Gun-toting liberal

[traveler106]

That's what my cousin amusedly called me the other day.

It's true that I am pretty liberal when it comes to social issues. I'm against war, I don't support Bush, I'm pro-choice...hell, I'm even against the death penalty. The only reason I won't join the NRA is because it endorses and gives lots of money to politicians to whom I am opposed, based solely on said politicians' stances on gun control. Nevermind what they think about other social issues.

Now, I'm not completely liberal. I start moving to the right when the conversation turns to economic issues (which stems from being someone who works very hard for his money, not from being a gun owner), but I often find myself at complete ends with fellow gun owners when discussing political issues of a social nature. Sometimes, the only thing I do agree with other shooters about is that the 2nd Amendment should be protected.

There is absolutely nothing about holding one of my firearms that makes me want to support war and other forms of state-sanctioned killings. Going out to the range doesn't suddenly change something in my head to make me believe that George W. Bush knows what's best for our country and the rest of the world.

I don't understand why political beliefs seem to come as a package of positions on a variety of unrelated issues for so many people.

Any thoughts?

 

[Diamondback6]

Sir, I'd suspect it's a tendency on most people's part to oversimplify things in general. Our political spectrum isn't just a single "liberal/conservative" axis, there's a second, "individualist/statist" conflict as well.

"The Decider" would be a textbook Statist Conservative, and Jefferson would be a classic Individualist Liberal.

I'm a social conservative myself, but I'm also one who adheres to the principles of Founding Fathers-style federalism first: "If the Constitution is silent on the issue, it's not Federal business and is up to the States and/or the People."

So, let's see about making common-cause here and sending the Statists on both sides into the political obsolescence they deserve...

 

[N3HCP]

I'm pretty much in the same political boat you are. I am often amused when people assume that because I support 2nd Amendment rights I must, by default, support the complete liberal agenda. I really don't like being characterized by labels like liberal or conservative. I am able to decide what I believe issue by issue and don't follow anybodies party line. I think there are more of us then you might think, but many are still "in the closet" .

 

[bogie]

Hmm... I guess I'm a pragmatic gun-toting liberal...

I don't like war, but I understand the occasional necessity.

I figure that Bush wasn't the worst that we could have done. And since there wasn't really a "best" choice... I'd probably vote for Condi Rice and just about anyone, in peacetime. However, I don't think that having her involved in the situation was a good thing with the middle east - not that she's incompetent; just that she's female, and the culture there sees that as weakness. With those guys, I'd have rather had someone like Powell...

I'm basically pro choice. Get outta my face, and keep the brat away from me too, and you can do anything you want. Just don't ask me to pay for it. Actually, I wouldn't mind temporary chemical sterilization as a requirement for welfare...

I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own space, as long as nobody gets hurt who doesn't wanna get hurt. And leave the poor poultry out of it...

I don't really like the death penalty, because it's too final and irreversible. And sometimes too nice. We've got all that nice desert, and all that nice swampland - we oughta use it for something...

If you don't like meat, don't eat it. Don't talk about it though.

If you don't like animal testing, tell your doctor you don't want to be prescribed anything developed since 1900.

"The Country" is not a golf course or a resort community. It's a little different, and a little rougher. Do not go there on the weekend, and try to tell the person who lives there how he/she should do things. Yes, the tractor smokes. No, it isn't going to be replaced with a hybrid.

Music: Dead, blues, bluegrass, jazz, anything but today's top 40...

 

[Erebus]

Hmmm that's funny because around these parts if you support 2A rights you are a right-wing neocon. You support Bush at all costs, love war, hate women, minorities and gays and think that abortion doctors should be shot on sight. Or at least that's what I have been told I am because I support 2A rights.

 

[K-Romulus]

welcome aboard!

From a fellow traveler . . .

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Politics

When you choose your politicians -- given that you value gun ownership -- you might want to see whether they've signed onto the elimination of guns as one of their missions in life.

If you don't really value gun ownership, then vote for whomever you please.

You may find some interesting correlations between support for gun ownership and support for other issues.

 

[hso]

Plenty of "gun tot'n liberals" around here, classical that is. Don't worry though, some one dimensional ideologue will come along pretty soon and try to tell you what you are or aren't without bothering to listen to you. Kinda like in the real world. Just remember to be patient with them and remind them that the word used to have a real meaning before leftist statists co-oped it to disguise themselves from the public.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

There is absolutely nothing about holding one of my firearms that makes me want to support war and other forms of state-sanctioned killings.

