero for some reason.

He wasn't as antigun as say Nixon however. The Bush family sign ons had more to do with protecting domestic markets by banning certain imports of firearms.

Luckily nowadays we have an administration that has done more acts to remove gun control than we seen by most the other administrations of the past 50 years combined and haven't seen anything new but one or two crazies putting forward ideas that got shouted down. It really odd after listening to the year of ranting and raving about how we would have all our guns taken away and be in FEMA camps by now.

Of course it is just easier to make fun of liberals as all gun grabbing traitors, rather than take a serious look at the issues.

hso
February 4, 2010, 03:47 PM
I'm going to have to prune more posts for wandering too far afield into politics and political bickering and negativism.

The discussion is about how to convert so-called "liberals" to RKBA neutral or support.

Let's try to come up with ideas about how to get everyone under the RKBA tent that can be persuaded to it and make the rest at least understand the fanatical antis are lying to them so they don't support their positions.

CubJ3
February 10, 2010, 09:37 PM
If it's any consolation, I am a gun enthusiast and a liberal who has miraculously managed to get my super knee jerk liberal wife to understand and AGREE with the second amendment. Once she understood the basic premise that guns don't kill people she came around. Took a while though...... and I'm very tired.

mongoose33
February 11, 2010, 08:13 AM
I'm late to the party here, but let me suggest a couple things. I'm a college professor--I teach, among other things, how to generate political power and social change. (And FWIW, I don't fit the label "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach." I can and I do!)

One of the most effective, if not the most effective, ways to engage people on controversial issues is not to make statements--it's to ask questions.

Making statements in an argument is akin to pushing on someone's chest to move them backwards--they resist. Questions, by contrast, draw people in, and if asked the right way, compel them to think.

Further, and this is can sometimes be the best use of questions, they make others who are observing the interaction think. It can be easier to think about the answers, and consider them fairly, when one isn't directly involved.

For instance, you might simply ask this: What do you think Chicago is doing wrong? They have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and still it doesn't seem to work. The criminals don't seem to care--how will more restrictive gun laws, which keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, affect the criminal element?

Or, more simply: Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation; what would be your assessment of how that has worked out for them?

Or: I can see why around here we might not need concealed carry so much, since there's very little violent or other crime. I wonder if the same situation holds for people who live in high-crime areas. What do you think?

Or: A lot of places have concealed carry; what happened to crime after the law allowed that to occur?

Or: I wonder what percentage of people who have licenses to carry a firearm ever actually use them in a crime. Any idea?

Or: I wonder what happens to crime rates in places after citizens are allowed to carry firearms for protection? Any idea?

Or: I see you have a strong opinion about this. What has led you to this conclusion?

In other words, buried in the "question" is a statement about things you ask them to consider.

The trick with this is to not be accusatory, or mean, or combative--it's to ask meaningful questions in a respectful way.

I used to be anti-gun, until in fact about 2 years ago. I didn't change my mind because of any life-event like being robbed--I just decided that perhaps I should have this skill. As I looked into gun ownership more and more, I realized that many of the reasons I'd been anti-gun were not really well-thought-out. The evidence just kind of piled up after a while. But I didn't have anyone telling me--I was allowed, in a way, to come to my own conclusion.

I believe that with a lot of people, they have a strong, emotional position that can't be easily changed in one sitting. They have to be exposed to ideas that need time to take root and grow. Plant a seed, see what grows.

I'll extend this a bit in a following post, but I also believe that many of the arguments pro-gun people make are counterproductive--they are threatening to anti-gun people, and in fact serve to harden them in their position.

I believe also that anti-gun positions are *emotional* and as such will not respond well to confrontation and attack; they need to be gently approached and questioned. Guns *scare* people who don't know anything about them; further, they view guns as something that makes the field unlevel, such that those who don't have or don't understand are at a distinct disadvantage to those who do.

In my view, we need to understand the emotional content of the issue and approach it gently, carefully, with respect and consideration. Otherwise we risk hardening the resolve of those who believe more gun laws are the answer.

mongoose33
February 11, 2010, 08:34 AM
As a follow-on, I think some who are pro-gun often shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to trying to convince those who are anti-gun to change their views.

And FWIW, I don't think you're ever going to change a really liberal person; the people whose views should be targeted are those in the middle, the independents, the uncommitted. They'll respond much better.

That said, many of the arguments made by pro-gun advocates just don't resonate among anti-gun people. Second amendment? Many anti-gun people, I believe, see this as equivalent to the second amendment being a license to intimidate them--maybe we should change it!

