I am a progressive liberal - I think Obama is as leftist

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim, you don't think the founding fathers mentally masturbated? Look up Franklin's Junto-

Mental masturbation gave birth to the second amendment...

Thinking, discussing, and examining is a good thing!
 
THR should be free of politics unless it relates directly to firearm legislation.

THR doesn't strike me as right wing, and i'm fiercly independent. The mods do a good job of shutting down egregious political threads.
 
I've known quite a few hardcore leftists that were staunch 2A supporters. By hardcore, I mean outright democratic socialists.

Pro's and anti's come in all flavors.
 
Like the saying goes, there are no athiest in foxholes, and few if any gun owners pulling the lever for anyone intent on depriving them of their liberty, regardless the party.

Correct. Two gentlemen I know and have worked with are about as conservative as you're going to find. Both Catholic, one has a signed photo of Newt on his bookshelf. Both are veterans (one Army, one Navy) and are Fox News faithful. You know who they're going to pull the lever for. And both are dead-set against private ownership of firearms. As a kind of personal activism, I've discussed the matter with them individually, and as they see it, the ordinary citizen simply cannot be trusted with the power that a weapon confers.

It is a massive error to assume that one political party or another is our ally in protection of the Second Amendment. It is huge mistake to think that conservatives are our friends and "liberals" are our foes. That kind of talk here should stop, for all our benefit - it doesn't help and it alienates our friends and allies. The number-one thing we can all do is join the NRA. Beyond that, exercise your rights in a responsible manner and exhibit good conduct. Be supportive of fellow enthusiasts and help new shooters enter our ranks.
 
Since no one's interested in actually coming up with any form of planing this one's going to AD.
 
It is a massive error to assume that one political party or another is our ally in protection of the Second Amendment. It is huge mistake to think that conservatives are our friends and "liberals" are our foes. That kind of talk here should stop, for all our benefit - it doesn't help and it alienates our friends and allies. The number-one thing we can all do is join the NRA.

Bingo!!!

It is very simplistic to assume that one party has a lock on love for the 2nd Amendment. One must closely study the individual candidate prior to election time. Previous actions by the candidate speak much louder than vague promises to "support your 2nd Amendment rights."

EXAMPLE: The extension of the AWB passed the US senate in 2004. The vote was 52-47.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22618-2004Mar2.html


Ten Republicans broke party ranks: Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, George Voinovich of Ohio and John Warner of Virginia.

Six Democrats voted against extending the ban: Max Baucus of Montana, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Zell Miller of Georgia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Harry Reid of Nevada.
 
Last edited:
Since no one's interested in actually coming up with any form of planing this one's going to AD.

Well, at the risk of keeping this thread alive, I move that everyone who has responded so far should buy (at least) an associate membership in the NRA for one person they know who is not a member.

If any of the thread respondents are not a member of the NRA, then that's your first priority. Associate memberships are $10/year. Cheaper than a box of ammo.

I know many people are upset about the NRA for various reasons, but like with any vote, you don't play/vote, you can't complain. The NRA is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Swelling its ranks before the administration tries to do anything anti-2A is one of the best ways to send a message en masse to our congresscritters.

Take one of the 'mushy middle' to the range and show them how much fun it is.

Anyone want to second this?
 
I find it odd that the original poster has not replied once (unless my eyes are worse than i thought)...

someone just stirring the pot?

everyone should join the NRA...thats a good thing...the rest of it, I think was more for entertainment...just seeing the reponses
 
I called on other leftists/Democrats/liberals ther to join the NRA. We should all do this. It was a very good organization at one time, and we should get enough voting members to at least affect the political climate of the NRA, it not take it over.

I hope some of you will go to THR and check for my post in their activism forum, and maybe respond.

I KNOW there are other liberals there, and I'm hoping I won't get buried in RW horse****. but it has happened before....
(My name on gun sites is dogngun.)

thanks.

mark

Direct link to the thread.

