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

[rbernie]

And then there's this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

Clinton decides that it really IS ok to discuss the prospect of an Australian style 'mandatory gun buy back' program. When is a ban not a ban? When it's a 'mandatory buy back', of course!

 

[Ed Ames]

I'm extremely liberal in the classical sense (libertarian in modern parlance), and I have friends across the entire political spectrum.

What I have found is that there is a subset of "liberals" who are actually anti-liberals. I now call them "P.S. liberals", because they insist that they are liberals but whenever they see something they don't like (a large truck, a fancy house, guns, etc.) they start talking about the penis size of the owner.

It is both funny and maddening. I had a girlfriend who was a " P.S. liberal" and it was incessant and disheartening. We would pull up to a stoplight behind a lifted pickup truck and she would start. She was also one of those people who can't get that, "I don't like cheese," and, "cheese is bad," are not synonymous. Of course, it is almost the first precept of true liberalism that you cannot say most things are bad...only that you don't like them. Cheese isn't bad, you just don't like cheese. So she was really more conservative than anything else, just conservative of different values than the Republican platform.

I think true liberals are more likely than most to be neutral or pro gun. Unfortunately "P.S. Liberals" tend to be very sure of themselves and very vocal, so they color everyone's perceptions of liberals.

 

[stoky]

True enough, when talking Congress especially, but just don't assume a Republican is pro-2nd. Some are real snakes.........

Some appointees as well. Recall Bill 'high roller' Bennett? He's was the Secretary of Education that gave us the Import Ban (the one that didn't expire), the prototype for the "Assault Weapons" Ban.

 

[SSN Vet]

Tough boat to be in... unfortunately for you, every liberal POTUS candidate option available to you is solidly anti-2a.

Looks like you'll have to do some soul searching prior to checking the box. You might start by asking yourself "why" they are all anti-2a

 

[X-Rap]

One can color themselves with whatever political term they wish but what matters is how the mark the box on personal liberties.
There are but a few that are spelled out and enumerated and many others that are and have been perceived over the years.
It seems the simplicity is lost when one tries to rationalize the perceived over the enumerated.

 

[P5 Guy]

I'm a single issue voter.
I will never vote for a Democrat candidate. NAFTA is the reason.

 

[ColoradoShooter77]

Someone needs to remind her of the 2008 Supreme Court Heller decision, gun ownership is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. If there ever was a "buy back" program, it would have to be voluntary.

The current Supreme Court would strike down that B.S in about 10 minutes.

I would also consider that theft as well. You're going to take $5000 of my property and give me what....$1000? The 4th Ammendment comes into play here as well, unreasonable search and siezure.

 

[X-Rap]

You have more faith in the courts than I and 10 minutes to the court may equal a 4 yr term.
Those wheels turn very slowly at times.

 

[orionengnr]

The current Supreme Court would strike down that B.S in about 10 minutes.

Key word being "current".
The next President will get to appoint one or two Supreme Court Justices--maybe more. Quite a few are getting long in the tooth. Every replacement is good for 25-50 years. Lots at stake here...

 

[GEM]

A mandatory buy back of evil firearms could be interpreted as a reasonable restriction. Back to SW Model 10s and double barrel shotguns.

Current cases haven't shown that Heller and McD protect against local or state bans. Nor does SCOTUS seem to want to clarify such.

 

[danez71]

Someone needs to remind her of the 2008 Supreme Court Heller decision, gun ownership is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

She has said that the Supreme Court got it wrong and she would work to change or get Round the decision.

The arrogance is incredible and the the idea that she will use her power to have the Constitution interpreted HER way is very concerning.

 

[blarby]

Welcome to THR.

 

[Ironicaintit]

When im discussing things with friends that veer left politically, I always come down to this.
Your rights, real or perceived, can always be negotiated and leveraged to become better (or more evenly distributed) so long as the 2nd amendment right to arms is solid.
When/if the 2nd becomes seriously compromised... ALL of our rights will exist only at the whim and pleasure of whatever ruling class we have.
Liberty can only exist when we the governed have real teeth to keep the wolves at bay.
Bad men exist, and they love to govern.

I can not, will not, vote for a representative that is not demonstrably pro-2nd. There are other civil/political issues that concern me, but none so much as the right to our own self preservation.

