Thoughts on Being a Liberal Gun Owner

[LAK]

cuchulainn

The human capacity to compartmentalize deeply-held yet contradictory beliefs is limitless.

And this is readily apparent in the way news is reported - and it's steering effect in political debate.

There are very few if any major subjects such as immigration, welfare, wages, crime, government activity in general etc etc that can be objectively addressed as singular issues in isolation of anything else.

--------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Chrontius]

...
Nothing wrong with the idea of selling the National Parklands and Forests. Nothing in Article I Section 8 calls for National Parklands and Forests... just "forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings".

...

Also, every time you have a huge swath of land in public ownership, that is a huge swath of land that is *NOT* providing property taxes to local municipalities. This, in turn, makes the rest of our tax rates higher than it should be.

I take offense from a biologist's point of view. The removal of organic waste from what ultimately winds up as drinking water comes in a large part from the action of these national parklands and forests. (Why do you think we picked *that* particular patch of land to turn into a park? Because it's the most efficient waste-treatment plant we could build.) In order to replicate the effectiveness of these lands, very expensive machines would have to be built and maintained. Why is the best reason to like national parks? Because they're cheaper than the alternative.

3. Lest you again incorrectly assert that socialism solely regards government ownership of the means of production, I will preemptively correct you: that is merely an aspect of economic socialism. Socialism, as a system of "government," is tyranny by majority And yes, the Ds are nearly unanimous in supporting it (along with their TV viewers and newspaper readers).

That's an ad-hominem. I'm calling you on it.

6) Make out with your same sex partner in front of my kid, and I'll be the first in line to file a public indecency complaint.

Make out with your *any* partner in front of my kid...


I don't want to end my post on such a downer note (yeah, it's 3:57 am, this is a little spacey for me-not-tired) so...

Red state... Blue state... Purple state?

 

[NineseveN]

6) Make out with your same sex partner in front of my kid, and I'll be the first in line to file a public indecency complaint.

Thanks, I almost forgot about the amendment in the Bill of Rights that enumerated the right of people to not be offended by things...which number was that again? 422?

 

[Phetro]

You have any stats to back that up? Or just your opinion? Glad to know you're wary of us, because we tend to be wary of bigoted self assured idiots who make grand pronouncements about their world view with little to back it up.

Who compiles stats on such things? No one. No one needs to--it's as obvious as "most cars on the road have four tires, and none of them are donuts." What assures me is not myself, but rather the observations of every objective assessment I've ever seen (read: not one biased to see a high percentage of socialists where there isn't).

The very existence of all the "liberals with guns" threads we've got on THR and the existence of sites like mine and others that get lots of traffic (thanks for the plug earlier Stormin) ought to clue you in that your prejudicies aren't all that accurate, and your assumption that there aren't a bunch of us is bunk. Support it if you can.

Yeah, all three of those threads are clogging my screen. I can't even get past them to see the one or two threads criticizing leftism! Man. Who would have thought...

Oh, and how many of your site's hits are merely done for morbid curiosity? I can vouch for one, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

 

[Phetro]

3. Lest you again incorrectly assert that socialism solely regards government ownership of the means of production, I will preemptively correct you: that is merely an aspect of economic socialism. Socialism, as a system of "government," is tyranny by majority And yes, the Ds are nearly unanimous in supporting it (along with their TV viewers and newspaper readers).

That's an ad-hominem. I'm calling you on it.

But it's correct. Call all you want, you can't change the truth.

 

[Helmetcase]

Who compiles stats on such things? No one. No one needs to--it's as obvious as "most cars on the road have four tires, and none of them are donuts."

You apparently didn't read BenEzra's last post. You're obviously making a diligent effort to remain ignorant and uninformed. Go read his post and get back to us when your head is removed from your nether region. Here's the salient part: "Bovine scatology. Around half of Repubs and a third of Dems own guns. "

Really obvious. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

What assures me is not myself, but rather the observations of every objective assessment I've ever seen (read: not one biased to see a high percentage of socialists where there isn't).

Objective assessment? *** are you talking about? You just finished telling us there's no such study or stat. Forgive us for not putting much stock in your "objective assessments" since you flatly refused to provide any stats or studies to back up your outlandish, unsupportable opinion on who actually owns guns.

