You may be able to advocate for government run healthcare, taxpayer funded college, and other liberal ideology, but you cannot VOTE for these items, ala-carte, without also casting a vote against the private ownership of firearms. The choice at the polls is binary, and the 2A is not a plank in the DNC's platform, even if a few individual Democratic reps have pro-gun leanings.Exactly. That is why calling liberal Democrats "commies" is not helpful. Just because someone advocates "Medicare for All," that does not make him a totalitarian.
My point is that someone can advocate "Medicare for All," free public college tuition, and action against global warming, and still be in favor of gun rights. LaPierre and the official NRA don't seem to recognize that possibility.
Usually I try to let this stuff go, but tonight I'm letting myself be annoyed by those who either don't possess the reading comprehension skills required for intelligent debate, or who simply presume they can frame a discussion by changing the thesis statement into what they believe it should be.You missed the point. Carry guns aren't the only guns people buy for self defense.
This is a huge strategic mistake. In the past, the NRA was nonpartisan, and supported pro-gun Democrats as well as Republicans. This at least gave the NRA some influence with some Democrats, regardless of the official party platform. Now, if the GOP ship sinks, the NRA (and gun rights) will sink with it. Demographics don't make the GOP prospects good in the long run. Simply put, GOP constituents -- older, non-college-educated white people in the rural heartland -- are dying off, while Democratic-oriented coastal and big-city young people, minorities, and elites are increasing. The GOP, as presently structured, is going to be swamped in a few years. (Just look at 2018 Texas, where the Dems got huge majorities in all the big cities, and Cruz was saved only by the rural vote. If Texas goes purple, what's left?)What LaPierre has done is to link the NRAs support to all the other GOP talking points, so that individual Republicans dare not cast the 2A to the political wolves without also invalidating their ENTIRE platform.
Actually, that's EXACTLY what it makes him.Exactly. That is why calling liberal Democrats "commies" is not helpful. Just because someone advocates "Medicare for All," that does not make him a totalitarian
In the PAST, there were Democrats who REALLY supported the 2nd Amendment. Now the ones who CLAIM to, cynically turn their coats when they think it's politically advantageous to do so, former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland being a case in point. I voted for him over a Republican. Now that he's out of office, he's become just one more purveyor of invidiously racist gun controls.This is a huge strategic mistake. In the past, the NRA was nonpartisan, and supported pro-gun Democrats as well as Republicans.
Gun rights should not be a political issue at all (though we've let it become one in this country); it should be a common-sense issue.
Exactly.What do you propose, that we stop discussing concealed carry tools and tactics except in double-secret private servers on the dark web?
Filtering our discussions through the lense of how anti-gun operatives will use them will do nothing for our community.
The NRA still supports pro-gun Democrats. And Libertarians, and Independents, in addition to Republicans. It is just getting harder and harder to find a pro-gun Democrat.This is a huge strategic mistake. In the past, the NRA was nonpartisan, and supported pro-gun Democrats as well as Republicans.
The plan is to redefine "pro-gun" until it's utterly meaningless, or worse, the opposite of its plain meaning. Supporters of invidiously racist gun controls, who advocate gun CONFISCATION claim to be "pro-gun" and to "support the 2nd Amendment."The NRA still supports pro-gun Democrats. And Libertarians, and Independents, in addition to Republicans. It is just getting harder and harder to find a pro-gun Democrat.
This is a huge strategic mistake. In the past, the NRA was nonpartisan, and supported pro-gun Democrats as well as Republicans. This at least gave the NRA some influence with some Democrats, regardless of the official party platform. Now, if the GOP ship sinks, the NRA (and gun rights) will sink with it. Demographics don't make the GOP prospects good in the long run. Simply put, GOP constituents -- older, non-college-educated white people in the rural heartland -- are dying off, while Democratic-oriented coastal and big-city young people, minorities, and elites are increasing. The GOP, as presently structured, is going to be swamped in a few years. (Just look at 2018 Texas, where the Dems got huge majorities in all the big cities, and Cruz was saved only by the rural vote. If Texas goes purple, what's left?)
The NRA still supports pro-gun Democrats. And Libertarians, and Independents, in addition to Republicans. It is just getting harder and harder to find a pro-gun Democrat.
