Aren't gun owners people too?


PDA






CoyoteSix
March 6, 2013, 07:27 PM
I was walking around on campus today when something caught my eye. It was a poster with a winged, rainbow colored pony advertising that the local "Gay Pride" club was having a meeting at 6:00pm tonight. I shrugged and walked on, little down the way I saw another poster, this one advertising the "College of Southern Idaho diversity council". Again I walked on thinking nothing of it. Than I came across the "CSI Democratic Interest group". Of course this one got me thinking: "Pfft, Democrats. Probably just a bunch of gun hating, latte sipping, hybrid car driving, Marx/Lenin worshiping...." And so forth until the light bulb came on in my head and told me to stop being so judgmental.

Than I thought: America is always so afraid to step on a minority/political interest group. The Racial Minorities, Gay Rights Groups, Pot Promoters, and yes, even the anti-gunners. I'm totally okay with equal representation of all parties, yes even the Anti-Gunners. As much as I hate them we wouldn't be the Home of The Free if we didn't allow everyone to complain.

But why aren't Pro Second Amendment groups treated the same way? Not even groups but gun owners as individuals are mistreated in some cases as well. I don't personally experience it in my own free state of Idaho but I've read stories here on The High Road as well as internet news outlets.

It seems like wherever you turn in current national events it's the gun owners getting the shaft.

Aren't we just like the Racial Minorities? The Gay Rights groups? Dare I say, the Anti-Gunners? Shouldn't we be represented as well and taken seriously like everyone else? I know the NRA is fighting hard right now, but where's our Dr. Martin Luther King? Our Malcolm X?

Hell, much like during the Civil Rights movement, are constitutional rights are under fire. And we're not one group of people, 2A people come from all parts of America, I'd be willing to bet that gun culture is the best melting pot in the United States.

When our Children's Children read their History books will the "Second Amendment Movement" Even be a blip on the radar?

What do you think THR? I'm just a student on a rant.

If you enjoyed reading about "Aren't gun owners people too?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TheDaywalkersDad
March 6, 2013, 07:46 PM
We are not one of the "Approved" minority groups.
I doubt that we're even a minority in the free states.

KCFirepower
March 6, 2013, 07:49 PM
start a club. Get involved, and spread the word.

JustinJ
March 6, 2013, 07:51 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by "mistreated" but providing special protections to people for their views on issues isn't reasonable.

Shadow 7D
March 6, 2013, 07:53 PM
NO
we are to be tarred and feathers,
beaten to death, shot or otherwise killed in a horrific method (in public)

The left hates gun, but EMBRACES violence

jamesbeat
March 6, 2013, 08:13 PM
To advocate the Second Amendment is considered to be in bad taste by liberals, it's practically the same thing as advocating murder.

Billy Shears
March 6, 2013, 08:30 PM
The short answer is, no, we're not, to certain people.

For a fuller understanding of why, I highly recommend picking up Thomas Sowell's book, A Conflict of Visions.

To summarize, there are two basic visions of the world and human nature -- this is a simplification, of course, like most ideas, and nobody is ever entirely in one camp or another, and it's better to think of these two visions as the ends of a spectrum, with everyone falling somewhere in between the two extremes.

On the one extreme, you have what Sowell calls "the unconstrained vision." Others have called it "the utopian vision." As Wikipedia sums it up:

Sowell argues that the unconstrained vision relies heavily on the belief that human nature is essentially good. Those with an unconstrained vision distrust decentralized processes and are impatient with large institutions and systemic processes that constrain human action. They believe there is an ideal solution to every problem, and that compromise is never acceptable. Collateral damage is merely the price of moving forward on the road to perfection. Sowell often refers to them as "the self anointed." Ultimately they believe that man is morally perfectible. Because of this, they believe that there exist some people who are further along the path of moral development, have overcome self-interest and are immune to the influence of power and therefore can act as surrogate decision-makers for the rest of society.

By contrast, there is "the constrained vision," which some call "the tragic vision." Again from Wikipedia:

Sowell argues that the constrained vision relies heavily on belief that human nature is essentially unchanging and that man is naturally inherently self-interested, regardless of the best intentions. Those with a constrained vision prefer the systematic processes of the rule of law and experience of tradition. Compromise is essential because there are no ideal solutions, only trade-offs. Those with a constrained vision favor solid empirical evidence and time-tested structures and processes over intervention and personal experience. Ultimately, the constrained vision demands checks and balances and refuses to accept that all people could put aside their innate self-interest.

Now you should understand two things. First, the vast majority of ardent gun control advocates are political liberals/leftists; and second, that the vast majority of liberals/leftists are ardent believers in the unconstrained vision.

This leads to another point you should be aware of: it is far, far more common for those with the unconstrained/utopian vision to demonize their opponents, than it is for those of the constrained/tragic vision. The latter are not immune to or incapable of such demonization, of course, but it is very noticeably more common among the former, and this goes back centuries.