And my interest in firearms does not drive my desire to ensure that Sharia Law does not supplant basic rights, English Common Law or the US Constitution. It's my family, my liberty, my way of life and my humanitarian beliefs that make me support war.

I am very offended that you suggest that my interest in firearms makes me interested in KILLING!!! Merely for killing's sake. How narrow is your view of humanity?

I personally think we are in a fight for humanity and civilization. Islamic Fascists hate us because of our open society, our belief that their women should be free, and the U.S.A. culture's tendancy to steamroll over arbitrary and despotic rulership - even when it's based on "religion".

Somewhere in your heart, you may be on the same side as me, but what really scares me is that folks like you are mis-underestimating our enemy.

Tyrants kill freedom. Every time up until the U.S.A. Let's keep it that way.

 

[shooter503]

I guess it is our distorted political system that causes the problems. If you want to be the Democratic candidate you have to support the party agenda or you get no campaign money and you don't win. The same goes for Republicans.

What we need are politicians with guts who will tell us what THEY believe, not the "talking points" the party wants them to spout. Fat chance of anybody with a backbone being elected though. What I wouldn't give for a statesman whose agenda I could support 75%.

But then WE pick up labels as "Liberals" or "Conservatives" because we have to make the best choice out of a sorry group of candidates. WE get painted the same color as the politician we vote for even though we only agree with part of their agenda.

 

[traveler106]

I am very offended that you suggest that my interest in firearms makes me interested in KILLING!!! Merely for killing's sake. How narrow is your view of humanity?

That's actually the opposite of what I meant. I said that holding a gun doesn't make me want to support war as an illustration of how being pro-gun and being pro- or anti-war are two completely independent issues.

As far as the war goes, I could carry on about how Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that knocking down dictatorships just to make the world a nicer place has never been part of U.S. foreign policy, so the belief that this war was started for humanitarian reasons is inherently flawed...but that would digress into something completely different from what this thread is about.

Besides, it's pointless to talk about whether the Iraq war was right because, right or wrong, it doesn't change the situation we're in now.

 

[Soybomb]

It sounds like you're just a libertarian to me. There's alot of us around, including here. In general we want less government involvement in our lives, be it taxing us for welfare programs, mixing religious values with law, limiting the first amendment with flag burning bans, limiting the 2nd amendment with assault weapon bans, etc. I don't believe either major political party represents my views to any large degree and I think alot of people, including many gun owners, feel the same way. Contrary to what the media would have you believe we're not all a bunch of white christian republicans with a bush sticker on our trucks.

 

[Jeff White]

There is room for gun owners of every political leaning. We're all here and united by our love for firearms and our desire to be allowed to legally enjoy them.

I hate the partisanship that is on most gun forums.

Jeff

 

[romma]

That's why we need "THE GUN PARTY" Finally a true viable party that can compete with Repubs and Dems... It's simple and cut and dry...

 

[RavenVT100]

The only reason I won't join the NRA is because it endorses and gives lots of money to politicians to whom I am opposed, based solely on said politicians' stances on gun control. Nevermind what they think about other social issues.

See, this makes no sense to me. Here's why.

The NRA has never and probably will never hold itself out as supporting other social issues. It is indifferent, unless those social issues directly tie into 2A-related things. The NRA is first and foremost a training organization. It is not within the scope of their mission to support other social issues.

It's true that the NRA supports the Republican candidate most of the time, but not all of the time. In some areas of the country, the Democratic candidate gets endorsed by the NRA. The reason the NRA supports the Republicans as much as they do has more to do with the fact that the Democrats have made it abundantly clear that people who own firearms are not welcome in their party. I sympathize with you, honestly, because I agree with you on many of these social issues as well. But the reality is that the Democrats, and the DLC types in particular, have decided that they don't need us. And that's too bad, because the only thing that gun control has really been effective at is causing the Democratic candidate to lose elections.

The NRA endorses candidates who support their cause. They are under no obligation to get involved in other social issues. If you want to support BoR issues (other than the 2A, naturally), join the ACLU. There are many people who are members of both the ACLU and the NRA.

