Liberals are everywhere these days (learning the truth about shooting)

[MEHavey]

This notion that gun rights are a liberal vs conservative
thing are simply not based in fact.

Uhhhhhh.....
Not according to Pew Research (actions/money where mouth is):


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...aphics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/

 

[Jeff H]

One thing I never understood about the Democrats is why they chose to be on the anti side of the RKBA issue. They have huge labor union and blue collar support and I don't think I've met many of those guys who aren't also avid hunters. Just visit a construction site on the first day of gun season and you'll see the workforce at 50% or less.

 

[X-Rap]

This notion that gun rights are a liberal vs conservative thing are simply not based in fact. Just like each party had both liberal and conservatives wings at one time, gun rights have historically been a bipartisan issue.

This may be true but my personal observation and experience consistently have those on the left never voting 2a unless it's a Democrat. Instead they vote labor or social issues. I know many single issue voters on both sides but the R's are almost exclusively 2a voters if they are enthusiasts while I know many D's who are gun owners and hunting enthusiasts but to the individual their single issue is not 2a.
These are my personal observations but they come from a wide swath of the country that I've lived and worked in.

 

[buck460XVR]

If one is legitimately pro-2A, you really have to be a single issue voter.

I don't think so, but unfortunately many pro gun folks do. As much as folks wish not to believe, there are gun-toting Democrats out there just as there are republicans out there that have had an abortion or may be gay/bi/transgender. The majority of informed and intelligent voters study all the issues and then pick a candidate that comes closest to matching their ideals. Only the foolish would stick to voting party lines, when those candidates do not represent their wishes. Same goes for folks that vote only on one issue and ignore all others. 8 years ago, our economy was in shambles, retired folks and those close to retirement watched their 401Ks and other investments shrink to half of what they were. Baby boomers were watching others their age being laid off or fired because of cheaper younger help available. This was a large portion of the voting public. Is there any wonder, even with all the "B.O. is gonna nab all guns!" rhetoric, he was elected? Folks were more worried about eating and providing for their families, than being able to take a hi-cap mag with them to the range. It's called priorities. Most intelligent folks have them. Kinda like those that choose to go home after work and attend their child's ball game, as opposed to those that stop at the bar instead and wait for the game to get over. Over the years I have voted both Democrat and Republican, probably why most folks consider me a moderate independent. For the last few elections, the RKBA has been a priority of mine, but not my only priority. Like anything else in life, one needs to consider the risks along with any gains from any decision. Would I rather be able to own a foreign made auto or have my kids have the opportunity to go to college? What are the chances of me losing the rights of owning that firearm as compared to the life my child has if they do not graduate from a university? Do I want to lose my job and go on welfare or be able to purchase cheap bulk foreign made ammo? Do I want to risk the lifestyle I'm accustomed to because I got sick without health insurance or buy a firearm from a dealer without filling out any paperwork? These are decisions many Americans have to make every election day. We should not have to. We should have candidates and elected officials that can provide us with all......but for some reason that is not the way it works.

 

[GEM]

The points are well made that many 'social' conservative ideas are antithetical to personal freedom. Trying to control sexuality, emphasizing that one religion is the only correct one and really the national religion and the like are just as obnoxious as gun control.

If their ideas were put into legal force it would be as bad as more gun control.

It is unfortunate that gun ownership is seen as a necessary component of social conservatism. That turns off liberal or libertarian folks to not examine the gun issue. Just like the social conservatives don't take an empirical look at sexual or religious issues.

Thus, folks who reach across the divide to move to personal freedom from both sides are more useful.

Basically - keep the government off my holster, out of my pants, don't empty my wallet and what I put in my brownies is my business.

 

[jamesjames]

In the 70s, after Nixon's famous "southern strategy", both political parties woke up to the idea of "special interest groups" or "single issue voters". this has been a political two-sided sword that has cut both ways ever since.

Democrats became interested in women's and minority rights. They thought that a coalition could be built out of disaffected voters interested in progressive ideas. Then in 1980, Reagan was able to split off the "Reagan Democrats", conservative Democrats who weren't interested in progressive politics and liked law & order, small government, family values, and gun rights.

