jerkface11
Member
So the consensus is that making a couple of phone calls makes up for helping to elect anti-gun politicians?
A magnificent example of why not to use "liberal" as an attack/insult
- Thread starter Kynoch
- Start date
- Status
Theohazard
Member
Exactly! And I just can't understand why there are so many gun owners who make a conscious effort to drive away people like Chemistry Guy. Why do so many people make an effort to drive away allies and pigeonhole the issue into a partisan one? That's so ignorant and short-sighted that it just bewilders me...Nom de Forum said:
OilyPablo
Member
Maybe because so many liberals are in in your face haters of legal gun owners. I'm not saying ALL but most in my area have a open stated goal of complete removal of guns from citizens. This is not hyperbole. It's the truth. Chemistry Guy and the liberal blog progun gal are relatively rare exceptions for real liberals.
OilyPablo
Member
And what about all the wacko names gun owners get called by the liberal press and politicians?
stonecutter2
Member
Just as insulting as the whacko names gun owners call "liberals."
Insulting each other achieves nothing but creating greater animosity, instead of finding common ground to work toward a resolution.
Quite frankly, I'm sick of the hard line partisan posturing we've had, across all sorts of subjects.
It's time we start acting like united states, instead of divided states.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." - Abraham Lincoln
Last edited:
Schwing
Member
First, I want to thank the mods for not closing this as I feel it is a huge issue for us in the gun community.
I agree that using any stereotypical label is nothing but negative. Having said that, I do feel it is important to educate people who vote both Democrat and republican as to how their voting impacts 2A issues.
If you disagree with republicans on just about every other issue except 2A rights and vote Democrat you are most likely helping promote anti-2A agendas regardless of where you stand on the issue. That is just the reality, especially if you live in states with extremely anti-gun positions.
The same can be said for folks who, for example, agree with most conservative issues with the exception of abortion (just an example here). If you vote republican, you are most likely supporting anti-abortion agendas. Statistically, that is just a fact.
I don't think many of us are ever going to find a politician that we always agree with 100%. Thankfully, we all have the God Given right and... hopefully, ability to rationally rank what issues are the MOST important to us and vote accordingly. Then, we also have the God given responsibility to take accountability for our voting choices and what they stand for.
The bottom line for me... If you vote for any anti-gun politician for ANY reason and then loose your rights, you have no one to blame but yourself.
I agree that using any stereotypical label is nothing but negative. Having said that, I do feel it is important to educate people who vote both Democrat and republican as to how their voting impacts 2A issues.
If you disagree with republicans on just about every other issue except 2A rights and vote Democrat you are most likely helping promote anti-2A agendas regardless of where you stand on the issue. That is just the reality, especially if you live in states with extremely anti-gun positions.
The same can be said for folks who, for example, agree with most conservative issues with the exception of abortion (just an example here). If you vote republican, you are most likely supporting anti-abortion agendas. Statistically, that is just a fact.
I don't think many of us are ever going to find a politician that we always agree with 100%. Thankfully, we all have the God Given right and... hopefully, ability to rationally rank what issues are the MOST important to us and vote accordingly. Then, we also have the God given responsibility to take accountability for our voting choices and what they stand for.
The bottom line for me... If you vote for any anti-gun politician for ANY reason and then loose your rights, you have no one to blame but yourself.
OilyPablo
Member
To me this is crystal clear. I'll just add that I and other gun owners are not trying to take away anyone's rights, so my apologies for coming across as combative or defensive. I take this seriously when people are actively trying deny my civil rights.
Theohazard
Member
Fine, but why push those pro-gun liberals away? Why not include anyone who wants to support the 2A cause, regardless of their unrelated political views?OilyPablo said:
As for the large number of liberals who are anti-gun, we're helping it stay that way. As long as gun owners and pro-gun groups pigeonhole themselves as only being right-wing, conservative, and Republican, we'll ensure that many liberals take a firm anti-2A stance just to stay on the other side.
Once again, why are we working so hard to ensure that a majority of liberals are anti-gun? Don't we want both liberals AND conservatives to embrace the 2A?
