A magnificent example of why not to use "liberal" as an attack/insult

[Kynoch]

I'm from Colorado (I know what it feels like to be insulted by a Liberal) and have no qualms with my views towards them. In my state there was a clear line drawn between what my point of view is and that of Liberals and at every point they intend to or have enacted legislation that runs counter to my 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights.
I have much more in common with a duck call maker from Louisiana than some Rino Republicans from California and that is not likely to change but this discussion has been interesting albeit tiring after at least 2 lock downs and 3 regurgitation's by the same OP, it is obvious that he is quite passionate with regards to the topic as are the moderators who allow the highly charged political topic to remain open. I doubt their persistence will change people like me nor mine them but given what I have seen of those with the Liberal view I will gladly allow those "Millions" who support the 2a but are just to offended by the well earned pejorative use of the word to leave me and those with my view in peace, I will go it alone rather than have some Sunshine Patriot along who while they can't vote for a candidate will "do other things" to support the cause. No thank you please I like to look forward in a fight rather than having to watch the guy who's supposed to have my back.

Are you serious? People are too sensitive to your rude behavior? That's your excuse? Really?

The problem is you don't "go it alone." If you actually stopped and thought about this matter you might realize that. Your behavior and that of your like-minded brethren spew a toxic pall over the entire pro-2A camp. And it all boils down to nothing more than you not being able to control your emotions.

You and yours are a problem for all 2A supporters. There's no disputing that.

People who knowingly offend and drive away supporters of the 2A, cannot themselves be supporters of the 2A.

 

[Kynoch]

Sam, I am sorry, but I do consider Liberals to be the enemy. I am willing to work with them for common goals. But I oppose their political philosophy very strongly.

Think of it as WWII, the U.S. and Great Britain, joined with a government that was every bit as morally bankrupt and ultimately as dangerous to our common interest as NAZI Germany was.

We allied ourselves with Stalin to defeat a threat we considered more immediate, but in the long run our supposed "ally" proved to be a bigger threat than Hitler.

I will work with Liberals on shared goals, but I cannot go sing "Kumbaya" with them. The differences are too great.

If they are willing to at least support "shall issue concealed carry licenses", or better yet "Constitutional carry", and work to drop all the silly restrictions on what type of guns I or anyone else can own, or where I can carry them, then I will work with them on that.

At least with the very few who do.

"Liberals" are the enemy? You're willing to work with the enemy for "common goals?"

Utter claptrap. You're just trying to justify your rude behavior.

 

[Kynoch]

So are you guys implying that if we stop associating the word liberal with the anti-gun movement that somehow the Feinsteins and Christies and Obamas of the world are going to stop attacking our rights? If we stop attacking people as Liberals then the city of Chicago will change its course and allow people to carry weapons without a Federal judge having to step in and FORCE them to do it? That NYC will suddenly become "enlightened" and understand that we are all after the same thing?
Liberal and anti-gun are almost synonymous in this world. Sure there are thousands of "Liberals" that are not anti-gun but it is apparent that they have zero say in how their elected officials vote on gun issues. There are probably also thousands of conservatives that are not gun supporters but those are exceptions. Flyers. Outliers. Aberrations.
Few truly anti-gun people are going to change their views just like few are going to change their views.
Sorry but if 10,000 Liberals in CA that are pro-gun voice their opinions it will not make a bit of difference in that state because there are 25 million dyed in the wool Liberals that will out yell them. I have offended some people with my views in the past and I imagine I will do so in the future. That's why they are called personal views. Rosie O'Donnell is never going to agree with me and I am good with that.

Do you make this stuff up as you go a long? What drives your NEED to be rude to those you consider to be "liberals"? Is it simply to feed your ego? To make YOU feel good? There's plenty of downside to your behavior. What's the upside?

 

[KNO3]

Here's why labels aren't helpful: Go to the supermarket and find the mustard aisle... They're all the same, right?

 

[Kynoch]

Yep, i sometimes get called a "liberal" by self professed "conservatives" who use that term like a cuss word. Never mind that they know little about me.

The NRA is pandering to the far right. First the NRA condemned the open carry clowns in TX: Then the NRA backtracked. i'm peeved that the NRA has attacked "liberals". Some in the NRA leadership want NRA members to buy into the entire "conservative" ball of wax: That i will not do.

i've been a member of the NRA for over 50 years: For years i contributed until it hurt. My contributions to the NRA are suspended until i get some answers: For the time being the the number two pro-gun organization is getting my money.

i could care less that the pro-gun politician is a preacher in the mold of John Brown or a liberal lesbian Wiccan. The pro-gunner will get my vote every time.

