Liberals like guns too

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, I give up, too.

Never was a fan of Charlie's Angels.

So what's a Charlie's Angels Grip?
 
I'm a "Liberal Democrat" and I like guns. \:)/ Hell, most of my friends are pretty left too, but we all want to keep our guns- and our medicinal pot and income, too.

OK, I give up, too.

Never was a fan of Charlie's Angels.

So what's a Charlie's Angels Grip?
Click to expand...

Like where your dominant hand holds the grip and trigger while you other hand is wrapped around the opposite side, making you thumb sit right behind the slide. It's hard to explain, so here's a MSPaint by a professional gunsmith and Covert Op Tactisquad Team:

 
Last edited:
As a gross generalization, I think you could say that there are a goodly number of pro-RKBA Liberals/Democrats at various state levels. They seem to be thin in Washington DC though.
 
Liberals like guns too....

Sure, but they vote for those that'll take em away. And when they do have a pro-gun candidate, they are usually pro-gun only because if they weren't, it'd be political career suicide in their district.

However, anyone who honestly enjoys shooting can't be all bad, even if they are a gun grabbing liberal. Wait, those are two are mutually exclusive.:mad: I used to be considerably more liberal than I am now, but the fever broke and I realized I've really been more of a libertarian than a liberal.
 
Many liberals aren't really against guns, but most national liberal leaders are against private gun ownership. Why? Because they are in fact SOCIALISTS! Sad but true.

I really don't know what "liberals like guns too" has to do with anything, as most people realize there are quite a few liberals like that out there, but when we discuss "liberals" and "gun control" it's liberal leadership (Democrat and republican by the way). Until liberal leadership takes a stand for our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms I'll feel free to criticize them accordingly.
 
bbustcco said:
I've come to the, for me, unfortunate conclusion that the 2nd amandment does, pretty much, allow you to own a gun. As much as I wish it didn't. So can we do something to make the gun culture safer?
Click to expand...

Hey, he may be anti-2A, but at least he's honest! I'll take this type of anti over someone who denies facts out of hand.

I think he'd be surprised to find that many on the other side of the fence share the goal of promoting safety. For the most part, it's not the gun culture that is the problem, it's criminals, and gun owners who are outside of the gun culture. Those of us inside the gun culture are typically very active in promoting safe gun handling.
 
I've come to the, for me, unfortunate conclusion that the 2nd amandment does, pretty much, allow you to own a gun. As much as I wish it didn't. So can we do something to make the gun culture safer?
Click to expand...

This is where they get it all wrong though. The "gun culture" is very safe. It's the CRIMINAL culture that isn't safe, and they never will be. That's why we call them criminals. No matter what we do to make law abiding citizens "safer", it will never affect what criminals do.
 
I have friends who proudly declare they are liberals yet they're gun owners. Yet when you ask them how they feel about the right to bear arms they are all for it.

Its a strange conundrum that I myself have experienced so I can't hold it too much against people. Most people when they meet me and hear what I have to say about politics and social issues would classify me as either Democrat or liberal. However if they met me and started off talking about gun rights they would think I am a complete republican.

It makes it very difficult to be a voter when you have so many conflicting political and social views. So it never surprises me when I hear about liberal minded gun owners, or democratic gun owners.

Just because someone is liberal or Democrat doesn't mean they are anti-gun the same way not all republicans are pro-gun.
 
IBTL:
Thanks, Invalid, for your explanation of the Charlie's Angels Grip in Post #11.

Maybe they were thinking "delayed blowback?" :)

Or "toggle joint" lockup? :) :)

Anyhow, I'm stayin' out of the lib-con-dem-rep controversy. I always get in trouble when I don't.
 
Sure, but they vote for those that'll take em away. And when they do have a pro-gun candidate, they are usually pro-gun only because if they weren't, it'd be political career suicide in their district.
Click to expand...

