How to convert your liberal friends (to win next election)

[cesarv]

The fact that I own a weapon and support the right to defend one's self is not more likely to make me vote for one party or the other. There are many more issues at hand.

 

[BUGUDY]

Reagan was a life member of the NRA, and no anti gun legislation ever reached the WH due to a sure veto from Pres Reagan, and after wards by Bush Sr. The Bradt Bill had to wait for the pres. following these two.

 

[benEzra]

Quote:
Here’s the 2008 Democratic Platform on firearms:
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

How does “reinstating the assault weapons ban” jibe with not being for “any restrictions at all against gun ownership“? Why would they mention “what works in Chicago” if they didn’t think Chicago’s handgun ban worked?

I know THR has a strict policy against saying anything negative about Democrats, but that shouldn’t mean we have to read nonsense about how Democrats aren’t anti-gun.

The mistake here is assuming that all Dems agree with the Third Way communitarian dolts who wrote the party platform, and that there aren't a whole lot of Dems and indies fighting tooth and nail to get that changed.

Half of US gun owners are Dems and independents. Linking gun ownership exclusively to political and social conservatism leaves half or more of US gun owners out in the cold. Regardless of our differences on other issues, we're all in this together on the gun issue.

 

[Victor1Echo]

Really, since JFK was killed by the CIA and friends, this country has been under control. There is no left or right. It's a false dichotomy. They are all in on it, and they script it to sound like there is a debate. Liberals cannot be converted, and the same is true for conservatives. For a democracy to really work--you need at least three viable choices. Liberals still believe that protests have an effect. America should be about liberty, not serfdom to some dumb ideology to a political party. The people who run for office in this county are vetted to make sure that they will do exactly as they are told.

 

[hso]

We're wandering off the topic into pure politics, which will get this thread closed.

Try to stay on topic.

 

[hso]

FOPA, which effectively banned civilian transfer of machineguns made after 1986, was developed during the Regan presidency and was finally signed during the Bush presidency. Brady was signed during the Bush presidency. AWB came about during the Clinton presidency. Both parties have controlled the Presidency and Congress when restrictions on RKBA have been born and signed. Make no mistake that there are Antis in both major political parties.

RKBA should be focused on all Americans, regardless of professed political affiliation since there's a wide range of gun rights positions represented within all political parties. Our goal should be to increase RKBA support universally by every means and we should avoid the oversimplification of saying "Party X is universally Anti while Party Y is universally Pro" lest we completely throw away an opportunities to advance freedom.

 

[BUGUDY]

The Brady Bill was signed in by Pres. Clinton. The history of gun control article:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=42516

 

[gossamer]

The Brady Bill was signed in by Pres. Clinton. The history of gun control article:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=42516

That so-called "history" completely ignores the fact that - when the pro-RKBA folks needed him the most - Ronald Reagan was at best ambivalent and at worst outright caved in his support of the 2nd Amendment.

She makes a big point of noting that Reagan was a life-long NRA member, WOW Ms. Froman, I'd like to point out that so is Michael Moore -- ever seen Bowling for Columbine?

Froman's article is blind to the threat to the 2nd Amendment that was posed by both parties after the Reagan shooting. And it's exactly the kind of thing that can lull us into thinking that one political party or another is either "completely on board" or "completely against." It's also a little revisionist history in how it recalls Reagan's "pro-2nd-amendment" value system.

The fact is, the Brady Bill - while signed by Clinton - was backed and urged by none other than Ronald Reagan in 1991:

Mr. Reagan peeved his old allies in the gun lobby, some of whom questioned the influence of a former President in Congress. After his speech this morning, Mr. Reagan went to the White House, where he said he hoped to persuade the man who was his Vice President to support the bill. When asked later whether he had persuaded Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan replied, "I'm trying to."

Mr. Reagan said at a gathering at George Washington University marking the 10th anniversary of the attempt on his life by John W. Hinckley Jr. "... it's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law-enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to purchase handguns."

For pro-RKBA folks to assume that one party or another is either "for us" or "against us" not only flies in the face of history, but it blinds us to the fact that incremental steps towards curtailing the 2nd Amendment can come from anyone - be they Liberal or Conservative.

Rather than painting either party with the dubious broad brush because we read something called a "history" on the internet we should not take anyone's support for granted. This is because history has shown us time and time again that personal experiences, tragedies, societal changes, etc. cal alter a person's conviction to even the most basic rights we are supposed to enjoy in this country. In short, don't be fooled into believing you can or cannot count on anyone.

 

[NinjaFeint]

That so-called "history" completely ignores the fact that - when the pro-RKBA folks needed him the most - Ronald Reagan was at best ambivalent and at worst outright caved in his support of the 2nd Amendment.

