Cautious Optimism - Democrats Starting To Get It?

[CoRoMo]

Surprised this has lasted fifty posts without a lock!!

Can't we come to some kind of understanding that ALL politically active people truly DO value freedom?

Would Adolf Hitler fall under the category of a politically active person who did not value freedom? I'm sure he would disagree and define freedom differently.

I'll continue to "throw my vote away" for the only electable political party that has ever uttered words like...

The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the citizenry to be armed as protection against their own government.​

 

[SsevenN]

I'm sure he would disagree and define freedom differently.

Right, because I value individuals rights to the extreme, I'm some how encouraging a Holocaust or Hilter-esque type gov't.

Godwin's Law...Only took 52 posts.

 

[john1911]

Seems like we're hearing from a few more "pro-gun Democrats" lately. Seems like a lot of them are very recently registered and have to throw the "liberal" label in their screen name. Hmmm?

No doubt there are some pro-gun Democrats out there. What I can't understand is that if they are so pro-gun, why don't they change the party's leadership? It doesn't do a bit of good for them to be pro-gun if they are going to vote along party lines. As long as Durbin, Pelosi, Schumer and others off this ilk are the leadership of the party, pro-gun rank and file dems are as useless as teats on a boar hog.

 

[CoRoMo]

The "he" in that line referred to Hitler, not you. Hitler might tell you that he values freedom, but that is ridiculous.

 

[Zundfolge]

Can't we come to some kind of understanding that ALL politically active people truly DO value freedom?

No because its patently NOT TRUE.

I'm not going to believe a lie simply because its a polite lie.

ANYONE (politician OR voter) that supports ANY gun control DOES NOT VALUE FREEDOM. Period.

Pro-2nd Amendment Democrat politicians are a bit like sasquatch.
Every once in awhile, we get a blurry photograph...

shdwfx wins the thread

 

[SsevenN]

The "he" in that line referred to Hitler, not you. Hitler might tell you that he values freedom, but that is ridiculous.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were alluding to.

It sounded like you were saying, we should censor what people believe based on some kind of inherint risk factor.
While I agree, I'm sure Hitler thought he was right, in his own mind (Even a murder is just in his own mind, scary but I believe it to be true). His actions, don't validate the curtailing of others liberties.

Not to mention Hitler wasn't just dealing with his personal beliefs, he was projecting them upon a populace, which is a contradiction of everything I've been asserting.

"Those who would trade liberty for saftey deserve neither."

I don't think there is any amount of danger that justifies controlling the way people live their personal lives.

No offense, it just seemed like a personal slight, my apologies.

 

[SsevenN]

ANYONE (politician OR voter) that supports ANY gun control DOES NOT VALUE FREEDOM. Period.

Or is it they are willing to throw YOUR freedoms under the bus (Guns). For the freedoms THEY desire (Drug use/ abortion, ect ect).

How can you not understand that there are people out there who feel as strongly as you do about a different issue, and if forced to make a choice between your liberties and theirs, that they would choose theirs? (henceforth liberals vs conservatives)

Open up your mind.

 

[camslam]

No doubt there are some pro-gun Democrats out there. What I can't understand is that if they are so pro-gun, why don't they change the party's leadership? It doesn't do a bit of good for them to be pro-gun if they are going to vote along party lines. As long as Durbin, Pelosi, Schumer and others off this ilk are the leadership of the party, pro-gun rank and file dems are as useless as teats on a boar hog.

Ding, ding, ding...... We have a winner!

This is the point of the article and the thread. Are enough Democrats, Blue Dog or not, going to stand the lines when the party elites and those in power come after gun rights?

I can't tell you how happy I was to see the letter that was sent by Montana's 2 Senators, let's hope others stand up to Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer (who really is the Majority leader), Feinstein, Boxer, Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, and the rest of their ilk.

I continue to agree, that if there are so many blessed gun-toting Dems out there, let's hope they develop vocal cords and do something about the actions, goals, and positions of THEIR elected leaders.