Most people don't know ANYTHING about guns that wasn't spoon fed to them from "Law & Order - Counterfeit Prayer Wheel Unit". Needless to say it is EXCLUSIVELY virulently anti-gun agitprop. Imagine where civil rights in this country would be if the ONLY image of Black people that Whites ever saw came from "Birth of a Nation" and the Stormfront website. And that is by DESIGN. That's why people ask me if my guns are "registered", when the only guns which CAN be "registered" in Ohio fall under the National Firearms Act, and are registered with the BATFE. The idea is to deceive people into thinking that NYC is the norm and not the exception.I think this is pretty spot on. Unfortunately I think a lot of people who would otherwise be ambivalent about guns instead have very negative opinions about them because of the way gun rights have become intertwined with the rest of the GOP platform in the minds of many.
Usually I try to let this stuff go, but tonight I'm letting myself be annoyed by those who either don't possess the reading comprehension skills required for intelligent debate, or who simply presume they can frame a discussion by changing the thesis statement into what they believe it should be.
Bottom line is, whatever statements those of us in the RKBA movement make publicly -- especially in social media platforms -- can, and will be used against us by our opponents.
Those who understand this are noting just how our own side can effectively damage our efforts by attempting to politicize the issue. Gun rights should not be a political issue at all (though we've let it become one in this country); it should be a common-sense issue.
My whole point boils down to the fact that since our opponents are engaging in a war of incrementalism, let's just think about some of the information we're putting out there ... Remember Zumbo? Our movement was positively crippled in the '90s when we let the Democrats -- and our own Fudds -- frame the debate.
Sort of, sort of not. I'm amazed - particularly over the past 3-4 years - how often I will find myself in a discussion with a good friend or respected colleague who is ordinarily a highly-intellectually curious person who suddenly becomes affirmatively averse to even hearing knowledge about firearms. (To be clear, I rarely, if ever, bring up the topic. It usually occurs when they incorrectly assume that I agree with their negative views on guns and/or when a 3rd mischievous friend throws the subject on the table.) The whole subject has become so taboo in their minds that inviting them to join me at a range sometime (an approach that used to work very, very well) now draws revulsion. It gets a similar reaction as if a pro-choice person invited an anti-abortion person to actually attend an abortion! If you argue "technical" points (and we are talking about regulating technology), the mere knowledge of how firearms work is treated as a damning indictment of one's character.
I'm not someone who gets angry in discussions. I can happily discuss issues with people all over the political spectrum and stay friends afterward. Yet I have found this has become a very difficult subject. I can discuss it without getting upset, but many people on the other side simply cannot. Which is very troubling to me, and worrisome from the standpoint of our republic.
There is no guarantee that some justices who are thought to be "conservative" will end up voting in favor of gun rights. The Supreme Court has an internal dynamic all its own. (Just a couple of days ago, Justice Sotomayor said in an interview that she considered all the justices to be "family.") Remember that Trump's "conservative" nominations were suggested to him by the Federalist Society. The Federalist Society has an agenda that is far broader than just gun rights.On the plus side for purposes of gun rights, the judiciary is currently shifting pretty hard toward conservative and that should act as a bulwark to the coming political shift at least for the next decade or two.
I could get into a defense of Medicare for All and free college tuition, but that would be off-topic for THR. The basic point is that reasonable minds can differ on these things and still be in favor of gun rights.Supply and demand.
"Free stuff" just inflates the cost of everything drastically. Or supply runs out, and there is none.
Bike locks and bats aren't "unarmed". Try swinging one at a cop and see what happens.-By the way, Antifa appears to be an experiment to see whether or not folks can be terrorized by thugs that are technically unarmed... .
They just almost never DO... especially when governmental force is required to impose them. That's why there's such vehemence in the push to disarm citizens. Imagine how hard it would be for the principles or their masked surrogates to impose their program if they were met with armed resistance.The basic point is that reasonable minds can differ on these things and still be in favor of gun rights.
Bottom line is, whatever statements those of us in the RKBA movement make publicly -- especially in social media platforms -- can, and will be used against us by our opponents.
Sorry, man, my post was not directed at you.My reading comprehension is just fine, and calling it into question as you did is hardly consistent with the standards espoused by THR.