In other words, it comes down to whether someone *should* have the right or not--and I don't see that as helpful. Instead, we should be gently explaining why it's a good idea, on top of it being a right.

I don't think we should be arguing that this is or is not the case--what matters, the only thing that matters, in fact, is what the other side believes. It doesn't matter what you believe--only what they believe.

We have to reach them where they are, not where we wish they were.

Much of the pro-gun rhetoric is inflammatory, and works to the detriment of the goal.

People who are anti-gun are scared--of guns, of people who tote them, of the intimidating factor of guns. They see the playing field as being quite out of level, and getting rid of guns, in their minds, levels that playing field. Yes, education can help that, but many don't or won't do it. So now what?

IMO, when Charlton Heston said "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hands," he did more damage to the pro-gun movement than Columbine did. He was preaching to the converted, but he also preached something pretty scary to the unconverted.

I know this may not be well-received here, but think about it--who, on the anti-gun side, was suddenly convinced by Heston's approach? And who, on their side, was hardened in their resolve to "get guns out of America"?

The same goes for Ted Nugent. I agree with most of the things he thinks related to guns. I also think you could find few *worse* ambassadors for the pro-gun movement than Ted Nugent. He scares anti-gun people with his rhetoric. It may make pro-gun people feel better, but he *doesn't help.*

Heston or Nugent may have rallied the troops; they also rallied the opponents. And as was once very cogently noted, only a fool gives his enemy reason to hate him.

In the end, you have to ask yourself this: Are we more about feeling good about Heston or Nugent agreeing with us, or are we more about *winning*?

I want to win. And if that means I don't use arguments that are important to me, and instead use arguments that are important to the thinking of anti-gun people, I'll do it. Every time.

I try to discuss this with anti-gun people in a way that meshes with their self-interest. They don't care about the second amendment, so I don't couch my arguments in those terms. I couch my arguments--my questions, if you read my previous post--in terms that sync with their own self interest, with things they care about. Such as crime rates, for instance. Or whether by restricting guns we make them less safe. Or whether it makes sense to do something that the evidence says doesn't work. Or safety. Whatever is important to them.

I'd love to see Tom Selleck be the voice of the NRA; soft-spoken, reasoning, a nice approach from Tom Selleck would, in my view, work wonders. Heston and Nugent? Pass.

PS: Yeah, I know Heston is dead, but he remains the iconic symbol of the pro-gun movement in America--and that's too bad. I believe he did more damage than good.

CubJ3
February 11, 2010, 09:32 AM
Nicely stated Mongoose. In a forum that primarily spouts absolutes, it's good to see a sensible and delicate approach to a contentious issue.

TexasBill
February 14, 2010, 02:22 PM
As much as I love talking about guns, this has been one of the most enjoyable and enlightening threads I have ever seen on THR (well moderated, too).

A point from my dim and distant past. I was in college during the early hippie days. At least two-thirds of the people I knew who called themselves hippies had guns. Those who fomented talk of revolution in those days, like Abbie Hoffman, knew it was important for the youth movement to be armed. Incidentally, this was before the Gun Control Act of 1968, but continued afterward.

My best friend, other than my wife, is a conservative. We disagree on some things, agree on others. We have managed to stay friends for the best part of two decades. He doesn't own a gun and doesn't like them (he comes from a family of Mennonite missionaries) while I have liked guns since childhood. Yet we both agree that all the rights secured by the Bill of Rights are important.

Posters to this thread have talked about party platforms: where do those come from? It's possible for any of us to become involved with the process by being part of the process. If you're not quite ready for a run for the Senate, show up at your local (insert party of preference here) caucus or other organizational meeting. Speak up; use some of the excellent tactics proposed by Mongoose 33 and don't let the knee-jerk "this is what we've always stood for" ninnies have the day.

jmortimer
February 14, 2010, 03:27 PM
mongoose33 the real gem in both your thoughtful posts is exactly what I have repeatedly stated in this thread including a couple posts that have been deleted (I've got no problem with the moderator kicking my a$$ because I'm a Chuck Heston and Ted Nugent admirer and a conservative straight up) is the following:
And FWIW, I don't think you're ever going to change a really liberal person; the
people whose views should be targeted are those in the middle, the independents,
the uncommitted. They'll respond much better.
Exactly, why not focus on the mushy middle which is numerically greater and undecided.

gossamer
February 16, 2010, 05:51 PM
I used to be anti-gun, until in fact about 2 years ago. I didn't change my mind because of any life-event like being robbed--I just decided that perhaps I should have this skill. As I looked into gun ownership more and more, I realized that many of the reasons I'd been anti-gun were not really well-thought-out. The evidence just kind of piled up after a while. But I didn't have anyone telling me--I was allowed, in a way, to come to my own conclusion.

