"Liberals" and guns - stand up!

[Rebar]

Yep sure Rebar you know what I meant and said and I don't.

Ok, then explain this:

However I am someone who believes that taxes aren't always evil, that Christianity is not the answer to all political questions (heck make that any), that people should be left alone to live as they see fit with who they see fit as long as they don't harm anyone else, that some attention to the environment which we inhabit may not be a bad thing, that people who live in other countries and have other skin colors and other religions are not inferior and certainly not cannon fodder, and so on.

So chock full of left wing stereotypes and outright lies, one hardly knows where to begin. Yet you continue on as if you didn't write it. But you did, didn't you?

I also note that you completely ignored this point:

The number of leftists who are pro-RKBA is tiny, and have no power. The huge majority, and those with all the power, are dead set on total civilian disarmament.

Why is that?

 

[Old Dog]

If you aren't a libertarian, you are anti-freedom.....

Huh?
Wow, how very insulting. Thanks for the insight, buddy. As a non-libertarian, I find this type of statement pretty ridiculous.

The fuss about labels is precisely what is dividing this country right now. "Blue state-red state" crap ... libertarian, conservative, neo-con, liberal ...

 

[Boats]

Scratch a libertarian and you'll find a Utopian underneath the surface. There is no realism, no prospects, and no timetable for the coming libertarian society.

So we are pretty much stuck with what we have, which is a political duopoly we muddle along with for the lack of something better. To be civic minded about voting, one is pretty much required to pick a side, lest one's vote do something useless, such as electing someone like Bill Clinton through a plurality.

The way I see it is this: Most gun owners are not "progressives" because the implied progress of the liberals on the subject of guns ends some place hellish that most folks here want no part of. If not single issue voters, non-liberal gun owners tend to have the issue in their top three.

Leftist gun owners who end up supporting the Kerry, Schumer, Feinstien, Clinton, and Kennedy do so despite their gun ownership. Those folks who vote for that rabble of gungrabbers are simply enablers and cannot be counted as a reliable ally in the fight for gun rights. When push comes to shove, there seems to be dozens of "social justice" topics that trump guns for the firearms crowd on the left side of the fence.

Therefore, you put out gun owning liberals are known by the company you keep, and that company is not to the credit of your reliability on the issue of RKBA.

 

[Ginger]

Well, I'm a Libertarian. And a Christian. Having been stereotyped so often myself, I'll skip comment on the stereotypes I see in your post since those are really a side issue in my mind.

I disagree with your position that presentation trumps substance when it comes to political action. I have sometimes mightily disgreed with the presentation (or sometimes, the presentor) of a certain cause but still worked hard to support that cause because it was right.

It would be better if both sides dialed down the emotional manipulation but I don't see that happening in the short-term. Meanwhile, I think we should all look beyond the posturing and support good causes. I think RKBA issues are worth fighting for despite the craziness they sometimes attract.

 

[GEM]

It should be the case that gunownership support is independent of the other political belief systems.

Advocates for the RKBA should assidiously avoid being connected automatically with conservative causes when they talk about the RKBA.

Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Those who argue that a liberal gun owner might vote for Kerry as being an example of something, don't get it.

The social conservative gun owner might blow it his tush that he only votes on the RKBA BECAUSE most gun supporting pols unfortunately are conservative. Thus, this high probability negates him or her having to make a choice.

The true test is whether the gun owner would vote for a socially liberal pol who was a better RKBA than the conservative. That could happen. So what would you do? Gay marriage, abortion, welfare and gun freedom? Brain short circuit?

 

[dmallind]

OK Rebar I'll try once again (and where is this supposed denial of what I wrote anyway?) However to make it more clear let's quote the whole section though shall we?

No I'm not a socialist. No I'm not an Al Qaeda sympathizer. No I'm not a pinko fag. Been called all those and worse so go ahead. However I am someone who believes that taxes aren't always evil, that Christianity is not the answer to all political questions (heck make that any), that people should be left alone to live as they see fit with who they see fit as long as they don't harm anyone else, that some attention to the environment which we inhabit may not be a bad thing, that people who live in other countries and have other skin colors and other religions are not inferior and certainly not cannon fodder, and so on.