The reason for this is that those holding either vision inevitably will regard each other as mistaken, but if you hold the constrained/tragic vision where the individual’s capacity for direct social decision making is limited, where people cannot see all outcomes, where forces at work are simply too large, complex and varied ever to be amenable to accurate fine tuning by direct intervention, where actions taken always have unforseen consequences, and where there are no ultimate solutions, only trade-offs—in short, where human reason is recognized as having very severe limits—then you are not surprised that your opponents are mistaken, and so it’s not necessary to regard your opponents as having less morality or less intelligence than others.

On the other hand, if you hold the unconstrained/utopian vision, where man is believed able to master social complexities and complex forces sufficiently to apply logic and morality directly, and where ultimate solutions are possible if only we can implement the right policies, then the existence of people—sometimes highly educated and very intelligent people—directly opposed to those policies that you believe are aimed at the common good can only be seen as an intellectual conundrum or a moral outrage, or both. Therefore people who hold to the unconstrained vision routinely throw out accusations of bad faith, venality, vested interest, or other moral and intellectual deficiencies, and have been doing so at least since Godwin and Condorcet in the 18th century.

So, in summary, ardent gun control advocates are much more inclined to regard you as a bad person, a moral defective, when you disagree with them about an issue like this, on which they feel very strongly, because they simply cannot conceive how an intelligent, educated, honest, moral person could possibly disagree with them. So, you're not a human being, or a minority, or someone they can or will feel sympathy for; you're a moral defective trying to pollute society with your immoral behavior and attitudes, and they will hate you for it.

Cesiumsponge
March 6, 2013, 08:42 PM
You are aware there are active groups like the Students for Concealed Carry, right? Most universities have a chapter. My brother was the president of one such chapter. Some students didn't like it but he'd say tough nuts, free speech. Campus cops didn't like and he said tough nuts, being responsible for more than one internal training bulletin when campus police tried to make up laws on the spot to chase them away.

Any popularity is good popularity. Some folks complained and the newspaper came down. His group talked and educated the reporter, and they did a reasonably balanced article in the papers. Like KCFirepower said, start a club and spread the word.

Shadow 7D
March 6, 2013, 08:49 PM
So, frankly they dehumanize EVERYBODY who disagrees with them...
YOU ARE NOT A PERSON to them
Makes it easier when the Midnight knocks start happening
just 'the good guys' doing away with 'bad people'

Lots of 'bad people' dies in Soviet Gulags....

This is also why their arguments are halfassed, they are NOT arguing with you, they are showing off their intellect to their friends.
That you DON'T groupthink with them is just proof that you are too stupid to understand.

Sam1911
March 6, 2013, 09:05 PM
Ok...so lots of theorizing about what we think the "left" thinks and/or what the anti-gun crowd thinks about us. But that's pretty broad speculation and rather pointless.

I think KDD's most useful idea here is this one:
Shouldn't we be represented as well and taken seriously like everyone else? I know the NRA is fighting hard right now, but where's our Dr. Martin Luther King? Our Malcolm X?

Ignoring for the moment that just one of our lobbying organizations is one of the largest and most powerful representative/lobbying organizations in the world (significantly larger than the ACLU, NAACP, any LGBT organization, dwarfed only by the AARP, I believe)...

How would we find and promote charismatic leaders of the MLK, Ghandi, W.E.B. DuBois, Malcolm X, Susan B. Anthony, etc. mold?

Billy Shears
March 6, 2013, 09:58 PM
Ignoring for the moment that just one of our lobbying organizations is one of the largest and most powerful representative/lobbying organizations in the world (significantly larger than the ACLU, NAACP, any LGBT organization, dwarfed only by the AARP, I believe)...

How would we find and promote charismatic leaders of the MLK, Ghandi, W.E.B. DuBois, Malcolm X, Susan B. Anthony, etc. mold?
We had one. Charlton Heston. And he still never became that.

Think about it, he was a handsome, charismatic, intelligent man, an articulate speaker with a commanding presence, and an impressive, resonant voice. He had a moral authority lent him by the fact that he marched with the Civil Rights marchers in the Civil Rights era.

And he is reviled by the left today. George Clooney said he was glad Heston got Alzheimer's and he deserved it. Tim Roth said he almost didn't take the part of General Thade in the (bad) remake of "Planet of the Apes," because Heston was in it and he loathed the man's politics. Etc. Etc.

Civil Rights was a cause embraced by the left and by the unconstrained visionaries. Gun rights won't ever be. Not in general. There will be pro-second amendment liberals, but the left as a whole will remain antithetical, no matter how charismatic and impressive the spokesman/leader is.

