Left-liberal...can shoot, too

[Kerryon]

Politician-body politic. Liiberal-liberate. Conserative-conserve. Same root. I'm an independant ,democratic, liberal minded ,ex-florist, millwright, vet, who would gladly help a boyscout across the street but think that 3rd time DWI's should have tatoos, so they can be shot on sight in incident 4. Labels help no one. Politicians have 2 jobs, get elected,stay elected. They will change affiliations, and stories as fast as a used Pontiac salesman caught lying to his mommy for $.25. This is strictly a personal opinion,what do I know anyhow, right? I was born yesterday. Anyone remember the 3 finger salute,no not scouts, from '69-70 Armed Forces? Peace,Love but (P.C.) you anyway! That was about a common cause. Those of us assigned to the Ft. Dix Stockade, or in Vietnam,or home in Kent,OH wanted innocent people HOME SAFELY, even if they were Republicans (fooled ya diddn'I?)

 

[Funderb]

I think that the dem-repub contention is getting out of hand. Those of us caught in the middle of a very unrealistic divide between people who share a lot of the same ideas fueled by those members of the extreme left and right are growing farther apart. People are letting qualities erroneously drawn up by those who only want to disrupt for the sake of drawing attention and causing tension define them, and are forcing those qualities that they think, and were informed, are wrong on those who may not be that dissimilar from themselves.
We are all decent people here on THR.
Just because one person identifies with the republican party does not mean that they are Texan, rabble-rousing, gun-loving, violence-promoting cowboys, bent on conquest, that the left media likes to portray them as.
Likewise, not all Democrats are the baby-killing, gay loving, gun hating, anti-establishment, pinkos that the right media draws them up to be.
The people who are ruining gun culture are people who are unnecessarily afraid, and do not understand the firearm community. If we can teach them, amoung everyone, to understand guns, and understand firearm safety, then we have something we can work with.
No "party" when in office can "destroy" this country. This is a great, powerful country, and system of government that we the people have built.
It is durable, and will endure.

The extreme left does not understand that if there is a mass removal of firearms in this country, then people will get killed by knives. That would be the only difference. Nothing good would come of it.
At the same time the extreme right does not understand that gay marriage is not destroying the world, and when it comes down to it, it's a moot point.

I don't mind the party system, but I feel like there is a huge divide that is only getting bigger as people retreat farther to extremism and towards sterotype-based distaste for another group of people.

That said, what can we do?
Go out, meet with that most hated liberal neighbor of yours, don't talk politics, just have dinner and offer to take them to the range, or out hunting. Tactfully, people that don't know guns scare easily. Take it lightly, and ignore political chiding. Treat acrimony with reserve and respect, and their attitude will change.

Go out, meet with the hardlined republican neighbor, argue about sports, not about how the president isn't your favourite. Tact, politeness, repsect and reserve. Plan to have an neigborhood block barbeque, maybe on a game day, or just to lets the kids get together. There is no reason why we can't get along.

This is America, we are Americans, and we are supposed to be united. The pride in our country that we express is what we all have in common. It defines us as a nation. Keep it going.



okay, my rant is over. sorry guys.

 

[dogma512]

This thread seems to have started off with the flawed assumption that everyone THR is a conservative right-wing gun-nut.

Not every liberal is anti-gun gun just like not every republican is a sex crazed closet gay that seeks sex in public bathrooms or from interns, the media just makes it seem that way.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Funderb,

That's EXACTLY what I was hoping to hear. Build coalitions or lose.

 

[bogie]

Oleg, you say she is a left-leaning liberal.

I think more than a few of us fit that definition. What are her bumper stickers? What are her beliefs?

I mean, sheesh... I think the war on some drugs is bogus... I'm all for immigration (and at the same time, I think that lifetime welfare recipients need to be shown the border...). I don't like capital punishment - I think it'd be a lot better to keep 'em going on treadmills with generators... I figure that the a-word is up to the people involved. I don't give a damn what sexual orientation someone is, as long as they keep their mitts of kids or anyone who isn't interested. We need social programs to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. We don't need to create people who cannot take care of themselves. Stem cell research might be a good thing. Holy rollers make me very nervous. Holy rollers with TV shows should be audited monthly.

Heck, I guess I'm a liberal.

 

[Roswell 1847]

Are Liberals those French guys with the powdered wigs and knee britches that wear a lot of rouge and are eaten up with syphilus?
No wait those are Libertines. In the words of Emily Latela,...... never mind.

 

[GEM]

Good OP, Oleg. The RKBA is independent of being a social conservative. Unfortunately, some of those only want RKBA supporters to be true believers of social conservative causes. They like the exclusionary nature of their 'club'.

 

[romma]

but I can't find one of them mentioning a pro-RKBA Democratic Presidential candidate

Bill Richardson From New Mexico is your Pro-Gun Dem...