Every single one of those positions has been met in various internet forums, whether expressed by myself or others, with the accusation of being a socialist, Al Qaeda sympathizer or pinko fag and worse. The whole darn point of the original post and this bit in particular are that those opinions do NOT make one a socialist, Al Qaeda sympathizer and pinko fag nor do they make you anti-RKBA.

I fail to see a single reference in this quote, which you imagine is damning evidence of my extreme views and hatred of conservatives, to people holding the opposite opinion and where they fall politically. The only point in this part of my post is exactly what it says - that these views get people accused of extremism, nothing at all to do with conservatives. I suppose most of the assumptions made were made by people on the right of the spectrum sure, but for some people "conservative" is as incorrect an expression as "liberal" itself - I'm guessing the people making those assumptions are idiots regardless of their politics. Heck on some issues I am conservative. I doubt very many (I'm wise enough not to say any) of you have a more conservative viewpoint on unions than I do for example (inefficient relics that should be ignored), or capital punishment (do it on conviction, immediately, for far more crimes than it currently applies to). Heck I even like the idea of a flat tax (as long as it were applied to ALL income - no free rides). What kind of maroon would I have to be to demonize in toto a group in a post that said another group shouldn't be demonized in toto ?

On reflection I think perhaps where you misinterpreted me comes form the idea that we have a polarized society with only two options - that if I am talking about ideas and excluding liberals then by definition I can only be including conservatives.

I do not subscribe to that idea and I think that the acceptance of it is part of the reason why political discourse is so rancorous and partisan - the idea that if you are not like me then you are evil or harmful or automatically wrong and less valid. This spans the political spectrum and is an asinine idea throughout - for every far-right perosn who demonizes liberals there is a far-left person who demonizes conservatives (similarly ill defined in this case as anyone right of Nader). They are both wrong and they are both HARMING their own causes. Trust me I've tried this kind of line on left leaning forums too with similar results. The idea that if there is the slightest disgarrement, or a single position where you do not agree with the hard-line view on eiother side, then you are automatically an enemy and a troll and whatever completely precludes any ability to work together where agreement exists.

 

[kbheiner7]

DMALLIND - I understand your position. It's tough for most of us to reach out a hand to you because it is primarily your party attacking our rights.

I certainly welcome Democrats that believe in the RTKABA to this particular fight, but we are so far apart on many other issues that the Democratic party will continue to be demonized as commie-pinko bleeders just as Democrats demonize conseratives as religious fundamentalists.

 

[kfranz]

Huh?
Wow, how very insulting. Thanks for the insight, buddy. As a non-libertarian, I find this type of statement pretty ridiculous.

You're welcome, both for the insult and the insight. As a libertarian(philosophy, not party), I find the statement to be true, and yours to be pretty ridiculous. Oh, I know, you probably are for some freedoms, most folks are.....

 

[Frandy]

Maybe we should stop labelling each other and just consider an individual's opinions. I know plenty of liberals who own guns, that in and of itself doesn't make them conservative or liberal, just common sense minded.

I like that... I will ramble...

Shades of gray, boys and girls, shades of gray. It's all a continuum and we each reside somewhere along that left to right line drawn in the sand.

I do not even use the terms of liberal and conservative. Most here don't know the history of those terms, I imagine and how they have evolved over time. They are not adequate terms to explain or define very much that is related to reality today. They are terms that are generally used by those who oppose what they think these terms represent. Most of my friends, or those who at least know me well enough through my actions and deeds, would call me a liberal. I don't want that term applied to me because it traps me within a box that I do not care to belong to. Interesting to note that I read the historian John Lukacs. I don't share his very conservative social and political views but I sure do appreciate his traditional type of conservatism as opposed to the played out conservativism that is the mainstream today. And, I don't like the mainstream, so-called liberalism either. That's a whole other discussion...

Personally, I cringe when I see posts here by folks that state extreme positions. But, that is their right to do so unless they are (well, I won't go there because it will open up another thread of ideas about when you can't and when you can state certain things.)

I have my belief system grounded in personal values and passions. And I try to put those values into action (virtues, if you will). And, at times I speak out with passion about the positions I take in life.

