Left-liberal...can shoot, too

[joshk-k]

I'm about as far-left leaning as they come. I make "capital-D" Democrats, and definitely the presidential candidates from that party, seem like conservative sellouts. I'm an anarchist, won't vote for anyone in the next presidential election (or any in the future), and I don't have any bumper stickers on my truck, but if I did, it would be the same slogan that was on Woody Guthrie's guitar: "This machine kills fascists."

And I own guns and love them and plan on buying my first AK or two before next year's election.

Mmmm... I love the smell of politics in the morning.

Josh

 

[USAFNoDAk]

In part of Funderb's post was written:

The people who are ruining gun culture are people who are unnecessarily afraid, and do not understand the firearm community. If we can teach them, amoung everyone, to understand guns, and understand firearm safety, then we have something we can work with.


I agreed with much of your post, and don't necessarily "disagree" with this statement in general. However, certainly, John Kerry knows and understands firearms and firearms safety. He was in Vietnam and had training in firearms such as the M16 and probably the 1911. He also claimed to love hunting deer with his trusty double barrel. Yet, he was a HUGE promoter of the Assault Weapons ban and the Democrats attempt to renew it after the sunset period of 10 years had expired. In most of his statements it seemed to me he was trying to confuse the general public as to whether the Democrats were talking about banning machine guns or just semiautomatic guns that looked military in nature. He said, (I'll paraphrase), 'These military style guns have no place on our streets. If people want to use these guns, we have a place for you. The United States military, and we welcome you'.

It sure looks as though Kerry is a Democrat who should be well schooled in firearms and firearms safety, yet he was willing to sell many gun owners down the river with a ban on "assault weapons". This is why I have a hard time trusting the democratic party when it comes to support of the 2nd A., though I also have friends who shoot and are Democrats. To them, gun rights is not a burning issue such as abortion rights. I cannot for the life of me, come to grips with those seemingly out of phase positions. The fact that the right to terminate a pregnancy would take precedent over the right to keep and bear arms just doesn't seem to fit. But I understand it's about priorities for many voters. It would take a powerful man or woman in the democratic party to come out against gun control before I would even think of looking in the direction of that party to cast a vote. Not that I vote for every Republican either. There are some RINO's whom I wouldn't trust as far as I could toss an elephant.

 

[Funderb]

Well, good point fair enough USAFNoDak,
I think kerry was going along with the AWB because he may have been under pressure by voters to support it. The important thing about democracy (blanket term) is that you don't change the mind of the candidate, you change the mind of the voter. Thats the solution that I am proposing for this single issue, feedthehogs, reach out to all the voters in your community and try to sway them. That's the way to solve an issue.
At least I try to get my friends and neighbors out to shoot, show them that guns aren't scary deathtraps, and in some small part, keep myself shooting in the future, even if they don't.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Well, good point fair enough USAFNoDak,
I think kerry was going along with the AWB because he may have been under pressure by voters to support it. The important thing about democracy (blanket term) is that you don't change the mind of the candidate, you change the mind of the voter. Thats the solution that I am proposing for this single issue, feedthehogs, reach out to all the voters in your community and try to sway them. That's the way to solve an issue.
At least I try to get my friends and neighbors out to shoot, show them that guns aren't scary deathtraps, and in some small part, keep myself shooting in the future, even if they don't.


I agree that we need to change the mind of the voter, not the candidate. However the candidates have tremendous power to "influence" the mind of the voter by the carefully chosen rhetoric that they use. This was on full display with Kerry and many of the other democratic leaders at the national level. They are at it again, trying to pass another, new, more restrictive AWB.

I'm very pleased that you and some other Democrats are doing what you are doing at the grass roots level. The gigantic hurdle that you face is that the very anti gun politicians tend to be from the liberal northeast and California, where the majority of them have their jibs cut towards more gun control as opposed to more gun rights. Many voters in the large cities tend to also be locked into the idea that gun control = crime control. They see criminals using guns and threatening their communities. The politicians continue to promise to address crime, and their first line of attack is to implement more gun control, even though most of us gun owners know that is a pipe dream. So it's hard to educate the voters when the politicians are filling their heads with visions of sugar plums (safety through gun control).