Suddenly, blue collar, working class white voters decided to abandon the progressive Democrats for supply side-economics, the promise of lower taxes, and smaller government. The assassination attempt on Reagan lead to a certain ambivalence toward guns among urban Republicans which lead to Brady movements and bills for gun regulation and background checks.

The Democrats doubled down on progressive social issues, while trying the "third way" of being moderate to conservative on trade and economic issues (enter Bill Clinton). But Ruby Ridge, Waco, and OK City scared the Democrats (and some Republicans) into the Assault Weapons ban.

The Republicans countered with a "kinder-gentler" George Bush, while holding the line on conservative social issues, and continuing to pursue business and banking-friendly deregulation. Mass-shootings got on the national scene with Columbine in 1997, and continued through the 2000s, but the distraction of war on terror always put guns on the back burner.

Barack Obama was elected on the eve of the banking and economic melt-down of 2008. A professor of Constitutional Law, he and many Democrats nonetheless think there's an exception to 2A when it comes to urban, 21st century American society. SCOTUS carved out a 2A personal right to self-defense, which infuriated anti-gun Democrats. Meanwhile, Brady, Bloomberg, mothers and others have shifted the battle to the states, drafting boilerplate background check and gun regulation bills that are now ready for introduction whenever a mass-shooting softens up the opposition and makes the politics of tighter regulation possible.

2A and RKBA are like a political side show that neither party can embrace fully, nor completely come out against. Neither party has a clean platform plank that is pro-2A or RKBA. And yet, the party that can come out 100% in favor of gun rights (based on gun sales over the past 10 years) might be the party that can actually attract enough votes from the other side to win. But politicians think that if they play footsy with "sensible gun laws" they can win.

 

[X-Rap]

It's amazing how for a couple hundred years we had both small gov. and draconian social morals and survived as a country.
The sexual revolution and recognition of its ever increasing alternatives as well as the wide religious views are fairly recent phenomenon as is industrialized birth/population control by abortion none of which are specifically enumerated in our constitution.
When ever I start to wish for more collective individual "rights" I try to consider why the founders were so specific in those individual rights recognized as "the right of the people".

 

[DeepSouth]

One thing I never understood about the Democrats is why they chose to be on the anti side of the RKBA issue. They have huge labor union and blue collar support and I don't think I've met many of those guys who aren't also avid hunters. Just visit a construction site on the first day of gun season and you'll see the workforce at 50% or less.

As someone who has been a member of the United Steel Workers Union for almost 10 years, I can tell you that our opinions are irrelevant. The higher ups in the union are socialist, most are openly socialist, and they're the ones that make the decisions on a national level.

You are correct in the belief that we are almost all hunters and gun owners.

When you think about unions think about money, not votes. they know we generally don't vote for them.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

First of all, welcome to THR! Here's hoping to see you around here a lot more!


First, a little personal political observation here:

Political bodies aren't about "gun rights", "freedom of religion", "freedom of speech", "abortion rights", or any of that other clap-trap they spout.

Political bodies exist for one reason, and one reason ONLY: to accumulate and exercise political power. PERIOD. Individual politicians make up the political parties, yes...but the PARTY outlives the individuals who make up the body of the party. And the party will groom and prune these individuals as it sees fit to accumulate and increase its power.

I say this because this is universal. It doesn't matter what party. And it requires us to be just as vigilant with respect to the party we choose to affiliate with as with the party we do not...indeed, perhaps even more so.

Dad once told me when I was growing up that ANY party which was in majority control had to be watched, and watched closely...especially the longer they maintained that control.


We don't have to look very darned far at all to see some less than stellar political examples from the Republicans on the matter of the RKBA. Ronald Reagan was one of them. Search "Mulford Act" and "Why I'm for the Brady Bill" in conjunction with his name.

And thank you very much George W. Bush and the Republican controlled House of the 107th session for the Patriot Act, a HORRIBLE affront to our rights.