That's a terrible thing. That's exactly what the ILA did in their "flyover" commercial. It's remarkable that posters here are actually defending that sort of behavior.

 

[Kynoch]

Here's why labels aren't helpful: Go to the supermarket and find the mustard isle... They're all the same, right?

You're equating humans to mustard? Scary...

 

[Sam1911]

So are you guys implying that if we stop associating the word liberal with the anti-gun movement that somehow the Feinsteins and Christies and Obamas of the world are going to stop attacking our rights?

Of course not. Or not immediately.

What it does is to start the process by which their "side" and their party disassociates itself entirely from gun control -- just as it disassociated itself from segregation or prohibition. Not declaring liberal-minded people to be our ENEMY (which is the real problem we're discussing) helps to bring our RKBA message out of the shadow of those people THEY think of as their enemies. Yeah, sure, the Feinsteins and Bradys of the world (the few who are still around) won't change their desire for gun control, but they will become less and less important and central to "their" side's core, and before too long they will be entirely set aside and quietly overlooked.

Just as George Wallace couldn't possibly be a viable Democratic candidate now, because his message of, "Segregation Today, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever!" is completely anathema to the party that had considered him very important once upon a time.

When enough liberal people look around and realize that the NRA isn't fighting THEM and they aren't fighting the NRA, (just using the Association as a stand-in for the larger movement of "US") gun control is going to evaporate as a Dem (or Liberal) party plank.

 

[Wanderling]

So?

So, the Republicans went out of their way to severely limit 4A. Just as the Democrats are trying to do with 2A.

Both parties are bad, and both need to be watched. Very carefully.

The whole "liberal" / "conservative" divide only benefits those who like to divide & conquer.

The real divide is between the people who want the policies that serve the majority of American citizens, and the people pushing policies that only serve some group or groups. The latter like to use the slur terms like "Libs", "Gun nuts", "commies", "fascists" etc.

 

[KNO3]

You're equating humans to mustard? Scary...

Seriously?

 

[X-Rap]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kynoch View Post
You're equating humans to mustard? Scary...

Seriously?

He's loosing all control of his emotions and beginning to behave irrationally.

 

[jrdolall]

Just as George Wallace couldn't possibly be a viable Democratic candidate now, because his message of, "Segregation Today, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever!" is completely anathema to the party that had considered him very important once upon a time.

And the truly funny/scary part of this is that he was re-elected as Governor despite this stance and the vast majority of black voters voted for him.
I was a history major in college and for the life of me I have never been able to figure that out.

 

[X-Rap]

It doesn't surprise me a bit, every election cycle the left votes itself to get a poorer shake than the time before. That's why i won't trust them on any issue regarding my freedom.

 

[OilyPablo]

Gun owners need to do what the left does...........talk about someone losing rights, being squeezed by the rich man. I mean the 2nd Amendment is a civil right and no dead white dude is going to deny me that right.

 

[jrdolall]

Do you make this stuff up as you go a long? What drives your NEED to be rude to those you consider to be "liberals"? Is it simply to feed your ego? To make YOU feel good? There's plenty of downside to your behavior. What's the upside?

Man! You really need to get off your soapbox! I don't recall saying I NEED to be rude to anyone. I did say that I have offended people with my views in the past and will probably do so again in the future. Have you not done this? Have your views never offended anyone? If they did did you change your views to accommodate their views or did you just shut up and go sit in the corner.
My ego? What are you talking about? Where did I mention that I was somehow superior to someone else? Because my views are different?
The upside to my "behavior" is that I am generally proud of my stance as it relates to RKBA and I have introduced many people to the sport. Some of those have been "Liberals"

What drives you to attack someone? I merely pointed out that the word Liberal and the Democratic Party are nearly synonymous in today's world just as Conservative and Republican tend to go hand in hand. If you are offended that someone calls you a Liberal then you have a couple of options. Change your views so that they are considered less Liberal or just accept that your actions lead people to label you as Liberal. Don't be offended because someone else disagrees with you. I'm not offended at all if you are a Democrat, Socialist, Liberal, or any other political "slant".

 

[we are not amused]

"Liberals" are the enemy? You're willing to work with the enemy for "common goals?"

Utter claptrap. You're just trying to justify your rude behavior.

And you don't think you'received not being rude insulting?

 

[jrdolall]

Kynoch must want this thread closed badly. He has over 40 posts in this one thread and has directly attacked many people when they apparently "offended" his liberal views.

To the OP I am glad any time any group stands up to politicians regarding RKBA. I applaud them for their effort and wish them success.

