I made a little progress with a "progressive"

You might be surprised how many 'progressive' gun owners there are out there. I know - I happen to be one and I now no fewer than 20 in my social/family circle. We are all armed to the teeth, liberal, and believe in the 2nd Amendment.

The problem is that the NRA has become, in general, a shill for the Republican party (e.g. the Dana Loesch video). It is good for raising money for the NRA, (and getting folks frothy) but it sets up gun ownership as a 'right-wing' issue, when it should definitely not be so. It gets tied up with 'family values', abortion, immigration, Trump, etc. Many conservative gun owners might not know, but there is a long tradition of liberal gun ownership, extending back to the Reconstruction era when freed slaves would have to arm themselves against the KKK, right on up to the Deacons of Defense in the 1960s.

In the long run, it is a big mistake not to disentangle gun rights from conservative values, but so far, the NRA has not figured out that the smart play is the long game. There are plenty of pro-gun Democrats (e.g. Jim Webb) and anti-gun Republicans (Chris Christie). The NRA needs to focus on turning the Democratic platform rather than preaching to the choir.

As for the idea that the liberal media is less trustworthy than Fox et al., well, get out of the bubble! Fox roughly equals Huffington, which is why I read neither.

DT

roscoe said:

You might be surprised how many 'progressive' gun owners there are out there. I know - I happen to be one and I now no fewer than 20 in my social/family circle. We are all armed to the teeth, liberal, and believe in the 2nd Amendment.

The problem is that the NRA has become, in general, a shill for the Republican party (e.g. the Dana Loesch video). It is good for raising money for the NRA, (and getting folks frothy) but it sets up gun ownership as a 'right-wing' issue, when it should definitely not be so. It gets tied up with 'family values', abortion, immigration, Trump, etc. Many conservative gun owners might not know, but there is a long tradition of liberal gun ownership, extending back to the Reconstruction era when freed slaves would have to arm themselves against the KKK, right on up to the Deacons of Defense in the 1960s.

In the long run, it is a big mistake not to disentangle gun rights from conservative values, but so far, the NRA has not figured out that the smart play is the long game. There are plenty of pro-gun Democrats (e.g. Jim Webb) and anti-gun Republicans (Chris Christie). The NRA needs to focus on turning the Democratic platform rather than preaching to the choir.

As for the idea that the liberal media is less trustworthy than Fox et al., well, get out of the bubble! Fox roughly equals Huffington, which is why I read neither.

Click to expand...

Roscoe, while you make some good points (and yes there certainly ARE liberals who are armed and believe in the 2A) in general, it is the hard left that contains the hard core gun banners/controllers. The left is not monolithic on this issue.
Nor is the right. Some on the right are OK with bans on AR and similar "evil black rifles" and support ownership of hunting longarms. These are sometimes called "Fudds."
The NRA is a lot of things....one of them is bureaucracy. They cater to the general truth. They attack the gun controllers ....most, but not all, of whom are liberals. Trini to get specific in a 30 second or 60 second TV spot is hard to do.

I haven’t really followed this thread that good, but I couldn’t help but think of the OP when I read this article.....


Only 3 countries in the world protect the right to bear arms in their constitutions
http://www.businessinsider.com/2nd-amendment-countries-constitutional-right-bear-arms-2017-10

Tommygunn said:

in general, it is the hard left that contains the hard core gun banners/controllers.

Click to expand...

Yet the really hard left believes in being armed.

The anti-gun activists fall into two categories: the professional agitators and the "soccer mom" followers. Neither of these groups are what could be called classic leftists. In fact it took a concerted effort on their part to co-opt the Democratic Party platform-writing process. The Democrats originally were not organically anti-gun. This posture was actually imposed on them, invidiously, from outside. And it was helped along by pro-gun people gradually abandoning the Democrats.

AlexanderA said:

Yet the really hard left believes in being armed.

