Dear sir,
A liberal is someone who doesn’t tell his kid “what was good enough for me is good enough for you.”

Liberals wrote the second amendment, along with the other original nine. To liberals, being a British subject without the advantages granted to those on the home island wasn’t good enough, so they fixed the problem . . .

The people who seek to roll back our liberties – liberties as in ACLU, as in liberal – are not liberals. They are statists.

To equate the two is the same as equating imply and infer, which you likely do. It’s like equating heard and said.

I’m about done with this blog. I’m a centrist, and dislike the bashing of same. Centrists are the only ones who actually DO anything in government, rather than simply voting the party line. For most blokes, you might as well just call roll.

Not every gunnie is a conservative, long live the status quo, let’s limit government except in the bedroom ultra-rightist.

Lots of us believe in liberty. Not in the Patriot Act and “free speech zones” of your recently ousted “God in the White House.”

How did I get here? I was born here, in California in the peace and love sixties. Did you ever have some hic in a pickup threaten you with an axe because of the length of your hair? I did, when was eight. That was in ’70.

I picked up a gun pretty darned early, believe you me. But I never sided with Rush Limbaugh, Sam Yorty, Dr. Laura or Sarah Palin.

Labels are divisive. We as a community need to not quibble about who hates the I idea of same-sex marriage or who approves of Social Security, while acknowledging that it’s in need of repair.

So cram the damned labels. The truth about guns does not reflect the truth about the people of the gun and while I do believe your work to be vitally important, I want no part of your approach to that work.

‘Bye
Russell Bixby

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

226 COMMENTS

    • So liberal bashing en masse is fine with RF. But as soon as anyone brings up race, unless your praising the magical knee grow, the Jews get their panties in a bunch and start censoring people.

    • It is weird, I didn’t think this blog was overly conservative. I think most of us are libertarian or libertarian-leaning. Also he seems to confuse classical liberals vs. modern U.S. liberals. I know both these points have been brought up in the past at TTAG, probably several times. I doesn’t seem like he’s actually read the blog, at least not very critically; thus making his departure a non-issue. C-ya, Bye.

      • I was thinking along the same lines. In general, those who identify as liberals in the modern sense, do not resemble a classic liberal in any sense – this is actually why I prefer to refer to them as progressives. It seems odd that he would choose to label himself as a liberal (a classical liberal) and then take offense where it is pretty obvious most are referring to the progressive brand of liberal – especially since he seems to condemn labeling of any kind. Classical liberals nowadays usually identify themselves as libertarian, due to the hi-jacking of the term liberal by the progressives. For that matter I don’t consider most people who identify as Republican as classical Republicans either.

        So I repeat, it seems as though this individual who eschews labels so fervently, has chosen to react to the labels rather than the content of peoples speech.

        I personally get tired of all the pseudo religious and homophobic rhetoric that often accompanies the chatting with the people of the gun. But, I believe that fundamentally we all, regardless of those views, believe in an individuals Liberty, so I cut them slack in hopes of moving the ball forwards for said Liberty.

        I guess you can’t please everyone.

        • Shoot, they don’t even really resemble progressives, in the original sense. Populists, they are not.

          Statist fits perfectly well. Fascist and Stalinist might work, too.

      • For what it’s worth, I’m still on the mailing list for some reason.

        RF’s latest “a liberal is a conservative who hasn’t yet been mugged” got to me. Straw, meet camel.

        Narf.

      • Mid 60’s liberal onward is insane. Not all democrats are gun-grabbers, but ALL gun-grabbers are democrat (just an ugly fact).

        • Pat, not all gun-grabbers are Democrats, just most of them. Take a look at Reagan—he signed a lot of gun control legislation designed to suppress OC demonstrations by the Black Panthers—and he’s now revered as some kind of GOP saint or something.

          Russ, I too am a liberal (in the sense of a classical liberal, one who believes in liberty as the highest priority). Sorry to see you go. If you seriously think this blog is too statist, you obviously haven’t been around for too long.

          I don’t like calling myself right-wing or left-wing because I don’t fit well with either of those camps, but I’m NOT a centrist. Centrists are about compromise and progress and action. And the whole problem with government today is that it’s accomplishing too damn much.

        • Michael, while you are technically correct in that there are no absolutes (there is no ALL of anything), this (gun grabbing libtardism….nice word) really is a democrat problem. I dont think Ronny would be too cool (in the year of our lord 2013) with these particular gun grabbing schemes being foisted upon the populace, and was pretty pro-gun in his later years.

        • Reagan also backed the Brady bill in ’91: “This level of violence must be stopped. Sarah and Jim Brady are working hard to do that, and I say more power to them.” [ http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html ]

          He backed the AWB in ’94 in a letter to Congress: “We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons.” — Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in a 1994 letter to Congress.

          He also changed Scott Klug’s vote on the same AWB: ”As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary … I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan.”

          Still think Reagan would be on our side? He was a weakling of a conservative—all bark and no bite—on a LOT of issues, and I think he was a huge disappointment.

  3. Ah, yes, “centrist”. Those that don’t have enough conviction to state a position but rather wait to see which way the wind blows so that they can tumble along with the rest of the leaves.

    I love the revisionist history.