That is the OP's post from another site. I take offense at the labeling of THR as RW horse****. To advocate the taking over of the NRA by leftists and then ask for other liberals to come post here in my view is trolling. But that will be left to the mods to decide. As for "leftist" gun owners I would say that one can indeed support the Second Amendment and the ownership of firearms with out supporting other "right wing" ideas. Though I would rather classify my self, if I had to, as a Libertarian rather than "leftist". And "hard core socialist leftists" that support the 2nd only do so for themselves and people they agree with, not for all as the Constitution states.

What I do for the RKBA and other civil liberties
Try to get more liberals to join the NRA so we can take it over.
From the OP's profile. I must ask what possible good can that do? It has long been the strategy of leftist organizations to infiltrate a right wing group in order to effect a subversive, and in this case negative change. I can see no good in this group trying to take over a long established organization. Especially one that has a long history of trying to ban all firearms outright.
 
Last edited:
I support recruiting new NRA members however I much prefer an NRA with 3 million members that are strong believers in the entire U.S.Constitution over a watered down counterproductive NRA with 6 million members. Quantity isn't all that's needed to fight liberal gungrabbers. The key is to STOP ELECTING liberal gungrabbers (at ALL levels of government)regardless of party affiliation.
 
There's a whole spectrum of political "identities" that people adopt while still supporting the individual's right to keep and bear arms. We keep reminding folks not to confuse the fact with being a 2A supporter with supporting any other group, party or ideology.

We have seen over and over again that such lazy thinking leads us to be caught unaware when so-called "conservative" or "right" or whatever label you want to attach individuals and politicians turn out to not support the individual's right to keep and bear arms or actively will oppose that individual right. The converse is also true when we don't do our homework and lump "left" or "progressive" or other "not like me" baggage on RKBA supporters.

I have plenty of "hippy", "liberal", "urban" 2A supporting friends who don't think the government should take away our rights to defend ourselves and know far too many antis that are "good church going conservatives" that just don't think we can be trusted with guns and only the government should have them.

The one banner we can all rally around is the pro2A banner.
 
The one banner we can all rally around is the pro2A banner.
This is true hso,however there are many groups that are "pro-gun" that I will in no way associate myself with. If a group (of any description) professes ONE of my rights but wants to deny me the rest of them I will in no way support them. Winston Churchill is reported as saying that he would join forces with the devil himself if it leads to the defeat of the Nazis. I am not willing to do that.
 
I support recruiting new NRA members however I much prefer an NRA with 3 million members that are strong believers in the entire U.S.Constitution over a watered down counterproductive NRA with 6 million members.

Unfortunately, our congresscritters will respond better/faster and be more afraid of a group of 6 million than they will of a group of 3 million.

For those who covet our votes, it is all about quantity over quality.
 
It is a massive error to assume that one political party or another is our ally in protection of the Second Amendment. It is huge mistake to think that conservatives are our friends and "liberals" are our foes. That kind of talk here should stop, for all our benefit - it doesn't help and it alienates our friends and allies.

I agree with this 100%. The notion that there's any true ideological purity to either of the major parties' platforms is a fantasy. The best way to ensure that the cause prevails is to know the candidates' positions, actually vote for those whose policies you support (apparently a novel proposition to many), and then lobby vigorously for all those in office to support the RKBA viewpoint. We've gotten in the bad habit of thinking that merely complaining about politicians is enough to effect change.
 
All I can say is that if you are liberal on 9/10 issues but you are a supporter of RKBA, that you are not a true progressive liberal, you are only 9/10 progressive.
Gun control is a central tenent of the progressive agenda. They believe it is the responsibilty of government to "protect" the people from themselves. That the government is the only one which knows better. Google "eugenics" and study what the progressives did in the early part of the 20th century and tell me if that is what you support. Don't think that just because the dictionary definition of progressive liberal sounds good, then that is what you are. Every single government which has disarmed its people was on the left, every single one. Does that not tell you something about the left's agenda?
 