Make up your mind, you're really starting to sound like a boob.

Yeah, all three of those threads are clogging my screen. I can't even get past them to see the one or two threads criticizing leftism! Man. Who would have thought...

Have you noticed that no one's bothering to really defend you (idiotic) argument? Because everyone knows there are plenty of liberal, progressive, moderate, Democrat, etc. gun owners EXCEPT you apparently. As toivo notes, anyone who's pushing the bipolar view of the world and trying to pigeonhole everyone into one category or the other is a schill pursuing an agenda, and not attached to reality.

Sorry to deflate you prejudicied, unsupportable, misinformed bubble you're trying to live in.

Oh, and how many of your site's hits are merely done for morbid curiosity? I can vouch for one, and I'm sure I'm not alone

Yeah, riiiiiight, the 10,000 hits a month I'm averaging are all just morbid curiousity, and my regular readership all think just like you.

You are quite possibly the poorest excuse for a THR member I've come across in the last six months. If I were a moderator, you'd be gone.

 

[NineseveN]

Helmetcase, I first want to say that I am in no way trying to attack you or your site, I manage my own site and I know how personal one's pride can be in their creation, however, having sad that:

Yeah, riiiiiight, the 10,000 hits a month I'm averaging are all just morbid curiousity, and my regular readership all think just like you.

There is no way that those hits are unique visitors, period. If you want to prove otherwise, provide a snapshot of your log files instead of relying on some simple counter mechanism.

Your site went live in on October 22, 2005 (at least the forums portion did) while your articles section on the front end appear to start on December 5th. Your counter that you have displayed shows a count currently of 58150 (15 of which I just added simply by refreshing your page which shows that your count only counts a page hit and not a visitor). In one 5 minute web session, just reading 4-5 of your articles and reading or posting comments on them, I could generate 8-10 hits alone (web sessions commonly generate double digit hits per user when you only track the times a page is requested instead of tracking by unique IP addresses) so your count certainly does not correlate to a large readership base as you seem to want to suggest. Feel free to prove me wrong with a log snapshot.

Your forums, having been live for about 6 months, have only 61 registered users and 842 posts:

30 of your registered users have zero posts, that's nearly half of your entire membership.

Only 17 of your users have more than 6 posts (27.87%)

0% of your users average even 1 post per day (you are the forum's most prolific poster weighing in a 0.98 posts per day).

The most users you have had on your forums at one time was 7 users.

How exactly does this correlate to your wild claim that there are "a bunch" of you out there?


By comparison:
==========================================================
My site (www.neardeathexperiments.com)

My forums currently generate an average of 64,000 hits per month; it officially went live on March 15th of this year. My forums discuss SHTF and survival. Does this suggest that there are 6.4 times as many gun owners interested in SHTF discussion as there are liberal gun owners?


I have 176 members (nearly 3 times as many as you have in less than half the time online). Does this suggest that there are 3 times as many gun owners interested in SHTF discussion as there are liberal gun owners?


We have 4569 posts (over 5.4 times as many as your forums have) in 427 topics alone (for every 1 post your site gets in any discussion thread, mine gets 1.97 entirely new discussion threads). Does this suggest that there are 5.4 times as many gun owners interested in SHTF discussion as there are liberal gun owners?

The most users we have ever had online was 54, our monthly average "maximum members on at one time" count is 21 users (our average is 3 times as many as your most). Does this suggest that there are 3 times as many gun owners interested in SHTF discussion as there are liberal gun owners?

According to my log files and analysis tools, I have an approximate 3,936 unique visitors (after using the software to track multiple IP's to the same users and figuring in for unique hits from the same person using multiple computers) and given the trends in the data I have shown so far, I would be surprised to learn that PGP has a 5th of that number. You'll likely find that the bulk of your traffic in regards to your "hit counter" follows the same pattern as your forums do, a small minority is responsible for the bulk of the page requests.


The facts are, your site is not all that popular (though I do wish you luck), your liberal politicians comprise the majority of the anti-gun political base (and the majority of your elected reps are anti-gun as well) and the majority of the anti-gun folks encountered in most places are liberals. Check all of the anti-gun or liberal forums on the Internet or go to any liberal or anti-gun gathering place out in the real world, take a few surveys, my claims will pan out because that's the way the numbers fall.

You are quite possibly the poorest excuse for a THR member I've come across in the last six months. If I were a moderator, you'd be gone.

Petty.

 

[cuchulainn]

So, in summary:

Is too!

Is not!

Is too!

Is not!

Uh-huh!

Nuh-uh!

Uh-huh!

Nuh-uh!

Yo momma!

You daddy!

Sez who!

Sez me!

Nanny nanny boo boo

Poopy head!

 

[Helmetcase]

You're not going to attack my site...so you go on to attack my site. ***?

And you think I'm being petty? Pot. Kettle. Black.

The hits aren't unique--but that's not the point. The point is not everyone checking out my site is a "morbid curiosity" visitor. Unless there are a couple morbid people who sit around hitting the refresh button. I've been on local radio, interviewed the Mayor of this city, been linked by the KABA folks, etc. It's not like everyone reading my site is a bungling dope with "morbid curiosity".

I didn't say I had a large readership; I said there was no indication that my readership was entirely morbid curiosity and the existence of many sites like mine is a clear indication that liberal gun ownership isn't limited to just a couple rare folks. Rather PETTY of you to suggest otherwise.

As for my forums, I haven't really done anything to encourage their use or make their presence known. It's not a focal point of my site, and they're completely redundant to places like this, firingline.com, etc. By way of comparison, the forums are the extent of the content on your site. The fact that you have more users isn't relevant. You're also pursuing a wider topic with less competition; see below. Your comparison isn't valid.

Other than picking on my site, what are you trying to prove? The lack of use of my forums doesn't change the fact that Phetro is full of ****. The fact that my forums aren't highly used doesn't change the fact that 1/3 of Dems own guns. The claim that there are a bunch of us out there isn't a wild claim at all. What are you smoking?

The facts are, your site is not all that popular (though I do wish you luck), your liberal politicians comprise the majority of the anti-gun political base (and the majority of your elected reps are anti-gun as well) and the majority of the anti-gun folks encountered in most places are liberals. Check all of the anti-gun or liberal forums on the Internet or go to any liberal or anti-gun gathering place out in the real world, take a few surveys, my claims will pan out because that's the way the numbers fall.

Typical logical fallacy: because most people who are anti-gun happen to be liberal, people who are liberal must all be anti-gun. BZZZT!! Nice try, but wrong. And pretty sophmoric.

And in the liberal gun community, my site is pretty damn popular. It's just a focused, one-issue site.

Talk about petty. And inaccurate. The fact that my site is new and has a limited readership (there are literally hundreds of gun blogs out there, maybe thousands, so I have a TON of competition and plenty of my competition isn't conservative...I'm sure I have a lot more competition than your theme has) doesn't change the fact that there are literally millions of non-conservative gun owners. Other than a series of petty attacks on my site, what are you trying to accomplish? If you think you've done more for the RKBA this year than me, bring it.

 

[45s save lives]

the bottom line as I see it

It is kinda a shame that we only have 2 parties. I am sure that most of us would like other choices. Oh well. This is why it seems like sometimes we have to choose the lesser of 2 evils.

Look, I know lots of Dems, libs, moderates, libertarians, etc that own guns. The differnece between them and true center/right people is that if their guns were banned, they wouldnt really be bothered a whole lot. That is as long as their lives arn't interupted and they still have their tvs to watch queer eye for ythe straight guy and will and grace.

Thats the difference.

Also there is a reason the libertarians cant win a post as a dog catcher. They are kinda like rebels with out a clue. Yeah lets sell off all the parks and forests! Then we can sell off all of our national monuments! We'll not protect english or christianity either! Then we'll open all the borders! We'll quit having hunting seasons too, you can kill all the deer and elk as long as you dont step on my rights, right? Guess what that didnt work either! And before you know it there will be no more america!

The ideal is to have everything as center as possable. The far right is just as bad as the far left. But currently we are too far left (despite what u may think) The current administration is not the coolest thing since keg beer I admit, but they arnt that bad either. I hear dems whining but I dont see them coming up with any better ideas (i.e. the patriot act). And the current repubs could probably acomplish more good if the dems would quit dragging their feet. (i.e. The no child behind act, social security, etc). And I think this inbalance is caused by the liberal media. Most people get their voting info from the news, which is way biased. EXCEPT FOX (despite what u may think).