    • This. The author of this letter also fails to realize that the meaning of words change over time. Yes, 250 years ago “liberal” in the US meant someone who valued liberty – for the better part of a century now, “liberal” in the US means someone who wants strict government control over most (if not all) aspects of life.

      • Which is why they now differentiate between the liberals of our founders day who believed in liberty as “Classical Liberals” vs. those today who believe in big government and the omnipotence of the state as liberals. Apparently the author is unfamiliar with the history of the word and its usurpation by the progressives. What a pity that they have sullied such a noble word which is derived from the word liberty and turned it into something Orwellian.

      • I thought it was the Republicans who want to control who can have sex with who, who can marry who, what a woman does with her body etc. Does it not count as “government control” if the reasoning is derived from a book of fairy tales?

        • Yes, Republicrats and Demopublicans BOTH want to control some certain actions of others. They are both just two different wings of the same bird of prey.

        • Well, I guess on the blogs “The Truth About Gay Marriage”, “The Truth About Recreational Abortions” or “The Truth About The Bible” all that would matter. And if your pay attention, you’d realize that, outside of guns, Blog Founder Farago isn’t really all that conservative anyway.

          The fact is, that this is a blog about guns and gun policy. And of the two national parties with actual elected reps in DC, one is good-to-so-so on guns and the other is squishy-to-awful.

          Anyway, if the the GOP will only protect the 2nd Amendment and the Dems will only protect the right to abortion (can’t recall which Amendment that is again), then I guess I’m with the GOP since I own guns but don’t own a uterus. And if there’s anything I’ve learned from modern liberals, it’s that politics is all about “what’s in it for me”.

        • I’m not a Republican, and yes, they do want to control those things. However, that’s still wanting to control only a very small part of your life as opposed to the Democrats who view dictators like Stalin, Chavez, Castro, Mao, etc as someone to look up to.

    • This.

      To the author:
      You are right. At present, centrists ARE the only ones willing to compromise (their values) and get things done. Afterall, SOMETHING must be done, right?

      Wrong. Centrists are part of the problem. It goes something like this:

      Centrist conservatives piecemeal away gun rights, tax and enitlement reform and their moral convictions (not that I necessarily agree with that last part bc I am a libertarian and their “morals” often come at the price of personal liberties).

      On the other side of the isle, centrist liberals only get to increase taxes and entitlement spending MODERATELY, as opposed to running buck wild with the public’s money. Not that we haven’t seen conservatives spend too much; we certainly have. But there is no disputing that conservatives currently are the ones trying to balance the budget while liberals generally pretend the national debt doesn’t exist.

      See what happens there? Conservatives give, and liberals don’t get EVERYTHING they want. Well screw that and screw centrists. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Pick a side.

    • I zone out when someone says they’re a centrist. It’s just a giant red flag that says “Condescension: next 3 miles”

    • This! ^^

      TTAG welcomes a diverse community, we are stronger for it, and with you, for your continued participation. Hope you change your mind.

    • I Agree, state your position and defend it. We don’t have to agree but we should work through it. Only children take their toys and go home. But I’m not giving up any of my guns. Molon labe.

      • This. Part of adult conversation is hearing things you don’t agree with, debating said things, and being able to move on regardless of the outcome. You may end up agreeing, you may not, but either way you know where they (and more importantly, you) stand.

  5. He’s not totally off-base. I grew up in a family of liberals. Many of them identify more with the Libertarians than Democrats (although they are Democrats from way back pre-’60’s). If I describe myself politically, it is as a “Libertarian,” “Neo-Classical Liberal,” or “Constitutional Conservative.” Each label is fairly accurate for me, and yet, this list includes both the word “conservative” and the word “liberal.” Go figure, huh?

    Humans try to label and stereotype. It’s in our nature. But it isn’t fair to individuals to lump them into a group that does not accurately describe who they are as individuals. As a more Libertarian-leaning person, I believe in individualism above statism … And yet, I too find myself stereotyping and labeling a person by using a group label that I identify his/her opinion with. When I do, I’m not being fair. I’m wrong. I hate hypocrisy … Especially in myself.

      • TRUTH IS NEVER HYPOCRITCAL. He told the truth, while lies are all too popular here, in a certain, cookie-cutter segment.

        MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAS A GUN-OWNING REPUBLICAN. Look it up: DEMOCRATS=DIXIECRATS. The Republican Party carried the banner of desegregation; the Democrats were largely segregationalists. LOOK IT UP:

    • But, try to convince this poor confused soul, of the errors of his logic…. Good Luck. I’ve met so many of these … “No, really, I am for freedom, liberty, and the constitution! but we need more rules…” types… and what I/ve learned is… there ain’t no fixin’ stupid. Anyone that “associated” with a term, or a party? s/he is DEFINITELY part of the problem.. i assure you Bye, bye… LIBERAL

      • HERE I STAND, another “confused liberal”, because I dare to be different, be myself and not Rush Limbaugh.

        Dan, ask your corespondent to please stay; don’t judge the group because of a few who think this site is their own private domain..
        I am NOT cowed by you. I’m as free, as liberty-loving, as you. I respect the Bill of Rights and Constitution no less than you.

        If people are leaving this community, IT’S BECAUSE OF YOU, NOT ME.