 

[LemmyCaution]

No doubt there are some pro-gun Democrats out there. What I can't understand is that if they are so pro-gun, why don't they change the party's leadership? It doesn't do a bit of good for them to be pro-gun if they are going to vote along party lines. As long as Durbin, Pelosi, Schumer and others off this ilk are the leadership of the party, pro-gun rank and file dems are as useless as teats on a boar hog.

OK. I guess I have to face the fact that The High Road treatment only applies to right wingers and get used to being called hog tits, or whatever. Bless your heart, as well.

I'm not eligible to vote in NY, IL, or CA. As a resident of VT there's not much I can do about the congress people you listed. Aside from Leahy's vote for the 1994 AWB, he's been good on civil liberties, if not nearly aggressive enough as head of the judiciary committee. Sanders is good on civil liberties. Welch I would like to replace, but he's popular due to his positions on local issues and likely isn't going anywhere. They all hear from me regularly. If there's more you want from me, please let me know.

Given that the popular national consensus is that the Republican Party is presently circling the drain, maybe it would be a good idea not to alienate pro-gun liberals by constantly taking cheap pot shots at us all over the forum. But that's up to you.

 

[camslam]

For the love of all that's good and holy, WILL SOMEONE please get LemmyCaution a tissue already?

 

[SsevenN]

ANYONE (politician OR voter) that supports ANY gun control DOES NOT VALUE FREEDOM. Period.

Just to further my point.

I could say

ANYONE (politician OR voter) that supports ANY drug control DOES NOT VALUE FREEDOM. Period.

So now who is the freedom hater?

Edit; I'm not aurguing for anything here, just trying to show people that just because you value certain liberties more than others(And are willing to vote that way, even with the possibility of loss of OTHER liberties (probably ones you don't care about)), doesn't make you an enemy of freedom. It just makes you a selfish, normal, every-day American.

 

[Zundfolge]

ANYONE (politician OR voter) that supports ANY drug control DOES NOT VALUE FREEDOM. Period.

You're getting no argument from me, so no freedom hatin' goin' on here


(note my sig)

 

[SsevenN]

Great Sig! *High-five*

And a good time for me to step out.

Work is over, have a great day folks.

 

[shdwfx]

That's exactly my point. Our freedom might not be the same as some one else's, yet we are willing to throw them under the bus if it gets us what we want.

Well, that wasn't my point. Sadly, most modern Americans think "freedom from responsibility" when they say freedom. Peoples' opinions on the definition of freedom are not all equally valid.

 

[ArmedBear]

I will continue to 'throw my vote away' on the most libertarian candidates I can find, because voting any other way just seems disingenuous. *shrug*

While serious players are working hard to get a 1st Down a few yards at a time, what do you think of someone who runs downfield while the quarterback is getting sacked, because he dreams of catching a long bomb and running into the end zone?

I mean, I've done what you've done, myself. Even worked on a campaign. Nothing particularly wrong with it. However, it doesn't accomplish anything either.

Gain a little freedom, or lose it. If you take yourself out of the game, you're not helping to gain any.

You're either working to gain a little, or you're doing nothing to stop the inevitable loss.

 

[Southern Rebel]

I'm neither stupid nor a liar. Rather, I am an intelligent, highly educated person, an attorney


Doggone it, Democrat - I was buying into your intelligence and highly educated standing until you let the "attorney" part slip! (just kidding)

 

[porterdog]

I dunno, you guys... My reaction to the recent statements out of washington was to append the word "...yet." Even the most rabid republicans should admit that the current president and his attendent machine are verrrry crafty. As has been said- there are other fish to fry. If they can mollycoddle us into thinking the pressure's off that'll just give them more breathing room, more time to work up a really dangerous and potentially workable way to reduce our ownership rights. That's what I fear most- that they take their time and craft something so reasonable that it seems like a good idea to the mainstream.

Keep your eyes open, and speak loudly by whatever means you have available.