I see a purposeful value in laws and regulations because I don't believe in the eternal goodness of humans. The meat packing industry needed reform and regulation because of the failings of human beings, and so do many other enterprises. But, a balance is needed, something we never seem to agree on. Shades of gray.

I believe in as much personal liberty as possible, so long as the fabric of the "common good" is not torn, which in my opinion hurts not only the disenfranchised but any other group of souls, depending on the context, perhaps even all of us. I do believe that government plays a vital road in our lives. I do believe that we all need to contribute for the common good and to help others who are less capable, less able. I'm no Social Darwinian. But, I'm no Socialist either. No way. Shades of gray.

I own and shoot guns for entertainment, as a hobby. But I also have my NC CHP. I know that if necessary, I am (somewhat) capable and prepared to shoot at and possibly even kill someone who threatens the life of my wife, those of other innocents, or myself. Those friends of mine? Most of them don't know I have and shoot firearms. Some that do are appalled by it. I could care less. No, I take that back. I do care that they feel that way. I think they are stuck within their liberal naivety about the goodness of mankind. They are not prepared to protect themselves or their loved ones. And that appalls me! And yet, I tend to share their political/economic/social views on many things. I said many. Not all. Shades of gray.

Whatever.

Frandy, who is getting to be a damned fine shot with his UPS 45 Compact. Here that, bad guys?

 

[Rebar]

I fail to see a single reference in this quote, which you imagine is damning evidence of my extreme views and hatred of conservatives, to people holding the opposite opinion and where they fall politically.

You do, though. By defining yourself as a liberal because you believe in those things, you're also stating that those whom you define as "right wing", don't belive in those things.

For example you state:

However I am someone who believes... that people who live in other countries and have other skin colors and other religions are not inferior and certainly not cannon fodder

which also means that those you defined as "right wing" believe people who live in other countries and have other skin colors and other religions are inferior and are cannon fodder. A typical left wing stereotype, and highly offensive, along with the other nonsense you wrote.

Also, again you ignore this point:

The number of leftists who are pro-RKBA is tiny, and have no power. The huge majority, and those with all the power, are dead set on total civilian disarmament.

Which I will continue to bring up until you address it.

 

[dmallind]

Ginger I think I understand and would like to agree.

And pehaps I could ask you NOT to skip the stereotypes you think were in my original post but instead read my reply to Rebar. Since at least two of you drew the same, believe me incorrect, conclusion I must assume I was not clear enough in my original language. Hopefully the last response makes it clearer.

Back to your main point that substance should win over presentation. Normally I do agree, and certainly if a referendum were held on shall issue permits I would vote pro regardless of some of the disagreeable tactics employed.

However I can't support an organization that knowingly alienates some of its members. And the thing I can't get past is why? They exist as a grass roots organization to support carry laws - would their members NOT respond to appeals for action if they were worded without the attacks? What's wrong with saying "The court got it wrong but we can still get a single issue bill through the legislature with your help!" Why even start off with "Liberal Judges" this and "Liberal Judges" that - especially since only one of the three is even vaguely left of center? I can support their goal, but not them. So instead of calling when they tell me to, I might write a letter expressing my own opinion and specifically repudiating smear tactics - which are every bit as hamfisted and ludicrous as the hysteria about gunslingers and shoot em ups at the mall a couple of years ago.

 

[Boats]

The true test is whether the gun owner would vote for a socially liberal pol who was a better RKBA than the conservative. That could happen. So what would you do? Gay marriage, abortion, welfare and gun freedom? Brain short circuit?

Yep, that could happen. It's about as likely as a Martian sneak attack. The problem seems to be that such a person could not win a Democratic primary so again, no choice like that looms.

 

[RomanKnight]

Splitting hairs?

Folks, it's not about liberal vs. conservative, republicrat vs. demopublican, left vs. right, or whatever false paradigm you want. It's about freedom vs. tyranny. It's about individual God-given, Constitution-guaranteed rights, vs. "community rights", that is .gov-granted priviledges. Whatever the issue, do you ask the government for the solution, or do you tackle it yoursself (or associate with others, or pay some private organization to do it for you= free market enterprise)? Do you have the right to defend yourself, your family/loved ones, and your justly acquired property, with whatever means possible? Or do you need the .gov to allow you this gun at home, that handgun or knife that long or no weapons whatsoever outside your home? You cannot be pro-gun, but say this class of people (felons who have paid their debt to society) cannot have guns, or you cannot have this caliber, or guns must have these safety features, or you must register them. What is the difference between Clinton & Democrats giving us the AWB, Bush willing to sign its renewal, and AG Gonzales, both republicans, asking for a new one?