Most liberal people I know are not "bad people" by any stretch. In fact, though we disagree on the fundamentals about how things should be done for various issues, we do agree on some major points. For example, we agree that education is important, children should be taken care of and protected, government assistance programs can be good ideas, etc.

Where we diverge seems to be in HOW each of these things are addressed and to what extent. For example, I agree that government assistance programs can be good...up until the point where significant portions of the population, in demographically disproportionate ratios, become totally dependent upon them and expect to remain there in perpetuity. I believe that all children's lives matter, but not at the expense of sacrificing the freedoms and liberties that each of those children are supposed to grow up with.


Voting is not as simple an issue in the grand scheme as many would believe. It may be simple for any given individual, but not when taken as a whole. Why? Because each party has many different issues it supports (or is against). And, quite simply, we don't all have the same values to the same degree, which means that even if we don't like one particular stance our party of choice favors, it may still support something else that we feel very strongly about.

As an example, for some liberally minded women who support the Democratic party, perhaps the pro-abortion issue is more important to them than the RKBA. Even though they may be anti-gun control, they may value the pro-abortion issue more and will vote for the party that supports that.


This is an important concept to keep in mind whenever we have such discussions between us ("us" being both liberals and conservatives).


It's safe to say, Honey and Venom, that you're among a pretty politically conservative group here. Fortunately, it's a very well moderated group which is held to "The High Road" standard of civil behavior.


If enough Democrats value the RKBA, they'll act themselves to shift the political demographic within their chosen political party. The party WILL change if this happens because the party WILL go where the power goes. And it will then proceed to groom and prune itself to maintain that.

But this requires a widespread and concerted effort on the part of those who support the Democratic Party in order to affect this change.


Our part ("our" meaning those of us who are conservative with respect to the RKBA) is to do our brothers and sisters of the liberal persuasion right by being honest and open, presenting our views in ways make sense and which will act to bring about a change on a fundamental level... not by resorting to hyperbole, outright lies, and emotional gimmicks meant to manipulate.

Nobody likes being lied to and manipulated.


I respectfully submit that YOU have an "in" that we do not, and you should not underestimate your own power and influence on this subject. You are a liberal by your own admission...yet you support the RKBA. All things being equal, your viewpoints will be more widely accepted among your fellow liberals than will ours, for that very reason.


And if you should start to waiver, remember what I said about political parties and power. It's all about CONTROL...and the key word in "gun control" is CONTROL.

Don't let them control you...or your fellow citizens, whatever their political orientation...to the point where we all end up suffering for it.

 

[PabloJ]

So, I've been hiding in two closets long enough.

I'm a gun loving liberal, and I'm not alone.

I've grown more outgoing about my opposition to attempts to ban or neuter guns lately and find that my feelings are increasingly common. I worry a lot more about telling my shooting friends that I vote in Democratic primaries, than telling other liberals about my "assault weapon." uhoh:Yeah, sorry about that one, we were WAY out of line there.)

Gun ownership is growing rapidly, and if you think about who didn't have guns before, but are buying them now, it would largely be us.

We have some crazy ideas about the role of government, and social issues, I get that, but it isn't because we're (all) allergic to thinking.

We're increasingly hunters, marksmen, gun store customers, and defenders of our families. We Google for information and find forums and other gun websites. We also vote.

Many of us are new, learning, and (really!) forming opinions that diverge from the party line. We don't want idiotic, ineffectual gun laws that only make it safer for criminals to terrorize the law abiding public. Please, take the time to teach the rest of us you meet.

When we learn about the joy that collecting or marksmanship provides, the tremendous investment required, the importance of hunting for wildlife conservation and management, we care, and our minds are changed.

When we get called names, told we're all idiots, or cursed at, the gun lobby looks like the kind of big scary armed threat that inspires knee-jerk nonsense gun policy that nobody benefits from.

No, it shouldn't be your responsibility to be patient with is, but it does make a huge difference. Be stewards of a cause when you can. We vote, and we're starting to care about something very dear to you, show us instead of insulting us and we could see the uninformed anti-gun movement dwindle into insignificance.

