Why do so many Liberals Love Firearms

[IndianaBoy]

If that is one of your tactics to try to get more people to support the cause of RKBA then it's really no wonder Democrats are winning elections and efforts to erode gun rights have been successful. Because efforts like yours to protect them include spewing venom an alienating people who feel the same way as you on this issue.

If those are your tactics, do me a favor and keep them to yourself. As has been proven over and over, there's very little ground gained with petty, venomous, and disrespectful tactics intended to increase support for rights.

I gain ground by taking people shooting and introducing them to firearms, in a safe, fun and responsible manner.

Democrats have been winning elections because they do a better job of promising rewards in exchange for votes.

But it is nice of you to point out that electing Democrats erodes gun rights.

 

[colemanw]

QUOTE
"Here's a question: How can liberal Hollywood actors take anti-gun positions yet profit off of glorifying gun violence?"

I Love it! Right on!

EDIT MISHAP NOTE,
yes, i wrote, "seriously, who needs a full auto"
I deleted it because it came across a lot more inflammatory than i meant it to be... I did not want to start fights on here... This is supposed to be about cooperation from both sides on protecting the 2A-

I agree that going to the range will change a lot of anti gun minds...

But from where I'm sitting the single largest hope for putting this issue to rest (protected 2A) is for the 5%of extremeness to tone down their rhetoric- to moderates it is venomous and off putting...

sometimes its so bad i begin to think guns aint worth it... why would i want to be associated with ignorant loudmouths...

 

[gossamer]

But it is nice of you to point out that electing Democrats erodes gun rights.

Exactly. Why would a pro-RKBA Democrat run for office if their just going to be attacked by fellow pro-RKBA folks like you?

Maybe you're catching on to my point, which is: Guess what happens when progressive Democrats who are pro-RKBA realize that they're just going to meet with the kind of venom folks like you are so proud of brandishing. THEY DO NOT RUN.

So you're left with a majority crop of Democratic politicians who are anti-gun. Because your version of "tactics" -- deny the bona fides and pridefully attack someone who supports your issue -- just makes it easier for anti-RKBA Dems to win.

Maybe you might find some sense in supporting pro-RKBA people, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE. Rather than pridefully spew venom at them, maybe you might consider the tactic of supporting them on that issue, at each and every turn. Ronald Regan personified the idea of "never talk bad about your ally." And guess what -- HE WON. He got his issues through a hostile congress because he REFUSED to attack his allies, regardless of what side of the aisle they were on. He embraced his allies on the issues he was pursuing. He didn't question the bona fides of people who were on his side of the issue. He didn't wring hands and "mother help me" every time someone supported his issue just because he thought they might be trying to pull wool over his eyes.

Maybe he just wasn't as afraid of people, all I know is it worked. Tactic #1, stop worrying about looking like a fool and start building coalitions. You don't build coalitions by belittling your allies.

 

[IndianaBoy]

The problem sir...


We have allowed plenty of infringing 'compromise' already. I personally am not willing to compromise my way to bolt action rifles stored at a gun club... Which is where we will wind up compromising with liberals.

You have already shown your dishonesty by choosing to hide your machine gun and 'hicap' comment. If that is what you believe... Stand by it. This ignorant loudmouth can tell when he is being fed a line of bull.

My idea of activism is positive growth of ccw laws in states like IL. Perhaps even one day the repeal of the Hughes amendment.

That does not make me an extremistm

 

[IndianaBoy]

Gossamer,

I am not a partisan. There are Democrats I support. There are fiscal and social considerations that would lead me to oppose a candidate regardless of their stance on firearms.

Time will tell where our predominantly Democrat congress will get us regarding gun rights.

 

[colemanw]

indianaboy, im not saying you need to compromise your beliefs... just to tone down the antagonistic rhetoric

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Why would a pro-RKBA Democrat run for office if their just going to be attacked by fellow pro-RKBA folks like you?