 

[dmallind]

Now Rebar you're just being stubborn - read the paragraph in my post above that begins "on reflection" which was written before your last post. That inference just isn't there unless you believe that they are ONLY liberals and hard right extremists in the world.

OK onto the last point you make. I haven't been arguing it yet because the bigger issue is the one we hopefully just put to bed.

I don't disagree that there are a lower percentage of far left or left or even moderate gunowners than there are right and far right. I'd be silly to try. I do dispute that it is tiny. There are many rural Democrats, many old style union blue collar Democrats who hunt and keep arms for protection. There are moderates who shoot for sport or hunt. I'd agree the number of far left extremists who have guns is tiny but again that's only significant if you think there are only conservatives and far left extremists in the world. Also untrue.

You are absolutely right we need to do a better job of making ourselves heard. Didn't I just try to do that in this thread? I don't post a lot on DU but you'll often find me responding to silly ideas about gun owners, along with a reasonable number of other gun toting Democrats (BTW I am not universally a Democratic shill - they have many ideas I disagree with as I said. I do tend to vote that way mostly on national elections because I see them as the lesser of two evils). I generally support moderate candidates in primaries who are not extremists on any issue let alone RKBA. I wish more people did likewise - for both parties. I'm doing my part.

 

[TonkinTwentyMil]

Libs and Guns

Dmallind, I genuinely respect your articulation, but...

How do you explain the fact that EVERY past (and presently-proposed) gun control law has been (is) primarily championed (sponsored by) Democrats of a "liberal" persuasion?

Despite Howard Dean's recent claim that Guns are "not an issue" anymore for Democrats, how do you explain the pending push for more confiscatory nanny-state gun control measures in California and Illinois?

Except for a few RINOs' support, ALL these past/present creeping-confiscation bans are advanced by politicians of the Urban-Liberal-Pacifist-Elitist ideological stripe... and designed to appeal to those of similar mind-sets -- i.e., folks who inevitably know NOTHING about firearms... and think that guns are (maybe) only for "legitimate sporting purposes." Self Defense isn't even on their legitimacy radar, probably because the whole concept of SD elevates the individual's rights above the states', rather than subordinating those rights to the state ("for the common good," as Mother Hillary hath said).

I'd find it a helluva lot more reassuring if leading "liberals" everywhere would (a) renounce these trendy/new gun control measures -- starting with their entire "Assault Weapons" and "ballistic identification" fictions, and (b) aggressively support Self Defense and Concealed Carry... with their legislative VOTES.

When THAT happens, then we'll know those Libs ain't just speaking to the same old choir. Until then, I won't await their immaculate conversion.

 

[Ginger]

However I can't support an organization that knowingly alienates some of its members.

I can. RKBA is more important than my personal feelings about some of the groups and individuals who support it. All organizations of any size wind up alienating some people, it's inevitable. The only question is, which is more important, your issue or your sensibilities?

That this particular organization labeled Liberals as the bad guys is unremarkable because it is self-identified Liberals who often fight hardest to control or ban gun ownership. Their message didn't appeal to you but it probably appealed to their base. As you wrote, the number of politically Liberal gun ownership advocates is very small (not to be confused with Liberal gun owners).

One of the hardest things about being consistent in your beliefs is carrying them through even when your bedfellows are very strange.

 

[dolanp]

How do you explain the fact that EVERY past (and presently-proposed) gun control law has been (is) primarily championed (sponsored by) Democrats of a "liberal" persuasion?

Yet Republicans in the House and Senate vote for them and Republican presidents pledge to sign them into law.

 

[Nehemiah Scudder]

IMO. This conversation is about 30 years too late.

 

[richyoung]

"...I wonder how many KKK members and Aryan Nations members vote Dem these days?"