I find this entire thread incredibly fascinating. I would probably identify myself as an independent, but I was raised as a Democrat, and so the founding of many of my political viewpoints will intrisically be democratic in nature. But quite frankly, none of that matters in my opinion.

Politicians are representatives of the people, and as such will aim to impelment policies that are agreeable to their consituants. Honestly, I think that many politicians are not hot one way or another for gun control on a personal level, but because it is such a hot ticket item amungst the two parties, politicains take hard stands on it one way or another, typically Democrats for gun control and republicans against.

But imagine if gun rights were heavily supported by both parties...

The long term solution to keeping ourselves armed is not electing the policitians that support our policies now (although that definitely helps), the long term solution comes from getting new members to join and be active advocates for our 2nd ammendment rights. And right now Democrats and independents alike are a HUGELY untapped resource. I have personally taken a number of my democratic friends out on shooting trips, and everyone of them that leaves from there feels better and less scared about the idea of guns. A couple of them have ended up becoming owners themselves.

For me, one of the biggest hurdles to getting into guns in the first place was the fact that no one was trying to get me into them... and believe it or not, if you don't know someone who knows about guns, it can be tricky to get into things without being made to feel retarded all the time. Hell, at this point in my life I find myself acting in the same way twoards others trying to get into the sport, and I think that is what primarily needs to change. If the gun community was out there with open arms, actively trying to recruit new people to the sport from mainstream sources, this could alleviate a lot of the future problem. I don't want to generalize, and I know that everyones experience entering into the gun community has been a little different, but for me I never got the feeling that I was being welcomed with open arms. More like I was invading a private club that I had no business belonging to... and I know that I have not been the only person to feel that way.

That is the attitude that has to change.
 
I reject the idea of a "pure" conservative or liberal. The opposite views on the varied social and economic issues championed by Democrats and republicans are are arbitrarily polarized in order maximize political power. Also, the liberal and conservative positions are historically fleeting. The republican agenda of today looks a lot like the democratic agenda 50 years ago. Remember when Democrats were anti-nuclear power? Times and demographics change, and politics change to scrounge for votes.

The conservative and liberal labels mean very different things in different parts of the country. For example, many hispanic families are socially very conservative, but fiscally liberal. Much of the New York jewish population is the opposite, fiscally conservative but socially liberal. In Alaska, you will find some of the biggest treehugging environmentalists that are also conservative christians. I think the OP's problem with the NRA is that he likes the RKBA agenda, but feels like the resources of the organization are being hijacked in order to promote the entire conservative agenda.

To a small extent, I understand his frustration. Why does my NRA dues go to fund the political careers of a politician that thinks science is the work of the devil, wants to blow the tops off of the mountains where I hike, deny civil rights to my neighbors(gays), eliminate funding for research that could save my relative, and promote an evangelical agenda that would be considered regressive in the 18th century? I understand it is because the conservative politicians generally support gun rights, but what makes gun rights so special that that issue alone should determine what direction the country should go? If my region of the country had the demographics to support a moderate libertarian that is fiscally conservative, environmentally liberal, and socially libertarian they would get every dollar of my political support. As it is, I have to suck it up and settle for the lesser of the many evils.
 
But pack differently divided people into that 6 million, and you can't really call it one group.

Right. But no one has ever said the Tea Party movement is monolithic, and they've gotten a whole lot of attention. Not all good, and they haven't been totally effective, but there are congresspeople who are running scared because of them - and not because of the violence threats, either.

Sen. Spineless from the great state of Iwannabereelected thinks that he might want to vote for the "sensible" gun control law offered by his colleague from the state of Wehateallguns, however, when his office is notified that the NRA (which has a large number of members in his state) is about to start running ads against him, he rethinks his position. Not because the NRA is monolithic (which it surely ain't), but because of the numbers and what it might mean for his reelection chances.