Exactly my situation. From the timing to your various rationale for learning the skills and accepting the data. I think the reason I came to my position was because - as you say - I was allowed to. With a family of some very pro-gun folks, and some very disinterested folks, I was never pushed or prodded one way or the other. And here I am.

I also completely agree with what you said about Heston and Nuggent. As someone who's participated in numerous long-run campaigns, studied rhetoric, and spent a lot of time practicing both, I see them and their style as detrimental to a goal of expanding the positive reasons for RKBA.

Thanks for participating in this thread.

Makarov92
February 17, 2010, 04:30 PM
Just make them take this simple test.
http://www.a-human-right.com/views2.html

NinjaFeint
February 17, 2010, 04:53 PM
^^^^^^^That quiz isn't going to do anything. You can tell what the aim of it is right from the start and it's the same thing people say to try to convert them anyway.

cskny
February 17, 2010, 06:57 PM
This thread has been a pleasant surprise.

It is sometimes odd to see how many people WANT to be labeled. Conservative vs liberal, democrat vs republican, convert your friends one way or the other. It’s a “package deal” right?

If you support this one issue then they let you know how you HAVE to think on all the other issues. Come on guys/girls, why do some of you buy into this, or worse, propagate the idea?

There are a lot of issues that we face as a nation and as people. There always has been and always will be. Most of those issues deserve thought and attention and last time I checked, we are FREE to draw our own conclusions about EACH issue. Gun perspective is just one of those issues.

I’ll be damned if some candidate is going to get my unconditional support because of one issue. I’ll be damned if they will get my unconditional support because they are part of one party.

Their expectation that you will automatically give that support should offend you as an American. It’s really nice to see that there are others that agree.

NinjaFeint
February 17, 2010, 07:56 PM
This thread has been a pleasant surprise.

It is sometimes odd to see how many people WANT to be labeled. Conservative vs liberal, democrat vs republican, convert your friends one way or the other. It’s a “package deal” right?

If you support this one issue then they let you know how you HAVE to think on all the other issues. Come on guys/girls, why do some of you buy into this, or worse, propagate the idea?

There are a lot of issues that we face as a nation and as people. There always has been and always will be. Most of those issues deserve thought and attention and last time I checked, we are FREE to draw our own conclusions about EACH issue. Gun perspective is just one of those issues.

I’ll be damned if some candidate is going to get my unconditional support because of one issue. I’ll be damned if they will get my unconditional support because they are part of one party.

Their expectation that you will automatically give that support should offend you as an American. It’s really nice to see that there are others that agree.
We may be the minority but we are here.

mongoose33
February 18, 2010, 12:05 AM
We may be the minority but we are here.

I think there are more here than you'd expect.

ishi
February 18, 2010, 01:15 AM
This thread isn't really about the RKBA. There are plenty gun forums that double as Republican echo chambers - the High Road isn't supposed to function like that (or so I thought).

hso
February 18, 2010, 12:11 PM
NinjaFeint,

Most members at THR are actually libertarian.

Voimakas
March 30, 2010, 08:40 AM
I might've missed it, but it seems like the focus is on converting liberal anti-RKBAers to support 2A.

What about strategies for converting conservative anti-RKBAers? Any difference?

cz75bdneos22
March 30, 2010, 02:53 PM
I don't want to convert anybody. Having said that, I want every 2nd ammendment supporter to speak your mind to your elected representatives in support of pro-gun legislature at all levels. Don't become indifferent and complacent that our gun rights will never erode. We have a good thing in the 2nd Amnt. Let's not lose our right to keep and bear arms, friends!! I like my hobby.:D

Hann
March 30, 2010, 03:44 PM
Interesting thread. I tend not to see issues as liberal, conservative, left wing, right wing, Republican, Democrat, etc. These are just words, words that mean different things to different people, to some they are insults, others symbols of pride, to people like me they mean absolutely nothing. The effective meanings are so dissimilar from user to user it's no wonder they creative so much controversy, anger and hate among people.

If you are determined to think two dimensionally in an "us versus them" scenario, I would suggest that "us" refer to the gun advocate and "them" refer to the would be gun taker. The truth is, none of you can claim to be the advocate or the taker 100% of the time, like all parts of adult life, things aren't black or white, on or off.

What I encourage from people is free, independent thinking, not politically fueled rhetoric, which is what most of this thread is. Why isn't this locked yet?

If you enjoyed reading about "How to convert your liberal friends (to win next election)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!