She makes a big point of noting that Reagan was a life-long NRA member, WOW Ms. Froman, I'd like to point out that so is Michael Moore -- ever seen Bowling for Columbine?

Froman's article is blind to the threat to the 2nd Amendment that was posed by both parties after the Reagan shooting. And it's exactly the kind of thing that can lull us into thinking that one political party or another is either "completely on board" or "completely against." It's also a little revisionist history in how it recalls Reagan's "pro-2nd-amendment" value system.

The fact is, the Brady Bill - while signed by Clinton - was backed and urged by none other than Ronald Reagan in 1991:



For pro-RKBA folks to assume that one party or another is either "for us" or "against us" not only flies in the face of history, but it blinds us to the fact that incremental steps towards curtailing the 2nd Amendment can come from anyone - be they Liberal or Conservative.

Rather than painting either party with the dubious broad brush because we read something called a "history" on the internet we should not take anyone's support for granted. This is because history has shown us time and time again that personal experiences, tragedies, societal changes, etc. cal alter a person's conviction to even the most basic rights we are supposed to enjoy in this country. In short, don't be fooled into believing you can or cannot count on anyone.

You are correct. The issue is for most people it is easier to have it black and white than one big gray area. They like to call everyone who doesn't own a gun "anti", which is not true. They like to think all the bad laws are made by "liberals" that are out to steal their rights. The truth is that it is all gray area and we damn well better stick together regardless of political party if we want to keep our rights.

 

[Majik]

Ok. You do realize that if mccain won, he's just another puppet like obama.

Do NOT get distracted by republican vs. Democrat nonsense. The powers that exist want to take our rights anyways, and they have plenty of folks on both fronts.

The thing i HATE is how the politicians claim to stick up for gun rights, so that hunters can still hunt, and folks can protect their families from robbery. NONE of that has anything to do with our 2nd ammendmant. We have the right to keep and bear arms. Nothing to do with hunting, or home protection, or even concealed carry. It's our right as citizens of this country, no matter what any politician believes or says. They can't LEGALLY change it, but they will try and have done it successfully in the past.

 

[jmortimer]

Why play pretend. Sure there are some liberals who are not liberal on the RKBA but it is a tiny fraction. Why waste time. We would be better off focusing on the majority of right thinking American citizens who support the RKBA now but are not motivated. Health care is a prime example, the majority opposes the changes being jammed down our throats but due to the last election we get the shaft. Motivate people with common sense and ignore those who are worthless on this issue. Now it's 2010, an election year, and elections have consequences. The best thing we can do is change the make up of the Senate so we can block additional liberal Justices. Justice Kennedy is the only thing standing in the way of the destruction of the RKBA and he is nothing to write home about on this issue. SCOTUS is the key to the RKBA.

 

[Prion]

All political parties are primarily concerned with consolidating and maintaining power. You are their concern in as much as they need to appease you to get your votes. This is accomplished by scaring you. Not standing up for you. Politicians are by and large power mongers and fear mongers whose number one concern is their political career, status, power, and ego.

Take the Tea Party for instance. A brief glimmer of hope until it's first annual convention. Palin is being payed $100,000 to speak, tickets for the weekend are $600 or $400 just to hear Palin speak. Another movement usurped by the wealthy elite in an effort to consolidate more power.

My point? We need to be bi-partisan. Enough left vs right, it's pro 2nd Amendment against any anti-gunner. Don't assume anyone is on our side, or against us, just because of party affliliation. I will vote for those with a proven track record of 2A support. In the last election we were left with two poor choices.

Saddest of all is to be living in a democracy and to be poorly represented by either party. To know how little the common man means to the power elite that runs this country. A power elite who fears an armed citizenry, you and me.

 

[NinjaFeint]

Why play pretend. Sure there are some liberals who are not liberal on the RKBA but it is a tiny fraction. Why waste time. We would be better off focusing on the majority of right thinking American citizens who support the RKBA now but are not motivated. Health care is a prime example, the majority opposes the changes being jammed down our throats but due to the last election we get the shaft. Motivate people with common sense and ignore those who are worthless on this issue. Now it's 2010, an election year, and elections have consequences. The best thing we can do is change the make up of the Senate so we can block additional liberal Justices. Justice Kennedy is the only thing standing in the way of the destruction of the RKBA and he is nothing to write home about on this issue. SCOTUS is the key to the RKBA.

In new england there are a lot of liberals/moderates who support RKBA. Just thought you should know. Ignoring them would not be a good strategy.