How folks vote may or may not tell you much about how they feel about any one issue. There are several issues that influence how I vote:

  1. Separation of Church and Sate: What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" is hard to understand?
  2. Healthcare: The current system is that people who have health insurance pay for people who don't. I pay higher rates to pay for all the uninsured. Does that make sense?
  3. Sane policy in Iraq
  4. Fiscal Responsibility: My grandkids and their kids will be paying off the "Christian Conservative - 'Jesus is my political hero!'" debt.
  5. RKBA

Unfortunately, I am unlikely to find any candidate who fits all of my views. Maybe Bill Richardson - I need to investigate his positions.

So, like most folks, my choice is either pick a candidate with whom I disagree on at least a couple of issues, or not vote. In my opinion, I have responsibility as a citizen to vote.

I would probably not compromise on #1 - I really am not going to vote for a candidate who believes it's OK to use public money to push Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, etc). I feel pretty strongly about #2, and I might compromise on the rest.

That means that it would be very hard to tell from my vote why I am voting for a particular candidate. I might vote for a candidate who agrees with me on every other issue, but not on RKBA. I might vote for a candidate who agrees with me on every other issue, but who doesn't have a very good Iraq policy.

BTW, I actually would have considered myself a liberal for most of my life. But when I take the various tests on the wed, I am usually right in the center with a stronger libertarian streak than I would have thought.

Mike
 
The problem with this whole conservative/liberal dichotomy is that it makes for only two kinds of availible politician to choose from. This dichotomy isn't strictly true, but for the purposes of advertising (ie the media), it is what defines our politics today. I get a choice of 100 kinds of toothpaste at wal-mart but I only get to choose from two kinds of politicians?

I also find it ironic that in any thread that mentions 'liberals' getting into guns, it eventually turns, at least partly, into a thread bashing 'liberals'. Don't we, as gun owners I mean, want both 'conservatives' and 'liberals' to own guns and support the RKBA?

I ask, because belittling people, how they vote, their other views, etc, will not help win them over to the RKBA. Lets suppose a long time 'liberal' Democrat voter ends up to this thread via a google search... lets say that person is concerned with what they see as a growing tyranny in the USA... there is a person who can be converted into a gun owner and a supporter of the 2A. Why drive that person away? That serves only to perpetuate the aforementioned dichotomy.
 
Liberals like guns. They just don't like the fact that YOU like them, so they want to make sure YOU don't have any. Also, Separation of Church and State does NOT mean Elimination of Church from State. It only means that the Government shall not establish a church.
So to answer the posted question, "What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" is hard to understand?" apparently, quite a bit since the poster himself doesn't. The part that is often ignored is "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
 
Last edited:
RPCVYemen said:
1. Separation of Church and Sate: What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" is hard to understand?
2. Healthcare: The current system is that people who have health insurance pay for people who don't. I pay higher rates to pay for all the uninsured. Does that make sense?
3. Sane policy in Iraq
4. Fiscal Responsibility: My grandkids and their kids will be paying off the "Christian Conservative - 'Jesus is my political hero!'" debt.
5. RKBA
Click to expand...
1) Separation good, prohibition bad. I don't want anyone forcing their religion on me any more than the next guy, but attempts to remove the name of God from public property is unacceptable.
2) What business is it of the government how we pay for health care? I know, the government has proven how well it manages everything else it has it's hands in, so we should turn health care over to them as well, right?
3) Define 'sane'... we're there, the surge is working, what should we be doing?
4) I'm with you on this one, except I don't understand why you reference Jesus... The entire government shares responsibility for extravagant spending. There's been nothing conservative about spending over the last 20 years.
5) Right on.

You sound more libertarian than liberal to me...:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Liberal Gun Nuts
Replies
1
Views
700
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
J
  • Locked
Va. Grants 60% More Permits For Guns...
Replies
18
Views
980
chris in va
C
S
  • Locked
Robbed in Prince George's -- of Our Peace of Mind
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
CrazyIrishman
C
W
  • Locked
Guns are for liberals, too
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
ArfinGreebly
ArfinGreebly
C
  • Locked
Another liberal who "doesn't get it"
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Hedger
H
Back
Top