I do not believe he was attacking pro-gun Democrats, but their politicians in general, who are usually anti-gun.
I do agree that we shouldn't call pro-gun Democrats anti-gun. (although, the possible exception is if they vote for anti-gun supreme court justices)

 

[22lr]

One of my collage profs believes that all citizens should be able to duke it out with a fully equipped marine, and should be trained to do so (through universal military training and automatic weapons). And at the same time he wants universal healthcare and all the standard lib points. I chuckle because im just not used to gun friendly liberals, but hey I know conservatives who say "they have no use for a gun" so its all good.

 

[jws527]

Consider the actual meaning of the word "liberal" - it's derived from the Latin liber, meaning "free." This country's progenitors were considered liberal in their day, for rejecting the ideas of absolute power and hereditary rule.

Unfortunately, the term has been corrupted over the years, and is now used primarily in a political context to describe a platform which does not necessarily correspond to classical liberalism. In fact, most self-professed "liberals" today are not "liberals" at all - a number may be in some sense or another, but it's a bit disingenuous to call yourself "liberal" if you support prohibitions or tight controls on speech, economic activity, or (to keep things relevant) the means to self-defense.

Of course, the ideas behind liberalism have not disappeared; they've simply been relabeled. The contemporary term for a classical liberal is "libertarian."

 

[Gungnir]

I'll add my $0.02 since I have a few minutes, and am reasonably bored. I ultimately don't care whether someone is republican, democratic, independent or martian if they really support the RKBA, I consider them at least to a degree an ally (I may disagree with some of their policies or none). I think the doubt that many here express about Democrat's and Firearms can be shown in the laws concerning firearms during periods of higher democratic numbers in the House, Senate, or Presidency.

The RKBA is simple, its for the "people" to defend themselves against all enemies foreign or domestic. When it gets down to it, well regulated at the time could mean well equipped, as in the traditional well regulated militia, or well regulated army both apply the same. Similarly it could mean well run, interchangeably with well equipped.

By this it means that for the peoples defense they need access to all weapons currently used by the standard military, at minimum the same as used by an 11 bang-bang.

Extremism is in the eye of the beholder, unfortunately a lot of people consider getting the '86 NFA restrictions repealed as extreme, I mean why would someone need a Selective-Fire rifle for hunting :banghead: when hunting is not the purpose of the 2A. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I believe that the founding Fathers would support my belief that the 2A supports my right to buy, and arm a 155mm Howitzer, TOW Anti-tank missiles, Claymores, etc. for personal defense.

The 2A is in the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

If we compromise, restrict, license firearms to a greater extent than we currently do, then how can the people act in the way that Jefferson spoke? Licensing identifies those who have firearms, Himmler created a similar plan in Germany prior to WW2, then rounded up guns legally owned. Restrictions limit types of firearms, calibers of bullets, quantities of ammunition you can fire without switching Mags, or reloading. Compromise is agreeing that the RKBA is for purely hunting, and sporting purposes, and home defense against bad guys.

The first step in protecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the second amendment that defines it as an inalienable right; is to understand its primary purpose. To do that we all need to bear in mind what Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, and Madison all said about its purpose. Prior to the Revolutionary war the British began to round up firearms too... Do you think that this might have some bearing on their perspective on this?

Franklin: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Jefferson: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "

A lot of people here fear what the government is going to do with their firearms. I do not hear many politicians speaking of their fear of the people, that does not yet mean that we have a tyrannical government far from it. However I think a lot of the fear we rightly feel is directed at the way we are heading, not that we've arrived there yet. The rumblings and rumors of heady Democrats in congress cooing about a return of the AWB, does not help pro-RKBA Democrats perceptions either.

 

[Cyborg]

Better Question

To the OP of this thread:
Would not a better question be "Why do so many Liberals HATE firearms?"? If the OP really is a liberal then he/she could reasonably be expected to have a preponderance of liberals in their social network. I submit that the OP might want to poll his/her friends to see why they are so strongly AGAINST RKBA. I for one would love to see the results of such research into the attitudes of grass-roots Democrat voters.

But let's get this back onto topic. The only means of safeguarding your rights - apart from armed revolt - is to be active in local politics and in communication with your representatives at all levels. Congress did not pass the law struck down by "Heller", a City Council did. Congress did not make the draconian laws that make KBA in New York state such a minefield; the New York State legislature did.