Theohazard
Member
What about it? Are you honestly saying that because they do something stupid means we should do it too? When they call us names, does that make gun owners want to listen to what they have to say? No, of course not, we just get angry and tune them out. So why in the world would we want to adopt the same strategy? Just to get back at them? That's pretty childish and short-sighted, not to mention a terrible political strategy.OilyPablo said:
jerkface11
Member
Push them away? What are they going to do? Vote for anti-gun candidates twice?
The appropriate term we should be using is "prohibitionists".
Theohazard
Member
Please tell me you're just arguing for argument's sake, because otherwise you're being extremely myopic. The whole point here is for us to work to make the 2A an issue that both liberal AND conservatives support. And once the 2A stops being such a partisan issue, then more liberal candidates won't be as anti-gun. That's the whole point here. I can't understand how so many people miss that.jerkface11 said:
As long as we keep framing this as a partisan issue, it will continue to be a partisan issue, and liberal candidates will continue to be predominately anti-gun. Is that really what we want, or do we want a majority of candidates on both sides to be pro-gun? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
jerkface11
Member
Are they pushing for more pro-gun candidates? Can there even be truly pro-gun candidates from a party with gun control as part of it's platform?
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,085
The only reason a gun owner would vote for an Anti-gun politician is because their stand on another issue may have priority over specific gun rights. I know this is a gun forum, and this is probably going to get me some flak, but not everyone's only priority in life is guns. Many of us have other priorities also. Our kids, our livelihood, our environment, other rights and freedoms. Not every politician is running on a simple gun/no gun platform. Most are more complicated than that. So are the choices we must make. As a gun owner, I have a hard time supporting a candidate that wants me to restrict the capacity of my gun mags. But if the guy running against him wants to practice dropping nukes on Iowa(even tho it wouldn't be much of a loss**), I may have to make a anti-gun choice. But you are right, as with all things in life, one makes their bed, thus they must sleep in it.
**It's a joke son.....a joke.
Theohazard
Member
Yes, but it takes a candidate who isn't afraid to go against their party. There are a few of those on the national level and a whole lot more on the state and local levels.jerkface11 said:
But try to look at the bigger picture here: Do we want gun control to continue to be part of the Democratic Party's platform? Of course not, we want the RKBA to be a bi-partisan issue that both parties support. So let's work towards that and stop framing this as a partisan issue.
Nom de Forum
Member
Precisely. It invokes in the mind of our allies and opponents the failure of the most famous "Prohibition". Meanwhile let us not antagonize people who are neutral or may lean toward prohibition but are too apathetic to actively support it. Few things end apathy faster than insult. Nine decades ago it was the swaying of the apathetic that got "Prohibition" enacted. I suspect it will be far harder and take far more years to repeal a firearm prohibition than it was to repeal "Prohibition".
OilyPablo
Member
Not what I am saying at all. But it's a bit analogous to our usual compromise. We are the people who give and we lose in the long wrong. I'm thinking there are not a lot of left of center Web forums advocating softer language for gun owners. I could be wrong so by all means check with your own research.
OilyPablo
Member
Agree here.
jerkface11
Member
As long as one party has gun control in their platform it will remain a partisan issue.
Theohazard
Member
You're missing my point, we're not giving in by not calling the prohibitionists names, even though they do it; we're being smarter. When they call us names they just make sure no gun owners will ever take them seriously, and they anger us and mobilize us to be more political. So why would we want to do the same thing?OilyPablo said:
It's not a compromise to avoid partisan language, and it's not giving in; it's just being smart.
Theohazard
Member
Once again, you're missing my point entirely. Of course that's true, but why should we work to make sure it stays that way? Why not work to make the RKBA a bi-partisan issue?jerkface11 said:
Nom de Forum
Member
Which is why we should be all supporting open primaries, registering Independent so we can vote in semi-open primaries, and diminishing the power of Parties and their platforms to intimidate candidates. There are Democrat and Republican candidates that support the RKBA that can only be differentiated by the "D" or "R" after their names. Support them as they are our best hope for defending the RKBA and preventing extreme actions on other issues.
jerkface11
Member
Pointing out that liberals vote for anti-gun candidates isn't what makes them vote that way.
Theohazard
Member
No, but alienating pro-2A liberals and making sure that the 2A stays a partisan issue does.jerkface said:
jerkface11
Member
And who exactly is doing that?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked