Being liberal does not make you an anti

[wrs840]

I was a teacher for awhile, and I ran head-on into a socialist, anti-Constitution agenda which is prevalent throughout much of our public school system. It disgusted me. I taught my own kids about our Constitution and they understand the seriousness of the situation.
A survey of high school seniors taken some 3 or 4 years ago showed over 70% thought it should be illegal to criticize the government. Our kids are brainwashed and discouraged from learning anything that isn't in the standardized tests developed by people who don't care about our Constitution as much as they care about algebra. That's why we need to educate our children ourselves. People who favor RKBA should stand together on this, regardless of their feelings on other issues.
Our nation's freedom really does depend on it.

My wife is a former public school teacher, from a family of government-school educators.

We homeschool our children. Public education is now a social wolfpack, and the message is all bad.

Les

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Rather than debate that notion - let's accept it at face value. I'll then ask the next logical question - so what?

There are aspects to both party planks that many who voted for their respective party candidate did NOT fully support. It is almost impossible for a party and a candidate and a voter to be in complete alignment on every issue.

For the Democrats, gun control was one of those issues where the party and candidate agreed.

So, rather than debate parties and such, I'm really trying to use this thread to discuss 'how to identify and encourage anyone that professes to support the RKBA', regardless of their party affiliation or who they voted for.

If someone votes anti-gun, what good are they for the RKBA? A better soultion would be to get them to vote pro-gun.

one party wants to do away with Freedom of Speech, Due Process, Freedom of the Press and Habeus Corpus, and the other wants to trash the RKBA.

No, it's the Democrats who want to trash freedom of speech, via the fairness doctrine. Niether party cares about the 4th amendment.

I don't like to see partisan bickering between people who support RKBA because it only increases the power of the anti-Constitutional forces arrayed against us.

Not so, I am arguing against the party who opposes the 1st and 2nd amendments. (neither one really cares about the 4th

 

[BHP FAN]

Texasrifleman,Jimbothefiveth.Constitutioncowboy have all put it better than I ever could,but rbernie NAILED IT,when he said :
'' I believe that a politician's stance on the RKBA as the most telling view into how they feel about me, the individual that they profess to represent.

I have no use for anyone that does not support my right to the most basic of individual self determination, the right to defend me-n-mine from predation by any individual or group. No other issue is as basic and as important as that one...''
end quote.
I am a proud one issue voter.If you don't feel the way I feel on that one issue,if you can't back me on my most FUNDAMENTAL right,I have no use for you.

 

[sm]

It is very hard to get beyond that, even though a Democrat occasionally votes pro-gun. Some even vote pro gun all the time. It's simply not good enough.

If that party would remove gun control from the stated objectives it would be much easier to have a fair discussion.

With gun control in the platform the other party becomes the "pro-gun" party by default, right or wrong.

It would easier for Pro Gun to reach Fence Sitters as well.

Lets face it, there are a lot of folks that still vote party for whatever reason.
Some families have a "tradition" and these traditions might have all sorts of reasons from business, to social status, to even being "a union man/union woman"

Whether we choose to admit and accept, folks are stereotyped here in the USA.

I know some that have placed bumper stickers on vehicles for candidates and ideas they do not believe in. Still in a parking lot the boss sees this employee is a "team player".

Or a home health nurse, that goes into some not so nice areas, these folks see that sticker, and "think" what they choose to think, that this home health nurse is "all right".

That vehicle is not messed with, the word is spread to let that vehicle and nurse have free travel in the neighborhoods.

"That is the nurse that takes care of Widow Jones..., they are cool so them slide".


One would have thought both the Dem and Rep would have learned some lessons about Firearms, COTUS, BoR, etc., but they keep on doing what they have been doing and keep getting the same results.

I believe that is defined as insanity. *smile*

Seriously, when is the last time someone really voted "for" someone, instead of "for the lesser of two evils". ?

Hey, some of the antis are just as frustrated as pro gun about other matters in regard to Freedoms.