Oh, I don't know...SENATOR ROBERT BYRD, for one? You may remember him - he opposed integration of the Armed Forces - and guess which party he belongs to?

 

[Rebar]

I find the attitude expressed in the original post disturbing, but I'll let it go.

The issue is a problem with lables. Lables can be useful, but only if used with accuracy. You seem to be using the lable "liberal", meaning the old style democratic party of the 1950's, early 60's. That party is dead.

Today's democratic party is not "liberal" in that sense, although they use the word. They are really authoritarian socialists, hiding behind the mask of the old style classical liberalism. That meaning of liberal has, ironically, been pretty much cooped by the republicans, as "neo-con". If you objectivly compare the policys of today's neo-cons and the liberals of 1950-64, you'll see very little difference. It's amusing to me that the liberal's saint, JFK, and their devil, GWB, if you look at both objectively, are practically the same man policy wise.

 

[Sean Smith]

Funny, the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow all the way through the 60s and even 70s, and still have an ex-Klansman as a Senator, but the Republicans are the racist party? Certainly, there is a hell of a lot weaker argument for Republican = Racist than there is for Liberal = Gun Control. Oopsie.

 

[Frandy]

It's amusing to me that the liberal's saint, JFK, and their devil, GWB, if you look at both objectively, are practically the same man policy wise.

Oh, Rebar, I'm so glad that you said "policy wise." Whew... I mean, c'mon, face it, JFK had sex with Marilyn and the others and I doubt Laura would let George stray that far!

 

[Ridge]

Well....

Personaly I think we all need to drop the politics thing because when both groups start going on about defining tthe other the entire movement stalls.

Here's my $1.50 on this subject.

I think that it's time that we stop playing politics and start working together,because if you think about it this is what usually derails any type of co-op we try.

How about not dividing eachother up on the prefixes of race,religon,sexual oreintation,or politics.

Instead of bickering with eachother,we should try to stick together,everybody on this forum has one thing in common right?

We own firearms,we use them for protection,we use them to hunt,and we all just like the feeling of being able to wield that much power in our hands.

I think that it's time that we all stop shouting foul,and look at the way things stand right now.

I think that it's time to stick up for eachother,that way we have some strength.

By allowing ourselves to be divided on simplistic issues we are doing the job of the Anti's for them.

Okay I'm done.

 

[R.H. Lee]

However I am someone who believes that taxes aren't always evil, that Christianity is not the answer to all political questions (heck make that any)

Coercive confiscation of the fruits of one's labor is in fact inherently evil. And Christianity is most assuredly a better answer to political questions than big, intrusive, impersonal government. That said, we are both free to express our opinions without rancor or ill will. In the end, we both have more in common than we have differences.

 

[dmallind]

Yes fully aware of Byrd and fully aware of where all the Jim Crow Dixiecrats went. Is he a member "these days"? I'm concerned with NOW.

Somehow this thread got turned around the other way - I'm sure as hell not trying to argue that most gun control advocates (who by the way also span a wide spectrum from people who think it may just be worth checking on folks who buy guns at gunshows to get round NICS checks to those who recoil in horror at the thought of a .22 and want to melt down all guns starting today) are left of center. Again I must not have been clear enough but to me that's a fallacy. Think of it this way:

Most Greeks have dark hair.

John has dark hair

So John is a Greek

Total obvious BS right? So why does it make sense that

Most gun grabbers are left of center

Dave is (on some general and mostly socials issues) left of center

So Dave is a gun grabber

It's the same twisted syllogism! I'm not mindless enough to try to argue with the idea that Democratics are more likely to support controls - my whole thrust is that we as a group should not try to alienate the ones who don't by sweeping generalizations. I agree with Ridge and he said it far more pithily than I (Hemingway I'm not - sorry) - since we all agree at least in basic principle that gun ownership should be regulated as minimally as possible, why not maximize support for that by keeping the focus there instead of damning them for other areas of disagreement? Where is the help for RKBA in turning away supporters?

I am trying to get some visibility for the fact that all gun owners are not right of center, and couching RKBA activism in terms antagonsitic - and needlessly antagonistic at that - to those who indeed are not risks losing their willingness to work together where we DO agree.

Is this making sense now ?