 

[we are not amused]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kynoch View Post
You're equating humans to mustard? Scary...

Seriously?

He's loosing all control of his emotions and beginning to behave irrationally.

What do you mean "beginning to"? He lost it some time ago.

There is no longer any point to responding to him.

 

[we are not amused]

Of course not. Or not immediately.

What it does is to start the process by which their "side" and their party disassociates itself entirely from gun control -- just as it disassociated itself from segregation or prohibition. Not declaring liberal-minded people to be our ENEMY (which is the real problem we're discussing) helps to bring our RKBA message out of the shadow of those people THEY think of as their enemies. Yeah, sure, the Feinsteins and Bradys of the world (the few who are still around) won't change their desire for gun control, but they will become less and less important and central to "their" side's core, and before too long they will be entirely set aside and quietly overlooked.

Just as George Wallace couldn't possibly be a viable Democratic candidate now, because his message of, "Segregation Today, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever!" is completely anathema to the party that had considered him very important once upon a time.

When enough liberal people look around and realize that the NRA isn't fighting THEM and they aren't fighting the NRA, (just using the Association as a stand-in for the larger movement of "US") gun control is going to evaporate as a Dem (or Liberal) party plank.

That sounds good on paper, but I sincerely doubt that there are enough Liberals who are RKBA to really make a difference. Gun loving Democrats, yes! Liberals, I doubt. And even if there are, they like KYNOSH, may be too unstable and sensitive to work with.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Why? Out of ignorance? Out of a misplaced sense of pride? Simply because it feels good to you to do so?

Nope. Out of experience and the understanding that the fear of supported generalizations are one of the single most crippling aspects of PC in general and also the greatest weapon wielded in extending ridiculous debates used as a deliberate tool to impede progress on an issue. "Progressivism" not withstanding.



Ohhhh, I get it. Yet another application of the elementary schoolyard "he started it!", huh? How obscenely obtuse and undisciplined on your part.

You're obviously just trolling for argument as the response doesn't even remotely address my sentence, by context or substance.



Bull manure. Offending any individual who exhibits one or more pro-2A qualities is always counterproductive from a 2A rights/support standpoint. I am stunned you do not realize that.

That is entirely dependent upon relative goals. It is not the least counterproductive with regards to my goals and a very great many like me. For instance: A "Liberal" gun owner who hunts regularly yet sides against me on mag capacity, CCW or the like is not my ally and should he take "offense", it is not my concern.



We do know that you have made some profoundly untrue comments on this thread. Comments just about anyone could see right through. You're just upset that you can't sell them here.

Interesting, I wonder what said is "profoundly untrue"? As to selling. There is a great difference between stating one's position and demanding through volume and repetition to be; accepted, believed, bowed down to or lauded. I state my case and defend it as an example of one man's position and ask NO ONE to accept it nor take it on as their own. Something I've come to accept that died in the wool "liberals" find alien, misunderstood and frightening.


Naw. You just gave a superb example of a quality known as naivete. It's pretty clear you know not what you do. The sad part is that you hurt our RKBA in the process.

No - I state your ignorance of my position is based either upon enforced obtuseness, argumentativeness, disingenuousness or simple inability to understand. The ignorance is in fact based upon naïveté but ignorance none the less.

Funny the amount of standard passive aggressive attacks you've thrown... Seems that you are the one who is upset. No surprise, you're known by your context. Funny, I just now really grasped that you consider disagreement to be rude - go figure. Note, with significance, that I have not done anything but support my own position. I have not attacked the position directly of any other poster that I am aware of. I let others have their opinions and actions yet demand they be held to account for actions and allegiances just as I am. You on the other hand are passively demanding acquiescence, agreement or silence. You know this to be true.

 

[Kynoch]

So, the Republicans went out of their way to severely limit 4A. Just as the Democrats are trying to do with 2A.

Both parties are bad, and both need to be watched. Very carefully.

The whole "liberal" / "conservative" divide only benefits those who like to divide & conquer.

The real divide is between the people who want the policies that serve the majority of American citizens, and the people pushing policies that only serve some group or groups. The latter like to use the slur terms like "Libs", "Gun nuts", "commies", "fascists" etc.

Please remain on subject. This is about not attacking pro-2A individuals -- be they "liberal" or not.

 

[Kynoch]

Kynoch must want this thread closed badly. He has over 40 posts in this one thread and has directly attacked many people when they apparently "offended" his liberal views.

To the OP I am glad any time any group stands up to politicians regarding RKBA. I applaud them for their effort and wish them success.

I don't want this thread closed, but it's very clear that YOU do.