 

[jmortimer]

If a liberal nominates a Justice to the Supreme Court there is a certain vote against the RKBA and the Second Amendment. If a Conservative nominates a Justice it is at least an 80% chance or greater they will uphold RKBA and the Second Amendment. This is a fact beyond dispute. The DC gun ban as insane and idiotic as any gun law went down
5-4 - amazing and the newest Justice nominated by an Urber liberal upheld the DC gun ban which led to the Heller decision in SCOTUS. So again, lets play pretend and let the Second Amendment and the RKBA go down the toilet because that is exactly what will happen if more liberals are nominated as SCOTUS Justices. We need to change the balance of power in the Senate this year and the race in Massachusetts is the best place to start. The Chicago gun ban will go down 5-4 with Justice Kennedy as our only hope. That is one weak link to depend on. I find it hard to believe that anyone who values the Second Amendment could possibly think that reaching out to liberals is a sane course of action. The most effective course of action is to go after apathetic "independents" and move them to the right. There are more self described "conservatives" - way more - than self described liberals or even "independents" - so let's be real and stop playing pretend if we value the Second Amendment and the RKBA.

 

[TT]

Oldskoolfan: So how come Reagan was so anti-gun? Not only as a president but also as a governor? And why did Bush sign the import ban?

Reagan did indeed stab gun-owners in the back, and Republicans should remember that whenever his legacy is discussed. Bush Sr. also betrayed gun-owners, but here’s the thing- when Reagan and Bush did these things they were betraying the Republican Party’s advocacy of limited government and respect for the natural right of self-defense. When Democrats vote against gun-owners, they are properly representing their party’s communitarian principles. So while you can certainly dredge up Republicans who have failed to adhere to their party’s ideology, you’ve only illuminated individual failings; I, on the other hand, have pointed out the clearly anti-gun plank in Democratic Party’s 2008 platform, something to which you apparently have no rebuttal. I will give you credit though for not trying benEzra’s pathetic ‘the party platform doesn’t reflect the beliefs of the party members” absurdity.

 

[jmortimer]

+1 What TT said

 

[NinjaFeint]

Reagan did indeed stab gun-owners in the back, and Republicans should remember that whenever his legacy is discussed. Bush Sr. also betrayed gun-owners, but here’s the thing- when Reagan and Bush did these things they were betraying the Republican Party’s advocacy of limited government and respect for the natural right of self-defense. When Democrats vote against gun-owners, they are properly representing their party’s communitarian principles. So while you can certainly dredge up Republicans who have failed to adhere to their party’s ideology, you’ve only illuminated individual failings; I, on the other hand, have pointed out the clearly anti-gun plank in Democratic Party’s 2008 platform, something to which you apparently have no rebuttal. I will give you credit though for not trying benEzra’s pathetic ‘the party platform doesn’t reflect the beliefs of the party members” absurdity.

I am not sure how saying two of the last three Republican presidents betrayed their party is supposed to make me feel good about voting for a Republican. This is who the party selected and groomed for the top spot in American. That reflects on the party. My point is not to say Democrats are better or Republicans are terrible, my point is that depending on the Republicans to protect your gun rights has failed. Gun owners (of all political parties) need to stick up for gun owners because no politician will ever have your back when push comes to shove.

I can't remember an election where I didn't vote for at least one candidate from each party including an independent. I can't imagine being bound to one party.

 

[NinjaFeint]

If a liberal nominates a Justice to the Supreme Court there is a certain vote against the RKBA and the Second Amendment. If a Conservative nominates a Justice it is at least an 80% chance or greater they will uphold RKBA and the Second Amendment. This is a fact beyond dispute. The DC gun ban as insane and idiotic as any gun law went down
5-4 - amazing and the newest Justice nominated by an Urber liberal upheld the DC gun ban which led to the Heller decision in SCOTUS. So again, lets play pretend and let the Second Amendment and the RKBA go down the toilet because that is exactly what will happen if more liberals are nominated as SCOTUS Justices. We need to change the balance of power in the Senate this year and the race in Massachusetts is the best place to start. The Chicago gun ban will go down 5-4 with Justice Kennedy as our only hope. That is one weak link to depend on. I find it hard to believe that anyone who values the Second Amendment could possibly think that reaching out to liberals is a sane course of action. The most effective course of action is to go after apathetic "independents" and move them to the right. There are more self described "conservatives" - way more - than self described liberals or even "independents" - so let's be real and stop playing pretend if we value the Second Amendment and the RKBA.

So since I am Pro-Choice, Anti-Gun Control, Pro-Death Penalty, Pro-Gay Marriage, Anti-Government Healthcare (including Medicare and Medicaid), Anti-School Prayer, Pro-Medical Marijuana, believe in evolution over creation, against regulating a free market (with some exceptions) and think Michael Moore and Ann Coulter should be forced to live in a small cabin together for eternityWhat am I? Should I be considered a person worthy of defending RKBA?