 

[beaucoup ammo]

An appreciation for concealed carry and firearms in general transcends political lines. Painting with too broad a brush, false assumptions and pigeon holing can cost you on several levels.

 

[brighamr]

To quote all the moderators on this board

"We no longer dicuss politics at THR"

Seriously though, it doesn't matter what political party you are a member of, as long as you vote for the right person. My wife's very democratic, she swapped to republican to vote in the primaries. I am very republican, I have voted Democrat in the past...

It shouldn't be about the party, but about the issue at hand and the candidate who will most likely reflect your personal views on the issue (not the party's views)

 

[PercyShelley]

I've said it before, but what the heck; it could use saying again: there are pockets of Democrats who understand the importance of the 2nd Amendment and even who reject nanny politics as a whole without a trace of dishonesty at a state level. For some reason, this sort of thing isn't common in Washington DC.

Conversely, there have been a number of Republicans with an absolutely abysmal gun rights record.

 

[25ACP]

Another armed liberal here.

 

[TX1911fan]

It shouldn't be about the party, but about the issue at hand and the candidate who will most likely reflect your personal views on the issue (not the party's views)

That would be great, and I hope someday we can get to the point where we are free to vote ONLY for the person, but I think what most people are trying to get at in this thread is that a vote for a Democrat, even if that Democrat is pro-gun, is at best a loss of a vote against gun control, and at worst, a vote for gun control. The reason is that the pressure put on them when they get to DC by the party machine will MAKE them change, if not their views, at least their votes. So voting for the best candidate, even if they are a pro-gun Democrat, doesn't necessarily mean you'll get the same person once they hit DC.

I for one would be hesitant to vote for my own father if he was a Democrat because his voice and his vote would be swallowed up when he got to DC. Will that ever change? Maybe. We have seen a few stalwarts--Zoell Miller, Joe Liberman--but not very many. In my opinion, a vote for a Democrat is a vote for the Democrat party, and that means, among other distasteful things, gun control.

 

[RPCVYemen]

The gigantic hurdle that you face is that the very anti gun politicians tend to be from the liberal northeast and California, where the majority of them have their jibs cut towards more gun control as opposed to more gun rights. Many voters in the large cities tend to also be locked into the idea that gun control = crime control. They see criminals using guns and threatening their communities. The politicians continue to promise to address crime, and their first line of attack is to implement more gun control, even though most of us gun owners know that is a pipe dream. So it's hard to educate the voters when the politicians are filling their heads with visions of sugar plums (safety through gun control).

There's also a cultural thing going on. People from Massachusetts (rate of violent crime in 2005 = 456.9/100,000) look at South Carolina (rate of violent crime in 2005 = 761.1) and ask, "We're supposed to ask people from those sates how to combat crime?"

The murder rates in the northeast states tend to be much lower than in the south or west. For example, in 2006, the murder rate in New York state was 4.8/100,000. Arizona 7.5, and Nevada was 9.0 - so people from New York should ask people from Arizona and Nevada about gun control?

I am not arguing in favor of gun control.

But as long as some of the most violent and dangerous parts of the country have the best RKBA policies, it's a hard sell. Of the 15 states with the highest murder rates in the country, a dozen or so have CCW (I think: Louisiana, Nevada, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississipi, Arizona, Arkansas, New Mexico, Tennessee, Georgia, Missouri, and Florida).

You know and I know that there's no direct correlation between gun control laws and violent crime or murder rates, but someone from Arizona telling someone from Mass about how to prevent crime is like the village drunk telling the preacher how to stay sober ...

At any rate, I still have some hope for Bill Richardson. That's OK, the only Republican I'd trust (McCain) probably ain't going to make it anyway.

The top Dems did notice that regaining control of Congress was due to pro-gun Democrats. They very much did notice that. Ain't happy about it, but they did notice it.

Mike

 

[Funderb]

YEAH!
So who likes cheeto's puffs?
I do,
Just ate a bag of them. Great snack, even if it may some day give me cancer.

 

[S&Wfan]

We must NEVER seek to polarize people in the two political parties in our great nation on the question of gun control.