 

[Sam1911]

We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition,

To be honest, the very fact that they base their entire (lying, deceitful, and pitifully transparent) prevarication regarding the 2nd Amendment on this milksop bit of meaningless tripe is offensive in the highest.

"...the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition?" What kind of spineless drivel is this?

BASEBALL is "part of the American tradition."
APPLE PIE is "part of the American tradition."
PICKUP TRUCKS are "part of the American tradition."

For that matter, hyper-processed snack foods, J.R. Ewing, Boss Tweed, and slaves picking cotton can be considered "part of the American tradition." For better or for worse -- they're all part of the American scene.

The right to keep and bear arms is NOT simply a strand in the great fabric of American life. It is the PRIMARY manifestation of our entire system of government that affirms the sovereignty of the citizen.

To damn that right with this faint praise is disgusting.

-Sam

 

[amprecon]

A liberal owning a gun, if that is not an oxymoron I don't know what is.

 

[runrabbitrun]

It seems the lines between the two main stream parties
are blurred to the point neither side is recognizable.
To me, in many areas, they look as one party now.

They both look like they want the same outcome...
Perhaps they're just going about it in different ways?

Or perhaps their 'game' is coming full circle.
The deceptive pieces of their puzzles are becoming increasingly recognizable now...
And ALL of us, on BOTH sides of the isle, are beginning to see the light?

If anything I think these two parties are purposely attempting to divide and conquer all of us
and their 'end goals' are one in the same.
Look it up, Sun Tzu's The Art of War, speaks of these tactics.
Things are not what they seem I think.

I sat on my hands through the entire political season last time
and couldn't help but notice.
While the 'people' were all infighting, all over the net at forums,
and such, the politicians were making plans
(on BOTH sides) to bring us closer to a totalitarian state
or even further... Closer to a one world government.
(Anybody keeping up with the current news?)

As another posted above.
When was the last time someone really voted "for" someone, instead of "for the lesser of two evils"?

The BIG question I have about any of them anymore is this:
Weren't these people sworn into office, to uphold the constitution?
Well... If they're not, why aren't they being impeached for breach of their oath?
And that goes for ANY politician, on either side of these so called 'main stream' parties.

Personally I'd like to see all parties abolished and we vote on the candidates, not the party line.

 

[Shadan7]

Is having that dialogue an unachieveable goal? Seriously - I'm not being facetious.

Can we do that?

I must admit - I doubt it. There is more tolerance on Daily Kos of the pro-RKBA position than there is of pro-RKBA liberals here. Just read through this thread and you will see it denied that anyone who is liberal can be pro-RKBA; indeed, it is repeatedly the case that anyone who is left of (pick your GOP figurehead) is characterized as being freedom-hating, free-loading, et cetera. We are constantly demonized, essentially told to just go away, that our other political concerns negate any claims to supporting gun rights. It is little short of amazing that *anyone* admits to being left of center here.

News flash for you, folks: the GOP is hurting. Bigtime. You want to save our 2nd Amendment rights, you should welcome the support of those of us who happen to be working to change the Democratic party from the other side, rather than just grandstanding. Yeah, sure, it is easy to be "pure", and tout your conservative credentials. But it's a lot more productive to actually change the minds of those on the other side who are just uninformed. Take a liberal shooting - that can actually make a difference. I know from experience.

Jim D.

 

[LibShooter]

In 1789, thousands of Kentucky rifles hanging over thousands of mantles were a check on the government and helped secure freedom when our nation was young.

But let's face it. In 2009 if the Government really wanted to take our guns they just could. A party in power, possibly with all the best intentions, chips away at some facet of the people's power and we end up with the 1994 AWB or the Patriot Act. Both sides do it. Then 4, 8 or 12 years later the people "Throw the bums out!" and we wipe away the excesses of the previous party. It happened in 2000. It happened in 2008. It will probably happen again in 2016.

Today, it's not the ARs in our safes that protect our freedom. It is the checks and balances the Founding Fathers put in place. And the power to throw the bums out.