        • William are you a “confused liberal” (your label above not mine) that supports gun rights only but not the other ones (like the right to keep the fruits of your labor) or are you a libertarian who believes in ALL of the individual rights for everyone?

          I assume the latter since you say that you are “free and liberty-loving” but you never know as mainstream liberals believe in gay, minority, atheist, Wiccan, Muslim, & women’s rights as well as abortion on demand while denying rights to prosperous white male heterosexual Christians.

          So which one is it? Rights for all or just for some? If you can’t see that modern liberal progressives are just as guilty as the neo-cons then it is also BECAUSE OF YOU too…NOT ME who believes in individual liberty FOR EVERYONE, not just for select groups.

      • “I’ve met so many of these … ‘No, really, I am for freedom, liberty, and the constitution! but we need more rules…’ types… and what I/ve learned is… there ain’t no fixin’ stupid.”

        Yep, yep, yep.

  7. He makes a point. Liberal does not equal gun-grabber, which I why I like the term gun-grabber.

    One reason the AWB has less than 40 votes in the Senate is because the pro-2A community is broader than just right-wing OFWGs

    • As with any stereotype, there is always some kernel of truth. We can plainly see that while “Liberal” does not necessarily mean “gun-grabber”, especially among the average citizens, the majority of Gun-grabbers in politics are Liberals. They unfortunately taint all Liberals with their stink, just as far right-wing Republicans taint that party with their stink. Extremism sucks. The whole point of establishing a republican, as opposed to a democratic, form of government was the attempt to prevent extremists and factions from dominating our society and political life.

      If you TRULY believe in the Second Amendment and personal freedoms then you must not identify yourself with the progressives who have hijacked the Democrat party and are determined statists. And stop complaining when honest people call a spade a spade.

  9. In california state legislature I can count “pro gun” dem politicians on one hand. There are 2 in the senate, maybe two in the house. Where are his pro gun liberals he speaks of. It is simply a reality that they are as rare as unicorns. I don’t like sarah or rush either, doesn’t mean I vote for liberals or neo cons for that matter but above all I want my guns. This whiny reader is why California sucks now.

    • Yes, because clearly the ideological composition of the CA legislature and their positions on guns accurately represents the residents of CA, not to mention that of the entire US. {/sarc}

      • Alpha Geek, I understand your commentary as I too am stuck in Kalifornia and I am probably more pro-gun than even many here on this site. I support NON-Violent felons being allowed to regain their RKBA after release from prison, access to all NFA items without permit or tax stamp, Constitutional carry like in VT, AZ, AK, & WY, etc., etc., etc…however the sad truth about this state is that you and I are the exception here. Sure there are quite a few of us as I know many personally but there still aren’t enough of us. Obviously the gun grabbing control freaks outnumber us substantially because if they didn’t we wouldn’t have the state government that we currently do.

        So while I understand and agree with your sarcasm to a point, the sad truth is that the negativity expressed towards Collectivistafornia in general is warranted.

    • ON SECOND THOUGHT, it’s narrow-minded p*ckerheads such as yourself who drive allies away from this place.

      CONGRATULATIONS; IT’S EFFING YOURS.

    • Amen from Nor.Cal where I’m drowning in a sea of liberals. With a democratic controlled legislature and governor we are about to lose it all in some unconstitutional game of oneupsmanship with New York. It seems like we’ve been designated as acceptable casualties by the NRAin’t, Haven’t heard a peep from them(or anyone else) in regards to that draconian measures that are up for vote in the next few months. We’ll be lucky if we’re legally allowed to have squirt guns by this time next year.
      In conclusion, I would concur that this whiny reader, as well as the liberals who get his vote, are # 1 reason why California sucks now. freakin ruined this place

  10. Meh…i have added about five buddies to the site as i am always sending them links to the sight. Tell mr. Liberal Drama llama i said not to let the door hit his azz on the way out.

  12. I just want to gay marry my machinegun which I use to protect my pot plants- ‘Merica.

    But for real, that’s about where I stand, gay marriage, pot smoking, limited government, owning a machine gun that’s where I stand.

  13. Sir, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I’ve noticed that the majority of Liberals in my short time on Earth that I’ve seen have been statists. Not telling you what to do, but maybe you could check out the Libertarian platform? It offers a “live and let live” philosophy, while not shoving big government and taxes down everyone’s throats, bullying idealist notions into law whether people agree with them or not. I’m sorry, my friend, but the DFL just ain’t what she used to be. I would go even further and say that anyone who votes for a DFL candidate EVER is just asking to get their civil rights taken away, but only if they work hard and pay their taxes.

  14. I have always seen “centrists” as people that can’t make up their minds and change their votes every election; i.e., they have mixed convictions and are fair weather followers. Of course, there are always exceptions, but that is the general impression I get from them.

  15. wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

  16. So instead of blaming us for their identity crisis, it would be nice if ‘liberals’ like this reader spent as much time going apoplectic on those who have stolen and misused the word liberal.

    Obama, Holder, Feinstein, et al choose to call themselves liberal. We aren’t foisting that label on them. If you want to be taken seriously go get upset at the correct people.

    • I think they prefer to be labeled Progressives.