I have friends who are liberal and I treat them with the same warmth I do my conservative friends. I especially want them to understand that we need to agree to disagree on various fundamental differences in beliefs.

HOWEVER . . . on upholding our nation's rights due its citizens we must seek to come together for the protection of all against a bloated federal system that increasingly tries to regulate each and every segment of our individual lives.

Us hunters are always saying, "Take A Kid Hunting."

I challenge you in a different way . . . "Take A Liberal Shooting!" The allies we may create can make a huge difference in the protection of our right to bear arms.

Too many times the pastor is preachin' to the church . . . and too many times the church is only ministering inside its own four walls. Shooting sports are the same way . . . you've got to go OUTSIDE our imaginary "walls" to convert the "lost, not just remain fellowshipping with fellow "believers!"

Food for thought,

T.

 

[drmsparks]

There are pro gun Democrats and anti gun republicans.

Anti gun people are anti gun people. If you are mad at them yell at them. Don't Tar everyone in the party with the same brush. The Democratic party went from being very pro gun in the early to mid 60's (Kennedy's DCM Garand was just sold at auction) to more anti-gun in the 90's and is swinging back to pro gun now (It's a slow process but it's happening-- especially in the west (Colorado, Montana especially).

If the NRA and gun owners in general are seen as nothing but a tool of the republican party what's going to happen to them if control of Congress and the presidency switches? Don't burn bridges. Complain about individual politicians who vote for stupid laws not about their current parties. Vote for pro gun politicians and let them know you care about the issue.

The 1994 assault weapons ban could not have passed without republican support (specter and Campbell- both senators from strongly pro gun states) and two independents. One Dem (Feingold) voted against it.

2 of the current republican presidential candidates are distancing themselves from strong anti gun histories.

Anti gun crosses party lines. So should we.

 

[Omaney]

and have been defined as a libertarian-socialist in the past.

That is the biggest oxymoron I have read in years.

 

[TX1911fan]

Using an entire state's crime rates as an indicator is a little misleading given that large states like NY can have widely different populations, where as smaller states can be skewed by a few heavily populated urban centers. Also, many cities in states that are nominally pro-RKBA have much stricter gun control laws. Here is a link to crime rates for large cities. It seems a bit less cut and dried than the earlier post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

The top 20 are:

Detroit

Baltimore

New Orleans

Newark

St. Louis

Oakland

Washington

Philadelphia

Buffalo

Kansas City

Atlanta

Cincinnati

Memphis

Miami

Houston

Milwaukee

Indianapolis

Pittsburgh

Cleveland

Chicago

 

[SSN Vet]

we're supposed to be united

I'm listening to the unabridged book Founding Brothers on tape.

When you put nostalgia and propaganda and myth aside...the founders of this country had heated divides that would make the Iraq War debate sound like a tea party. They routinely put out scathing criticism of each others views....the likes of which would get locked on THR quicker than you can type any kind of thoughtful reply.

It was a vary precarious time after the constitution was ratified.

Yet aside from Hamilton and Burr's little "interview" they managed to keep it civil for the most part. By in large they were men of character and integrity and made distinction between political views on things like Federalism and personal character. But then again, there was a much more unified moral code back then.

Hamilton didn't want to dual Burr, but he couldn't retract the many slanderous personal attacks he made against Burr, because in the final analysis, he really did believe that Burr was a scumbag and he couldn't "lie" by apologizing. Telling the truth was far more important than ones life.

Today, we have elected officials that would have been strung up by the founding fathers, on all sides of the issues.

We no longer have a unified moral standard and the truely divisive and hot topic issues are fundamentally moral in nature. (i.e. abortion, capital punishment, homosexuality, etc....).

 

[Nolo]

I honestly think that what SSN Vet said is the most insightful thing said all day.
All week, perhaps.
Hell, we could go to all month. People don't say things like that all that often.

 

[SaMx]

and have been defined as a libertarian-socialist in the past.

That is the biggest oxymoron I have read in years.

No it isn't

 

[RPCVYemen]

It seems a bit less cut and dried than the earlier post.

I agree - but my point is that while folks on THR think "New York" and shudder at the wacko gun regulations, people from New York look at the pro-RKBA states and shudder at the crime rates.