 

[JohnL2]

I think the hegira of conservatives and moderate social liberals from both major parties need to get together and build up the Libertarian Party.
I am extremely dissatisfied at how subsumed the Republican Party has become by the religious right.
I have nothing against religion. But using organized religion as a base of power seems rather Machiavellian to me. Belief in the Almighty should lift your soul. Not lift you to power.
The Democrats are not what they use to be. As are the Republicans but I think the Dems are in worse shape.

 

[DogBonz]

I'm with you

I don't understand why political beliefs seem to come as a package of positions on a variety of unrelated issues for so many people.

Well, thats because we are all human.

That's why we need "THE GUN PARTY" Finally a true viable party that can compete with Repubs and Dems... It's simple and cut and dry...

It would never happen. As soon a the got into power, the internal squabling would fractionalize them.

 

[Helmetcase]

Yeah, probably true DogBonz. Which is why it's important we have liberal gun rights supporters and conservative ones; that way, we have the tools to apply pressure to politicians in both parties.

 

[bobhaverford]

Your right to own firearms is enshrined in the Constitution as the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution is the ONLY bulwark protecting your right to gun ownership.

But the Constitution is not only about gun ownership. It is about limiting the size and scope of the federal government and provides for a system of checks and balances.

My problem with folks like you is that you want to pick and choose! Hmmmm, I like guns so I should be able to own them but by golly, I want the government to co-opt the legitimiate responsibilites of adults and take care of us damnit!

The Constitution works in its totality and was devised by men smarter than you and I. You blithely want to ignore it or distort it to your own ends. For example: a woman should have the right "to choose" and so I'll just invent a penumbra of rights including privacy to ensure that women will get a right to choose and preempt the legitimate role of the legislature.

Our second Amendment rights only work IF the Constitution stands. And folks, our Constitution is under constant attack by liberals (small "l") in this country.

Thems the facts, like 'em or not.

 

[Helmetcase]

Congrats Bob, your post officially starts this thread on its way to the abyss.

Nothing like pointing out the bad things "the other guys" are doing to the COTUS while ignoring the things your own guys are doing to really liven up a conversation

For example: a woman should have the right "to choose" and so I'll just invent a penumbra of rights including privacy to ensure that women will get a right to choose and preempt the legitimate role of the legislature.

Translation: I should get to enjoy privacy about my gun ownership and get to choose to own a gun, but you can't choose what happens to your own body. I find this attitude really annoying; as we gunnies are fond of pointing out, govt doesn't give you rights, nor does a document. You HAVE rights, and we use govt to protect and enshrine those rights. The idea that liberals are trying to "invent" a right is boorishly facile. We HAVE inalienable rights, and those rights certainly include things not enumerated in the COTUS. The COTUS doesn't specifically enshrine the right to self defense either, but nobody really doubts you have that right.

Bob: go read the 9th A and get back to us.

 

[BrennanKG]

Posted by JohnL2

I think the hegira of conservatives and moderate social liberals from both major parties need to get together and build up the Libertarian Party.
I am extremely dissatisfied at how subsumed the Republican Party has become by the religious right.
I have nothing against religion. But using organized religion as a base of power seems rather Machiavellian to me. Belief in the Almighty should lift your soul. Not lift you to power.
The Democrats are not what they use to be. As are the Republicans but I think the Dems are in worse shape.

Nicely put. I share your feelings on the parties.
Much of the GOP platform looks more and more like a theocracy waiting to happen.
The the Democratic party...well, I don't know what it's become but it has ugly and dangerous leanings.


B.

 

[bobhaverford]

Bob: go read the 9th A and get back to us.

I would suggest you reread the 9th and the 10th. Both support my point. There is no "right" to privacy in the Constitution. But lets not argue that point.

My point is a limited one. Decisions such as a woman's "right to choose" and a homosexual's "right to marry" are consigned legitimately to the legislative branch of government. And I believe that a correct reading of the 10th would consign them to the legislative branch of the state governments. IF we desconstruct the Constitution to mean whatever we wish, if it becomes merely a barometer for popular opinion, be it that of the SCOTUS or the people of the USA we are lost.

The Constitution MUST stand on its own. IT is the only protection that we have for ALL of our liberties and we fiddle faddle with it at our own great peril.

 

[Helmetcase]

Bob, you need to put down the Christofascist KoolAid. Supporting just the rights that rightwing Christians support is a recipe for theocracy.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

How does that support the idea that you don't have an inherent right to privacy about what happens with your internal organs? Don't you agree that you have a right to privacy about your gun ownership or your CCW permit? Or should the state publish a list of CCW holders with your name and address?