H&V I hate conservatives and liberals with the same passion. I will tell you this the choice will be between Hillary and Marco and if Hillary wins you might as well find another hobby.

 

[eddd7]

So, I've been hiding in two closets long enough.

I'm a gun loving liberal, and I'm not alone.

I've grown more outgoing about my opposition to attempts to ban or neuter guns lately and find that my feelings are increasingly common. I worry a lot more about telling my shooting friends that I vote in Democratic primaries, than telling other liberals about my "assault weapon." uhoh:Yeah, sorry about that one, we were WAY out of line there.)

Gun ownership is growing rapidly, and if you think about who didn't have guns before, but are buying them now, it would largely be us.

We have some crazy ideas about the role of government, and social issues, I get that, but it isn't because we're (all) allergic to thinking.

We're increasingly hunters, marksmen, gun store customers, and defenders of our families. We Google for information and find forums and other gun websites. We also vote.

Many of us are new, learning, and (really!) forming opinions that diverge from the party line. We don't want idiotic, ineffectual gun laws that only make it safer for criminals to terrorize the law abiding public. Please, take the time to teach the rest of us you meet.

When we learn about the joy that collecting or marksmanship provides, the tremendous investment required, the importance of hunting for wildlife conservation and management, we care, and our minds are changed.

When we get called names, told we're all idiots, or cursed at, the gun lobby looks like the kind of big scary armed threat that inspires knee-jerk nonsense gun policy that nobody benefits from.

No, it shouldn't be your responsibility to be patient with is, but it does make a huge difference. Be stewards of a cause when you can. We vote, and we're starting to care about something very dear to you, show us instead of insulting us and we could see the uninformed anti-gun movement dwindle into insignificance.

First some clarification. Are you a Leftist who likes to be called "Liberal"? A true Liberal, by definition, is fair tolerant, open minded, live and let live. In that sense, a true Liberal is more like a Libertarian.

Today's so-called liberals are none of the above characteristics, which is why they want to be called "Liberal". In fact, Leftists are the most intolerant, lock-step, group think bunch today, just like those other big government National Socialists, the Nazi's, which of course, "National Socialist" is what Nazi means.

It's always amusing, in a dark way, when Leftists call Tea Party types "Nazi's", because it's Leftists who are the big government National Socialists of the two groups. The Tea Party is against Socialism

The "group-think, lock step" aspect is why one cannot argue with a Leftist using reason, logic, data, facts, common sense on a subject like, say, global warming. That's because to a Leftist, it never was about reason, logic, data, facts, common sense. It's always about agenda first. Period.

So which is it? Are you a Leftist or a true Liberal?

 

[GEM]

The extremes of either side of the political spectrum are immune to logic and empirical data. So how is this a useful post?

 

[Sniper66]

At age 69 and having been a shooter and hunter for 64 of those years, I am terrified at the direction our country is taking regarding guns and gun ownership. When I was in high school I could bring my 410 with me so I could ride the bus home with a friend and spend the weekend hunting squirrels. Kept it in my locker during the day. The bus driver asked me if it was unloaded and no one else said anything. Lots of students had rifles in the rack of their pickups. No one gave it a thought. Now students are arrested and suspended from school for having a shotgun in their vehicle, even if it's locked in the trunk. In a recent NYT article they published a list of traits that a "modern man" possesses. A "modern man" in their judgment "does not and never will own a gun". So, to me it does not matter much whether you are liberal or conservative (many stereotypes exist for both groups), but please do not hesitate to educate the uninformed every chance you get and I mean EVERY TIME. Do not hesitate to present cogent arguments. Do not shrink from opportunity. Live OPENLY with and by your convictions. Only you can change the direction we are heading. And make no mistake, confiscation (like Australia) is the goal.

 

[Walkalong]

Sometimes some posters just make me want to pull my hair out. Arguing about "liberal" vs "conservative" among ourselves must have the antis rolling in the isles laughing at us.