The anti-gun activists fall into two categories: the professional agitators and the "soccer mom" followers. Neither of these groups are what could be called classic leftists. In fact it took a concerted effort on their part to co-opt the Democratic Party platform-writing process. The Democrats originally were not organically anti-gun. This posture was actually imposed on them, invidiously, from outside. And it was helped along by pro-gun people gradually abandoning the Democrats.

Click to expand...

The REALLY HARD LEFT is a fairly recent phenomenon. Classic leftists....they were more "centric." Consider President John F. Kennedy was an NRA member. He was by today's standard a conservative. Even Reagan used to be a Democrat and stated that he did not leave the party, the party left him.

I was speaking in contemporary terms and generalities.

I remember that about Reagan and Kennedy, extremely good points, look how insane McCain has switched over too now

AlexanderA said:

Yet the really hard left believes in being armed.

The anti-gun activists fall into two categories: the professional agitators and the "soccer mom" followers. Neither of these groups are what could be called classic leftists. In fact it took a concerted effort on their part to co-opt the Democratic Party platform-writing process. The Democrats originally were not organically anti-gun. This posture was actually imposed on them, invidiously, from outside. And it was helped along by pro-gun people gradually abandoning the Democrats.

Click to expand...

Tommygunn said:

The REALLY HARD LEFT is a fairly recent phenomenon. Classic leftists....they were more "centric." Consider President John F. Kennedy was an NRA member. He was by today's standard a conservative. Even Reagan used to be a Democrat and stated that he did not leave the party, the party left him.

I was speaking in contemporary terms and generalities.

Click to expand...

The "Democrat Party" hasn't been the Democratic Party for over 60 years.

I don't have patience to read this whole thread right now, but having seen the title I will contribute one experience where I got an anti to think. Probably in preparation to initiate the capacity argument, he asked how many rounds a person needs in his or her firearm. I replied "How many intruders are there?" I could see by the look on his face that he never considered the possibility that a break-in to his home might be perpetrated by more than one person. (This is Los Angeles, we don't get concealed carry permits, but IAC people are more open to the idea of defending themselves and their family in case of a break-in.)

https://www.facebook.com/anarchistrifleassociation/

Speaking of the "hard left," there are several groups like one in the link above, including the Huey P. Newton Gun Club, the Redneck Revolt, and the John Brown Gun Club. I stumbled across these the other day, and it appears that they have one thing in common with most extreme groups -- they seem to have bitter feuds going on among themselves.

roscoe said:

As for the idea that the liberal media is less trustworthy than Fox et al., well, get out of the bubble! Fox roughly equals Huffington, which is why I read neither.

Click to expand...

So who then?

rskent said:

So who then?

Click to expand...

There is nothing unbiased, by definition, but a wide sweep through WSJ, Economist, Reuters, NPR, NYTimes will give you an idea of what is really going on. NPR and NYT have liberalish reporters, but they are not afraid to go after Democrats, and regularly have conservative reporters and opinion pieces. Just look at how Fox and Huffington run breathless and hyperbolic headlines in 90 point italic font - that should tell you something.

JTHunter said:

The "Democrat Party" hasn't been the Democratic Party for over 60 years.

View attachment 767705

Click to expand...

Sorry - that has been debunked:
https://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/socialism.asp

I will take Snope over a random internet meme any day.

But even if he said it - who cares? Some marginal Presbyterian pacifist minister claimed something and we are supposed to care? That meme is pretty close to content-free. But it makes conservatives feel good, so there is that . . .

There is no denying that gun-control is predominantly a Democratic issue, but that is partially the fault of the NRA. How often does the NRA try to pitch the idea of gun ownership to traditional liberal groups? The NRA long ignored the Pink Pistols, a gay-rights gun-ownership group, likely because of the traditional relationship between the NRA and evangelical Christian groups. If the NRA were truly non-partisan, they would be touting the importance of gay citizens being armed to avoid being gay-bashed. But I have certainly never seen that kind of out-reach.

dt

tt

Ask your progressive friends what they think of George Orwell. Then hit them with this:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/39684-that-rifle-on-the-wall-of-the-labourer-s-cottage-or

Lots of double taps goin' on here......