 

[Hypnogator]

Back to SW Model 10s...

Probably not. The liberal definition of a semi-auto is now a gun that fires a shot just by pulling the trigger. A double-action revolver would fit that description. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

When/if the 2nd becomes seriously compromised... ALL of our rights will exist only at the whim and pleasure of whatever ruling class we have.

To that point, you have to wonder how liberals think the Third Amendment to the Constitution could possibly be enforced WITHOUT the Second Amendment.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

[barnbwt]

"The arrogance is incredible and the the idea that she will use her power to have the Constitution interpreted HER way is very concerning"

She's just above the law, is all. That's why she can freely break laws she thinks are unnecessary or inconvenient, almost constantly lie about practically every subject with continual variation, and believe that her desires trump centuries of precedent and meaning.

It's such a bad personality trait/disorder, that if elected, I suspect she won't be around very long as a free woman; the power will prove far too addicting, and she will quickly overreach to her downfall (because she ain't slick enough to get away with it). Just look at how mixed up she got herself with a few measly years as Secretary of State.

Far more important/disturbing, is that a person with these kinds of delusions of grandeur has been so utterly embraced by the party leadership. They've basically said the knives are out for confiscation now, so I assume we'll soon be hearing that it is the official party position that they no longer care what the SCOTUS opinions find, if it does not comport with the platform, and will actively seek to circumvent it. Dangerous stuff.

TCB

 

[DeepSouth]

To the OP, I recently read an article that was writen by what I believe was a "soft core" (my term) anti gunner. Meaning he spoke of how more gun control would work to reduce violence, a fallacy I believe, he spoke of studies and such that I would disagree with, he linked several references that I'd consider anti gun.

BUT, he was very respectful and seemed to understand where the average gun owner really came from and why we had such trouble compromising, he understood the "slippery slope" arguement. He seemed to agree with many things everyone here says on a daily basis, at least that's the impression I got, he never really took a side either way. But the main thing he did was be respectful, he didn't name call or disparage gun owners.

When I finished reading the article, I was impressed for the first time buy someone I believe is on the opposite side of the table from me on this issue.
It was by far the best tagged "gun control" article I have ever read, and I've read a lot of them. I even thought of the fact that I have never honestly listened to a reasonable, rationally thought out argument for any gun control from the other side, I have completely dismissed them with out even hearing their side from someone that's respectful. Then it occurred to me, I've never seen such an argument. I'm not completely sure it exists, but if it does I honestly would at least listen, I'd disagree but at least I'd listen, that's all I ask from them.


My point is, what many here are saying is they find it hard to even have a conversation with liberals because they, for the most part, belittle us, call us killers, and are simply belligerent the overwhelming majority of the time. I'm a grown man and I don't have to listen to that kind of garbage, and I want. As a result I can't, based on their behavior, sit down and be rational with them. Again this is in general, I understand people have to be taken as individuals and their are certain liberals, and anti gunners that are polite and understanding, but they're the exception rather than the rule.



EDIT:
A link to the article I referenced if anyone is interested.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psych-unseen/201510/the-psychology-guns

 

[Ignition Override]

That was pretty decent of the OP to try to encourage civil, impersonal discussions.

To criticize personal attacks which come from the very anti-gun people, which can be from both liberal OR conservative, the pro-gun people (of all "stripes") must set a very good example.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Personally, I find it easier to relate to a non-gun owner who supports gun control than a gun owner who supports gun control or continues to vote for politicians who promise bans and confiscation. At least the non-gun owner is exhibiting a predictable fear of the unknown that can be changed with education. The gun owner knows, or should know, better and realizes that he is being lied to on a wide range of gun-related issues but is still supporting the people who are lying to him and promising to curtail his rights further.

In 2008, the Democratic party platform on guns was somewhat similar to the 2000 Republican party platform on guns. The difference being that the Democrats were probably more sincere about their platform planks than the Republican party was circa 2000. Both platforms indicated supported for "closing the gunshow loophole" and an extension of the 1994 AWB. Since 2008, the Democratic Party has purged its ranks of gun rights politicians.