      My “Progressive” daughter tried to explain it to me once by saying that Progressives are more “radically forward thinking” and less tied to the old “failed” thinking of the past. They are more willing to act on their beliefs and totally dismiss outright, those who don’t agree with them.

      In other words, they don’t give a crap what anyone else thinks. They are right about everything, beyond question. To hell with everyone else.

      That’s why you’ll never again see a Tip O’Neal and a Ronald Reagan working things out like gentlemen.

  17. I can understand a bit of his disappointment, though if he/she’s bothered by the name-calling on TTAG, there’s probably no gun blogs that he/she can read.

    Gun folks tend to lean very right, and the minute you let slip any of these things:

    -you may not believe in God or *gasp* you’re an ATHEIST
    -you support the right of women to choose to have an abortion (or not)
    -you support the rights of consenting adults to marry (even if they’re gay)
    -you believe in climate change
    -you think marijuana ought to be legalized
    -you think illegal immigrants should be given a chance to earn their citizenship
    -you oppose wars of aggression
    -you think racism is still alive in America
    -you support free public education for all kids, regardless of the neighborhood they live in

    …you get called: liber-tard / wh0regressive / socialist / communist / nasty word that rhymes with “bag.”

    I think TTAG is better at being open than most firearms news / reviews sites, and the “I Am a Gun Owner” series shows this site has nice diversity of readership… who still got dissed by several commentators for their non-2A beliefs. If we as gun owners want to make 2nd Amendment rights universal, we need to elevate people’s understanding of the issue beyond just Republican vs Democrat.

    Being independent myself, I guess I’ve learned to grow a thicker skin and be willing to engage in dialogue for the sake of having a broader, stronger, pro-gun owning community.

  19. For some strange reason, I’m picturing Powers Boothe sitting on a porch, watching some disgruntled holier-than-thou leaving town, and saying “Well, bye”.

  20. If labels aren’t divisive then I’ve got to ask…how do you know who the enemy is? Cops here catch flack, another unbeloved label to be sure, but unity and the value of solidarity trumps simple dislike so I stay, read and comment.

    Liberals are likely the only group (under party line democrats) that catches more flack than the rest. Expecting a miracle from what is largely a battle of mutually closed minds is rather difficult. Slander flies from both sides like the background music of artillery and small arms fire in a war movie. Watching your lane and looking for what’s headed your way works better than opposing the idea that fire is headed your general direction.

    If I took every anti cop comment to heart and minded half the stuff that one can construe as ad hominem I would quit posting here. That isn’t to put down your choice, as dealing with bull patties fresh each day has its own caveats, but it can be done and for the right reasons if you put your mind to it. You won’t be the first liberal we’ve lost and are very unlikely to be the last but I would rather endure alienation than subjugation.

    I can’t vouch for what you deal with, feel or think but there’s a price to liberty and it makes unlikely bedfellows in the pursuit of such, especially in times such as these.

    Best of luck to you and eloquently spoken.

    • I agree with everything you said except “eloquently spoken”. In fact I couldn’t quite understand his flow at all.

      • That’s because there wasn’t a flow. He’s rambling. Jumping from one point to another without actually finishing the first point. That’s why every “paragraph” is two sentences long and has nothing to do with the previous paragraph.

    • Money quote: “…there’s a price to liberty and it makes unlikely bedfellows in the pursuit of such…” AMEN!

      I’ll take dangerous and scary liberty to peaceful slavery any day!!!

      And those who are willing to put themselves out there and help me to defend it are all welcome, regardless of their appearance, gender, race, religion, or sexual preference.

      • Sure – I’ll work with anyone who’ll help advance 2A causes. But if he’s going to get all butthurt because someone tossed around the term “liberal” in a less-than-flattering manner, well frankly I don’t need the drama.

        • Agreed about the drama, I think most of us are on drama overload these days. Especially those of us stuck in collectivist utopias like Kalifornia and New York. The outrage meter is pegged at max so when someone gets this butt hurt over the term liberal…well here in Kalifornia I am called a heck of a lot worse on a regular basis for being a gun owner.

          We all need to toughen up and get some thicker skin if we want to be victorious in this fight because we can expect much worse in the future than being called a political label which is only derogatory to some…and here in Collectivistafornia it is a badge of honor to far more people than it is a negative label.

  22. Since (and before) 1960 the general definitions and values of liberals and conservatives have changed for many people. Back in the 1700s, many of the political ideals of the Founding Fathers could be described (not in today’s terms) as progressive and radical in comparison to the monarchies of the era. Many of today’s radicals and progressives (and modern liberals) want to do away with the Constitution and Bill of Rights and change America into a police-nanny elitist run state.

  25. I also disagree with the liberal bashing and right wing undertones found on TTAG, particularly in the comments. But you don’t win people over or learn anything from them by walking away. I have been on the cusp of no longer reading TTAG a few times but I always come back.

    I will say though, It always boggles my mind to see people fighting tooth and nail for the right to choose to own a gun, and then turn around and fight to take away the right to choose what to do about an unplanned pregnancy, or what chemicals and plants and individual puts into their own body.

    Personal liberty means personal liberty in everything and for everyone, not just what Jesus says is right.

