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

[Kynoch]

Well then, to be clear. I'm going to continue to plant the anti gun flag in the liberal camp[/B] and continue to broadly assume that liberals are generally anti 2ndA and that most anti 2ndA folks are liberals.

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

I'll equate it to a favored lumping on the part of Liberals regarding conservatives: That Conservatives are against a woman's choice with regards to abortion. I'm happily identified as a Conservative and yet believe in a woman's choice in this matter - misguided or not - and am willing to take the heat for the Conservative position even though I generally do not agree with it.

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

Counterproductive? You're wrong, literally and factually as the word is misapplied.

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.

Ignorant? Again, wrong as you don't know enough about me or my positions to state that. The height of ignorance, that.
Lack of political nuance? Political nuance is the stock in trade of liberals and progressives and I count myself happily among those without it.

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.

Black is black, white is white and "liberals" own the anti gun title. Exceptions not only not withstanding but proving the rule.

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.

 

[OilyPablo]

Stop prevaricating. You had no idea about the political affiliations of those taking part in this thread yet you still popped-off. Now you're just going around in circles.

And what are you doing exactly?

I meant what I said. And I apologized if people are offended. There are no lies in that and I am not avoiding you or any questions you have. Why would I even need to know exact political affiliations of the people taking part in this thread to write what I did? Frankly I don't care too deeply about the various stances posted in this thread. People have their established views. But again the Democrat Party has an anti-2nd Amendment plank in their platform. Simple demographics should tell you there are more than a couple Democrats reading this thread and it seems to me the Democrats might be wise to lose that plank if you are so worried about people assuming the group are fully anti-gun.

 

[Kynoch]

And what are you doing exactly?

I meant what I said. And I apologized if people are offended. There are no lies in that and I am not avoiding you or any questions you have. Why would I even need to know exact political affiliations of the people taking part in this thread to write what I did? Frankly I don't care too deeply about the various stances posted in this thread. People have their established views. But again the Democrat Party has an anti-2nd Amendment plank in their platform. Simple demographics should tell you there are more than a couple Democrats reading this thread and it seems to me the Democrats might be wise to lose that plank if you are so worried about people assuming the group are fully anti-gun.

You had no idea what political ideals/party affiliations anyone on this thread had before you popped-off. In any event I thought you were through with this thread?

 

[jrdolall]

Look at the US as it exists today. The Democratic party, led by BHO whether they like it or not, is considered by virtually everyone to be the "Liberal" Party. We can throw around philosophy and semantics all day but it doesn't change the fact that the Democratic party is Liberal. As a national Political Party the Democrats support gun control and what they support in Outback Texas isn't really the point of most of this discussion. If, by your vote, you support the Democratic Party then you are supporting the Party that is the most anti-gun. "If you lie with dogs you will probably get fleas" is something I heard growing up and it applies today. We all have our own different type of fleas because we all associate with different dogs. In 2014 USA the Democratic Party, universally referred to as the "Liberal Party" is a flea I choose to avoid.
Now you may support them because you support Obamacare, unions, abortion, gay rights, redistribution of wealth, or any of the other platforms that the Party champions but your vote also supports the anti-gun message. That's just the way it is. That doesn't make you a bad person or a good person. The fact that you actually vote makes you a good person in my eyes. I have several relatives that vote Democratic and are just as pro-gun as I am. I am in agriculture so I spend a LOT of time in CA (Salinas, Oxnard, Santa Maria, Gilroy, and the Central Valley) and just about every person I spend time with while there is EXACTLY like me with regards to RKBA. They do tend to be more "liberal" on social issues like gay rights so we have some lively discourse.

RKBA is the MOST important platform for ME. There is no way I will support Chris Christie if he somehow manages to win the nomination of the Republican Party because, despite what he says now, he is staunchly anti-gun. I tend to lean far to the Right in my beliefs and I am in no way offended when someone calls me "Conservative". Why would anyone, as a person that votes Democrat, be offended by being called Liberal? And does my reference to them/you as a Liberal somehow make them feel unloved or under appreciated?

