Inclusivity in gun culture will be the only thing that saves the 2A

daniel craig said:

But they reflect the point of the Oroginal post.

Click to expand...

Yeah it most certainly gives a clear example of the issues we’re discussing, no doubt about that.

daniel craig said:

Many of those people have never had equal representation in “those institutions that gave us the 2nd amendment” so part of me can’t blame Them for wanting to overturn those institutions.

Click to expand...

To what end? I understand the sympathy but if the end result is less or no 2A rights, I can not support those groups.

I am fortunate that I do not belong to a organization that has a rule ". No member will quit their post until properly relieved". or "no one Talk to the Police about their club".

A lot of celebrities said the exact same thing as your last sentence in post #42 , and they'd have more options as to where to go. Do You? Canada? Say goodbye to your pistols, and don't forget to register your guns. The list gets slimmer past that.
While there is a certain cabal that has pushed their agenda far past equality, and yes, these things are happening, I think the average American sees the lunacy behind it, and it will eventually be corrected. I come here to be refreshed from seeing posts like yours on other gun forums. This is supposed to be The High Road.

Looking at the list of scoundrels in the original post, as it happens, I am a member of two of them. Of course, I am also a member of the NRA and SAF.

I am in agreement with the OP, to win we need a big tent, not a small one that consistently expels people for not being in lockstep on every issue. Further, the "all in" for a single party is a poor long term move. Both parties need to see that there is strong support for the rights of gun owners within their ranks. Both parties need to see that supporting the rights of gun owners is a winning position.

We, as supporters of the rights of gun owners, need to have as big of a tent as possible. Within that tent, we may disagree on how to build the best vibrant and lasting economy, how to provide the best healthcare, how to best prepare the children for the future, or ao a myriad of other issues; however, within that tent, the only thing we need to agree on is securing the rights of gun owners. That is a big tent. Yes, it is a bit more chaotic than a small tent where all are in agreement on each and every point of interest, but that big tent will have more influence on the issue that it was erected to defend.

The 2A isn't my top priority when voting *gasp* but it is very high on the list. The first position that one must get by to get my vote is protection of the unborn (a right to murder), after that we can start talking about the 2A. So while a "big tent" for the 2A sounds nice, I won't share my "big tent" with people of certain beliefs. Plain and simple. And it's not just voting, I will speak out against any group that supports abortion no matter their take on the 2A, so that shoots a hole in we need to accept anyone who supports 2A in my mind. This is me just trying to distill my beliefs to the basic level in my mind for others to see the juxtaposition that inclusiveness puts a person in when contrasting beliefs are side by side.

Inclusiveness sounds nice in theory; but there is more to life than the 2A *gasp*.

Moderators: I'm not going further into what I said above but simply stating my opinion as it relates to inclusiveness of other groups is based not solely on their 2A support. I know and respect that this is a firearms only topic so feel free to moderate my post if needed.

Jack Ryan said:

NO ONE IS DENYING THOSE FRUIT CAKES ANY THING!

Click to expand...

Blind hatred. Similar to the blind hatred behind TDS.

Jack Ryan said:

No one is stopping them from anything. It would be against the law to treat them exactly the same way society treats a straight, white, law abiding adult male.

Click to expand...

False.

Also, Pink Pistols is solidly 2A but you probably dont know that because you can't get past the blind hatred.

daniel craig said:

Very few of the listed groups have those desires. They want a 2A culture that benefits them as much as it does other people in more traditional groups.

Click to expand...

To be honest - and I say this to myself as much as anyone else - what do those of us not involved in those groups really know about them? Are our opinions based on the whole of their membership, or on the extreme examples paraded in front of the public eye to stoke fear & division? Is it exactly the same as white conservative gun owners being portrayed as trigger-happy racists based not on the norm, but the rare exception?

daniel craig said:

And that perception of threat could be related to why they created their group in the first place.

Click to expand...

I'd be careful about speaking in generalities. As others mentioned, no one should be excluded based on their race, sexual orientation, class, etc. I would definitely exclude someone who's goal is to turn our country into a communist one, which is the push that's currently going on.

Robert said:

The people that are now embracing the 2A to promote their ideology of fear and intolerance are not the allies we need.

Click to expand...

That exact approach has been the bread and butter of the NRA for at least 30 years. We need to do better, allies-wise.

I know a man who is openly homosexual, and suffers daily ridicule and hosility from many folks around him, some of those being family members. This man is a hard worker, a responsible adult, and I have zero qualms with him at all. He absolutely loves guns and I have shot with him, and helped him to learn to shoot a pistol well enough to get by. The man refuses to own a gun though based on what “gun culture” is, and especially how it is seen in his subset of the population. Just like this guy there are other people in other subsets of the population who are discriminated against constantly who would be great advocates of the 2A if they could shake off the stigma of “gun culture”. Those are the people who we need on our side, but we aren’t going to get there without looking inward first. There is a lot of negativity that WE need to address internally before we can retake the world so-to-speak. We need to be supportive inwardly, and that means being purposefully inclusive. The guy who only like traditional arms is a brother to us, and should never be referred to as a “fudd”. The young guy who likes tactical gear similarly is a brother, and should not be called a “mall ninja”. The derogatory terms need to stop, all around. Will there be disagreements within the greater group, absolutely, but we must unite as a family of groups with one common goal and be inclusive. Yes every family has a little bit of dysfunction but that’s OK as long as family sticks up for each other. If there is a person who we disagree with on everything else in life, but who is legally able, responsible, and with good intentions wants to own a firearm then they need to be taken in as part of the family. Shattered support does little, and guys like my friend feel abandoned by many groups. WE need to be the group who supports them and gives them a place to feel welcomed because a united group with good intentions is very hard to overcome. A divided group can fight amongst themselves making it easy to be overtaken. So, please, let’s stop with the negativity, and simply support.

Ed Ames said:

The implication folks need to be aware of is that the sort of people who are most likely to be open to pro-gun arguments are also innately pro-personal choice when it comes to things like sexuality, recreational activities, and so on. If you package pro-gun with a platform that tries to dictate personal choices about other subjects, you create a situation where people need to choose which issues are most important to them, and guns are likely to lose that conflict.

Click to expand...

This is a conversation I had with a fellow decades ago, before politics were something I cared much for, when he told me I was not a Republican but a Libertarian, he was right. Both the right and the left have their things they want to force upon others and I am not in lock step with either party but I do have my priorities and am not a complete idiot, so I don’t bother to waste my vote on people I completely agree with but have zero chance of being elected.

jmorris said:

This is a conversation I had with a fellow decades ago, before politics were something I cared much for, when he told me I was not a Republican but a Librarian and he was right. Both the right and the left have their things they want to force upon others and I am not in lock step with either party but I do have my priorities and am not a complete idiot, so I don’t bother to waste my vote on people I completely agree with but have zero chance of being elected.

Click to expand...

Damn auto correct.

LOL! Yep. That’s what I get for using my wife’s Apple, liberal interpretation of what I intended to say. That said, I did read more gun magazines while I was volunteering to run the periodical section of the library than any other...

hso said:

Pink Pistols is one of the oldest groups that puts the lie to the Anti caricature of what gun owners are.

Click to expand...

Very true.

They've been around for close to/about 20 yrs depending when you start counting.

That's longer than a lot of members here have been an adult and I'd bet a lot of members here are not even members of any 2A advocacy group.

They may have been around longer than THR...

WestKentucky said:

The guy who only like traditional arms is a brother to us, and should never be referred to as a “fudd”.

Click to expand...

He should if he would throw other types of firearms he doesn't like under the bus 'as long as they don't come for my <insert firearm here> ' Beto O'Rourke aside, some states have recently enacted legislation the make many 'tradtional arms' AR's in their eyes. There is no more, 'they will never come for single shot trap guns' , or lever guns, or tubular magazined .22's. They want to ban them ALL. Maybe not call him a Fudd to his face, but try to make him see the reality that is happening around him.

I think we're over race and sexual orientation, per se, being a bar to joining the gun community. The hangup now appears to be about political orientation. Reading the American Rifleman, one gets the impression that "socialists" are responsible for everything that is wrong with this country, and that they are the arch-enemies of gun ownership. It just doesn't compute, to this segment of the gun community, that there might be "socialists" who own guns and are in favor of gun rights. (I put "socialists" in quotes because many on the right don't really know what "socialism" is. They conflate it with totalitarianism. Or, they call every Democrat a socialist or a "commie." Half of Europe is ruled by "socialist" parties and they're considered mainstream.)

The biggest enemies of gun rights in this country are not ideological leftists, but are well-meaning (but ignorant) suburban soccer moms and other do-gooders, supported and egged on by a few wealthy elitists. The core of the antigun movement (Bloomberg, etc.) are actually plutocratic polar opposites of the left. To call Bloomberg a leftist is laughable.

Folks are going off the deep end again. I've had to deleted some. Look, we support the 2nd Amendment. If a group is peaceful and you don't like their politics - we don't care.

No tin foil conspiracies. Take the hint.

That is a problem many here won’t accept.

We have to go in with the folks who will throw AR15s under the bus. Your going to have to share a table with folks who partially believe what you fully believe if you want to win this fight.

The world is not one dimensional. It doesn’t just revolve around guns or abortion or whatever other polarizing political topic.

I have a fear though too. If this ragtag band can unite and can decisively win this fight, then what’s next?

Invariably, we will be at odds with each other yet again over the differences we chose to ignore for the short term goal of upholding the 2A.