 

[jmortimer]

It is not a party issue. It is a Conservative versus liberal issue. Party means nothing but TT's point is well taken. Let's put it this way - depending on the party currently in power is certain to fail and depending on the other party has at least an 80% or greater chance of success as it relates to the Second Amendment and the RKBA. And Ninjataint we will take what we can get and at least you are a free thinker. Your ideas are an amalgamation to be sure. I would class you as a Libertarian.

 

[NinjaFeint]

It is not a party issue. It is a Conservative versus liberal issue. Party means nothing but TT's point is well taken. Let's put it this way - depending on the party currently in power is certain to fail and depending on the other party has at least an 80% or greater chance of success as it relates to the Second Amendment and the RKBA. And Ninjataint we will take what we can get and at least you are a free thinker. Your ideas are an amalgamation to be sure. I would class you as a Libertarian.

I could argue with you all night on politics but like I said, I think us gun owners should stick together. Just keep an open mind for us "free thinkers" who own firearms and will defend RKBA, there are a lot more of us than you might expect.

 

[Majik]

Okay. I voted for Obama in the last presidential election. I'm not ashamed of it, heck, he lied to everyone. If some fellow running for president claims this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk

versus a set of candidates who say sh** like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUCQ8H8SkhI

Personally, I do not care who russia toys with as long as it aint me. us going to war with russia, most people don't realise that it would go nuclear almost immediately. There'd be little if any actual fighting. This would garuntee death to the vast majority of both the nations, something the world has never seen before. It's wreckless, and STUPID. I will NOT support that.



However, I firmly belive that America should not ever be a "democracy". America is to be a Republic. Any candidate that is a strict constitutionalist, I'll give my honest support to. Ron Paul would be infinitely better than McCain or Obama. Fact.

 

[NinjaFeint]

Okay. I voted for Obama in the last presidential election. I'm not ashamed of it, heck, he lied to everyone. If some fellow running for president claims this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk

versus a set of candidates who say sh** like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUCQ8H8SkhI

Personally, I do not care who russia toys with as long as it aint me. us going to war with russia, most people don't realise that it would go nuclear almost immediately. There'd be little if any actual fighting. This would garuntee death to the vast majority of both the nations, something the world has never seen before. It's wreckless, and STUPID. I will NOT support that.



However, I firmly belive that America should not ever be a "democracy". America is to be a Republic. Any candidate that is a strict constitutionalist, I'll give my honest support to. Ron Paul would be infinitely better than McCain or Obama. Fact.

As for people I know, Palin cost them a lot of votes.

 

[jmortimer]

That proves the point, Palin has more pro-Second Amendment and the RKBA in her pinky than the president and "Plugs" combined - both supported the DC gun ban- so if liberals dislike someone who is way Second Amendment and elect two anti-gun nut jobs then why waste time with liberals

 

[gossamer]

If a liberal nominates a Justice to the Supreme Court there is a certain vote against the RKBA and the Second Amendment. If a Conservative nominates a Justice it is at least an 80% chance or greater they will uphold RKBA and the Second Amendment. This is a fact beyond dispute.

The fact that a so-called Pro RKBA community relies on generalized "certainties" and extrapolate some "80% chance" of protecting RKBA by electing one party demonstrates exactly why the 2nd Amendment has been so curtailed to the point that it has in recent decades.

http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue11/dont_blame_liberals.htm

"Guns are an abomination," -- Richard Nixon. Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

President George Bush, Sr. banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.

Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation’s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state.

This is not the Supreme Court signing these laws, this is the leadership of the so-called pro-second amendment Party over a period of 40 years signing these laws and making these statements. If "party platform" were truly worth the pixels it were written in, why did these party leaders who profess to support the 2nd Amendment take these actions? Because they don't care who's vote they get as long as they get it. And they'll even sign laws that udercut their own party platform to do it.

If the concept of "support for RKBA" means being duped into supporting any party that continues to elect leaders who sign anti-gun laws because of some mythical "80% or greater chance" - or even better "certainty" - then I want no part in that. Assumptions of certainty in the face of historical facts to the contrary are what erode documents like the bill of rights.

 

[NinjaFeint]

That proves the point, Palin has more pro-Second Amendment and the RKBA in her pinky than the president and "Plugs" combined - both supported the DC gun ban- so if liberals dislike someone who is way Second Amendment and elect two anti-gun nut jobs then why waste time with liberals

If the only thing that matters to you about Sarah Palin is that she is "way Second Amendment" and think not liking her as a candidate for vice president makes someone a liberal, you are out of touch with how a lot of people vote in this country. I can't support her solely based on one issue and cast a blind eye to her deficiencies.

I think a lot of people need a candidate who has more than just supporting RKBA as a positive. This is honestly not the only issue in our country and you may want to consider that.