 

[catspa]

ConstitutionCowboy:That's the way - the ONLY way - we can all "get along" in this country... Simply know and abide the Constitution.

Hey, bud. I'm with you 100% on that. And yet...

The government, especially at the federal level, has been busy gutting the limits on their authority since barely 30 years after the Constitution was ratified. Ironically, it is the document that justifies the very existence of a federal government, and they have rejected the contents of it without hesitation ever since.

In addition, and I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the citizens we're dealing with now are not the generation that fought the War for Independence, or even the war of 1812. Today's citizens were born into a situation where the federal government already controlled a lot of stuff, and many were told by their parents and teachers that not only was that okay, but necessary to prevent the lawless element from taking over.

Meanwhile, government functionaries were busy packaging up usurpation and selling it to various voting blocks. "If elected, I will introduce legislation to rip off the other guy and pass the proceeds on to you." "We can pass a law against whatever the group you dislike is doing, and make America a better place..."

So now we have many of the electorate who 1) see no virtue in minding their own business, and have no experience at it, 2) see government authority as a lever to be used in controlling those with whom they disagree, and 3) expect to share in the plunder when government takes something or everything away from somebody who actually earned it. When someone tells me they're a "liberal" or a "liberal sympathizer", I form an opinion of them based on the actions of those they associate themselves with. Unfortunate, but true. You and I can get along, because we're content to deal with each other as equals, but we're in the minority.

I don't usually get much traction when talking to a person who considers government a force that should be used for good in society, or around the globe. They seem intoxicated with being on the side wielding all that authority, and fearful of doing any thinking or action of their own, and their liberties might as well be last years pair of Nikes for all the value they place in them. How can I relate to such a person? Short answer is, I can't. They have not the mental fortitude to break the brainwashing.

So talk all you want about a constitutional republic, it's a great ideal and you have my full support. Just don't go confusing it with the reality of what we labor under right now.

runrabbitrun:Weren't these people sworn into office, to uphold the constitution?
Well... If they're not, why aren't they being impeached for breach of their oath?


Because the only people with the authority to impeach them are just as guilty, and have more to gain by ignoring the constitution than enforcing it.

Parker

 

[NCsmitty]

It will probably happen again in 2016.

Hopefully the people that care about this country can start the change in 2010. And complete it in 2012.

NCsmitty

 

[Brian Dale]

rabbit, Shadan, Lib, cat, smitty and many others:

Thanks, guys. We profit by knowing each other.

 

[Isher]

"A liberal owning a gun, if that is not an oxymoron I don't know what is."

Speaking as an Independent who owns quite a few weapons and has been a

Shooter for the last 52 years;

I have always voted specific issues and individuals who run for office.

I could care less if either are labeled liberal or conservative.

I've had conservative friends try to tear me a new *******

For being a "raving liberal."

I've had liberal friends try to tear me a new *******

For being a "f.....g conservative."

My favorite oxymoron is an "ethical politician."

But we'll get to that in a moment. First a couple short history lessons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polis

http://wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/POLIS.HTM

Now, it is fairly obvious that political systems have always been systems

Driven by the self interests of only a portion of the populace.

And most of these systems attempt to marginalize portions of the populace

Which are perceived by the party in power

As actual or potential threats.

Try this one on for size; when you get home from work tonight get your

Family together and tell your wife and daughters that you will not allow

Them to vote, but your sons can.

I guarantee you that you will reach a compromise, and not your original intent!

So, we stumble upon compromise.

Over the last four decades, I have not voted for a single issue or individual

With which I have not had partial disagreement with, within the context

Of government as a whole, past, present and future.

And I don't see that changing, for me, anyway.

My votes are the best I can do "on balance."

And I have some very strong views on certain issues.

Now, to political ethics, and the system of "branding" an issue

Or an individual in order to get "contributions" to sell same.

In short, you can throw ethics out the window.

Issues and politicians are both commodities which are

Bought, sold and traded all day, every day.

Does the word "lobbyist" come to mind?

Some are better, some are really bad.