You'd likely be surprised how few calls it takes to get an elected official to reconsider a possible vote (except for one where the fix is in). I was surprised, because it was a lot lower than I thought, even though I don't remember what it was now.

BTW, I'm reupping my NRA membership this year with at least a 5 year membership so that I can vote on the Board of Directors. There was at least one on the slate for this year who was totally unacceptable, yet people paraded him around like he was a great friend of the 2A, even though he doesn't think civilians need any rifle magazines over a 5-round capacity.

It isn't an ideal situation, but we've got to start somewhere. Local and state elections are great, but we 2A types have got to get a louder voice, and a more positive national image in front of the agnostics on this issue.
 
I KNOW that at least 50% of all gun owners in the US are liberals, and we have to make our voices heard.

From what I have learned more people grow up with firearms a part of their normal culture when they are from more rural areas.
Rural areas have places to hunt, some to casually shoot without fees, and people who have more land to safely shoot on.
They also have minimal law enforcement, consisting of a Sheriff and some deputies many places.
These areas tend to be more Republican.


While the more urban areas tend to have few places to shoot, and most of them cost money to rent a stall. No hunting without travel outside the area.
They have massive law enforcement, with many of their leaders supporting restrictions and anti-gun measures.
These areas tend to be more Democrat.


That alone makes urban environments more anti-gun, and with a severely diminished recreational firearm community.
Much more of the left live in urban environments.


Most minorities belong to the left. Where people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson rally them to pass or support new gun control every time a gang member shoots someone else. Demonizing guns and access to guns among their communities. Gun ownership tends to be much lower and more stigmatized in minority areas.


More women belong to the left as well, and fewer women are into firearms. Many women do learn to appreciate firearms, and considering it is one of the biggest ways to even the odds against more powerful attackers it makes a lot of sense. But most women are not into firearms, especially for recreation. Shooting sports remain a predominantly male environment.

Many other studies have shown men and women naturally need different things to thrive. Girls in schools that have prohibited all aggressive interaction or expression do very well. Boys with the same restrictions have been shown to be lacking in some necessary development, leaving them more immature and less successful.
Pretend gun play often is a component of the interaction.
Popular girl dolls emulate dating, fashion, marriage, and motherhood.
Popular boy "dolls" or action figures tend to emulate warfare, fighting, and weapons.
Men tend to be more into over the top action films as adults, with gun play and violence as a main theme.
Women are more into "chick flicks" where finding Mr right, dating, or marriage are prime themes.
It would seem quite obvious that men are more likely to purchase firearms than women.
Women can learn the importance of having a firearm and the benefits it gives, but are not as likely to be drawn to ownership on their own. In fact most women I know who have firearms were pushed in that direction by a male friend who was set on getting them interested in firearms.

More women are Democrats than men:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120839/women-likely-Democrats-regardless-age.aspx
ut7dy-uwrumn_kf_klgmaq.gif


More women vote than men, and have since the 1980.


Rutgers:

In every presidential election since 1980, the proportion [of] female adults who voted has exceeded the proportion of made adults who voted.

In examining previous presidential election years prior to 2008, the numbers make this point clear. Of the total voting age population:

* In 2004, 60.1% of women and 56.3% of men voted.
That's 67.3 million women and 58.5 million men - a difference of 8.8 million.
* In 2000, 56.2% of women and 53.1% of men voted.
That's 59.3 million women and 51.5 million men - a difference of 7.8 million.
* In 1996, 55.5% of women and 52.8% of men voted.
That's 56.1 million women amd 48.9 million men - a difference of 7.2 million.

So Women are both more likely to be Democrat, and more likely to vote, and less likely to be into firearms than males.


More lower income people are also Democrats than Republicans.
There is more prohibited people in low income groups, people who because of some offense can not legally own a gun anyways, but do not lose their right to vote, or can easily regain it.