It will take some big event, and I am not sure how big would be enough, to change people's perception on this issue. The problem is the milieu. On the American Frontier, where people lived far from any authority, and had to take responsibility for their own safety, the attitude toward firearms was an entirely practical one. But the safer and more settled society gets, the more people can spend their whole lives separate from any real threats, the more they can indulge in wishful thinking about the issue, and entertain impractical, fanciful illusions about guns and the people who use them. And many can live their whole lives that way because their society keeps them safe enough from ever having their nose rubbed in the harsh reality that their safety is largely an illusion that can be dispelled at any instant if they have the bad luck to encounter even a single human predator when there's nobody else around to protect them.

oneounceload
March 6, 2013, 10:03 PM
The Left only tolerates diversity and free speech when it is THEIR choice of diversity and free speech - been happening on US college campuses since the LBJ 60's

Grassman
March 6, 2013, 10:08 PM
So, frankly they dehumanize EVERYBODY who disagrees with them...
YOU ARE NOT A PERSON to them
Makes it easier when the Midnight knocks start happening
just 'the good guys' doing away with 'bad people'

Lots of 'bad people' dies in Soviet Gulags....

This is also why their arguments are halfassed, they are NOT arguing with you, they are showing off their intellect to their friends.
That you DON'T groupthink with them is just proof that you are too stupid to understand.
Hit the nail on the head. Well done sir.

JRH6856
March 6, 2013, 10:34 PM
How would we find and promote charismatic leaders of the MLK, Ghandi, W.E.B. DuBois, Malcolm X, Susan B. Anthony, etc. mold?
We had one. Charlton Heston. And he still never became that.

Maybe we need to clearly define the role and hire another actor to play the part. (Seriously, the ability to act like a President is one thing that made Reagan effective...and a Great Communicator)

rondog
March 6, 2013, 10:54 PM
Well, there's the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners group fighting for us here in CO. Every state should have one.

NY'er
March 6, 2013, 10:56 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Bruce Willis on our side?

ApacheCoTodd
March 6, 2013, 11:00 PM
Sure, but most of us are "fly-over" "clingers" and as such don't count much except as targets for scorn and derision.

Also, the vast majority of us vote incorrectly to boot.

radar1972
March 6, 2013, 11:33 PM
The reason you see what you see is this:

You and I, honest pro-2A gun owners, are not hypocrites. We support everyone's right to have their say. After all, it is a free country.

The liberal left ARE hypocrites. The spout off about rights, rights, rights... but only when it suits THEIR agenda, not yours or mine. In their view, what's good for you and me is what they SAY it is.... even though they don't even abide by it.

CoyoteSix
March 7, 2013, 12:04 AM
It will take some big event, and I am not sure how big would be enough, to change people's perception on this issue.


^^ Wouldn't one think that all the recent shootings in Free Fir--, I mean gun free zones would make people think: "Oh hey, someone with a gun could've saved some lives."

JRH6856
March 7, 2013, 12:15 AM
Wouldn't one think that all the recent shootings in Free Fir--, I mean gun free zones would make people think: "Oh hey, someone with a gun could've saved some lives."

The anti-gunners I know all said "Someone else with a gun would have taken even more lives." Their predominant image (which apparently can't be shaken) of the armed citizen responding to a mass shooter (or an any SD situation) is one or more people rapid firing in spray and pray fashion in the general direction of the shooter and hitting everyone but the shooter.

Texan Scott
March 7, 2013, 06:08 AM
See, where I live, gun owners aren't lucky enough to be a persecuted minority. We're not really persecuted much... actually, we may be a fairly well tolerated majority. Dontcha hate that?

When the ammo crunch eases up, I'm getting a couple thousand rounds of 22lr and taking neighbors and coworkers shooting... just to add a few more to the majority. Beats the jeebers outta complaining about being misunderstood.

Billy Shears
March 7, 2013, 09:13 AM
^^ Wouldn't one think that all the recent shootings in Free Fir--, I mean gun free zones would make people think: "Oh hey, someone with a gun could've saved some lives."
No, they actually think that would make it worse. Watch the interview Piers Morgan did with Jesse Ventura. There's a point where Ventura says that had he been in the theater in Aurora Colorado, with his concealed handgun, he might have taken the guy out before he could kill so many people. And Morgan leans back, actually looks down his nose at Ventura, and says "or it would have made things even worse, with bullets flying back and forth." Ventura replies, rather effectively I thought, "Well which role of the dice would you prefer?" I do understand the anti-gunners' concern, but I think their logic stinks. Even if the armed good guy missed the bad guy with his first couple of shots and hit a bystander or two behind the suspect, and then stopped him, how would that be worse than a madman walking around unopposed for the next several minutes shooting another dozen or more helpless people like fish in a barrel?

G,184
March 7, 2013, 09:33 AM
Seems to me that most of the crazy people who go off their rocker and kill randomly are in fact registered LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!!! What a surprise right? There are more and more ignorant fools coming of age every day in this country, and they know that the more people who buy into their B.S. the more dangerous the place will be, Plus the U.N. pritty much says we have to comply or get <deleted>. And unfortunately for us, the politicians will suckle at the U.N.'s power tit all day.. The world wants us disarmed.......

Sam1911
March 7, 2013, 10:01 AM
Seems to me that most of the crazy people who go off their rocker and kill randomly are in fact registered LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!!! What a surprise right?
Ok. That would be a bit of a surprise if there's a political leaning component to violent forms of mental illness. Do you have any figures to back that up? A list perhaps of mass murderers and their political party affiliations? That would be a heck of a claim to make with no supporting evidence.