You can very easily contact your municipal representatives. I urge you to do so when they start encroaching on RKBA. You can also attend council meetings and even testify at such.

You can keep watch on what your state legislature is doing fairly easily these days. How hard is it to email - or HORRORS - write/type out a comment and send it to your state representatives? And you can even attend and possibly comment at hearings on pending legislation.

It is also easy to keep abreast of what is happening on Capitol Hill and contact your Senators (they are elected from the state at large, after all) and the Representative from your district.

If it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, then it would seem to be a simple matter to squeak a lot - and enlist your friends to squeak also - to keep your elected representatives aware of the will of their alleged constituents.

For the record here, I am not a firearm "lover". For me firearms are just tools. But then I consider my computer to be only a tool - a highly useful one, to be sure - but ultimately only a tool. I derive no special pleasure from making noise and punching holes in paper targets. I do so only to maintain my skill level to the degree needed to discharge my duty to protect kith and kin, hearth and home. I am not disparaging folks who are "into" guns. I just am not one of those.

Someone here has a sig that includes words to the effect that "the difference between citizens and subjects is the RKBA". Ultimately we as individuals have to decide if we will/can be satisfied with being subjects. If an individual decides that it OK with them to be a subject, they need to remember that the divide between "subject" and "surf/slave" is mighty slim. That being the case Patrick Henry definately had the right of it.

Cyborg

 

[gossamer]

I do not believe he was attacking pro-gun Democrats, but their politicians in general, who are usually anti-gun.

really?

IndianaBoy
If you sensed venom in my post, good for you. It was there.

don't expect me to believe that you give a fig for 2A rights if you voted for Obama.

I don't know about you, but to me that sincerely sounds like an attack and venom directed at a pro-RKBA Democrat.

I go back to my central thesis: If you want to advance pro-RKBA, a good tactic is to NOT set about denouncing pro-RKBA anybodies.

Or maybe some think the "High Road" is to openly and pridefully spew venom at pro-RKBA Democrats. Fine. You just lost someone who was willing to fight for the cause from the left. Good work Indiana Boy, with allies like you...

 

[rbernie]

Or maybe some think the "High Road" is to openly and pridefully spew venom at pro-RKBA Democrats. Fine. You just lost someone who was willing to fight for the cause from the left.

It is not the mission of THR, nor do I think that you give up that easily. You came here for debate, and you got it. You're doing well, and the venom here is far more tame than elsewhere.

Keep going.

I go back to my central thesis: If you want to advance pro-RKBA, a good tactic is to NOT set about denouncing pro-RKBA anybodies.

The issue that creates the polarizing attitudes is that decades of 'reasonable compromise' are seen as having caused a creeping incrementalism in the loss of the RKBA. Like it or not, the self-proclaimed 'liberals' are usually seen driving that bandwagon moreso than the self-proclaimed 'conservatives'. Of great concern to the RKBA community right now are groups like AHSA, who proclaim to be a 'liberal friend' of the RKBA and yet who seek to incrementally dismantle it ban by ban and regulation by regulation. By coming here and proclaiming yourself to be a 'liberal gunowner', you immediately caused lots and lots of folks to look at you as they would look at anyone who proclaimed themselves to be a Greek Bearing Gifts.

Do I believe that this is a liberal-vs-conservative issue? Of course not. There are many self-proclaimed conservatives who scare the pants off of me just as much as Biden and Pelosi and Feinstein and Clinton do. But until you and others like you stop couching the debate in terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative', you have to expect that you'll get a debate of liberal-vs-conservative. It's simple common sense.

Now - what can you do as a 'liberal gunowner' to help the RKBA movement?

 

[JImbothefiveth]

really?

Yes, really.

Or maybe some think the "High Road" is to openly and pridefully spew venom at pro-RKBA Democrats.

Well, I believe doing so is against the rules.

I'm not against pro-gun Democrats, for instance, I would support senator Casey for president before I supported, say, Giuliani. I think a lot of people here just don't like Democrats because their party platform includes gun control.