    Just sayin’

    • Can’t say I agree to this. Having the ability to defend you life with a firearm and having the ability to terminate a life because you planned poorly are apples and oranges. While I know it’s not my call at all because its not my body, me and my partner knew exactly what could happen when we got passionate. She was on the pill and it failed. We accepted responsibility for what we created even though we were in no place in our lives to do so. Now I’m not saying women shouldn’t have a choice what to do with their own bodies. They should.
      it seems to me that person you were talking about values life differently than you. He wants a gun to protect his family from someone who would potentially end his pursuit of life and liberty and wants abortion outlawed because that is a small life being taken to make someone else’s life easier when that baby had no say in the matter of being put here. See what I’m getting at?

      • “Having the ability to defend you life with a firearm and having the ability to terminate a life because you planned poorly are apples and oranges.”

        EXACTLY, very well said!

      • Except that it is not a “small life”. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

        There is no such thing as homunculi.

    • This is in response to BlindKyle’s post.

      If, by right to choose what to do about an unplanned pregnancy, you mean to end the life of the other person growing inside of you or another I would like to point out a few ideas. The RKBA is about preserving the life that God gave you. The so-called “right to choose” is about ending a life that is inconvenient to you. Killing another human being, no matter what their stage of development for your convenience, is still murder. Hiring an abortionist to do the deed for you is the same as hiring a hit man to murder someone. There are many options besides murdering a helpless human for those situations. There is no Constitutional right to murder someone no matter what some godless men in black robes have to say about it. Therefore, while the RKBA is a right, abortion is not and there is no dichotomy in our belief system or thinking process as you seem to infer. The RKBA is about preserving life as is preventing people from murdering helpless humans. Have a nice day.

        • I respect your right to choose for yourself. Guns, abortions, religion, smoking, healthcare, drink sizes, etc. Should someone impose their choice on another, those imposing must accept the responsibility for the outcome.

          Isn’t this the main focus of discussion on this and other similarly devoted forums?

      • “preserving the life that God gave you.”

        This is where we differ, god didn’t give me life, my parents did, via a biological process. I don’t answer to your God or anyone else’s, I answer only to my own conscience. You’re not wrong for thinking the way you do and I don’t think less of you for it, but I won’t live by someone else’s morality.

        Unplanned pregnancy should always be avoided, precautions should be taken, we all know that. But, shit happens. Condoms break, birth control fails. To me, it is more morally reprehensible to bring a life into this world that is doomed to poverty and neglect then to kill a small mass of embryonic cells incapable of thought or decision. To me, said mass of cells is not a human, it’s not a person, it doesn’t have rights. When does that change? That’s for each individual to decide, but I do know that, statistically speaking, unwanted children grow up to be criminals and gangbangers.

        Again, not saying you’re wrong, just that I disagree. If you can make an unplanned pregnancy work, great, all the power to you, but individual situations differ and it’s not always poor planning or irresponsibility that results in this choice being made.

        Oh, and I’m not sure if the “Shroom Gang” thing was directed at me but, regardless, it’s close-minded stereotypists like you that will lose this war for us.

        • It’s cool, BlindKyle, there are others here who feel the same way you do. And with all due respect to Carry.45, and David, this is exactly the point – not all of us here square with each other on anything but RKBA, so drop it already and stick to the topic.

        • “This is where we differ, god didn’t give me life”
          Feel free when someone words it like that to substitute it for “natural right” just to make it easier. And I’m on the same page as you on damn near everything you say. Minus abortion. But don’t go getting all butt-hurt about someone saying god given. And to you down there BDub I didn’t bring up abortion.

      • This for the win!!! (in response to David’s post at 17:11 – it posted in a confusing spot.)

    • Agreed on everything except for the abortion aspect. What about the babies personal liberty???

      Other than that what one does in the privacy of their own home so long as it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket is absolutely none of my business.

      Unfortunately too many can’t seem to grasp the whole “live and let live” concept and want freedom for themselves but not others.

      Just because one is willing to allow gays to be gay doesn’t mean you have to condone it. While I personally find homosexuality morally repugnant their actions are none of my business and I am willing to allow them to live their lives if they are willing to allow me the same courtesy regarding my guns. Its kind of hard to say “hey, why are you supporting that anti-gun bill after just voting against gay marriage” rather than “I supported your rights on gay marriage, now how about supporting my gun rights?”

      As far as drugs go, I don’t use them and counsel my kids against their use as well however I just can’t get the hypocrisy of those who go home every day after a hard days work to a stiff drink…and then complain about those who go home and smoke a joint for the very same reason. Far more people have their lives destroyed by alcohol every year than by marijuana. Alcohol is also a drug as is nicotine and caffeine.

      Far too many are either unable or unwilling to see the hypocrisy of their actions.

      • P.S. As to the gay marriage thing, my quotes above were strictly to illustrate my point. My real opinion is that government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether and we shouldn’t need their permission to get married in the first place. Also replace the Byzantine tax system with a flat sales tax and then there is no need for marriage tax incentives which is one of the homosexuals’ reasons for wanting the state to sanction their union.

      • A mass of embryonic cells is not a baby, neither is an embryo, or a fetus, or at any other pre-birth state of existence. I’m not talking about killing babies, babies have rights, babies are people. Again, when en utero that changes is an individual decision, but, legally speaking, an embryo/fetus/whatever does not have rights.

        Also, I’m so glad you’ll allow them to be gay, that’s very gracious of you to make that concession.

        Despite all the above, I’m glad you can see the hypocrisy of all those who drink and want to keep marijuanna illegal because “it’s for dem’ damn dirty hippies.”

        I personally believe in complete personal liberty and responsibility. You wanna drink, smoke and do some blow? Knock yourself out, but, do something stupid before, during or after that infringes upon the rights of another and it’s your ass in the slammer.

        • Excuse me, sir, but your inexpert opinion on “mass of embryonic cells” not being a baby requires a response. If, in the normal course of events, and with no negative outside influences or actions, that “mass of embryonic cells” WILL become a living, breathing baby, how can you say that destroying one is not destroying the other? It’s just a matter of timing and semantics, isn’t it?

          If you leave it alone it becomes a baby. If you don’t, it’s dead, and YOU killed it. There is no logical or moral difference between the action of abortion and infanticide, both terminate an innocent life.

          I am certain that this argument will in no way convince you of the illogic of your position, but it had to be said.

        • Please tell me: does this “undifferentiated” cell mass eventually become a fish? An elephant? A sheep?

          You know what it becomes as well as I do; your belief is no more than a cookie-cutter DODGE.

          Because of this, it amounts to the state-sanctioned taking of innocent human life.

          To those who consider abortion, I always counsel caution: I would never interfere, not ever. But make an I formed decision: the karmic payload of such an action is heavy and incalculable.

        • BlindKyle, the whole “allow them to be gay” thing was VERY poorly written on my part and I can see how you took it that way. That was not my intent.

          Personally I don’t care what someone does with their life so long as it harms no one else. I just wish others gave me the same courtesy. I may not agree with others actions for moral reasons as is my right, and I can avoid or shun people whose lifestyle I disagree with, however I do NOT have the right to tell someone how to live if they are harming no one, nor advocate for laws which do so.

          As to the concept of life, you and I will just have to agree to disagree as I strongly believe that life begins at conception and I consider abortion to be murder. Other than that I believe that we are on the same page.

  26. Back to The Shroom Gang, troll
    By the text, the constant self-referencing Puddle Of Consciousness, I can tell that is how you have spent much of your life.
    A narcissistic doper with a gun, you’ll fit in well with your Cartel overlords

  27. I agree with most of what he said. HOWEVER…… checking out is not the answer. Yes, there are some ultra right, ultra left, ultra up the middle types here. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT!! Do I agree with everything everyone says, Duh, uh NO!! We do agree on one point. 2A!!!!!!!!! So let the discussion continue.

  28. Obviously someone is overly sensitive. Why care what others think just b/c it disagrees with what you believe? And is he talking about the articles here or our comments? When someone goes off on a tangent, I don’t waste any of my time reading nonsense. Believe what you want, it’s your life.

    It’s narrow minded to throw the baby out with the bath water. I’m not a conservative nor a republican, I don’t identify with them. I don’t assume every gun owner is either as he is assuming. The typical gun owner I meet in metro Atlanta isn’t an in your face conservative like who you see on t.v. or the radio.

    Sorry buddy, you’re not as original as you think you are. You’re just closed minded.

  29. I am tired of this conservatives want to “control what you do in the bedroom meme.” That is unadulterated Bull S–t. Not supporting gay marriage isn’t dictating what someone does in their bedroom. You can oppose gay marriage and not give a rats a$$ about what people do in private. You can even oppose abortion and not care what people do in private. Abortion is something that happens latter. This bedroom nonsense is just a leftwing, Progressive, liberal or whatever modern euphemism that the apparat uses as a strawman to succor the cool setand Libertarians. It is a pity that the Libertarians have bought into this strawman but as I have said over the past several weeks today’s Libertarians have more in common with the Russian Social Revolutionaries than in the tradition of Hayek and von Mises. If they want to play useful idiots to the apparat then they will get what the deserve.

    • I think you’re taking the “bedroom” thing too literally, The point is that no one should be able to dictate the lives of others based on their own faith-based morality, you know, that silly separation of church and state thing. Especially when the actions in question in no way infringe on your rights or even affect you.

      • And that is the essence of the strawman argument. My disapproval has nothing to do with their right to do what they want. You are arguing that I must endorse their relationship by changing a societal norm to make them feel comfortable. If they feel nothing is wrong then they should tell me pound sand.

        Nick Gillespie over at Reason Online asked the question are Libertarians moral anarchists. He heart said no but objectively his argument said yes. If there is no moral standard outside of human definition then there are no moral standards. If morality is just social convention then there is nothing we can say about Hitler, Stalin or any other mass murder. If you think that is wrong tell me why. (Hint, every reason you give I am going to ask you why? Ultimately, you have to come up with some axiomatic moral law.)

        • I’m not at all saying you have to endorse, or even like, their relationship, I’m saying that the United States government, in any capacity, has no right to create or enforce laws derived from faith-based morality.

          Yes, morality is subjective and dependent on culture and moral standards are arbitrary, but we’re not discussing “morality” as it applies to all humanity or the human experience, we (or, at least I) are discussing specific laws in our specific country and our own specific legal and cultural framework.

        • Its FAR from a straw man. You may not condone it, but that is separate and wholly different from barring someone else from partaking in the same freedoms.

          I don’t expect any religious heterosexual to bend the practices of his/her church with regards to gay marriage, but the second the State bases huge life issues on the recognition of civil -unions/marriages while omitting and obstructing those who do not fit the religious definition, you and the State have crossed a line.

          When children or property are taken after a partner dies, because they don’t recognize a union, or a dying partner in a hospital bed is not allowed the comfort of their loved ones because the State says they don’t recognize a union, or they cannot share the same tax, insurance, home-buying, or contractual advantages of having their union recognized, then you and the State are in the wrong, and you and the State are in fact depriving them of their Liberty and Happiness.

          That sir, is NO straw man.

        • So if next month the society deems it ok to murder homosexuals you would be ok with it. Despite what you think that’s is what “specific laws in our specific country and our own specific legal and cultural framework.” means.

        • Bdub: Yes it’s a strawman argument because everything you specify can be granted through a legal document. And I want to dispose of one more myth. The tax system is biased against married couples. The Bush tax rates reduced the marriage penalty. It didn’t eliminate. A married couple pays more in taxes at the same income than two single individuals living together. That’s why it’s called the marriage tax.

        • tdiinva, you are completely correct and thank you for saying it. i can’t stand that leftist falsehood, either.

      • “The point is that no one should be able to dictate the lives of others based on their own faith-based morality, you know, that silly separation of church and state thing.”

        Except that, if you genuinely believe that life begins at conception (I don’t really, but work with me), then how can you blithely stand by while lives are snuffed out by the millions? And while many Dems and Libs talk about “safe legal and rare”, 60 million abortions since Roe ain’t all that rare. And within the Dem party, organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood have a lot of power. I am sure that lots of Libs and Dems feel about those organizations sort of like I do about Todd Akin, and resent being tarred with the same brush.

        For what it is worth, I am a conservative because I want to keep the fruits of my labor, and I am tired of the state being used to distribute my income to people who are not willing to work to support themselves. So there’s a high unemployment rate where you live? Move to North Dakota, and stop collecting welfare because you don’t want to leave your inner city sh*thole.

    • Gay marriage and abortion are convenient distractions from the complete financial cluster**** that’s coming thanks to the government’s insane spending, the nation’s rising debt-to-GDP ratio, and currency debasement policies.

  31. Well, I’ll try really hard to miss you, my “centrist” friend, but I’m gonna have to be honest and say that I probably won’t.

  32. Everyone I know who describes themselves as a ‘centrist’ is actually a liberal with one or two exceptions that they claim makes them a centrist. Being a liberal who likes guns and a strong national defense is not a centrist.

    If you have “never sided with Rush Limbaugh, Sam Yorty, Dr. Laura, or Sarah Palin”, then you are definitely a (modern day definition of) liberal. A centrist would have sided with them at least half the time.

    Labels are not divisive, but descriptive. Perhaps the use of adjectives in front of the label will help lessen the sting of a broadly defined position. “Fiscal conservative and social liberal” is how my “centrist” friends like to describe themselves. But in general, the term ‘liberal’, ‘progressive’, ‘conservative’, or ‘libertarian’ gives a pretty good illustration of a person, yes?

    As for the bashing of certain types, well, that’s America and that’s free speech. You should see some of the quotes that our founding fathers threw about when discussing each other and the type of persons they were. Even the worst bloggers and their comments wouldn’t compete with them.

    But in the end, I wish you would not go, as the community benefits from diverse points of views. Perhaps it is tough to stomach at times but truth and honesty combined with wit and passion will create quite an entertaining and educational conversation.

    “Now get in the pit and try to love someone.” — Bob Ritchie

  34. Dan’s a bit thin skinned. The entire point of being on a blog is to see other views on a subject. It would be really boring if everyone agreed 100%. I too am a Libertarian gun owner, but society has set the bar. I vote Republican because the Democrats are generally against my view, but I certainly don’t buy the right’s view on every issue. IMO, real thinking people are centrists, because when common sense is present, it’s impossible to buy into either side 100%.

    • ” I too am a Libertarian gun owner…. I vote Republican because the Democrats are generally against my view”

      FACEPALM!

  35. Jeebus – squirt me some tears.

    The Democrats are the party of gun control. Live with it. When the Democrats stop being the party of civilian disarmament, then we can all go back to not bitching about their crappy position on the 2nd Amendment.

  38. I’m still trying to figure out his comment about the ACLU. Bizarre. Or, is that “labeling”?

  40. This is like saying John Kennedy was a Democrat. He was most certainly nothing like democrats of today. He was a member of the party back then, but today,they wouldn’t even run him on the ticket, because his ideas and beliefs, mostly were very conservative and have almost nothing to do with today’s democratic party. Me thinks this read needs to realize he prob needs to be addressing this letter to his fellow “liberals” and not us, just for calling it like it is…today.

  41. *sigh*

    I see many comments saying something along the lines of “TTAG welcomes diverse opinions!” To that I say: hah. TTAG is an echo chamber, or — in modern parlance — a circlejerk.