There are more and more ignorant fools coming of age every day in this country, and they know that the more people who buy into their B.S. the more dangerous the place will beWho? People coming of age are getting others to buy into their BS? Can you clarify what you mean here? The sentence is just confusing.

Plus the U.N. pritty much says we have to comply or get <deleted>.The UN is threatening us? And comply with what? They've not managed to produce an actual disarmament policy to even ask us to comply WITH. And, we happen to be one of the 5 permanent members of the UN security council, and arguably the most powerful of them, so it seems hard to see that "they" are pushing "us" around. And even if they wanted to, what credible threat does the UN pose to us? We have almost a global monopoly on military force in many ways -- certainly so in global force projection.

And unfortunately for us, the politicians will suckle at the U.N.'s power tit all day.What power do you feel a US politician can get from the UN? I'm not clear on how you think that relationship works.

The world wants us disarmed......Eh, a few folks do. Most of the world really doesn't seem to care whether US citizens own guns or not. Most nations have far too much trouble within their own borders to really give a crap about the status of our citizens' rights and liberties.

Avenger29
March 7, 2013, 10:04 AM
Because we're a bunch of cousin humping rednecks to the educated elite. A person with a gun cannot be controlled and they HATE that. It's all about control, make no mistake about it.

THAT is why gun owners are treated as they are.

Akita1
March 7, 2013, 10:07 AM
Great OP Kick-down; our champion may well be a youtube star named Colion Noir. The NRA finally figured out that their old-school strategies are no longer effective and is teaming with Mr. Noir (as already noted/discussed on other threads).

CoyoteSix
March 7, 2013, 10:59 AM
@Akita: I've been subscribed to Mr. Noir for a while now, He's a good guy. I also like NutnFancy, but Noir get's the ideas across the board much quicker.

JustinJ
March 7, 2013, 12:44 PM
Seems to me that most of the crazy people who go off their rocker and kill randomly are in fact registered LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!!! What a surprise right?

And that would be because you filter out information that doesn't support your world view. The vast majority of shootings are rooted in mental illness and have nothing to do with political views. However, one very recent mass killer who killed purely out of a right wing ideology and was ruled mentally competent was Anders Breivik so do i get to run around saying "its the right wingers who do all the killing"?

No, they actually think that would make it worse. Watch the interview Piers Morgan did with Jesse Ventura. There's a point where Ventura says that had he been in the theater in Aurora Colorado, with his concealed handgun, he might have taken the guy out before he could kill so many people. And Morgan leans back, actually looks down his nose at Ventura, and says "or it would have made things even worse, with bullets flying back and forth." Ventura replies, rather effectively I thought, "Well which role of the dice would you prefer?" I do understand the anti-gunners' concern, but I think their logic stinks. Even if the armed good guy missed the bad guy with his first couple of shots and hit a bystander or two behind the suspect, and then stopped him, how would that be worse than a madman walking around unopposed for the next several minutes shooting another dozen or more helpless people like fish in a barrel?

A argument i've heard instead is that we can't rely on the off chance that somebody with a concealed gun will be there to take out the bad guy. Realistacally, even if we remove all gun free zones, the chances of there being a person with a concealed weapon who is competent enough to use it is probably not great. My reply has always been "that does not mean i should not be able to make the choice to carry the means to defend myself".

So, in summary, ardent gun control advocates are much more inclined to regard you as a bad person, a moral defective, when you disagree with them about an issue like this, on which they feel very strongly, because they simply cannot conceive how an intelligent, educated, honest, moral person could possibly disagree with them. So, you're not a human being, or a minority, or someone they can or will feel sympathy for; you're a moral defective trying to pollute society with your immoral behavior and attitudes, and they will hate you for it.

Seriously? The vitriol on this board against differences of opinion on the issue is quite extreme. I don't spend much time on boards advocating gun control (are there any?) but i rarely hear these kinds of attacks from people i know who believe in gun control. Sure, there are bloggers out there who make offensive statements but that is certainly common on both sides. To be honest there are quite a few in the gun community who seem to make every effort to feed into the negative stereotypes against us. I thought about making a thread the other day condeming Larry Pratt for going on the Solomon Show and the discussion about Obama raising a black army to attack whites but i was too worried about how many people would probably support his actions.


I think Sowell's analysis is pretty nonsensical but if progressive thought is locked in opposition to gun rights we're pretty much screwed given progressive thought eventually always wins out in the long run to some degree. Progressive is really a relative term as the founding fathers were about as progressive as one could be for their time. Their belief in an ideal solution to their problem of the times, in spite of collateral damage, is the only reason we exist today. Really though both views have proven to be more than willing to accept collateral damage to either resist or cause change. No side is also any more willing to compromise than the other. Seeking a better solution or way of being does not equate to believing in a perfect solution. Rather many simply believe that one should not let perfect be the enemy of good.