In the Senate, there is only a single Democratic Senator with an unambiguous pro-gun voting record (Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of ND) and only a single Democratic Senator who does not support widespread bans on semi-automatic firearms with confiscation (Sen. Michael Bennett of CO) - and Sen. Bennett is probably less against bans than he is about getting reelected.

In the Presidential race, the top 3 leading candidates all favor bans of semi-automatic weapons that would cover any semi-auto weapon with a detachable magazine. These bans would include a prohibition on transfer and you would have to surrender firearms and magazines to the government when you died (assuming of course that deal was not later "renegotiated" to an earlier surrender date). All of them favor registration. Two of them (including the likely nominee) are willing to go beyond bans and registration to support outright Australian style confiscation.

If there are "many" liberals who are embracing guns and shooting, they don't seem to be particularly well-regarded or heard by their party, which has veered towards gun prohibition dramatically compared to 2008 (even considering the degree in which the 2008 platform probably understated their commitment to gun control).

From that I can only conclude:
1) There aren't many liberals embracing guns.*
2) There are many liberals embracing guns but they continue to vote for candidates who support gun control because the Second Amendment is not an important issue to them.
3) The many liberals embracing guns and voting against politicians who attack the Second Amendment are content to see their votes ignored by the leadership of the Democratic Party.

*Although given human history regarding polarizing political conflicts where only one side was disarmed, I would be very concerned about that trend if I were liberally inclined.

 

[rbernie]

The current Supreme Court would strike down that B.S in about 10 minutes.

From 1976 to 2008, DC residents were prohibited from legally owning handguns and most any other self-defense firearm, courtesy of the DC gun ban. That's almost an entire generation of DC residents that were denied their fundamental RKBA, waiting for the right case and circumstances to get a ruling reasserting their RKBA.

I don't think that trusting the judicial system to re-affirm the RKBA after the fact is nearly as effective as ensuring that the legislative system respects the RKBA in the first place.

 

[jmorris]

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.

I think it's safe to say all sides have "some crazy ideas" if you agree with everything any one party stands for you likely have never stood for anything yourself.

I have to admit to leaning towards librarian these days myself but there are things on both sides of the isle I agree with. That said JFK would have been called a right wing extremist if he were running for president today.

I don't have much faith in the Republican's chance after watching the Democratic debates and watching poles. "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Has somehow turned into "To whom it may concern, we want others to work and pay for anything you might want or need, so you don't have to be a contributing member of our Country."

"Tremendous investment"? Have you checked out a bass boat, motor and trailer? Or for that matter golf and owning a sail boat or any boat for that matter. The first motorcycle I owned cost me more than my entire shooting hobby. Shooting is cheap.

Depends on how you do it. I could buy a Master Craft or Harley if I just sold my reloading equipment.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

To add to rbernie's comments, Heller 2 was filed almost within days of the historical Heller decision finding an individual right to bear arms. (Heller 2 was filed July 28, 2008). The most recent decision in that case is from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on September 18, 2015 and sends the case back to the D.C. Circuit Court (again). That is over 7 years with no progress or clear decision, and probably several more years if it needs to go to SCOTUS.

And as a reminder, Heller was a 5-4 decision. It came within one vote of saying you have no Second Amendment right at all. Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor are all on record as saying Heller was wrongly decided and you have no Second Amendment right and Heller should be overturned or limited to the degree that it offers no protection to the individual at all. Kagan was Obama's Solicitor General. She has yet to cast any vote on a Second Amendment case; but despite being hunting buddies with Scalia, her background doesn't leave a great deal of hope in that regard.

Recently, SCOTUS declined to hear a case in which San Francisco required homeowners to keep their firearms locked up at all times (a circumstance which was particularly addressed in Heller and ignored by the 9th Circuit). SCOTUS could not even get 5 votes to hear a case that directly challenged one of the holdings in Heller.

Who will be sitting on SCOTUS when Heller 2 does eventually make it there several years down the road?

 

[stoky]

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
--John F. Kennedy

 

[chipcom]

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.

 

[2ifbyC]

Since the USA is a Republic, gun rights is very much a liberal/Democrat vis-à-vis conservative/Republican issue. How many liberal politicians in Congress openly support the RKBA? It matters not that there are gun lovers in either party, what matters is how their representatives vote.