And for the record it is the dems that have people hoodwinked. I always hear people say the d's are for the "working man" BS. They just want everyone to succomb to the welfare nanny state. Thats why guns and coffee cups have warnings on them. :banghead:

 

[dmallind]

which is way biased. EXCEPT FOX (despite what u may think).

Well, biased towards the "reality based community" perhaps

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

 

[Battler]

It's hard to work out if Fox is Republican or conservative biased, or just seems that way relative to the others.

To fix such a label on it involves defining some "middle" (itself a rhetorical political strategy).

Sean Hannity is a conservative/republican to a fault. He follows the party line, no matter what (probably doesn't even buy it all the time but does anyway).

Take Bill O'Reilly (please ehheh). He's called a conservative. In practice, he's loud and likes causing arguments. He does not take solid conservative positions, argues basically as an eco-marxist, and (while probably just to stimulate argument) gives Bush credit/blame on the war, like reeling in a fish.

A solid partisan republican would not do this. Yet the default journalist type is a liberal/Democrat. By not being this ideal, he's by defacto seen as "conservative".

In media "other" = "conservative".

Still, Republican/conservative viewers will face less insults watching Fox, so it becomes their defacto home.

 

[Helmetcase]

Oh, gimme a break--Fox is practically the GOP's official cheering section. To argue they're not biased is ridiculous beyond comprehension. See dmallind's link.

 

[tellner]

Look, I know lots of Dems, libs, moderates, libertarians, etc that own guns. The differnece between them and true center/right people is that if their guns were banned, they wouldnt really be bothered a whole lot. That is as long as their lives arn't interupted and they still have their tvs to watch queer eye for ythe straight guy and will and grace.

Funny, that's almost exactly what I would say about the center/right in America (which would be the right/lunatic fringe anywhere else). The only difference is that I would say "every right and liberty except guns". They've already done it without a peep. We now live in the politest police state in the world, and it is thanks to those staunch defenders of freedom, the American Right.

The *gasp* liberal librarians in Connecticut who stood up to the FBI's permanent fishing expedition are infinitely braver defenders of freedom than the terrified flock who will step into the cattle cars as long as the Party says it's for "security".

 

[Battler]

O'Reilly has gone ecomarxist apes**t as well, giving clear bias toward wealth redistribution or environmentalism.

Your site will actually demonstrate my point. They miss his errors/lies (that he makes because he's O'Reilly) on those topics as that's "normal", and isn't even noticed. Only pro-republican errors make such lists. O'Reilly rants out mistakes/lies/BS because he's O'Reilly.

Fox is a defacto republican mouthpiece because they have the mouthpieces of either party airtime. This is in contrast to other news channels with a more "limited" lineup. I still remember in 2000 on one news show they didn't line up 1 celebrity to vote for Gore; but THREE! They had limited time, so they ran through them one at a time to implore I vote for Gore.

Of course, leftwing/Democratic agenda pushed through TV is normal, it isn't noticed. That's how CNN/the networks stay apolotical, they are the "norm".

That said, after Fox's ratings went up, notice too they all went and got themselves a token Republican (Scarborough, or that recidivist Savage).

 

[gopguy]

Critics of Fox......clueless.

Sean Hannity is a conservative/republican to a fault. He follows the party line, no matter what (probably doesn't even buy it all the time but does anyway).

You obviously don't watch or listen to Sean. Sean Hannity frequently disagrees with the President and says so all the time. His disagreement with the Republicans in Congress on so many things are aired daily...he really laid into McCain yesterday. Sean and Rush Limbaugh are conservatives who criticize Republicans who stray from conservatism often.

Rush and Sean are also gun owners.

See dmallind's link.

I did....leftist pinko rubbish and you bloody well know it!

You are better off looking for the truth in media here.



http://www.aim.org/

Oh, gimme a break--Fox is practically the GOP's official cheering section. To argue they're not biased is ridiculous beyond comprehension.

What are you smoking?