If we really want to preserve gun rights we must start appealing to a broader base and quite with the insults and alienation of anybody who doesn't fit a certain right wing mold.

Mike OTDP
March 7, 2013, 12:59 PM
There's an Ugly Truth about American society. We have always had a Designated Scapegoat Group. Or two. Groups that could be treated like dirt, without consequence.

Prior to the Civil War, the scapegoats were Catholics in the North, Blacks in the South. After it, immigrants in general (particularly Catholics) and Blacks were scapegoats nationwide.

In the 1930s, we saw a shift. Firearm owners became the new scapegoat. Along with conservatives in general.

Today? We're still the national whipping boy, along with Christians of all denominations, and conservatives.

Akita1
March 7, 2013, 01:04 PM
@Akita: I've been subscribed to Mr. Noir for a while now, He's a good guy. I also like NutnFancy, but Noir get's the ideas across the board much quicker.
Echo that Kick-Down; love their gear reviews.

r1derbike
March 7, 2013, 01:17 PM
We're pariahs, in the minds of the antis.

We own something that gives us the power to live. We will not be victims. We will not let our families (or others, if possible) be raped, murdered, tortured, robbed, carjacked, or home invaded, at gunpoint.

We are not blind to violent society, like the myopic antis seem to be. We take our lives into our own hands, because it is our right.

Political affiliation aside, all of us vote not to be victims. Unfortunately, we must fight to keep that right. I cannot accept that more metropolitan areas will turn into war zones, if we lose our 2nd amendment. I cannot accept that antis dictate how I live my life, or how it is taken away, if they have their way.

If we want to preserve our rights, skeeters, paper punchers, hunters, home defenders and more need to be unified. We have divisive behavior in our own ranks. It's embarrassing, really. The arrogant, apathetic, and the, "it will never happen to us" crowd will never even see it coming.

United we stand, divided we fall.

Let's get our own house in order.

Avenger29
March 7, 2013, 01:46 PM
i rarely hear these kinds of attacks from people i know who believe in gun contro

So you've missed all the gun control supporters calling for us gunowners to be killed or imprisoned, have you?

THOSE kind of people are the reason I own guns, and lots of them.

JustinJ
March 7, 2013, 01:56 PM
Today? We're still the national whipping boy, along with Christians of all denominations, and conservatives.

Give me a break. The right blames the left for all of our ills just as the left blames the right. One side crying foul when the other returns fire is lame.

Christians make up an over whelming majority of of this country. Pretending to be a poor little oppressed minority group is ridiculous.

So you've missed all the gun control supporters calling for us gunowners to be killed or imprisoned, have you?

Of course there are extremists out there making inflamatory statements. That is hardly a representation of the norm.

sleepyone
March 7, 2013, 02:20 PM
Christians make up an over whelming majority of of this country. Pretending to be a poor little oppressed minority group is ridiculous.

People who CALL themselves Christians certainly make up the majority of the people in this country. Polls vary from between 85-95 percent of Americans view themselves as Christians. However, people who are actually Bible-believing followers of Jesus Christ is far below that number, so we are indeed the minority in this country. Many people believe they are Christian simply because they were born in a "Christian" nation of which the U.S. is certainly not anymore. Or they believe they are Christian because their parents called themselves Christians even though they could not really tell you what that meant.

There is a saying "Going to the garage does not make you a car anymore than going to church makes you a Christian." I've met many people who when asked will say they are Christians yet their lifestyle and worldview contradicts that.

I've travelled to several countries overseas and foreigners automatically assume every American is a Christian. The terms are interchangable. Identifying yourself as a "Follower of Jesus Christ" is how you must distinguish yourself from the generic term Christian when explaining your faith in countries such as Africa, China and the Middle East. That term is needed over here as well.

Billy Shears
March 7, 2013, 02:21 PM
A argument i've heard instead is that we can't rely on the off chance that somebody with a concealed gun will be there to take out the bad guy. Realistacally, even if we remove all gun free zones, the chances of there being a person with a concealed weapon who is competent enough to use it is probably not great. My reply has always been "that does not mean i should not be able to make the choice to carry the means to defend myself".
Yet there have been a couple of incidents where an armed civilian was on the scene and potentially stopped a massacre. The "problem" from the standpoint of this argument is that because there is no massacre, the antis can deny it's a valid example.

Seriously? The vitriol on this board against differences of opinion on the issue is quite extreme. I don't spend much time on boards advocating gun control (are there any?) but i rarely hear these kinds of attacks from people i know who believe in gun control. Sure, there are bloggers out there who make offensive statements but that is certainly common on both sides. To be honest there are quite a few in the gun community who seem to make every effort to feed into the negative stereotypes against us. I thought about making a thread the other day condeming Larry Pratt for going on the Solomon Show and the discussion about Obama raising a black army to attack whites but i was too worried about how many people would probably support his actions.
You think I'm spreading vitriol? If you care to, take a gander at this thread from a board I used to post on: http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/13068/ (I don't jump into the argument until page 9.) You'll see what I'm talking about in action. Not just disagreement with my argument, but ridicule, derision, and contempt from a couple of the liberal posters on the board. They're not representative of all liberals, by any means, but they absolutely are representative of the more dogmatic and extreme left sort of liberal. And the more ardently liberal one tends to be, the more one tends to have the unconstrained vision.