We are winning the war against the antis in this country, despite the fact they are finally coming out of the closet and saying out loud they want to confiscate guns. Heck, that might even be hurting them.

We must find common ground in voting for pro gun candidates on both sides. There are a lot of gun owners who vote Democrat, and we need every single one of them in the fight against the antis. Very few politicians on either side of the isle is perfect on gun votes, and of course some are more iffy than others, but for the most part the NRA does a good job of grading them, and anyone can look up their voting records, so we can make decisions on voting taking the gun record into account.

Stop bashing the people who don't agree with you 100% on all issues and try to find common ground on which we can work together to further the pro gun effort.

 

[TomJ]

Sometimes some posters just make me want to pull my hair out. Arguing about "liberal" vs "conservative" among ourselves must have the antis rolling in the isles laughing at us.

We are winning the war against the antis in this country, despite the fact they are finally coming out of the closet and saying out loud they want to confiscate guns. Heck, that might even be hurting them.

We must find common ground in voting for pro gun candidates on both sides. There are a lot of gun owners who vote Democrat, and we need every single one of them in the fight against the antis. Very few politicians on either side of the isle is perfect on gun votes, and of course some are more iffy than others, but for the most part the NRA does a good job of grading them, and anyone can look up their voting records, so we can make decisions on voting taking the gun record into account.

Stop bashing the people who don't agree with you 100% on all issues and try to find common ground on which we can work together to further the pro gun effort.

I'd say that coming out of the closet will definitely hurt them. So many of their arguments have been based on "reasonableness". After all, who really needs an AR15, or a 15 - 30 round magazine, and anyone who wants those is portrayed as an extremist. Implying or calling for an outright gun ban on guns swings the pendulum the other way, and shows them for what they are, the true extremists in this issue.

 

[The Alaskan]

I don't think so, but unfortunately many pro gun folks do. As much as folks wish not to believe, there are gun-toting Democrats out there just as there are republicans out there that have had an abortion or may be gay/bi/transgender. The majority of informed and intelligent voters study all the issues and then pick a candidate that comes closest to matching their ideals. Only the foolish would stick to voting party lines, when those candidates do not represent their wishes. Same goes for folks that vote only on one issue and ignore all others. 8 years ago, our economy was in shambles, retired folks and those close to retirement watched their 401Ks and other investments shrink to half of what they were. Baby boomers were watching others their age being laid off or fired because of cheaper younger help available. This was a large portion of the voting public. Is there any wonder, even with all the "B.O. is gonna nab all guns!" rhetoric, he was elected? Folks were more worried about eating and providing for their families, than being able to take a hi-cap mag with them to the range. It's called priorities. Most intelligent folks have them. Kinda like those that choose to go home after work and attend their child's ball game, as opposed to those that stop at the bar instead and wait for the game to get over. Over the years I have voted both Democrat and Republican, probably why most folks consider me a moderate independent. For the last few elections, the RKBA has been a priority of mine, but not my only priority. Like anything else in life, one needs to consider the risks along with any gains from any decision. Would I rather be able to own a foreign made auto or have my kids have the opportunity to go to college? What are the chances of me losing the rights of owning that firearm as compared to the life my child has if they do not graduate from a university? Do I want to lose my job and go on welfare or be able to purchase cheap bulk foreign made ammo? Do I want to risk the lifestyle I'm accustomed to because I got sick without health insurance or buy a firearm from a dealer without filling out any paperwork? These are decisions many Americans have to make every election day. We should not have to. We should have candidates and elected officials that can provide us with all......but for some reason that is not the way it works.

There should be a best post of the month award for this guy.

I've really enjoyed this thread. I stayed out of it for obvious reasons, but I've really enjoyed it.

But here we have the best summation I've seen yet.

There are a lot of issues out there.

 

[goon]

I follow the Liberal Gun Club and have leftist friends who are now gun owners. My politics are what you'd describe as "all of the above" depending on the issue.

So Welcome to any liberals who are reading this. I'll argue with you about something else - after we get them to let our guns alone.

 

[Al Thompson]

Looks like this thread is about done.