Politics anymore is a market, not an ideal.

This is where the Constitution comes in;

The Constitution is not a commodity to be

Bought, sold or traded.

It represents our fundamental principles,

And as such, as we learn and grow and become more wise,

We do have a way of changing the Constitution, created by the framers,

To reflect that change in an ethical manner.

It is not perfect (nothing is), but

Personally I hold to that ground like iron, and

Read the Federalist Papers once a year,

Just as an annual tuneup.

My .02


isher

 

[rickomatic]

It is threads like this that make me scratch my head about why some moderators are so quick on the trigger to lock "political" threads. THIS IS a political thread if ever I saw one, and from what I've read on the 5 pages so far,this has been a reasoned and respectful while vigorous debate.
There is no doubt that we have both conservative and liberal members here with strongly held and well thought out opinions. Personally, I benefit from reading posts like this. I hope this thread in particular, and others in general are left alone to reach their natural conclusions. By locking threads with either veiled or overt political themes I think we short change ourselves into understanding that no matter what differences we may have with each other, in most instances we have a lot more in common. Especially when it comes to RKBA. We can't afford to keep shooting each other in the foot.

My $.02

 

[M&PVolk]

True, being a liberal doesn't make you anti-gun, but voting liberal certainly does. Even if you "support" the 2nd Amendment, as long as you are empowering those who don't, your actions erode 2nd Amendment rights. The sad reality is that your opinions mean nothing, it's your actions that count.

I understand those who feel strongly about other issues and wind up voting for an anti-gun candidate, but all your saying is that you are willing to give up your 2nd Amendment rights for some other agenda.

If you feel you must vote anti, that's up to you, but I fail to see why this should just be blindly overlooked because you own a gun or two. I realize the gun community doesn't want to be "divided", but a group that has half its members actively working against the stated cause of the group isn't really a community at all. A house divided against itself will certainly fall, and that is what is happening. Barrack Obama doesn't look at your vote as a partial thing, he looks at your vote as a mandate that you agree with his agenda. He doesn't see a bunch of gun owners that voted for him just because they wanted a fresh approach to the economy, he sees a bunch of gun owners that believe his gun control approach is perfectly acceptable.

I hate to say it, but when it comes the 2nd Amendment, it really is all or nothing. This isn't some gray moral area, it is the Constitution.

 

[hso]

i can't imagine a prius with that bumper sticker on the back containing anything but flowers and medically prescribed marijuana

Our Prius, driven by 2 people with carry permits, would absolutely blow your mind if you opened the trunk when we drive up to an AK course then.

You guys profile too hard

Absolutely correct.

There are self proclaimed liberals that support RKBA and self proclaimed conservatives that oppose it. There are even folks that don't vote the way that you do that support RKBA because they don't like other issues. Remember the 65 Dem congressional reps that signed their name to a letter to Holder saying NO to an AWB? How 'bout the ones in the 2A Task Force in congress? There are plenty of folks in each party that vote differently than we'd like and some in both that vote the way we would like. Yes, in spite of all the ideological purity spouted by some there are liberals that support RKBA and conservatives that oppose it.

Can't accept it?

You should, we need every ally that we can get.

The real test is whether someone supports RKBA or not. That determines whether they think you should be treated like a subject or a citizen.

 

[M&PVolk]

Shadan7

I must admit - I doubt it. There is more tolerance on Daily Kos of the pro-RKBA position than there is of pro-RKBA liberals here. Just read through this thread and you will see it denied that anyone who is liberal can be pro-RKBA; indeed, it is repeatedly the case that anyone who is left of (pick your GOP figurehead) is characterized as being freedom-hating, free-loading, et cetera. We are constantly demonized, essentially told to just go away, that our other political concerns negate any claims to supporting gun rights. It is little short of amazing that *anyone* admits to being left of center here.