 

[Sam1911]

Why would anyone, as a person that votes Democrat, be offended by being called Liberal? And does my reference to them/you as a Liberal somehow make them feel unloved or under appreciated?

Once more, just because we seem so hung up on this point...

IT DOESN'T. The problem is NOT that we call liberals "LIBERALS."

The problem is that we say, "LIBERALS are our enemies!" "Let's fight the LIBERALS!" "Join the NRA and help defeat the LIBERALS!" And things like that.

When 97% of the average Liberal's positions don't have anything at all to do with gun rights, we look at these guys and say, "YOU ARE MY ENEMY!"

It makes total sense to say, "I oppose the Democratic party platform on gun rights." Or, "I oppose the re-election of Pres. Obama because of his position on gun rights."

But to tell lots and lots of people that you are simply their enemy, because of one facet of the national party's platform that BOTH OF YOU probably disagree with strongly, is grossly counterproductive.

It would make a lot more sense to say, "I can't vote for this candidate you're supporting because of this issue, and I'd like to persuade you to oppose his position or not support him either..."

But framing the question as a trench war between LIBERALS and CONSERVATIVES is no path to success, at all.

Far, far, far better to disconnect gun rights from the liberal -vs- conservative identities and work WITH whomever we can to make gun control like segregation or prohibition: failed policies of the past NO party would claim to support.

 

[jrdolall]

I couldn't agree with you more Sam and what you are suggesting is what I pointed out in my post. Unfortunately that thing called reality comes into play and this is NOT the way we, as Americans, deal with issues. It has seldom been the case and it isn't likely to get started with regards to gun rights.

 

[Sam1911]

It has seldom been the case and it isn't likely to get started with regards to gun rights.

And yet, it happened with segregation. It happened with prohibition. It's happening right now with marijuana.

I see the beginnings of it happening with gun rights. Just the beginnings, but the motion is there.

 

[Wanderling]

FWIW, 4A and 1A are more important to me than 2A. As giving them up has far more reaching consequences to civil liberties.

 

[we are not amused]

Why do you keep repeating this? Your position appears weak when you return to a flawed argument which has already been disposed of in this very thread and drum on it again and again.

I explained to you, all the way back in post 53, that calling Liberals Liberals doesn't offend them, and that's not the point of this thread.

To bring it up again embarrasses you.

SAM, read the title of this thread.

 

[Sam1911]

Exactly. Which is why I asked you the question, AGAIN.

Calling someone a liberal is NOT an insult. Using Liberal as an insult -- as a definition of the ENEMY -- is the problem.

 

[X-Rap]

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.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I know many liberals who own guns, and are good people.

It isn't fair to say all liberals hate guns, just like it isn't fair to say all conservatives are God-fearing Christians.

Sometimes things aren't completely black and white, more of a dull... hazy gray color LOL!

 

[Sam1911]

I like to look forward in a fight rather than having to watch the guy who's supposed to have my back.

And yet...still misses the point of the whole thing.



What GOOD are you doing by calling Liberals your enemies? Why not be specific about what you don't like and thus find common ground with people on the things you DO share in common? Why is it a GOOD idea to paint all Liberal minded people as your enemy? If you can avoid setting them up as your enemy, it is a lot easier to have a discussion about how to kill gun control as a goal of the political parties? (Accepting as clearly evident that the R party supports RKBA almost as poorly as the D party does.)

That's the whole point of this. It's big picture, long term thinking, I know, but NOT making the fight into a "left vs. right" battle, we can work the people who want better gun rights and increasingly marginalize the (very) few who want strong gun control as a primary principle of their political stance.

Politics is all about building coalitions of people with enough views in common to support each other. If we can increasingly show that LIBERALS are not (necessarily, individually) our enemies on the gun control issue we can continue to chip away at gun control being a principle tenet of their group identity.