I think Sowell's analysis is pretty nonsensical but if progressive thought is locked in opposition to gun rights we're pretty much screwed given progressive thought eventually always wins out in the long run to some degree.
I don't think it's nonsensical at all. If you read the book of his I referenced, he illustrates his points with an enormous weight of evidence and specific examples. It's an observable trend he's pointing out.

Progressive is really a relative term as the founding fathers were about as progressive as one could be for their time. Their belief in an ideal solution to their problem of the times, in spite of collateral damage, is the only reason we exist today. Really though both views have proven to be more than willing to accept collateral damage to either resist or cause change. No side is also any more willing to compromise than the other. Seeking a better solution or way of being does not equate to believing in a perfect solution. Rather many simply believe that one should not let perfect be the enemy of good.

If we really want to preserve gun rights we must start appealing to a broader base and quite with the insults and alienation of anybody who doesn't fit a certain right wing mold.
Who says one has to be right wing? It's not like there is a precise correlation between the unconstrained vision and the left, and the constrained vision and the right. In fact, the unconstrained vision falls more in the political center, because the further to the far left and the far right you go, the more authoritarian one tends to be.

Sam1911
March 7, 2013, 02:45 PM
People who CALL themselves Christians certainly make up the majority of the people in this country. ...Many people believe they are Christian simply because they were born in a "Christian" nation of which the U.S. is certainly not anymore. Or they believe they are Christian because their parents called themselves Christians even though they could not really tell you what that meant. OMG! That sounds like my grandmother! "Oh, they THINK they're Christians! But they'll find out differently someday!" :D

As much fun as that tangent might be, we don't do religious discussion here for reasons that aught to be quite obvious by now. So, let's end that side trip.

Thanks.

JustinJ
March 7, 2013, 02:48 PM
You think I'm spreading vitriol? If you care to, take a gander at this thread from a board I used to post on: http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/13068/ (I don't jump into the argument until page 9.) You'll see what I'm talking about in action. Not just disagreement with my argument, but ridicule, derision, and contempt from a couple of the liberal posters on the board. They're not representative of all liberals, by any means, but they absolutely are representative of the more dogmatic and extreme left sort of liberal. And the more ardently liberal one tends to be, the more one tends to have the unconstrained vision.

No, I'm not accusing you of spreading vitriol. However, i think it unjustified to claim that liberals are more apt to demonize their opponents than conservatives. What i am saying is that based on this board there is tons of it coming from our side. That's not to say there is none from the other side but the collective "we" have no place playing victim in the war of words.

Who says one has to be right wing? It's not like there is a precise correlation between the unconstrained vision and the left, and the constrained vision and the right. In fact, the unconstrained vision falls more in the political center, because the further to the far left and the far right you go, the more authoritarian one tends to be.

It may not be that one side has to be right wing but come on, let's not kid about which side is supposed to be which. Yes, extremes on either side of the political spectrum do tend to be more authoritarian but that doesn't counter my point.

Billy Shears
March 7, 2013, 03:04 PM
No, I'm not accusing you of spreading vitriol. However, i think it unjustified to claim that liberals are more apt to demonize their opponents than conservatives. What i am saying is that based on this board there is tons of it coming from our side. That's not to say there is none from the other side but the collective "we" have no place playing victim in the war of words.
I'm not interested in playing victim; I am interested in knowing my enemy. Certainly people other than leftists and liberals are quite capable of demonizing or dehumanizing their enemies. I never claimed otherwise. But I think Sowell is correct, it tends to be somewhat more common among doctrinaire liberals -- not only has he supported his case well with abundant examples, it's something that jibes with my own personal experience. And I think he has put his finger on the reason why: it's a tendency that arises out of their fundamental view of the world and human nature.

It may not be that one side has to be right wing but come on, let's not kid about which side is supposed to be which. Yes, extremes on either side of the political spectrum do tend to be more authoritarian but that doesn't counter my point.
Why are you surprised at which side is supposed to be which? Look at the gun control bills being laid out on the table now in states across the country and at the federal level. You can't deny, the great majority of them are coming at us from liberal politicians.

JustinJ
March 7, 2013, 03:21 PM
I'm not interested in playing victim; I am interested in knowing my enemy. Certainly people other than leftists and liberals are quite capable of demonizing or dehumanizing their enemies. I never claimed otherwise. But I think Sowell is correct, it tends to be somewhat more common among doctrinaire liberals -- not only has he supported his case well with abundant examples, it's something that jibes with my own personal experience. And I think he has put his finger on the reason why: it's a tendency that arises out of their fundamental view of the world and human nature.

My experience tells me something different. I certaily believe right wing pundits tend to be far more nasty than left wing; Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, etc.