News flash for you, folks: the GOP is hurting. Bigtime. You want to save our 2nd Amendment rights, you should welcome the support of those of us who happen to be working to change the Democratic party from the other side, rather than just grandstanding. Yeah, sure, it is easy to be "pure", and tout your conservative credentials. But it's a lot more productive to actually change the minds of those on the other side who are just uninformed. Take a liberal shooting - that can actually make a difference. I know from experience.

Jim D.

I don't wish to demonize anyone, but how does voting for an anti-gun candidate support 2nd Amendment rights? I want to believe that fellow Democrats are striving to change the party from within, but I just don't see any evidence of that at all. The Democrat party continues to move ever more aggressively toward abolishment of the 2nd Amendment, adopting ideas that would have been considered fringe in the party just 20 years ago. Any change that I perceive is negative, at least on the 2nd Amendment front.

 

[democrat]

A liberal owning a gun, if that is not an oxymoron I don't know what is.

I may even own more than you. You've made my point, by the way. I wasn't suggesting that EVERY member of THR would rather liberals be anti-gun, rather I said that MANY members seem to feel that way. It seems that those that do feel that way do so because generalization makes argument easier.

Whatever. I'm going to be pro-gun whether you like it or not.

By the way, as a criminal defense lawyer, I've learned that the easy argument is usually the losing one. Open your eyes to subtleties and you'll be more successful when attempting to persuade.

 

[democrat]

but how does voting for an anti-gun candidate support 2nd Amendment rights?

Once again, not everyone is a single issue voter. The only way I'd have a presidential candidate with whom I agreed on every issue is if I ran for president myself.

Ugh. I'd rather talk about guns. This thread is going in circles.

 

[HC_Jack]

Remember the 65 Dem congressional reps that signed their name to a letter to Holder saying NO to an AWB? How 'bout the ones in the 2A Task Force in congress?

I'm encouraged by this and hope we get more like them, but for the time being, the speaker of the house derives her power, in part, from them. To the extent her leadership erodes the RKBA, they have contributed.

 

[rbernie]

Y'all are treating the vote as the last word in supporting the RKBA. It's not the end - it's the beginning.

During the tenure of each elected official, they are presented with opportunities to vote on legislation that could help or hurt the RKBA. They will often vote in accordance with their party leaderships' desires, but they will also vote the wishes of their constituency if the constituency communicates their desires in sufficient numbers to appeal to the legislator's survival instinct.

Marginalizing some potential constituent base that can help do that because you don't like who they voted for seems, well, just silly.

I may not LIKE who they voted for (because I vote RKBA first and everything else second and they may not share that approach), but I should be willing to welcome them to the table so that they can help remind WHOEVER got elected that the RKBA is not to be meddled with.

Why would I NOT want to do that?

 

[UhKlem]

Liberal gun owners doesn't surprise me in the least.

We are raising a nation of dialectic materialists(as in Hegellian dialectic, as in synthesis from the conflict of thesis/antithesis. Nowhere is this more seen than in the popular attitude that the truth lies in the middle as if the sum of all lies and truths is some sort of super-truth). Logically meaningless, but it feels good.

When Orwell wrote 1984, his 'doublethink' wasn't just some literary cleverness. The path to social control flows from moral relativism to compartmentalization as a coping mechanism.

The whole diversity movement in business and government organizations is a way to disarm/train/inculcate positional (or fact based) thinkers. It works. A parallel example being Group Therapy that operates under the same mechanisms to chnage/manipulate behaviors or outcomes.

When you see a liberal gun owner you are seeing someone whose convictions have been dissolved. Or maybe they are just poor judges of character. The good news is the factual experience of safe gun ownership and use is an anti-dote to the feeling based hysteria of the liberal/collectivist. Sharing range time and a meal with a liberal gun owner will do more to sway their thinking than any factual discussion. Try to reach consensus that their gun ownership doesn't threaten you, and you by being non-positional in expression don't threaten them.

The watchword for the time is 'consensus" which comes from the latin for 'with feeling' or 'with sensation'. Contrast this with conscience, or 'with facts'. These two modes of thinking best demonstrate why liberals and conservatives can use the same words and reach different meanings.