 

[6_gunner]

I know a family who is very pro-gun and also staunchly Democrat.
This boggles my mind! Sure, there are many Democrat individuals who are not anti-gun; but the democratic party as a whole, and certainly the leadership, is vehemently anti-gun.

To me, being a pro-gun Democrat makes about as much sense as being a pro-free market Communist or a Libertarian who supports big government!

How can someone identify with a political party if the party consistently goes against one of his or her basic principles?!?

A pro-gun "liberal" makes perfect sense if you're talking about the classical definition of liberalism. However, the Democratic party doesn't even come close to supporting real liberalism. They want the government to control EVERYTHING; the only thing that makes them appear "liberal" is the fact that they support certain behaviors which Republicans condemn. The only true liberals in the classical sense are the Libertarians.

 

[DirksterG30]

Bill Richardson From New Mexico is your Pro-Gun Dem...

Who doesn't have a snowballs chance in Hades of winning.

 

[cyclist]

....

 

[jlbraun]

Funderb,

That's EXACTLY what I was hoping to hear. Build coalitions or lose.

And it's for that reason I like THR instead of other forums. THR emphasizes RKBA instead of politics. Other sites don't understand that if gun forums become stupid little conservative echo chambers, then we all lose our RKBA.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

"Enjoying shooting, taking the responsibility of one's own safety into one's own hands, and recognizing the power of a firearm has absolutely no bearing with one's political affiliation or orientation."

"Yet, somehow, all Democrats = anti-gun to many people here."

That is because the Democratic Party Leadership is rabidly anti-gun. If you pro-gun Dems are still voting party line for your party's anti-gun candidates, then YOU ARE ANTI-GUN also! Yes, there are anti-gun Republicans, but gun control is not a plank in the Republican platform like it is in the Dem platform. Most of the antis own guns of their own, they just don't want US to own them. You can justify it all you want, but if you are voting for these clowns (in either party) then you are not Pro 2A.

 

[SSN Vet]

I don't know....

this whole thread sounds pretty political to me....

mods better shut it down quick!

heaven forbid we talk about gun related politics, like say, what a major presidential candidates views on the second ammendment are.

 

[Dorryn]

Go ahead, vote third party... Throw your vote away!

(In before the lock!)

 

[Prof. A. Wickwire]

Go ahead, vote third party... Throw your vote away!

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

 

[bogie]

And it's for that reason I like THR instead of other forums. THR emphasizes RKBA instead of politics. Other sites don't understand that if gun forums become stupid little conservative echo chambers, then we all lose our RKBA.

Well, the problem is that the fiscal conservatives courted, and won, the holy roller end of the Democratic party, which defected to the Republicans in the late 1970s... And they keep insisting upon making the party's platforms essentially religion-based. Which _really_ grates upon a lot of folks.

 

[ArmedBear]

Uh, I knew someone who was in the SS, a member of the Nazi party, but really had nothing against Jews. I'm serious. Like, so what? That and 50 cents will buy you what exactly?

If someone supports rabidly anti-gun politicians in a republic, where few actual decisions are made by the electorate directly, they might as well be anti-gun themselves. What's the difference?

It's the same as the "I'm not a member of the NRA because..." threads, where people are "offended" when they're told that, whatever problems the NRA has, their refusing to support it at all is not good for gun rights. That's just a fact, no matter how people feel about it. If there's another AWB with traction in the House and Senate, as of right now it's the NRA that will have the clout to fight it, and nobody else. Support every group you can and want to, but facts are facts.

Sometimes facts are unpleasant. The idea that we can refute facts with our emotions is an interesting neurosis, and a common one, it seems, even around here sometimes.

I'm glad that not all lefties are rabidly anti-gun, but those who really want to be pro-gun need to ask themselves what they're doing about it, when they support the likes of, say, Barak Obama.

 

[GEM]

One can easily ask why so many pro-gun folks give pro-gun politician passes on many proposed violations of human rights? Are they ok as long as you can have a gun?

 

[feedthehogs]

This is America, we are Americans, and we are supposed to be united

We used to have people that thought like this in college(60's). We called them intellectuals and hippies who had ideas for everything, but no solutions.

Would protest at the drop of a hat, but never offered anything beyond that.

Dreaming about a day when we all hold hands and sing cumbaya is a pipe dream.

When all the fun from shooting dies down and there's nothing left to talk about except religon, abortion, taxes, affirmative action, economy, climate change, etc, should we all just agree to disagree?

In 20 years of working gun shows, I never met anyone other than single guys living in an apt or with the folks that only looked at gun issues as the primary reason for anything.

The rest of us who have responsibilities of homes and kids and businesses have other issues that affect us. Many gun show attenders were in fact Democrats who considered other issues much more important than guns. The same for Republicans.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Many gun show attenders were in fact Democrats who considered other issues much more important than guns.

