PGP meets Sarah Brady! And crashes the Anti-Gunner party!

[Phetro]

Bouis, you raise some important points. I'll gladly stipulate that I spend a lot of time reminding folks that the govt doesn't GIVE rights, it exists merely because it guarantees them. When it stops doing that, time to change it. I believe it was Jefferson who said something about the tree of liberty being refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants...I think people on both sides of the aisle need to be more aware of the way our rights get chipped away at constantly, and the responsibility folks like us have to keep reminding others of this inconvenient fact.

These sound like the sentiments of a libertarian, not a "progressive." A "progressive" is just a communist in disguise, and "progressives" don't talk this way.

I think an awful lot of people out there have been led down the garden path, and think they're "liberal" or "progressive," because those are positive labels, but aren't. Those labels have been applied to things that are diametrically opposed to American ideals. I mean come on, there can't be that many people actually supporting the welfare state; high taxation; unauthorized government programs, agencies and spending; globalization; borders open to invasion; and self-defeatism ("pacifism")...can there? How many people really want what will "progressively" happen with the Ds in power: Communism in America?

 

[Helmetcase]

Helmet, if you had just posted that you went to the meeting, that you asked Sarah Brady your questions, and left it at that, then three pages worth of this thread would never have occured. It's when you went on and said that it's our fault that Sarah Brady thinks we are a bunch of rednecks that you ran into problems.

Ok, let's get this clear right now--I'm not saying it's our fault the stereotype exists. I AM saying it's our fault if we don't actively counter it at every turn and make sure we DO NOT do anything to encourage or perpetuate that stereotype. It's the number one worst thing we can do to just idly let it continue without rebuttal, and the Brady's will tell you the same thing. And it goes beyond muddy boots in Annapolis on Gun Bill Day--it's about us maintaining a professional image and being an inclusive community that recognizes that the RKBA benefits people of all walks of life.

These sound like the sentiments of a libertarian, not a "progressive." A "progressive" is just a communist in disguise, and "progressives" don't talk this way.

Sigh...don't labels really suck sometimes? There's no one pigeonhole to fit me in, I suppose. I am pretty much a libertarian these days, but I also just feel that some issues require quality govt. We still need good government to do some important things (national defense, protect the environment, protect consumers and ensure public safety, law and order, etc) so I can see the benefits of actively participating in creating that good government. I don't think you can govern effectively and mitigate the inherent evils of government with any efficacy if your fundamental premise is that govt is universally evil and should be throttled almost entirely. I favor continually looking at how we're doing things, and not necessarily doing them "the old way" just because that's the way it's been done--I favor making progress and improving the world around us.

But on the other hand, wherever possible I find myself erring on the side of personal liberty, so I do sound a lot like a libertarian.

I guess I'm an issue by issue guy, but "progunlibertarian" just doesn't have the same alliterative ring to it.

 

[Tim James]

Let's use sweeping labels and stereotypes just for a second to concentrate on my point.

Maybe the problem is that most gun owners can't see how the left could ever be pro-gun. They see the left as looking for big-government control on most issues. Also, when you read Unintended Consequences, you see how those punks in the EPA and FAA are just like the jack-booted troopers in the ATF, and you equate all that with the left. They see a consistent attempt to control independent citizens trying to mind their own business. They see it as inconsistent for the left to support gun rights and also load up your small business with red tape to make sure you're only dumping 0.02g of arsenic into the water instead of 0.03g. They also worry that if "the party of control" (bear with me) gets back into office by supporting gun rights, new big-government types might join the party that don't support RKBA.

However, Helmetcase has just given you all a reason why it is consistent for the left to support RKBA -- it's part of a platform that he sees as individual rights -- pro-choice, freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable monitoring or arrest. That's a plausible (but not necessarily true) explanation for why a pro-gun leftist makes sense. He's given you an ideal for perhaps a new type of leftist. He has a website that attempts to move people toward that ideal. Now you can debate him on whether that ideal would ever remain consistent or plausible.

Some people here may never want a pro-gun leftist in power because of all the extra baggage they bring on other issues. That's perfectly fine! For the rest of us, let's keep this debate to whether a pro-gun leftist makes sense and could ever exist for a long period of time. Because if not, you're just electing leftists to power that will quickly turn on RKBA. I think that's what most people here, other than those that hate the left for other reasons, are afraid of. I could be wrong.

 

[benEzra]

Helmetcase, that's awesome.

I'd love to meet Ms. Brady, or Mr. Hamm, sometime and point out that out of 520 homicides in Maryland reported to the FBI in 2004, all rifles COMBINED accounted for only 2 (yes, two). So just why is it so important to outlaw popular civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out?

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_20-22.html

I don't know whether Brady and company just hate law-abiding gun owners and want to screw us any way they can, even if there's no rational basis for doing so; or they are merely blinded by their own "modern-looking-rifles-are-the-devil" rhetoric. In any case, one definition of a fanatic is someone who redoubles their efforts after losing sight of their goals.


To all: Helmetcase brings up something here that I think some gunnies who happen to be republicans miss.

(1) Tying the RKBA to a right-wing agenda means that if the right-wing agenda falters, our RKBA will die. Not to mention the fact that many of us gunnies don't WANT to see the whole right-wing shebang enacted, since we are not all of the right-wing political persuasion. Don't tie gun rights to the immigration issue. Don't tie gun rights to lowering taxes or abolishing the Department of Education. The Bill of Rights TRANSCENDS that stuff, and there are a lot of gun owners out there who are 100% pro-RKBA but who don't support your position on immigration/the Minutemen, lowering taxes, or abolishing the DoE. Don't tie my gun rights to somebody else's red wagon. Which brings us to #2...

(2) Roughly half of U.S. gun owners are NOT republicans, and around 1/3 are registered Democrats. Ben Franklin's adage about "we must all hang together, or we will surely hang separately" comes to mind. The repubs gleefully accepted the mantle of Defenders of the Second Amendment when the national Dems idiotically handed it to them in the early 1990's, but don't forget for a minute that for the national republican party, being pro-2ndA is merely a means to an end of pushing the broader republican agenda...which in recent years seems to be very, very neocon. Also don't forget that the national repubs came very close to dumping the 2ndA in the early '90's until they realized what a blunder the Dems were making, and decided for pragmatic reasons to take advantage of it.

(3) If a Dem honestly stands up for the 2nd Amendment, support him/her on it!!!!!! Even if you can't vote for him/her because you disagree with him/her on other issues, don't bash them because they did the right thing on the 2ndA. Praise them for doing the right thing!

If you bash non-conservatives/non-libertarians/non-whatevers who stand up for the 2ndA because they aren't a conservative/libertarian/whatever, then what you're saying is that you don't want anybody but conservatives/libertarians/whatever supporting the 2ndA. Guess what, the Bradyites will be GLAD to welcome them to their camp. Don't shove them in the bradyites' direction.

 

[bouis]

Pro Choice? What about the choice to do with the fruits of your labor as you wish? The fact is that economic liberty is just as important, if not more so, than the hedonistic liberty that leftists advocate.

If you don't support socialism, you are not a progressive. If you already know that, why the heck do you throw your lot in with them?

 

[Tim James]

Okay, my last post was way too convoluted. Try these two questions:

1. Looking at the big picture, is it ever worth supporting RKBA candidates if you disagree with the rest of their platform? (Hint: there is more to this than you think.)

2. Purely from a firearms standpoint, would it ever be a long-term benefit to RKBA to support the ideal of a pro-gun left? Answer the question in these terms: yes, because gun rights could always be consistent with their philosophy based on Helmetcase's idea; or no, because the left would naturally gravitate toward control of everything, and RKBA would always fall in the end.

 

[Hayward Juhbuzzoff]

If you don't support socialism, you are not a progressive

Socialist and Progressive are not one and the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

 

[bouis]

Hayward, unless he's just arrived here via time machine, the only definition of "progressive" that is applicable is the second (and maybe the first).

In a somewhat more restricted sense, "progressive" is a term used within left-wing politics to distinguish left-wingers who advocate moderate or gradual social change (called "progressives" or "reformists") from those who advocate larger and more rapid changes (called "revolutionaries" or "radicals").

Now, what does that sound like to you? Oh, I know--

The Bolsheviks felt that the working class should lead the revolution in an alliance with the peasantry with the aim of establishing the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, where the Party acts as extreme revolutionary opposition. On the other hand, the Menshevik vision was one of a bourgeois democratic revolution in which they could take part in government.

 

[Hayward Juhbuzzoff]

They're not the same. The fact that the word "social change" is in the excerpt does not mean anything significant. You could say the Christian Right is lobbying for "social change" and it wouldn't mean that they are socialists.

It may be more appropriate to let people who consider themselves as Progressives define what that word means, rather than people from opposing ideologies imposing a definition.

...Honestly, I don't see a Progressive connection to the Bolshevik quote.

 

[bouis]

"Progressive" is a euphemism just like "pro choice." But unlike killing children, which is a very specific and easy to describe act, "progressive" refers to an ideology, abstract ideas that would be hard to describe even if the progressives weren't trying to hide what they really are. So it shouldn't surprise you that even self-styled progressives can't agree what it means, other than more state control. And it sure sounds nice -- who could be opposed to progress?

To understand that quote I guess you need to know what a Menshevik was. They were communists in Russia who believed in the same crazy ideas the Bolsheviks did. They only disagreed on how to go achieve the same goals. The Bolsheviks wanted to overthrow the government and immediately install a temporary (hah!) dictatorship. The Mensheviks wanted to coopt the movement to establish democracy in Russia, who would overthrow the Czar for them, at which point they'd exploit the masses of Russian peons to win elections and gradually build a communist state. I guess in this story our pro-gun progressive would be one of the hapless bourgeois Democrats.

 

[Hayward Juhbuzzoff]

Bouis...
I think I see the connection you're trying to make in your bolshevik/menshevik analogy - instant versus gradual change? If that is the basis of your Progressive = Menshevik comparison,... Is EVERY political philosophy which advocates a gradual change a Menshevik philosophy?

Regarding your first paragraph... "even if the progressives weren't trying to hide what they really are"... Do you think that comment encourages rational discussion?

Progressive is no more of a euphemism than Conservative, Liberal, etc.

 

[Helmetcase]

God luv ya BenEzra; where the RKBA internet community would be without ya. Love your stuff on DU as well. Keep it up.

As for the progressive stuff, Haywood's pretty well nailed it, but dammit if the endless redefining of the word by conservatives to make it mean what THEY want it to mean isn't tiresome as hades.

I'm not a communist. I'm not a Bolshevik. Quit saying I am. It's childish, and pretty damn stupid.

I've already explained quite thoroughly why I believe that govt is a necessary evil (and away from the keyboard warrior zone of "I miss the good old days of the 1790s" most rational people accept that necessary evil...I think a lot of this "reduce the govt to what it was like under the FF's" is an overly romanced notion of what life was like before the turn of the 20th C). I've explained why good government is essential, and why I believe that we need effective govt working for us, despite the fact that I'm also a civil libertarian.

So can the bull**** about me or anyone using the word progressive being a communist, and the nonsense about YOU telling ME what the word means. I know damn well what it means, and it ain't what you think it is. Thanks to Haywood for making that clear.

 

[bouis]

He never actually said what it's supposed to mean. And neither have you for that matter.

 

[No_Brakes23]

Good job, Helmetcase.

<observation>

You know, there are an awful lot of people on THR who use language rather loosely -- using "liberal" as a synonym for "gun grabber," for example.

</observation>

pax

Pax, if you can't tell from my siglines, that's my personal crusade.

Someone let me know when the national level ACLU drops the collective right interpretation of the 2nd.

Beerslurpy, that's also my big stumbling block with these guys.

Yeah, I like reminding today's Democrats that those original gun grabbing Dems were Klansmen trying to keep freed slaves from being able to defend themselves from lynch parties and raids on their farms.

That certainly precedes some verbal gymnastics, in my experience.

Gun control is just another word for people control. The motivations remain the same, only the excuses have been changed, to disguise the guilty.

How's that saying go, bowcase? "scratch a leftist, and you'll find a facist"?

 

[Gray Peterson]

Lemme ask everyone an interesting question:

Has anyone here taken a look at the State of Ohio?

We have two basically equal people on the gun rights arena as far as that is concerned, between Ted Strickland and Ken Blackwell. Ted is far ahead of Blackwell in the polls.

It was Republicans in that state that held up CCW for almost a decade.

It was Republicans in that state that kept selling gun owners up a river.

It was Republicans in that state that absolutely refuse to pass HB347, which would preempt gun control laws at the local level, because they're afraid of crossing a governor of their own party who currently has less than a 15% approval rate.

Yet these same idiots would not pass a bill with Ted Strickland as governor. I personally hope the Republicans in Ohio get clobbered.

The acid test is this really:

Would you support a Democrat who is pro-choice (or pro-abortion depending on your political persuation), pro-civil union (civil unions for all, not seperate but equal marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for gays, but civil unions for ALL), for an Enhanced Medicare system giving medical and dental coverage to every American, and also fight tooth and nail to have repealed the machine gun ban, the 1934 registration act, much of the 1968 gun control act, and get carry reciprocity/shall issue carry and/or Vermont-style open and concealed carry across the United States?

Versus someone in the Republican party who is the opposite of all of them? The feeling I've get is that despite being quite pro-gun, the Republican is still going to get a bunch of the "gun vote" due to not liking Enhanced Medicare or gay rights or abortion.

That is the true acid test of whether someone is really pro-gun, especially if the Democrat has a history of being quite pro-gun from every level of government he or she has served.

It's a true shame that it seems like people would rather go for idealogues rather than philosophy.

 

[Smurfslayer]

This thread is an object lesson for us all on how divided we are as a voting block. Instead of taking the good from Helmetcase's deeds, we picked at him like a gaggle of starving vultures at a rotting corpse. Instead of seeing an example we scoffed. We berated his actions and when that failed to get traction we attacked his affiliations in an attempt to discredit the messenger.

SO WHAT if he identifies with a party other than the predominant representation on THR? I don't like the Congressional Axis of Weasel any more than the next guy but Helmetcase is working to change it, demonstrated by actions, not THR bickering.

Now we're bickering back and forth about idealogy and "My party is better than your party" or "My party will kick your party's <content deleted; Art's Grandma and such>". All the time bickering herein could've been channeled toward something better politically, legislatively or any number of ways.

 

[Helmetcase]

I appreciate your sentiments, smurf...all I can think is that old habits die hard. But the RKBA community will get stronger as we continue to expand the places it can draw from in the political landscape--that's what I'm here for.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Good work, Helmetcase. I would like to borrow some of your words in that blog as a sig line, if you don't object.

Folks, it's true that a lot of conservatives distrust Democrats and so-called liberals over the gun issue because of a history of being burned by many on that side of the political aisle. However, what I read in a lot of the comments I get is that the really hard-core, partisan right-wingers want to keep this issue in the domain of Republicans and so-called conservatives. Especially speaking to this audience, it serves the RNC and the junta over at the NRA as one of those fringe issues that keeps the rabble in line.

"Don't look at the man behind the curtain who's dismantling the Bill of Rights and wrecking the economy, look at those lib'ral gun grabbers!"

The tenor of the objections I get around here is that right-wingers around here are more threatened by the prospect that PGP and others might rob them of their pet issue that they are by the Brady types.

 

[TC-TX]

Nice job Helmetcase!

Great work BenEzra!

 

[Helmetcase]

Good work, Helmetcase. I would like to borrow some of your words in that blog as a sig line, if you don't object.

By all means, I'd be flattered. My stuff is public consumption, I don't expect nor would I accept any renumeration. Take whatever you think will advance the cause.

The tenor of the objections I get around here is that right-wingers around here are more threatened by the prospect that PGP and others might rob them of their pet issue that they are by the Brady types.

I think *most* people here just wanna see the RKBA protected above all else, but there is definitely an impression I get that's similar--the last thing Karl Rove wants is for the left to drop gun control, I'm quite sure of that.

 

[antsi]

---quote------
However, what I read in a lot of the comments I get is that the really hard-core, partisan right-wingers want to keep this issue in the domain of Republicans and so-called conservatives.
--------------

Let me get this straight: you are saying that you have seen "a lot" of comments by Republicans or right-wingers, objecting to the idea of Left/Liberal/Democrats adopting a pro-gun position?

You're seeing posts by Left/Liberal/Democrats clamoring to promote RKBA, and right-wingers are replying "You liberals aren't allowed to be in favor of gun rights! We insist that you keep on fighting against our Second Ammendment rights!"

I'm not buying it. Let's see "a lot" of links to such comments.

Now, I do agree that a lot of right-wingers have expressed scepticism about the prospect of the Democrat party truly embracing RKBA. In my opinion this is a healthy scepticism based on past behavior, such as Kerry "posing" with a shotgun before jetting halfway across the country in the middle of a critical primary campaign in order to vote for renewal of the AWB.

Neither I, nor I believe any of the other conservatives on this board, would object if the Democrats and liberals would truly embrace a pro-RKBA platform. Personally, I would be thrilled to see that and I wish you all the luck in the world trying to reform your party.

Just don't expect me to have an epiphany every time John Kerry or Hilary Clinton has a media event shooting skeet somewhere.

 

[jlbraun]

Would you support a Democrat who is pro-choice (or pro-abortion depending on your political persuation), pro-civil union (civil unions for all, not seperate but equal marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for gays, but civil unions for ALL), for an Enhanced Medicare system giving medical and dental coverage to every American, and also fight tooth and nail to have repealed the machine gun ban, the 1934 registration act, much of the 1968 gun control act, and get carry reciprocity/shall issue carry and/or Vermont-style open and concealed carry across the United States?

If you insert "basic preventative care" instead of Medicare, then not just yes but hell yes!

 

[TC-TX]

sorry - double post

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

---quote------
However, what I read in a lot of the comments I get is that the really hard-core, partisan right-wingers want to keep this issue in the domain of Republicans and so-called conservatives.
--------------

Let me get this straight: you are saying that you have seen "a lot" of comments by Republicans or right-wingers, objecting to the idea of Left/Liberal/Democrats adopting a pro-gun position?

No, that's not what I'm saying, but thanks for asking for a clarification. I'm saying I have seen "a lot" of comments objecting to the idea that Left/Liberal/Democrats are able to adopt a pro-gun position. There are a discouraging amount of posters here who believe their ideology is doctrinairally (is that a word?) pure. That someone who disagrees with them, for instance on a subject like single-payer health insurance, would be incapable of also supporting RKBA. I think these people feel so secure in their black/white world view that evidence to the contrary creates a disconnect that they can't handle.

I also believe, as Helmetcase pointed out, that the political strategists on the right are more interested in winning political contests than advancing your rights, and so would love nothing more than to keep this (perceived) divide the way it is. Not just the Karl Roves... I think we have a few of those right here.

 

[Norton]

threatened by the prospect that PGP and others might rob them of their pet issue that they are by the Brady types.

Helmetcase, we wouldn't know anyone threatened by us taking away their pet issues...would we?