Personally, I prefer tyranny con queso, with cheese, but tyranny with consensus is going to be with us for a long time.

 

[MaterDei]

I believe that a politician's stance on the RKBA as the most telling view into how they feel about me, the individual that they profess to represent.

I have no use for anyone that does not support my right to the most basic of individual self determination, the right to defend me-n-mine from predation by any individual or group. No other issue is as basic and as important as that one.

Actually THE most basic right comes before the right to defend oneself, it is the right to life. Like Texas Rifleman, I too am a one issue voter my single issue is life and not RKBA. Fortunately I've never, that I recall, had to choose between the two. I can't ever remember voting for a pro-lifer who wasn't also pro-RKBA. Funny, no?

 

[JImbothefiveth]

must admit - I doubt it. There is more tolerance on Daily Kos of the pro-RKBA position than there is of pro-RKBA liberals here.

That is absolutely untrue. I am, however, willing to call people on being bad for the RKBA, by voting anti-gun.

essentially told to just go away,

No. However, I am telling you to vote pro-gun.

News flash for you, folks: the GOP is hurting. Bigtime. You want to save our 2nd Amendment rights, you should welcome the support of those of us who happen to be working to change the Democratic party from the other side,

You have given them your vote, despite their war on firearms. How is voting for them going to change that? But

it's a lot more productive to actually change the minds of those on the other side who are just uninformed. Take a liberal shooting - that can actually make a difference.

It can. However, they still are bad for RKBA if they vote anti-gun.

There are self proclaimed liberals that support RKBA and self proclaimed conservatives that oppose it.

The majority or republicans support it while the majority of Democrats oppose it. Here is that theme again "Here's a pro-gun liberal so ignore the 68 percent who are antis"

There are even folks that don't vote the way that you do that support RKBA because they don't like other issues.

Then they are hurting the RKBA when they do that.

Remember the 65 Dem congressional reps that signed their name to a letter to Holder saying NO to an AWB?

What about the hundred and fifty or so that didn't?

How 'bout the ones in the 2A Task Force in congress?

What about the ones like Bobby Rush?

There are plenty of folks in each party that vote differently than we'd like and some in both that vote the way we would like.

Yet the majority of the time, it is republicans voting the way we want and Democrats voting the way we don't.

Yes, in spite of all the ideological purity spouted by some there are liberals that support RKBA and conservatives that oppose it.

Yet most of the time it is conservatives who support it and liberals who oppose it.

Can't accept it?

You should, we need every ally that we can get.

I can, however, they actually hurt RKBA when they vote anti-gun.

The real test is whether someone supports RKBA or not. That determines whether they think you should be treated like a subject or a citizen.

Well, these people vote for those who would make me a subject.

Y'all are treating the vote as the last word in supporting the RKBA. It's not the end - it's the beginning.

it is the most important.

During the tenure of each elected official, they are presented with opportunities to vote on legislation that could help or hurt the RKBA. They will often vote in accordance with their party leaderships' desires, but they will also vote the wishes of their constituency if the constituency communicates their desires in sufficient numbers to appeal to the legislator's survival instinct.

Why would that be important to their survival if their constituents will vote for them anyway?

Marginalizing some potential constituent base that can help do that because you don't like who they voted for seems, well, just silly.

I'm not. I am suggesting that they vore pro-gun, so they won't have to count on their representative being so afraid of losing his next term that he votes pro-gun. (A very dangerous gamble)

I may not LIKE who they voted for (because I vote RKBA first and everything else second and they may not share that approach), but I should be willing to welcome them to the table so that they can help remind WHOEVER got elected that the RKBA is not to be meddled with.

And what if he does mess with it? They will just put him back for 4 more years.

 

[Gamera]

I'm not a single issue voter... I can live with 10 round magazines for a couple of years if we get other problems in this country solved.

All I'll say is this.

Affordable healthcare is not a Constitutional right.

A home for your family is not a Constitutional right.

A well paying job is not a Constitutional right.

Happiness is not a Constitutional right.

The RKBA is a Constitutional right.