1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why do so many Liberals Love Firearms

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by colemanw, Feb 16, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. colemanw

    colemanw member

    I am a moderate liberal, I love firearms, and believe whole heartedly in the right to keep and bear arms RKBA!!

    I am not looking for political fighting!!

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

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

    Tell us why you feel the way you do and what you can do to protect our rights!!
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2009
  2. cbrgator

    cbrgator Well-Known Member

    Because the desire to protect yourself and your family transcends partisanship.
  3. pugmug

    pugmug member

    I guess I am a lib on some things,mid ground on others and cons on most.Libs are loud about their stance but most of the time need to shut the hell up!
  4. colemanw

    colemanw member

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

    rbernie Well-Known Member

    So what do you suggest we do to encourage the more liberal of the politicians to abandon their efforts at gun control?

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

    cbrgator Well-Known Member

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

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

    colemanw member

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

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

    colemanw member

    the biggest thing i can think of is that there are many more good citizens armed than criminals... why would we want to change that?
  9. pugmug

    pugmug member

    Since the dawn of human kind people kill people.What difference does it make how?Wild animals,by the way we humans are also, will keep doing so for what ever reason we deem just,period!
  10. sig220mw

    sig220mw Well-Known Member

    Not all liberals are Washington type liberals. The Washington type (left wing anti-American) liberal is anything but liberal. True liberals want to hear all points of view and encourage people to dialogue. The liberals in charge of the Democrat party today shout down or censor opposite points of view. They only have room for their own dogma. You are right, more mainstream liberals such as yourself should make yourselves heard and known. Let them know where you agree with them but also where you don't. The ones they are hearing now are the extremists in Washington, big news organizations and Hollywood.
  11. FullEffect1911

    FullEffect1911 Well-Known Member

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

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

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

    colemanw member

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

    yes! thats the dream!
  13. GRIZ22

    GRIZ22 Well-Known Member

    Writing letters to them won't accomplish anything. The only thing I've ever known to open their eyes is a trip to the range.

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

    Get the converts you can though.
  14. JShirley

    JShirley Administrator Staff Member

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

  15. colemanw

    colemanw member

  16. SHusky57

    SHusky57 Well-Known Member

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

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

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

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

    pugmug member

    Humans are the wildest animals because we can think, reason not go on,oh never mind!
  18. JImbothefiveth

    JImbothefiveth Well-Known Member

    Because this is a firearm forum, and if they didn't, they probably wouldn't be here.

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

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

    pugmug member

    JShirley,what does a notification in a P.M. mean?
  20. gossamer

    gossamer Well-Known Member

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), who declared that the purposes of the Second Amendment "include self-defense, hunting, sport, and some certainly would say, as would I, the protection of individual rights against a potentially despotic central government."
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page