TT
member
gossamer: …well, keep it up and we'll see how it works out for you.
Because if I’m not nice to you you’ll what? Vote for Democrats instead of…um, voting for Democrats?
gossamer: …well, keep it up and we'll see how it works out for you.
I concur with this perspective - great contribution.Neither the rank and file nor the leadership of the Democratic Party want to confiscate our guns to leave us helpless and easy to subdue. The reason they want to ban guns is that they really believe that it will make us all safer. They are naive, fearful and wrong. But they are not evil.
And you know, a lot of the suburban SUV driving soccer moms and dads who vote for the GOP agree with them. Unfortunately, if a referendum were held on an Assault Weapons Ban tomorrow, it would probably pass. We're not going to change all those minds by name calling or further fear mongering. We just have to admit that some of those people will never come over to our side. Others can be won over with an invitation to the range. (I've seen it happen several times.) Luckily, most of the rest don't vote very often.
The best thing we can do is stay on The High Road.
There are statists on both sides of the aisle who really *do* want to control the population for motives that are less than pure, but they are likely in the minority when compared to those who are anti-RKBA because they naively believe it'll make the world a better place.
argument with Brady Bunch types is "futile," -for the most part, and those of Democratic persuasion
Unfortunantly, he's still anti-firearmBiden has and has always owned firearms so I don't know what impact that might have on things.
He promised to pass another AWB.Well, I have wondered if fellow gun owners would actually begin to trust Democrats not to go after their gun rights should BHO do as he stated on the campaign trail and not pursue gun control for the next four years.
Sounds like a good idea. Those scores are not as good as Oklahoma, Kentucky, and a bunch of other red states. In addition, Vermont is a notable exception, most of the Blue states have terrible records on gun rights.Ever hear of Vermont? Why don't you look up our Brady Campaign score? Then look at our polling results from the 2008 election.
Really? Can you say fairness doctrine?Your statement is asinine on so many levels it's barely worth responding to. Assuming you are a Republican, I have to say that your party has been the far worse abuser of civil liberties,
Unfortunantly, most of them in Washington don't.Evidently some Democrats do get it:
So, in other words, they are anti-gun?who feel as strongly as you do about a different issue, and if forced to make a choice between your liberties and theirs,
There is one party that doesn't have any more restrictions on liberty I can think of than the other party. The other party has an AWB in it's party platform.Edit; I'm not aurguing for anything here, just trying to show people that just because you value certain liberties more than others(And are willing to vote that way, even with the possibility of loss of OTHER liberties (probably ones you don't care about)), doesn't make you an enemy of freedom. It just makes you a selfish, normal, every-day American.
So all conservatives are racist now? Tell it to Steele.conservative, racist brother in law who owns over a dozen guns and hundreds of knives.
It's good that we have pro-gun Democrats, but the problem is that most of them are anti-gun, both in Washington and the voters.So when I come here and read a post that's positive, about the REALITY that the Democratic party is starting to get it where guns are concerned I say "hey, maybe some of these guys are catching on that we're not all a bunch of anti-gun, fearful people who want to lock up your guns.
That's fine, but firearm owners are over represented on the internet. In real life, according to a non-partisan, perhaps even slightly liberal polling source, about 68% of Democrats support stricter gun laws. About 51% of independants and 52% of republicans oppose stricter gun lawsI thought you guys might find this interesting.
I stole this off of DU, I was quite surprised by the numbers.
+1Gun owners of all type are our allies, or at least they should be.
That's probably more directed at anti-gun, extreme left types, like the speaker of the house.If pro-RKBA Conservatives think it's a good idea to go around impugning the credibility of Democrats who support RKBA by calling them "Socialist"
But did they vote pro-gun? Did they vote anti-gun? If they voted anti-gun, them "supporting it" doesn't matter.all supported the RKBA.
But you apparently have a conservative view on the second amendment, kind of like I have a liberal view on the death penalty.I'm a complete progressive
Gossamer: In fact, communitarianism, when you really understand it, would CONDONE our actions to defend our selves and our neighbors not only against criminals but also against the State.
There is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament of the kind that exists in practically all democracies. The National Rifle Association suggestion that criminals not guns kill people, ignores the fact that thousands are killed each year, many of them children, from accidental discharge of guns, and that people--whether criminal, insane, or temporarily carried away by impulse--kill and are much more likely to do so when armed than when disarmed.
11. We support the 'Brady Bill' and thoughtful, carefully considered GUN CONTROL.
Each year, more than 23 million Americans become victims of crime. The Nader Campaign recognizes that crime and violence are caused by complex factors and that there is no quick fix. The many factors include: increasing poverty, unemployment, and the growing rich-poor divide; from the failure to invest and nurture children, from family breakups, to the incessant marketing of violence and corporate pornography; our inability to provide treatment for those addicted to drugs and alcohol; the proliferation of guns [emphasis mine]; the rise in intolerance based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexual preference… all these contribute to crime.
Ignorance would be looking at the Democratic agenda and not seeing it is about diminishing the individual and increasing the role of government in daily life. Dangerous would be counting on people who are communitarian by nature to help advance the very libertarian cause of firearms ownership for self-defense.gossamer: It makes your statement sound ignorant and dangerous.
35 out of the 58 democratic senators voted against giving D.C. their second amendment rights.