 

[RoboDuck]

Not this again.

 

[warnerwh]

I'm an independnt. What does that mean? However I've been shooting since 7 and am now 55. Over the years I've fired tens of thousands of rounds so I'm very pro 2A. I'm just saying that in my opinion stereotyping could be bad for us.

Does anybody care ff someone they see at the range regularly is a Democrat? How would you like it if you were a Democrat and you're at the range and hear people dissing Democrats even though you're one of the best shots out there, been shooting longer than they've been alive too? Personally the more shooters we're friendly to the better for everybody.

There are however politicians of both parties that are pro gun or anti gun but that's a different subject. I probably dislike the antis more than most of you guys.

 

[shdwfx]

Mandatory Insurance

Watch out for that one.

I think they will push for all gun owners to insure their guns (or themselves) against any potential or imagined commission of a crime.

It seems so "reasonable."
"After all," they'll say, "we require drivers to be licensed and insured."

Ignoring the issue that cars aren't in the bill of rights, this sort of legislation would require de-facto gun registration to enforce. Few insurance companies would even offer such a product, and few would be able to afford it anyway.

From their side, the beauty of insurance legislation makes any oponent seem irresponsible.

 

[chuckusaret]

Ever hear of Vermont? Why don't you look up our Brady Campaign score? Then look at our polling results from the 2008 election.

Tried to find the score but could not. I believe it to be easier to unite a small state to an issue like the 2nd rights issue than the larger states. Heck, Palm Beach county where I live has a population of 1,351,236(State 18 million) the whole state of Vermont has a total population of less than 680,000. Plus, you don't have the diversity of etnic backgrounds we have here and we have far less hunters and outdoorsman than Vermont.
We have few people that were born and raised in Florida, most likely 80 to 90% of Vermont's population is native to Vermont. We live in a whole different world and lifestyle than you. I commend the people of Vermont for being pro enviromental & pro rights, here in Florida we have a very large poulation of people who cares less about pro rights or the enviroment and only wants to know when their next handout, stimulus money, food stamps, housing grant, will be available. This group will place their vote to anyone or group that will allow them to continue to live off the wellfare programs. They are presently 100% for Obama and waiting for their gas and rent money, but their patience is growing thin.

 

[ArmedBear]

porterdog gets my award for one of the smartest political posts I've seen lately.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Tried to find the score but could not. I believe it to be easier to unite a small state to an issue like the 2nd rights issue than the larger states. Heck, Palm Beach county where I live has a population of 1,351,236(State 18 million) the whole state of Vermont has a total population of less than 680,000. Plus, you don't have the diversity of etnic backgrounds we have here and we have far less hunters and outdoorsman than Vermont.

Possibly.

I would also add that VT's liberal population has historically been more of the liberal bent, in its original sense, than the neo-liberal. Which is not to say that we are at all conservative of anything other than our environment. That is changing with the current influx of downcountry people who seem to see the place as an open field for them to impose Obama (yeah, I hate his guts, too) style neo-liberalism at will. Eventually, they will likely succeed, as their economic power is so much greater than that of the locals, but the fight goes on.

Growing up here, the state was home to many refugees- Hmong, Salvadoran, Nicaraguan (and presently Bantu, Somali, Sudanese). We're an amazingly white, anglo-saxon state, but our communities are open to other ethnicities (OK, in some regards, if you weren't born here, you'll never be accepted. I'm viewed as an outsider, even though I live 20 miles from my childhood home). The experiences of the refugees in their home countries, as related to me when I was in grade school, shaped my early notions of natural rights and why the right to self defense is so important to defend.

The point is that civil liberties are not coupled to any political party in this country. Both parties are horrendous on civil liberties. Even the Libertarian Party has huge civil liberties problems. I believe the reason for this is that large, organized groups must inherently trade away liberties in order to accomplish anything. The Federalists had a point about Republicanism leading to oppressive factions. I don't, however, believe that Federalism was the correct response to that problem.