I am one of them. I am more concerned with the on-going destruction of the rest of the Bill of Rights by the NRA funded politicians right now than by an assault weapons ban.

I sometimes suspect in my darker moments that the Christian theocrats behind Bush consciously decided, "Look, if we dissolve the whole Bill of Rights all at once, it'll never work. Let's tell those ninnies at the NRA that we support the 2nd. Once we've gotten rid of all the others, it'll be a piece of cake to shred the 2nd. They'll give us plenty of cover and shiny freedom medals. And look at the funding we get if we tell 'em we're pro RKBA. Let's go make some easy money, boys."

I know that's a paranoid delusion - I am not ready for the tin foil hat yet.

By the time Bush, et. al. are done with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th, will it matter that we have a 2nd?

John Ashcroft scares me a heck of a lot more than Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden could not have forced "national security letters" on US citizens - the theocrats in power could and did do that.

Mike

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I'm glad that not all lefties are rabidly anti-gun, but those who really want to be pro-gun need to ask themselves what they're doing about it, when they support the likes of, say, Barak Obama.

Everyone should read that over a few times and really think about if it applies to them.

 

[Roswell 1847]

John Ashcroft scares me a heck of a lot more than Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden could not have forced "national security letters" on US citizens - the theocrats in power could and did do that.

Mike

National Security Letters have been around since the Carter Administration, they were first issued in 1978.

I was unaware that Carter was a "Theocrat".

President John F. Kennedy appointed Bell, who had been the co-chairman of Kennedy's presidential campaign in Georgia, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1961. He served for more than fourteen years on the Fifth Circuit. He often played a key role in mediating disputes between the court's factions during the zenith of the American Civil Rights Movement.

He resigned from the court on March 1976 to resume his law practice. In December 1976, President Jimmy Carter nominated him to become the 72nd Attorney General of the United States. He served until August 1979. His Watergate era nomination was initially controversial because he is a Southerner and a friend of the President. However, by the time he left office, Bell had allayed the concerns of many of his critics in the United States Senate and the media. He was credited with bringing needed independence and professionalism to the Department of Justice.

Bell led the effort to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978.

 

[Technosavant]

John Ashcroft scares me a heck of a lot more than Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden could not have forced "national security letters" on US citizens - the theocrats in power could and did do that.

The funny thing is, Ashcroft was fighting for civil rights. When you pillory people, be sure to do it for the right reasons. Instead, many folks like to slap labels on somebody else (whether you see them as "theocrats" or "liberal rat so and sos") and they cubbyhole them. When that happens, reality goes out the window and it is tinfoil hat time.

That's what Oleg is trying to say. If we pigeonhole all liberals as anti-gun, we aren't doing ourselves any favors. Sure, we'll disagree on other issues, but I'd be less concerned about "my guy" losing the election if I knew the winner wasn't likely to rip my rights to shreds.

The reason our nation's politics are becoming less civil again (it was like this many years ago, but things seemed to calm down a bit in the mid-20th century) is because we're pigeonholing people based on labels. If you're X, then you must also be Y and Z, and therefore unfit for public life. That happens on both sides of the aisle. One hates the liberals, the other hates those with religious beliefs. We aren't able to separate people from their beliefs nor can we understand that folks don't necessarily hold to the full measure of the stances taken by the party leadership.

If we want to win on the RKBA, we HAVE to enlist the help of the political left. If they can view it as a bona fide civil right and not something that is automatically harmful, then we can potentially marginalize those who make their RKBA stance based on blind emotion.

 

[Nolo]

Some day they'll wake up and realize they're Republicans.

One day all you Liberals and Conservatives will wake up and realize that you're Libertarians.
People think however they think.
Sometimes, they don't think. Differing views don't scare me, not thinking does. I sit here, in my pad-walled classroom, looking at all the loonies and what they are saying. Not thinking, they don't, but saying.
They don't actually think. I get them on that. I say "I don't care about your views, but dammit, THINK!!!"
They come back to me and say "You just don't like everyone who thinks differently than you."
That's not true. Many of my thinking friends disagree with me. All of them, in fact. I can stand them. Does that mean I don't argue? Sure, I do. What I can't stand is this endless patronship. "I'm voting Republican because I'M A REPUBLICAN!" No, no you're not. That's not voting, that's cheering on a sports team. Take that to the stands, not the polls. I'm voting Republican because I think they'll still pull it out by the skin of their teeth and I want to make sure their candidate isn't Rudy Guliani. If I thought the Democrats would win, I'd do the same, try to ensure a Clinton defeat.
Please, people, don't affiliate with your party like you affiliate with your home team. That will kill the American political system.
Washington was right when he warned against forming parties. He knew that objectivist thinking and reason were the key to good government. He also knew that parties destroyed that objectivist thinking.