The picture is obviously more complicated than that.

But when someone guy in a from Houston decides he's gonna tell some Democrat from NYC how screwed up New York City gun laws are, the New Yorker is listening to a man from a more dangerous state(Texas = 6.1 murders/100,00 and New York = 4.6/100,000), and even a much more dangerous city (Houston = 13.3/100,000 and NYC = 7.0/100,00) give advice about crime.

In general the North East states are the bastion of the Democratic party, and they are less friendly to RKBA, and they have lower crime rates. In general, the South and the Southwest are strongly Republican, they are friendly to RKBA, and they have very high crime rates.

I am not arguing about policy, I am just saying its a hard sell.

I think it's an unfortunate accident of demographics - the South has always been a violent bloody place, and my guess is that Southerners took that with them as they moved west. Those parts of the west that were largely settled by non-Southerners (more northern western states) have much less violence than those more settled by Southerners (the more southern western states and California). So I think it had little to do with gun control laws - it's culture. But the correlations stick in people's minds.

Mike

 

[mike101]

There are lots of us right here Oleg, but it's getting real hard to find someone to vote for. It's a shame Bill Richardson doesn't have a snowball's chance. But alas, he's not a former 1st Lady, and he isn't Oprah's stud muffin.

All he has going for him is executive, and foreign-relations experience, and his support of the RKBA.

I think what we really are, is Libertarians waiting to happen.

 

[Foosinho]

As a "hard core" liberal and long-time lurker, it figures that this would be the thread that prompted me to register.

They want the government to control EVERYTHING;

No, we don't. You're going to have to search long and hard to find a single liberal who thinks the government should be producing Xbox 360s. There aren't very many of us who believe in planned economies, either. We just recognize that profit motives mean people get stomped on, and in some cases that's unacceptable.

If you pro-gun Dems are still voting party line for your party's anti-gun candidates, then YOU ARE ANTI-GUN also!

So liberals should ignore all the other issues? Our system means that there is virtually zero chance that there is a candidate in a two-party election that exactly matches 100% of your policy positions. You have to make the best decision you can, and that usually involves trade offs.

One hates the liberals, the other hates those with religious beliefs.

Ridiculous. The vast majority of liberals are also people of faith. We just don't like people who think their faith is the only one that there should be space for in the public sphere. So while Romney has to defend himself as "Christian enough" to GOP voters, Mormon Harry Reid serves as Senate Majority Leader with nary a peep about his faith. What church you go to (or don't go to) doesn't matter to liberals - your policy positions do. (Aside: every Dem candidate for President is some flavor of Christian.)

Ohio's governor - who won in a landslide and is wildly popular - is a liberal Dem who is an ordained minister and very pro-RKBA. And being courted by H. Clinton as a possible Veep running mate because of his approval ratings in Ohio (Republicans are 54%/19% approve/disapprove on the guy).

[Libertarian Socialism] is the biggest oxymoron I have read in years.

Only if you don't understand socialism. Socialism is not state-control of people's lives. Libertarian Socialism is a flavor of anarchism - there is NO government. If you made me pick a single political theory and say "that's my favorite", I'd pick libertarian-socialism - and I've voted for Libertarian candidates in my youth. Like most political theories, it's probably unworkable in the real world because people suck too much.

As for gun control, I think most liberals look at the 16k people who commit suicide with a gun every year, and the 12k people killed intentionally by a firearm every year, and think "that really sucks - how can we try to reduce that?" The goal of gun control for most liberals is about trying to keep firearms out of the hands of those who would intentionally harm themselves or others. Some people think that can only be accomplished by banning all guns, which is ridiculous. But when I think you get down to brass tacks, pro-RKBA folks probably don't disagree that if we can find a way to keep those with ill intent from acquiring firearms, that'd be a good thing. The problem is that's a very difficult task.

BTW, I don't shoot much - I was a "city boy" growing up, and only shot .22LR and trap when I was in Boy Scouts. Now that I live in a more rural area, and have a small farm, I'm looking to get in to shooting more - partially for varminting on the farm (damn groundhogs), partially for defense, and partially for the unlikely event of a zombie apocalypse. I'm taking a basic pistol class next week.