I haven't attacked anyone -- but I have certainly attacked their ideas and excuses.

 

[Kynoch]

Nope. Out of experience and the understanding that the fear of supported generalizations are one of the single most crippling aspects of PC in general and also the greatest weapon wielded in extending ridiculous debates used as a deliberate tool to impede progress on an issue. "Progressivism" not withstanding.

In other words you're concerned that if you're not rude to some pro-2A individuals you'll be guilty of being politically correct? Again, really?

You're obviously just trolling for argument as the response doesn't even remotely address my sentence, by context or substance.

No, I'm just tired of the bull manure. The bull manure spewed by limited/difficult people that ultimately endangers my RKBA.

That is entirely dependent upon relative goals. It is not the least counterproductive with regards to my goals and a very great many like me. For instance: A "Liberal" gun owner who hunts regularly yet sides against me on mag capacity, CCW or the like is not my ally and should he take "offense", it is not my concern.

What IS your goal in this context? Simply to be rude to others? To make you feel as if you are "doing something" pro-2A with your attacks? To go along with your crowd? To puff-up your own ego?

Where exactly is the benefit of the rude behavior we are discussing? What's the benefit of offending people who support the 2a in ANY manner?

Interesting, I wonder what said is "profoundly untrue"? As to selling. There is a great difference between stating one's position and demanding through volume and repetition to be; accepted, believed, bowed down to or lauded. I state my case and defend it as an example of one man's position and ask NO ONE to accept it nor take it on as their own. Something I've come to accept that died in the wool "liberals" find alien, misunderstood and frightening.

Yet you keep bloviating. You keep trying to sell your belief that your behavior is justified. That somehow it's good.

No - I state your ignorance of my position is based either upon enforced obtuseness, argumentativeness, disingenuousness or simple inability to understand. The ignorance is in fact based upon naïveté but ignorance none the less.

Naw. I'm simply not accepting your rude behavior to others as being in any way 2A positive. Simply put, you're part of the problem. You are anti-2A in your actions.

Funny the amount of standard passive aggressive attacks you've thrown... Seems that you are the one who is upset. No surprise, you're known by your context. Funny, I just now really grasped that you consider disagreement to be rude - go figure. Note, with significance, that I have not done anything but support my own position. I have not attacked the position directly of any other poster that I am aware of. I let others have their opinions and actions yet demand they be held to account for actions and allegiances just as I am. You on the other hand are passively demanding acquiescence, agreement or silence. You know this to be true.

You're just upset that this thread has not been locked due to your best efforts and those of others. You're upset there's actually some constructive dialogue on this matter -- that no, it's not OK to be rude to pro-2A individuals no matter what their political affiliations are.

No question your mindset is still fairly prevalent (depending on where in the US) and accepted at ranges, gun shops and plenty of on-line forums. It's very refreshing to see it's not here on THR.

 

[jrdolall]

Again you are addressing specific posts and their opinions. Does that make YOU feel better? Do you feel better to be RUDE to people? Of course you do. You have shown it time and time again.
Your politics are under attack and you don't like it. Guess what? Your attitude towards the individuals making these comments does nothing to further your cause that Liberals can be good guys. You aren't a good guy. You're a guy that has something in common with other people on this forum but your rude responses to people that have different opinions than your own take you out of what I would call the "good guy" category.
As I stated earlier I applaud the effort of any group, Liberal or Conservative, that supports RKBA. Get a bunch of Liberals together and protest outside Target or Chipotle and I will support that protest, probably even join in.
I applaud Bill Maher for standing up for Christianity and condemning Islam. That's about the only thing I support him for. He is a complete jerk! A celebrity with a soapbox from which he spouts LIBERAL garbage. He is also an Atheist. I seriously doubt that he defended Christianity in order to make Christians more sensitive to his views.

 

[Kynoch]

The excuses offered in this thread for using the term "liberal" as a pejorative or otherwise offending/alienating pro-2A individuals due to their political affiliations are downright pathetic. They include:

* "They started it!"

* It would be politically correct not to be rude.

* No Democrat can be pro-2A so it's my duty to shame/offend them.

* If I'm not rude to them I magically become them.

No wonder the pro-2A camp struggles so mightily here in the US. I suspect most pro-2A "liberals" (and there are millions of them) are far more protective of 2A rights than many self-professed "conservatives." They actually tend to vote, they get involved rather than run, and most seem to have far wider societal ties/connection than their "conservative" counterparts.

 

[Robert]

Since this has devolved into calling conservatives the problem, didn't think we were labeling people, bickering and personal squabbles this is done.