If WE are the Liberals' enemy, all the gun control freaks have to do is call all liberals to rally round their flag to fight us. If we co-opt more and more liberal folks into admitting that they reject gun control -- and if we refuse to define those people as our enemies, the gun control acolytes will have a harder time claiming that liberals, as a cohesive block, support gun control.

 

[we are not amused]

Once more, just because we seem so hung up on this point...

IT DOESN'T. The problem is NOT that we call liberals "LIBERALS."

The problem is that we say, "LIBERALS are our enemies!" "Let's fight the LIBERALS!" "Join the NRA and help defeat the LIBERALS!" And things like that.

When 97% of the average Liberal's positions don't have anything at all to do with gun rights, we look at these guys and say, "YOU ARE MY ENEMY!"

It makes total sense to say, "I oppose the Democratic party platform on gun rights." Or, "I oppose the re-election of Pres. Obama because of his position on gun rights."

But to tell lots and lots of people that you are simply their enemy, because of one facet of the national party's platform that BOTH OF YOU probably disagree with strongly, is grossly counterproductive.

It would make a lot more sense to say, "I can't vote for this candidate you're supporting because of this issue, and I'd like to persuade you to oppose his position or not support him either..."

But framing the question as a trench war between LIBERALS and CONSERVATIVES is no path to success, at all.

Far, far, far better to disconnect gun rights from the liberal -vs- conservative identities and work WITH whomever we can to make gun control like segregation or prohibition: failed policies of the past NO party would claim to support.

SAM, I am willing to work with Liberals on the gun issue, if they support the RKBA.

Very few of them do.

I am not demanding they be banned from gun forums, or the NRA.

My point is that there are either very few Liberals who support gun rights, or they are very inactive politically if they do.

The fact that I vehemently oppose modern Liberalism is not and should not be a factor in working with them to secure our gun rights.

The problem is that there are so few of them, or they are so shy of coming out of the woodwork, make it a problem.

For all practical purposes, if someone self identifies as a Liberal politically, then he is anti-gun. I realize that there are exceptions to that rule, but they are exceptions.

Don't bother to point out how many on this site are Liberal, this site is not representative of either the Nation or of Liberals in general.

Politically, the only organized political movements that support gun rights seem to be the Conservative movement and Libertarians. That is why I made a distinction between Republicans and Conservatives and Liberals and Democrats.

But for now, the Liberals virtually own the Democrat Party, and Conservatives at least have great influence in the Republican Party, which seems to explain their different positions on the RKBA.

Until either more Liberals actively or openly support gun rights, then it is hard to regard the average Liberal as an ally.

I am willing to work with those few who are, but I cannot forget most do not support gun rights, and even many who do, wish to impose restrictions I find unacceptable.

 

[we are not amused]

Exactly. Which is why I asked you the question, AGAIN.

Calling someone a liberal is NOT an insult. Using Liberal as an insult -- as a definition of the ENEMY -- is the problem.

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.

 

[Sam1911]

Ok...so you do. It still isn't helping you or anyone else to parrot the line (a la the recent NRA advertisement) that we're fighting "the liberals."

 

[alsaqr]

Deleted-duplicate.

 

[alsaqr]

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.

 

[Nom de Forum]

How can anyone claim they are willing to work with Liberals to protect the RKBAs but are unwilling to acknowledge that one of the very first steps toward making that possible is to stop using language that alienates them before the dialog begins to find common ground.