While it is important to know one's enemy it's just as important to know one's "friends" and it seems most are too busy attacking to look at their own side objectively. But we can agree to disagree. I'm sure we can agree though that both do it excessively to the detriment of us all. The problem is most only complain when the other side does it and seem to love it from their one side.

Why are you surprised at which side is supposed to be which? Look at the gun control bills being laid out on the table now in states across the country and at the federal level. You can't deny, the great majority of them are coming at us from liberal politicians.

I'm not surprised by it, i just reject Sowell's premise. Yes, there are some grains of truth in it but i do disagree with many of his conclusions. There are by the way quite a few studies out concering the pyschology and brain structures of liberals and conservatives.

Ehtereon11B
March 7, 2013, 03:27 PM
I tried starting a firearms safety course on campus during my undergrad years (around when Virginia tech shooting) and was told "We don't want to promote violence." Which made me laugh because this was at a military school. So I got some alumni together and a few police officers to form the club off campus. Same year the school spent $3 Million setting up a campus wide emergency notification system to send warnings of active shooters, gas leaks etc. Huge waste of money compared to allowing campus carry.

Billy Shears
March 7, 2013, 03:40 PM
My experience tells me something different. I certaily believe right wing pundits tend to be far more nasty than left wing; Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, etc.
Really? I don't think they can hold a candle to Amanda Marcotte, Randi Rhodes, Touré, Eric Alterman, Keith Olberman, et al. Maybe Savage can be as nasty as they are, but I've always dismissed him as a fringe wacko anyway.

While it is important to know one's enemy it's just as important to know one's "friends" and it seems most are too busy attacking to look at their own side objectively. But we can agree to disagree. I'm sure we can agree though that both do it excessively to the detriment of us all. The problem is most only complain when the other side does it and seem to love it from their one side.
Oh I complain when both sides do it. That's why I've always actively avoided listening to Savage most of the time, and it's why I don't think much of Ann Coulter, for example. Their extremism and invective tends to drown out whatever good arguments they may make, and they bring conservatives into disrepute more than they help it.

I'm not surprised by it, i just reject Sowell's premise. Yes, there are some grains of truth in it but i do disagree with many of his conclusions. There are by the way quite a few studies out concering the pyschology and brain structures of liberals and conservatives.
You might look up the recent ones by Jonathan Haidt. His research converted him from a self-described liberal to a centrist. Also interesting, he found that conservatives could imitate liberals pretty well, but not the other way around. In other words, when asked to answer a series of survey questions as they felt their political opponents would answer them, conservatives could accurately answer the questions the way a liberal would, but the reverse was not true at all. It suggests at least the possibility that conservatives may understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives.

ApacheCoTodd
March 7, 2013, 03:50 PM
There's an Ugly Truth about ****** society. We have always had a Designated Scapegoat Group. Or two. Groups that could be treated like dirt, without consequence.
Today? We're still the national whipping boy, along with Christians of all denominations, and conservatives.
Well... Don't beat up on us - and yourself - too much, it of course is not just America but most any society. It's only an issue of open awareness of the sentiments and actions.

SSN Vet
March 7, 2013, 04:13 PM
Welcome to the new apartheid!

it could get ugly really fast...

things will accelerate if the Dimwhits take the house and 60 seats in the senate in '14

Then you'll see the 'real' agenda

JustinJ
March 7, 2013, 04:34 PM
Really? I don't think they can hold a candle to Amanda Marcotte, Randi Rhodes, Touré, Eric Alterman, Keith Olberman, et al. Maybe Savage can be as nasty as they are, but I've always dismissed him as a fringe wacko anyway.

We can disagree on which is nastier but as i understand those i listed have much larger followings which seems to say more about what appeals to more of their base.

Regardless, we have no right to judge or complain about insults given how we so frequently sling them.

Shadow 7D
March 7, 2013, 05:08 PM
Regardless, we have no right to judge or complain about insults given how we so frequently sling them.
Justin, Insults really, disagreement, means I'm a racist terrorist, yet calling a leftist an idiot, or anti or dimocat is...
PLEASE
PLEASE
PLEASE
where is a conservative pundit who has called for HALF the crap that hose people have?
where is the condemnation of Marh for calling for a woman to be raped, where is the RABID (remember the guy who lost cause CONSERVATIVES were condemning him on 'real rape' comments) condemnation of liberal pundits????

Crickets, crickets crickets
and yet I should be killed in the town square? cause I own guns and don't groupthink like them, now tell me?

JustinJ
March 7, 2013, 05:24 PM
where is a conservative pundit who has called for HALF the crap that hose people have?
where is the condemnation of Marh for calling for a woman to be raped, where is the RABID (remember the guy who lost cause CONSERVATIVES were condemning him on 'real rape' comments) condemnation of liberal pundits????

No, no crickets. So because a conservative pundit has not directed insults at you specifically it's okay for him or her to say whatever about people of a different political persuasion?