Oh, and finally - many firearms websites that I've browsed are openly hostile to socially liberal people. This one is less so. Anything that promotes RKBA as a separate issue from, say, gay marriage (to pick just one social conservative firebrand) is in the best interests of RKBA. If you tie it to other issues, you're going to get increased pushback.

 

[GEM]

Let's be pragmatic. I would vote against Huckabee. I regard him as a religious fanatic who doesn't truly believe in a diverse set of beliefs. That he is funny and personable doesn't not give him a pass on that I think he would bring an exclusionary set of irrationalities to the office of President.

That he is pro-gun is trivial compared to his negative qualities. I would vote for another candidate to beat him and then try to fight the RKBA battle at the legislative level.

 

[Foosinho]

Let's be pragmatic. I would vote against Huckabee. I regard him as a religious fanatic who doesn't truly believe in a diverse set of beliefs. That he is funny and personable doesn't not give him a pass on that I think he would bring an exclusionary set of irrationalities to the office of President.

Exactly the point. For me, liberal candidates are more agreeable on many more subjects than GOP candidates. That doesn't make me anti-gun. I think people who suggest it does may have other agendas that just RKBA.

Oh, and something that percolated to the top of my mind while reading a gun control discussion on a liberal blog - gun control is not the same thing as gun abolition. Unless you think buying a gun should be as easy as buying a pint of Ben & Jerry's, then you believe in gun control. Ie, that guns should be a "controlled substance". The difference is in what you believe to be reasonable and effective restrictions. There is no reason to be overly antagonistic to liberals interested in keeping guns out of the hands of those of ill intent. Catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and all that.

 

[RPCVYemen]

The vast majority of liberals are also people of faith. We just don't like people who think their faith is the only one that there should be space for in the public sphere.

The modern liberal movement in my lifetime really had its birth in the Civil Rights movement of the 60s. Almost all the leaders of that movement were people of faith, many of them were priests, ministers, and rabbis.

But the current pro-RKBA Republican party had been taken over by theocrats who are determined to savage the Constitution and force a particular theology as the only one acceptable in the public sphere. Why else would Mitt Romney have to defend not his policy but his exact theological beliefs as to the nature of the Jesus Christ to the Republican faithful? His theology was what was under fire!

The Founding Fathers knew fully the practice of religious tests as a pre-requisite for public office. They were required in England at the time. They detested that practice, and gave us a 1st Amendment to prevent such tests. But the theocrats have managed to re-impose that test.

So as a voter who respects all of the Amendments, do I back people who want to impose religious pre-requisites for public office, or do I back people who impose inane restrictions on weapons? Which amendment gets shredded?

My choice for right now would be to vote to protect the 1st Amendment, and hope the SCOTUS protects the 2nd. I am more concerned about the emergence of an American theocracy right now than I am by an AWB ban.

Watching Mitt Romney forced to define his theology about the nature of Jesus Christ in order to be eligible for the Republican nomination really creeped me out.

I support the 2nd, but I am not willing to trade the 2nd for the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th - which is what the theocrats want me to do!

Mike

 

[MakAttak]

One day all you Liberals and Conservatives will wake up and realize that you're Libertarians.
People think however they think.

Actually, I am pretty much a libertarian. Training as an economist will do that.

However, I think life is even more important than people being free to... procreate... however and with whomever they desire. (I'm only talking about abortion here, not homosexuality)

As such, I tend to vote for "conservative" candidates. However, some of my best friends are very liberal in their social views. I can understand and respect disagreement so long as it is logical. Starting from a (to my view) faulty value system will lead you to different views, but at least it is logically consistent. I can trust people like that. People who have foolish economic views to me are the same a people who support gun control- they want something that looks good and makes them feel like they are accomplishing something rather that actually looking at what works and what is right.

This is the problem for me with the liberal/conservative split. The polarization exists because "I can't trust those crazy (fill in the blank)."

And honestly, I don't see how to fix this. Liberals, to me, have proven they cannot be trusted (see 1994) when they are in power. Conservatives have compromised and bargained over and over and the liberals still stab them in the back.

As such, I don't see how a middle ground can be reached when the goal of one side is the complete decimation of their opposition.