Here is a personal story of how a Liberal who “hates guns” came to understand and accept why other people want to own them and have a rational and reasonable right to own them. My wife works in one of our corporate legal offices and my responsibilities cause me to frequently speak with the lawyers in the office. One of the attorneys in the office is a women that most of us would through conversations during a very low number of encounters of time realize has very liberal views. This fact in no way hindered the development of a strong friendship between the Liberal attorney and my wife and friendly acquaintanceship with me. When the subject of guns finally arose the fact their had been no alienating comments made about her liberalism and because there was a history of courtesy and generosity it was possible to discuss our views on guns without the Liberal attorney feeling the least bit apprehensive. She still “hates guns” but no longer believes they must be highly restricted almost to the point of banning, and understands that people sharing many of her opinions about other subjects are not to be feared because they support the RKBA. She is however very alarmed by people who support the RKBA by immediately dismissing her as the enemy, make obviously belligerent demonstrations that they are willing to ultimately take violent action, make statements that are perceived as laughable (“from my cold dead hands”), and wear clothing and mount bumper stickers that are in poor taste or threatening. This Liberal attorney is now not someone who will automatically support revocation of the RKBA because of her association with us. Until she met us she never had contact with a “gun nut” that was not off putting. So if you behave in a civil manner and find common ground it is possible to get a person that “hates guns” to not feel the need to prevent your right to have guns. If we as supporters of the RKBA do not curb the excesses of the extremists amongst us we will lose the battle to preserve the RKBA. I do believe we are currently winning that battle but the only battle you win that matters is the last battle, so we can still lose the war.

 

[Nom de Forum]

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.

Let's not think of it as WWII. Our associating it with Chamberlin, Appeasement, the French, or any other targets of contempt based on superficial similarity is perceived as ridiculous hyperbole by the people we are trying to influence.

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.

It is never a good idea to even provide the opportunity for someone to think you are equating them with Hitler or Stalin. Please remember it is important not to immediately alienate those you wish to sway to your side.

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

No one is asking you to sing "Kumbaya". I work with people who hold what I consider extreme religious views that drive me crazy when I think about them and yet civility enables us to reach shared goals. If I can do that, surely you can do the same with Liberals who may be approachable on the maintenance of the RKBA.

 

[X-Rap]

She still “hates guns” but no longer believes they must be highly restricted almost to the point of banning,

That's about the best I've ever gotten from a Liberal and I'm pretty dam "off putting"

 

[Sam1911]

If the NRA was to break tradition and start to REFUSE to stoop to flag-waving for the R. party, refusing to scream about the "liberal enemy" and present a more focused, realistic, directed effort, eventually we COULD drive our public perception out of the radical fringe and into a common, centrist position.

Of course, the NRA feels, and has long practiced, that -- just as gun control proponents do with their own base -- if they create an implication of solidarity with all the other party planks of who they assume are their core base of support, and they pick spokespeople with a southern twang, present enough "NRA Country" music stars, sponsor NASCAR, wear cowboy hats, and say "Y'all" a lot -- that they'll be able to count on the votes of more people than if they play their ONE issue straight and narrow, leave out the theatrics and character play, and don't fluff up the nebulous "other side" as the Great Satan we need to rise up and fight against.

They may have been right in the past, and they may be right, right now. But we are going to have to grow out from under that shadow as our base shifts away from the duck busters and deer slayers and toward a much broader set of social types. I surely do look for a day when the NRA and RKBA in general aren't looked (at all!) as merely far right touchstones. But it's going to be a rocky road to get there from here and I fear we'll have to drag the NRA kicking and screaming along...

 

[Nom de Forum]

That's about the best I've ever gotten from a Liberal and I'm pretty dam "off putting"

That is the single biggest and most important step in the right direction we can influence them to make. Remember the first step is always the farthest away from the destination. After that the journey becomes shorter. Work on being less "off putting". One thing everyone should realize is trying to frighten the anti-gunners will only increase their resolve and not intimidate them to stop their attacks on the RKBA.

 

[Kynoch]

FWIW, 4A and 1A are more important to me than 2A. As giving them up has far more reaching consequences to civil liberties.

So?

 

[jrdolall]

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

spokespeople with a southern twang, present enough "NRA Country" music stars, sponsor NASCAR, wear cowboy hats, and say "Y'all" a lot

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.