The cliché states that all politics are local. i believe the crux of social problems is getting local populations to have a cosmopolitan outlook on the world, rather than a tribal outlook.

 

[gossamer]

Here's a little story for some of you maligning Democrats on The High Road to ponder:

I came into CCW, gun ownership and gun rights late in life. I only recently fired a hand gun for the first time, I've never hunted because I have no use for it. I fired guns as a kid with my uncle and throughout boy scouts. I own my own business, I am a life-long Democrat, a flaming liberal progressive, I am pro-choice, I am for increasing taxes if we have to pay for what our society needs to protect ourselves and aid the weakest among us, I am for the continuation of the liberal traditions in this country that so many rely upon for survival (SS, Civil Rights Act, etc.) and I am 39 years old. AND I was about as personally "anti-gun" as it can get a year ago. Not to say I wanted to restrict the second amendment in any way, but I didn't want guns around me or my family AT ALL.

It wasn't until this past winter when something happened that made me decide that I wanted a gun for self-defense and home defense. Something occurred and I just decided it was time for me to take this responsibility and I wanted to increase my awareness. So what happened you ask? What occurred?

Well, one morning I woke up and said "I want to own a gun for self-defense, and to defend my family."

That was it. It was really that simple:

It was a completely self-directed decision. I made the decision because I realized that I have some blind spots in my awareness and I want to eliminate those blindspots. That without truly living and experiencing something I can't make an informed decision about whether it's right or wrong, good or bad, better or worse. And so began a months-long process of introspection, investigation, learning, and increasing my awareness.

It was over the stern protestations of my wife who's father hunted, who's brother in laws hunt. But here's the thing: It wasn't because of a fear of society or crime. It wasn't because I can. And it sure as heck wasn't because a bunch of conservatives started calling me "socialist" because of my decision in November. It wasn't because of my a**hole, conservative, racist brother in law who owns over a dozen guns and hundreds of knives.

So last weekend I took my CCW class and fired a handgun for the first time. I passed (not too hard, too easy if you ask me)

And yesterday I bought my first handgun ever. And I'll take to to the range for more practice and more and more and more before I ever carry it concealed.

I did it because I wanted to. Because despite what a bunch of people profess to know about "Democrats" the fact is they really don't appear to know jack sh*t about A Democrat.

So when I come here and read a post that's positive, about the REALITY that the Democratic party is starting to get it where guns are concerned I say "hey, maybe some of these guys are catching on that we're not all a bunch of anti-gun, fearful people who want to lock up your guns.

Then I read stuff like this:

They are a new breed of Democrats alright; that's why I'm so frightened. These people are socialists, pure and simple, and I've never known any socialists who supported arming the populace they were trying to control.

Speaking as a new breed of Democrat the OP was talking about, and overcoming the urge to not dignify the idiocy of the words, I'm not sure you would know your armpit from a Socialist if one was living in there in government housing.

It would be one thing if all this vitriol were coming from someone as charming as Don Quixoti -- tilting at the windmill of "losing the second amendment." The problem is, you just sound hateful, hate fomenting, and ignorant.

And what's worse, you're not converting anyone to supporting you in the RKBA. You're just running people off.

If you're just going to go around calling me and my fellow "new-breed of Democrats" "socialists" I'm not willing to lend you any political support. But not because you're calling me names, but because you don't even understand where I'm coming from.

So maybe drop the vitriol and take your allies where you find them. Or, you can can insult Democrats in one hand, and crap in the other and see which one fills up first.

 

[ArmedBear]

gossamer, please open your mind to the possibility that there's more to the political world than the BS spewed by Democrats and Republicans looking for votes from the lowest common denominator among voters -- and that criticism of Democratic Party platform and politicians does not translate into automatic praise or support for the GOP's platform and politicians.

While I would disagree with you on many issues, it has nothing to do with your brother-in-law, I assure you.

And I'm glad we can agree on some things.