Obviously you don't watch either... I am sure these fox commentators are on the RNC pay roll too. Alan Colmes, Nina Easton- Boston Globe, Mara Liasson of NPR, Mort Kondrake, Bob Beckel, Ellis Henican who sits in for Alan on H&C,Juan Williams,Susan Estrich, Lanny Davis former Clinton lawyer... Chris Matthews whose pappa just did a Brady fundraiser.....sigh... I can go on and on with the list of liberals that work for Fox.

Can you list all the Republicans who work for ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN....few and tokens at best....

The networks make no attempt to hide the leftist whores that they are.They have given shows to people like Chris Matthews, who wrote speeches for Jimmy Carter. George Stephanopolis, one of Bill Clinton's high profile top aids replaced David Brinkley (shoes little George can hardly fill). Tim Russert once worked for Tip O'Neil and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Katrina Vandenhoovel at CBS was a high ranking aide to Hillary Clinton.
They make no attempt to hide their leftist bias what so ever....so don't even start on Fox. The difference is they have equal numbers of conservatives and libs on a program.....that to libs is bias.

Heck, I just wrote a whole article on ABC hiring Jake Tapper to cover gun issues....he worked for Handgun Control Inc.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3141.html

Fox is kicking the networks butts in ratings and killing CNN despite being in fewer homes....People seek the truth. They are sick and tired of being lied to. Hence Fox is winning the Nielsens and leaving your liberal icons in the dust.. No argument about that, well documented. So if you wish to stay in the dark....continue on with your sources of lefty propaganda. I will stick with the most powerful name in news. FOX News. Fair and Balanced.

I checked out the progunprogressive website....out of morbid curiosity too....morbid it was indeed...

 

[Helmetcase]

I did....leftist pinko rubbish and you bloody well know it!

You make that comment on what basis? Anything besides "from your anal canal?"

Aim.com is a notorious RW site, IIRC.

Obviously you don't watch either... I am sure these fox commentators are on the RNC pay roll too. Alan Colmes, Nina Easton- Boston Globe, Mara Liasson of NPR, Mort Kondrake, Bob Beckel, Ellis Henican who sits in for Alan on H&C,Juan Williams,Susan Estrich, Lanny Davis former Clinton lawyer... Chris Matthews whose pappa just did a Brady fundraiser.....sigh... I can go on and on with the list of liberals that work for Fox.

*** are you talking about? Those people are employees. The content is what I'm talking about, and FOX's content is the Roger Ailes stream of consciousness. Content is determined by the producers, not the talking heads. What your saying reflects that you have ZERO understanding of how the media works and how content actually is delivered.

I checked out the progunprogressive website....out of morbid curiosity too....morbid it was indeed...

What the **** is your problem? What have YOU done to advance the RKBA cause this year, keyboard warrior? Where's YOUR pro-RKBA blog? Where's the effort you're putting in? If you're gonna make a barf symbol at my pro RKBA efforts, you better have something to show for it on your end, trollbait.

If the moderators continue to let posts like yours go unchecked, it'll surprise me. We don't treat fellow RKBA friends that way here (or so I thought).

If you've got a problem with my site, man up and specify what it is. Otherwise, do us all a favor and ****.

 

[scottgun]

These pro-gun progressive/liberal threads come up every couple of weeks, and I have to laugh. Its like a battered spouse justifying staying with their partner.

Liberal and progressive leaders do not want the average citizen to have guns. However one justifies their personal beliefs, the polical leaders do not have those beliefs.

 

[Helmetcase]

If the people lead, the leaders will follow scott. It's that simple. There's nothing inherent in the rest of my belief system that leads me to be anti-gun. The fact that Democratic party (of which I'm not a member) has leadership that leans toward the antigun side is of no import or consequence for my belief. But that party will have to continue to backpedal from anti-RKBA platforms as the constituents of that party move away from them.

Do you really think it benefits the RKBA cause to make it a partisan issue and ignore the help we have on both sides? Are you that small minded?

The problem with your mentality is A) it ignores the people out there who don't follow what your so-called "leaders" want us to believe, and B) it suggests that what we think isn't important because of what these "leaders" believe. Because Chuck Schumer is an ******* my beliefs are somehow suspect? That's ridiculous.

Again, for keyboard warriors like you, I'll put my RKBA resume on display for all to see. What have you done that gives you the right to put the symbol next to my efforts? Anything?