 

[BHP FAN]

I'm afraid the time for ''reasonable gun control measures'', and ''friendly debate'' are long past.At this point, we've compromised and reasonabled our way to the brink,and most of us don't want to see what will happen if the RKBA is ''reasonabled'' any further.

 

[rbernie]

At this point, we've compromised and reasonabled our way to the brink,and most of us don't want to see what will happen if the RKBA is ''reasonabled'' any further.

Let's accept that premise as true, because if we don't this thread will never get anywhere.

The last election was proof positive that in order to stop the incremental loss of rights, we have got to engage those in power and convince them of the rationality of our worldview.

How are we going to do that?

Standing here shouting slogans will not get it done.

 

[Byron Quick]

gossamer, you are welcome here.

Fellow members, some of you need to lay off the venom and keep your comments within the bounds of civility.

Now the Republicans in Congress, at least, are mostly only RKBA in contrast with their political opponents. For example, name all the gun control measures they repealed when they held a majority in both houses of Congress. You can't name any? Wonder why? Some will say the AWB but it was sunsetted by statute not repealed by Republicans.

Personally, I can't see a lot of difference between Republican conservatives and Democratic liberals. Neither side seems interested in following plain language in the Constitution. They have these big ideological differences, arguments, and debates. What do these boil down to? To which areas of your life the government controls and how much control there should be. The Democrats want to control your economic life while leaving you relatively alone in your private life. The Republicans want to control who you sleep with and what else you do in the privacy of your own home while leaving you relatively free in your economic life. Now that's probably fine and proper to some of you. Not for me as I'm not a statist of any stripe. The issue for me is government control of my life and I am opposed to it. That means I'm opposed to most Republicans, most Democrats, and ALL members of Congress except of Ron Paul.

Democrats-heads, Republicans-tails, it's still a quarter that is not real money.

That being so, it still leaves us with the problem of getting Congressmen and Senators to be pro-2nd Amendment. That will be done by demonstrating to them that it is in their self-interest as politicians and in no other way. You will not find many ideologically pure people in Congress sitting on either side of the aisle. In my opinion, there is only one. That's a mighty small minority, folks. So, it comes down to either electing a whole bunch of ideologically pure people to the House and Senate or of finding ways to sway a majority to our view or to close to our view.

But in the interests of RKBA, the Republicans need to be watched very closely. Their track record isn't too reassuring over the past 25 years or so.

 

[taliv]

I go back to my central thesis: If you want to advance pro-RKBA, a good tactic is to NOT set about denouncing pro-RKBA anybodies.

if they are truly pro-RKBA, i totally agree. if they are john "i really hate these rednecks but i'll get my picture taken in an elmer fudd outfit if it buys me some votes" kerry, then no deal.

i completely agree with rbernie

 

[IndianaBoy]

I go back to my central thesis: If you want to advance pro-RKBA, a good tactic is to NOT set about denouncing pro-RKBA anybodies.

Or maybe some think the "High Road" is to openly and pridefully spew venom at pro-RKBA Democrats. Fine. You just lost someone who was willing to fight for the cause from the left. Good work Indiana Boy, with allies like you...

Please understand, as someone who has been active in grassroots activism and lobbying, and personally responsible for getting dozens of people to fire a firearm for the first time, several of whom now have carry permits, the rest of whom are fellow ambassadors for our cause.... I find it somewhat, galling, to be lectured by an individual who campaigned for Obama.

Humility is good for us all... so I will ask you:

I have attempted many times to take anti-gun 'liberals' to the range for a relaxing and educational afternoon with a 22. The idea is so anathema to them that almost universally, I have been turned down. And, honestly, I'm not that scary looking.

So I ask you, what can I do to get the blind to see... so to speak? Do you take non-shooting liberals friends of yours to the range?

My goal is not to turn them into avid shooters. Although that would be great. Some people just aren't into it. I want them to understand that a handgun isn't an blued steel instrument of death that might 'just go off.'