Gun ownership should be a nonpartisan issue. It certainly was, at least up to the 1960's. I don't know where this idea got started, that if you're an activist gun owner, you must have a conservative outlook on things in general. Yet here we are.

Beware of guns being caught up in the culture wars, urban vs. rural and traditionalist vs. progressive. If guns are too closely identified with rural traditionalists -- and it sure looks that way now -- we, as gun owners, will lose in the long run because this is a fast-diminishing demographic.

Flechette said:

It was always a Communist goal since the dawn of Communism. It came to America in the 60's through the American universities. Plenty of leftist activists in the 60's decided to use the universities to "educate" future generations on the evils of capitalism and the virtues of Communism. Gun control was part of the package.

Click to expand...

You seem to be equating Communism with the Democratic Party. When I was growing up -- in the 1950's -- the Democrats were as anticommunist as the Republicans. President Kennedy was a pro-gun (NRA member) anticommunist.

I was in college in the 1960's. I don't recall being indoctrinated on "the evils of capitalism and the virtues of Communism." Quite the opposite. And even the leftists in those days didn't say anything about gun control.

The big push for gun control came after the high-profile assassinations of President Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy -- and it came from "civic-minded" centrists, not from the Left. The main proponent of the Gun Control Act of 1968 was Sen. Thomas Dodd of Connecticut, who was certainly no leftist radical. And of course LBJ, who was an establishment southern Democrat, had a lot to do with it. (LBJ was already a lame duck by the time the GCA passed.)

You can't really say that Communism itself is ideologically anti-gun. The early Communist writers, such as Marx, believed that the proletariat should arm itself. Generally speaking, whenever Communism is in the stage of being a revolutionary movement, it promotes the wide dissemination of weapons. Only after it achieves power does it clamp down on guns, as a means of perpetuating itself in power. All dictatorial regimes, whether of the Right or the Left, do this.

Flechette said:

It was always a Communist goal since the dawn of Communism. It came to America in the 60's through the American universities. Plenty of leftist activists in the 60's decided to use the universities to "educate" future generations on the evils of capitalism and the virtues of Communism. Gun control was part of the package.

The multiple assassinations (JFK, RFK, MLK, etc) and the National Guard shooting at protestors didn't help matters either.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you are equating communism with authoritaranism. There have been PLENTY of right-leaning authoritarian regimes. Most (but clearly not all) of the Latin-American 'strongman' dictators were right-leaning and they had draconian gun control laws for those who were not part of the party in power. Mussolini's Fascist Blackshirts were the only people allowed arms durimg the 1930s. Obviously Germany (a right-wing dictatorship) was similar in the 1930s. It is a common patttern for fascist governments, for obvious reasons. The Soviets were authoritarian, so they also had strict gun control. I am no particular defender of Marxism (no matter how defined), but the Soviet Union did not really resemble anything he advocated.

Also, your knowledge of the history of communism is a little shaky. Communism came to the America long before the 1960s. Eugene Debs first ran for president in 1900. The ideological battle was completely finished in the US by WWII - Aurthur Koestler wrote 'Darkness at Noon' in 1940 and Gareth Jones had published on Stalin's famines in the late 30s. None of this had anything to do with gun control in the USA. That had more to do with the general atmosphere of social engineering, which was certainly the work of both Republicans and Democrats (Johnson and Nixon mostly - Nixon wanted to ban all handguns).

Keep in mind that it was Ronald Reagan who signed the Mulford Act, which was California's first strong gun control effort. And that was very much an authoritarian law designed to facilitate control of one specific anti-authoritarian group (the Black Panthers) that vocally articulated a right to arms in self-defense.