 

[Manedwolf]

These pro-gun progressive/liberal threads come up every couple of weeks, and I have to laugh. Its like a battered spouse justifying staying with their partner.

No, you can't be in our club because I don't like the shirt you're wearing, it's not the same as my shirt. So you can't be in our army. Moooom! Tell them they can't be with us, they're not completely like us!

Yeah, some people grow out of that, some don't. Way to alienate allies, there...

(psst, BTW, George Bush said he was FOR renewing the AWB, Russ Feingold voted against it. Wrap your brain around that little fact, don't ignore it.)

 

[scottgun]

Bush said he'd renew the AWB if it reached his desk becuase he knew that it would never get to his desk and he wanted to appease both sides of the issue.

I don't like how the political system groups people on one side or the other then pits them against the other side. But face it, if you support one of the two major parties, you implicitly support their agenda, all of not just parts of it. Like a Klansman who enjoys the comraderie and community events but who dislikes the racism and bigotry.

 

[gopguy]

What the **** is your problem? What have YOU done to advance the RKBA cause this year, keyboard warrior?

Sorry you are so thin skinned, I was teasing....I meant to Neener you rather than barf. OOPs. My apologies. I do commend you for trying to talk to those on your side about the gun issue and sway their view. I think you are swimming upstream....

Now as to who I am and what I have done.
If you had hit the link to BFA you would know who you are talking to. I am well known in Ohio. I wrote the article I linked in the previous post. Check it out and you will have my name. I was one of the OFCC (Ohioans for Concealed Carry)http://www.ohioccw.org/ members who helped get CCW done in Ohio in 2004. I am a volunteer for the BFA(Buckeye Firearms Association.) http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/ I worked on Lt. Col John Mitchell's campaign challenging RINO Senator Mike DeWine who consistantly votes anti gun. Sadly we lost as John wants to repeal all of the antigun laws passed since 1934. I am currently helping Representative Mike Turner and Jean Schmidt, progun members of congress. I am the legislative liaison of the CCFSA http://www.ccfsa.com/ Where I am a past president, and board member for the past 17 years. I also write a piece for our quarterly newsletter. 600 people get that one. I was a VIP member of the OGCA 2004 (Ohio Gun Collectors Association) for recruiting a large number of new members. I host a TV show in Dayton Ohio occasionally called "We The People" on Miami valley cable that frequently deals with Second Amendment issues. That a good start?

*** are you talking about? Those people are employees.

Employees who are the talking heads on the screens, speaking their minds.....hence content. Geeze come on.

You make that comment on what basis? Anything besides "from your anal canal?"

Yeah , moderators love this sort of thing too....

 

[Helmetcase]

Heh, good one manedwolf.

I'll just never understand the phetro/gopguy/scottgun mentality. Because of Feinstein, Kerry, Schumer, Boxer, etc.'s beliefs, I can't have my beliefs. Because they're gun haters, it can't possibly be that about a 1/3 of Dems actually own guns.

It's a silly and obvious logical fallacy: because many gun hating politicians are liberal, all liberals must be gun haters.

Kinda like saying because every square is a rectangle, every rectangle must be a square.

 

[Helmetcase]

Sorry you are so thin skinned, I was teasing....I meant to Neener you rather than barf. OOPs. My apologies. I do commend you for trying to talk to those on your side about the gun issue and sway their view. I think you are swimming upstream....

Point taken. I was a little put off by some rude comments by others and your barf was sorta the last straw. I don't mind swimming upstream, because somebody has to do it.

We're not going to get every liberal, moderate, progressive, Democrat, etc. to be on our side. The good news is, we don't have to! The balance of power between R's and D's swings back and forth, but if a substantial minority of Dems vote pro-RKBA and stop supporting anti-RKBA causes, we'll come out ahead. We just need a majority, not unanimity!

As for your resume, good work. There are plenty of keyboard warriors out there who can't be bothered to get off their asses. Glad you're not one.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Lesseee. . . .

Not about guns or gun rights. . . . .
Largely seems to be about homosexuality . . . .
And why Liberals Are Bad People . . . . .
And Cuchulain summed up the entire fourth page in one post.

So I think we're done here.