On another topic:

A huge problem is the creeping incrementalism that has been mentioned. Typically, Democrats are anti-gun. Typicall, republicans are gun-neutral.

We need pro-gun representatives. Import bans need to be struck down. The hughes amendment needs to be repealed. These ideas are not radical or extreme. No more extreme than the idea that a man should only be able to buy one gun a month. Or that two magazines that hold 10 rounds each are ok, but on that holds 20 rounds is bad.

The only way to do that is to educate the populace one person at a time. Frankly, the idiots in the beltway are a lost cause.

 

[Babarsac]

I'm liberal about many things.....including gun ownership

 

[colemanw]

We have quite a few Japanese exchange students at my university. Once per quarter our International Studies department offers new exchange students a trip to the local gun range to shoot .22s and .38s (trained by the range owner in co-op with the university) They LOVE it! Most of them are quite scared (Japan has very strict gun laws and the only firearm exposure these youths have comes from Hollywood) But once they do it they cant get enough... every weekend there are always a number of them in there renting used pistols and plinking away-

I read something by another THR member that said to the effect, "Dont try and train or coerce someone into becoming pro-firearm. The key is to go about your own firearm business in a responsible way. Dont hide the fact that you are pro, just don't flaunt it. In time the fearful will become curious on their own and look at you as a resource! Then you casually answer their questions... Over time they will inevitably ask you to teach them - only then, will you win them over "-

If we can do that for exchange students... well, ya know...

 

[hso]

There were a number of comments made about NRA's endorsement of some Democrats running for Congress this past election cycle. Some members here decried this support in spite of the the NRA's favorable rating.

The fact is that if we say our "litmus test" for a politician/individual is 2A support then it is important to accept that a pro-2A politician who wins and who is on the "winning" side does us a heck of a lot more good than one who looses. Is it really a litmus test or just another way to rationalize our choices. 2A supporting politicians with influence are more useful than those without it.

If we vilify and overgeneralize any 2A support we're shooting ourselves in the foot. I know folks that were very vocal in support of 2A right up until they learned about the Pink Pistols. Suddenly they didn't want to be associated with the cause. They still shoot, but suddenly lost their voice. Who's the worse for it? We are. The RKBA cause is.

So what can "liberals" do to support RKBA?

 

[colemanw]

Oh, there has been some discussion on this so I'm gonna put in my .02- I don't casually use the term liberal... or conservative... it just happened to seem the most effective, general way at getting this thread going. After all, not everyone who reads this thread will be well versed in the origins of the terminology nor the history of U.S. political parties. Over the decades, their fluctuating policies and outright reversals are quite complicated... Example: "If Lincoln were alive today he would be a Democrat." I'm sure there are a few here that would dispute that, but that's the beauty of free speech

Anything the government has done to incrementally remove 2A rights is all a result of dirty politics... A tool to further party desires... I bet that if the parties were reversed at the point in history that this first became an issue, the Dems would be the pro gun party today.... To politicians it is not a matter of civil liberties or making sheep of the people... its just a convenient political tool-

Regarding compromise and the slow erosion of gun rights-
Lets see what you all think of this:
(YES we have the 2A, but what if,
If we had a new re-written amendment that does away with the debate by guaranteeing the right of law abiding people to own, carry, and use "Firearms" including, revolvers, semi auto, full auto assault, shotguns... (basically everything, including ammo!) Couldn't it make sense to also require firearm registration and some amount of accredited training in safeties name?

I am obviously not as eloquent as Thomas Jefferson or James Madison but maybe I made a point...

Can we find common sense and common ground... what kind of requirements do you think we need for the effective legislation of this issue... I do think felons who committed violent acts be prevented the possession of a firearm... common sense right? or am I infringing on the 2A?

 

[BHP FAN]

Yes,you would be infringing on the 2A. Registration is a nessesary first step towards confiscation.Recent history proves this [Australia and the UK] as well as our own Revolutionary past, [British confiscation of American arms] just read a little history if you have any doubt on this score.

 

[Jefferson Herb]

If you want to keep your firearms,you will have to exercise your constitutional right and vote......... say no!no!no!