The idea enshrined there is simple: just because the Founders didn't think to enumerate every conceivable right doesn't mean you don't have that right. The idea that you can "invent" a right is frankly stupid. You either have a right or you don't. The term "inalienable right" ring any bells? That means that regardless of what any piece of paper or legislator says, you have rights simply because you're a living, sentient being. The Founders were smart enough to realize that they could never list them all in the COTUS, so they made it clear, explicitly clear, that just because a right isn't listed in the COTUS doesn't mean you don't have it.

Decisions such as a woman's "right to choose" and a homosexual's "right to marry" are consigned legitimately to the legislative branch of government.

Says who?

How is that any business of the govts at all? Where does it say that the legislative branch decides who marries and who doesn't?

Again, you're obviously not very tuned in to what the 9A means--just because a right isn't specifically delineated in the COTUS doesn't mean you don't have it. The Founders never intended the COTUS to be an exhaustive list of the rights you have. How could they be expected to understand and remember to list an exhaustive list of rights? The question becomes whether the govt has the right to restrict your rights.

IT is the only protection that we have for ALL of our liberties and we fiddle faddle with it at our own great peril.

So why aren't you bitchin about the conservative attacks on the 4A? (The conservative activist judges on the SCOTUS have all but eviscerated the reasonable search and seasure provisions in the last ten years). The 1A for that matter?

The strength of the COTUS is in no small part thanks to its recognition that it is not an exhaustive list of your rights, but rather in that it makes it difficult for govt to restrict your natural rights.

For more on why Bob is wrong, read here. (legalese warning, but a good read)

Keep the govt out of our lives!!!! (Unless it's trying to get people to quit doing things we don't like!)

EDIT: Saw this snippet from woodcdi's sig line, seems appropriate: Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on.

 

[benEzra]

Another gun-owning non-repub here...

I posted the following a while back in another thread, but I think it's pertinent here:

To all: Helmetcase brings up something here that I think some gunnies who happen to be republicans miss.

(1) Tying the RKBA to a right-wing agenda means that if the right-wing agenda falters, our RKBA will die. Not to mention the fact that many of us gunnies don't WANT to see the whole right-wing shebang enacted, since we are not all of the right-wing political persuasion. Don't tie gun rights to the immigration issue. Don't tie gun rights to lowering taxes or abolishing the Department of Education. The Bill of Rights TRANSCENDS that stuff, and there are a lot of gun owners out there who are 100% pro-RKBA but who don't support your position on immigration/the Minutemen, lowering taxes, or abolishing the DoE. Don't tie my gun rights to somebody else's red wagon. Which brings us to #2...

(2) Roughly half of U.S. gun owners are NOT republicans, and around 1/3 are registered Democrats. Ben Franklin's adage about "we must all hang together, or we will surely hang separately" comes to mind. The repubs gleefully accepted the mantle of Defenders of the Second Amendment when the national Dems idiotically handed it to them in the early 1990's, but don't forget for a minute that for the national republican party, being pro-2ndA is merely a means to an end of pushing the broader republican agenda...which in recent years seems to be very, very neocon. Also don't forget that the national repubs came very close to dumping the 2ndA in the early '90's until they realized what a blunder the Dems were making, and decided for pragmatic reasons to take advantage of it.

(3) If a Dem honestly stands up for the 2nd Amendment, support him/her on it!!!!!! Even if you can't vote for him/her because you disagree with him/her on other issues, don't bash them because they did the right thing on the 2ndA. Praise them for doing the right thing!

If you bash non-conservatives/non-libertarians/non-whatevers who stand up for the 2ndA because they aren't a conservative/libertarian/whatever, then what you're saying is that you don't want anybody but conservatives/libertarians/whatever supporting the 2ndA. Guess what, the Bradyites will be GLAD to welcome them to their camp. Don't shove them in the bradyites' direction.

 

[Cousin Mike]

I have no idea how to classify myself. I've given up trying.

The older I get, the more I lean to the right on certain social issues. But I'm not a religious person, I don't care about abortion at all, and I do think we could benefit from cleaning up the environment a little... but at the same time, I'm not really buying the whole 'global warming' thing. I'm just me. I listen to different sides, and form my own opinion.. sometimes those opinions change, sometimes they don't. Basically I think people should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they don't deprive anyone else of those rights.