More young people, especially those in college are Democrats than Republicans. But this shifts once they get older, get jobs, pay off loans and want to keep more of what they earn.
While they have almost nothing, they favor the party that offers more benefits and handouts to those in need.
When they have something to take they tend to favor the party that allows them to keep more of it.
But there tends to always be more young people than old in any growing population.




What all of this means is that Regardless of which party you favor there is many more elements in the Democratic party that cause them to be less favorable to gun rights.
There is antis and pro-gun people in both parties, but there is a significant slant.
I am certainly in favor of making both parties as pro-gun as possible so gun rights are not in jeopardy when one side or the other is in power.
 
Every single government which has disarmed its people was on the left, every single one. Does that not tell you something about the left's agenda?
The UK and Australian gun bans were perpetrated by their respective conservative parties, as were quite a few state-level gun restrictions here (including California's Mulford Act, and a few others I could name). The Brady Campaign was founded by a conservative and is run by a center-right former politician.

Gun ownership, pro or anti, isn't a facet of "true liberalism" at all. It is, however, an integral part of the *communitarian* philosophy, and those who seek to understand the Democratic obsession with gun prohibition in the 1990's through 2004 need to understand the communitarian-vs-liberal civil war that has raged in the Democratic party since the late 1980's. Not to mention that a great many people whom I would describe as communitarian are Republicans, and one of them (Romney) has a pretty good shot at your nomination in 2012.

Gun control is a central tenent of the progressive agenda. They believe it is the responsibilty of government to "protect" the people from themselves. That the government is the only one which knows better. Google "eugenics" and study what the progressives did in the early part of the 20th century and tell me if that is what you support. Don't think that just because the dictionary definition of progressive liberal sounds good, then that is what you are.
You are confusing centrist "Third Way" communitarianism with individualist liberalism. There is a profound split in the Democratic party between center-left communitarians (Dianne Feinstein, Bill Clinton, Charles Schumer) and ACLU-sympathizing liberals. The communitarians view Authority as the savior of humanity from itself, and tend to view one's responsibilities as more important than one's rights, in the mold of Amitai Etzioni.

Communitarians are not liberals, and actually span the political spectrum from center-left (Clinton, Feinstein) to center-right (Romney, Bill Bennett), with a few outliers on both the far left (Barbara Boxer) and far right (Ralph Reed). What unites them, in practice, is the idea that individuals need authority figures over them to protect them from making bad life choices, although left-leaning and right-leaning communitarians may disagree about which choices should be taken away for the "greater good" (guns, pornography, cannabis, homeschooling, privacy, nontraditional sexual relationships).

If you throw gun-owning, pro-RKBA liberals and centrists (including me) out of the tent, you will have nothing left but conservative gun owners, a stark minority compared to the population at large. Only about half of Republicans own guns, and those who do tend to lean libertarian; while there are exceptions, neither Republican-leaning business interests nor the Religious Right are particularly pro-gun (the latter I can vouch for from personal experience).

It is true that Democrats and independents own guns at a somewhat lower rate than Republicans---largely a function of demographics---but given that there are more Dems and independents combined than Republicans, the total number of gun owners on each side of that equation are similar. If you use media stereotypes to throw non-conservative RKBA advocates like me out of the tent, you drive a wedge right through the middle of the gun-rights movement.

Gun owners who believe in a strong Second Amendment need to stand together against the prohibitionists, regardless of whether our other views lean toward James Dobson or (in my case) the ACLU. I'll agree to disagree on the other issues, but on the gun issue, we stand together. And I think you'll find that those of us in the center or left-of-center are more effective at influencing others who are left-of-center toward a more pro-gun position.

Here's the plain truth: Gun ownership and support for RKBA is not a left versus right issue. It is an authority vs. freedom issue. And as Benjamin Franklin famously said, "If we do not all stand together, we will surely all hang separately."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top