So you pretty much just proved my point though. You are full of anger over something somebody you disagre with said(which i'm pretty sure is a lie) and just go on with no problem about your side's vitriol. Why aren't you complaining about Limbaugh's slut comment? A litte hypocritical, no?

Shadow 7D
March 7, 2013, 05:40 PM
No justin, I'm not full of anger (thanks for projecting< It's an effective way to minimize what I say, by claiming I'm not rational, rather I'm partisan for emotional reasons)
I'm pissed at the LACK of civil discourse
you express a mindset, there is no speaking of conflicting views
If you disagree with many liberals, in MY experience, you are attacked, not discussed, just instantly put into insults and accusations.

And of course the conservative is the 'bad guy' no matter what a liberal does, it's someone else's fault....
Disagree with them, there is something wrong with YOU that you don't agree...
and you are always at fault, they are the victim

So, in "civil" discourse, it's all right for 'Liberal' leaders to call for the rape of people, speak of the need to execute 'racist NRA terrorist'
But, disagree with them, and you are insulting them... and need to shut up

what you have here are methods to SHUT DOWN the conversation (rules for radicals is about NOT talking)
Instead you minimize (technical term) the opposition scream you are right at the top you your lungs

JustinJ
March 7, 2013, 05:52 PM
No justin, I'm not full of anger (thanks for projecting)
I'm pissed at the LACK of civil discourse
you express a mindset, there is no speaking of conflicting views
If you disagree with many liberals, in MY experience, you are attacked, not discussed, just instantly put into insults and accusations.

I wasn't projecting, just reading a tone. You have 6.7K posts on this board so I have to assume your experience matches mine that conservatives do the exact same thing.

When i hear people on the left make broad insults against conservatives or complain about right wing vitriol i call them on it just the same. But i seem to be the only one who objects to it evenly.

Regardless, unless we accept that a love of guns must expand to a wider demographic and start trying to appeal to a greater diversity gun rights have no hope. White republican males is a shrining demographic and can't continue holding onto gun rights by itself. If any left leaning or middle of the road person stumbles onto this board we'll be lucky if they last beyond a few threads.

Shadow 7D
March 7, 2013, 05:54 PM
No, no crickets. So because a conservative pundit has not directed insults at you specifically it's okay for him or her to say whatever about people of a different political persuasion?

So you pretty much just proved my point though. You are full of anger over something somebody you disagre with said(which i'm pretty sure is a lie) and just go on with no problem about your side's vitriol. Why aren't you complaining about Limbaugh's slut comment? A litte hypocritical, no?
No, what's resounding in silence is the LACK of comment/condemnation of people like Mahr
The right, says, 'these people go too far'
Where are these people in the left, the leaders are silent (and Obama NEVER gave back the money he took from Mahr....)

Shadow 7D
March 7, 2013, 05:59 PM
Centrist are radicalized by polarization, cooperation....
there was an analyses I read a few years ago on 'center issues'
The gist was that there was extensive polarization, the current politics don't help
and this administration is running 'divide and conquer'

Don't like it one bit at all
I'm a fiscal conservative, and mostly socially liberal (in the original meaning, which puts me to a rather libertarian view, (not capital L))

and sadly there doesn't seem to be a place for me in current politics.

I have to assume your experience matches mine that conservatives do the exact same thing.
as for this, no, not YET, go check out the Democratic Underground, you would think you were at a clan meeting if you switched pejoratives.

JustinJ
March 7, 2013, 05:59 PM
No, what's resounding in silence is the LACK of comment/condemnation of people like Mahr
The right, says, 'these people go too far'
Where are these people in the left, the leaders are silent (and Obama NEVER gave back the money he took from Mahr....)

I'm not going to get into debating what Maher did or did not say but there was actually plenty of condemnation from the right wing media. That's completely beside the point. Even if he did say it how does that make right wing vitriol okay?

slim76
March 7, 2013, 06:13 PM
I don't have any problem with right wing "vitriol" because I don't consider it vitriol, I believe it to be the truth.
In fact, it's more than just a belief, it's who I am.
My problem with liberal vitriol is that it's all a bunch of lies based upon irrational thoughts of people I disagree with. I disagree with them because they are wrong :).
However, barring a civil war, I'm sure we're all about to start getting along soon. :evil:

JRH6856
March 7, 2013, 06:29 PM
I don't have any problem with right wing "vitriol" because I don't consider it vitriol, I believe it to be the truth.
In fact, it's more than just a belief, it's who I am.
My problem with liberal vitriol is that it's all a bunch of lies based upon irrational thoughts of people I disagree with. I disagree with them because they are wrong :).
However, barring a civil war, I'm sure we're all about to start getting along soon. :evil:
That pretty much sums it up. And if you change the names and swap sides it still sums it up. :scrutiny:

Sam1911
March 7, 2013, 07:18 PM
We've gone plenty far enough away from GUN issues into the swampy territory of libera-vs.-conservative rhetoric. And that's not a High Road topic.

If you enjoyed reading about "Aren't gun owners people too?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!