    The only reason I keep reading is because TTAG is like your average soap opera; terrible writing, unlikable characters, but filled with cheap drama that keeps my attention hooked.

  42. There is merit to his argument. I don’t buy that all liberals have to be anti-gun, or gun grabbers, although it is a stereotype backed up by evidence of late. He is right, these people are more accurately described as statist. It should be possible to be primarily liberal on social issues such as gay marriage, gender and racial equality etc, without being a statist. It should be possible to believe that there is a role for government without believing that it should be a leviathan. It is possible to believe in the paramountcy of individual freedom, individual responsibility, and liberty while also believing that there is a role for the government to help those less fortunate, within reason, children born into poverty and the elderly being a prime example. It is possible to believe that a government should have fiscal restraint, a balanced budget, and a live and let live attitude without believing that all regulation, including laws that prevent discrimination, and social welfare/entitlement is bad. Conversely, it should even possible to believe that there should be a redistribution of wealth (socialism) while also holding individual freedoms sacred (I don’t believe this, these concepts are just not mutually exclusive). Unfortunately we don’t live in a world that allows people to believe those things. We have made them into contradictions. If you vote Democrat (which should not be synonymous with liberal) then you are supporting gun control and statism. If you vote republican you are voting to maintain the current definition of marriage etc.

    He also makes a good point that too many conservatives want to have an interventionist government, one that tells people how they can and can’t live their lives, when it comes to gay marriage and the legalization of recreational drug use, but cry foul when other people try to intervene in their ability to own firearms and make their living the way they want to. The republican party, and conservatives in general, need to have a reckoning. Are we the party of liberty, in everything, or are we just a less interventionist government. Are we the party that brought you the Patriot Act and the DHS, or are we the party of governmental restraint and respect for the constitution. We can’t have it both ways, we are either one or the other. Right now, we are only the lesser of two evils, a less statist democratic party.

  43. Mr./Ms. Bye, your eleven paragraphs did so many 180’s I couldn’t keep track.

    There is no one single person who is the quintessential ‘Person of the Gun’. Not you, me, no one. It’s made up of everyone contributing their values, skills and opinions.

    Reconsider. Don’t leave. Contrary to what you think, TTAG is and has been quite welcoming of dissent and rhetoric from those who would disarm. I don’t understand why you’re so butthurt.

  44. What just happened. I had a great post, and I hit Post Comment and it just disappeared. No flames, I swear.

    • Type carefully, select all, copy, publish, pray, swear, paste, repeat till posted. WordPress don’t like the written word apparently.

  45. Anyone who thinks it is government’s job to “DO something” does not know the definition of liberty. This guy also probably thinks magazine capacity limits are a common sense approach to gun control. The term Liberal and Secular Progressive (I’d even go as far to say Democrat) are interchangeable in today’s vernacular. Those who are against big government use the word Liberal to describe someone who is a proponent of the government using its power to control and influence the people. If you care about individual freedom, stop calling yourself a liberal and stop asking the government to control other people.

  46. Todays liberals aren’t the only statists around. Conservatives are just as happy to use the power of government to compel you to live as they think best. They just want to control different parts of your life than liberals do.

  47. PS the Label of Liberal was seized by the Progressives when America realized that Margaret Sanger’s Progressive Eugenics was used by Hitler to MURDER millions.
    It was not until the term Liberal became such a widely recognized euphemism for Communist that Shrillary Clinton proclaimed herself as a Classical Progressive in 2007 in other words she is a Eugenicist and endorses Hitler’s work. A Centrist would say that such ideas are worthy of diligent study and discussion, apparently not realizing that the Centrists would be the first into the Liberal/Progressive Ovens because they have no value system to guide them away from such an end.

  50. Born in CA but living in another country now? When was the last time you heard a long-term US resident use the word “bloke”?

    +1 to what was said above liberal doesn’t automatically mean “gun grabber”

    • Born in california, escaped before it became fashionable to do so, lived in Colorado and Texas, then settled in rural Kansas.

      Mostly taught myself to read – largely on Dickens, Lofting, Wells et cetera – British spelling and syntax come naturally, and we’re reinforced by a half decade way down south.

      Don’t know why I’m still on the list.

  51. What set him off? This has always seemed like a pretty open-minded blog to me.

    If there’s a disproportionate share of criticism aimed at “the liberals” it might have something to do with the fact that there aren’t any prominent liberal democrats who are pro-gun.

    Even so, whenever someone seems to equate “liberal” with “anti-gun” there are always people who object. As we’ll often point out, in many ways the NRA has more in common with the ACLU than anything that’s going on in Rush Limbaugh’s head.

    • Our dearly departed friend seems to have forgotten the current administration did nothing but reinforce and strengthen the patriot act, along with instituting a ton of other hilariously troubling things.

      If I adjust my tinfoil hat slightly I can pick up more dangerous vibrations coming.

      Anyway, my opinion, dumb and pointless as it may be, is that we often stray from the point of the Second Amendment, which is in place so the citizenry can protect themselves from a tyrannical government. That point is lost so often in the political shuffle, and it’s high time people need to be reminded of that.

      You don’t have to own guns to be a patriot and defend the citizenry, you don’t even have to like guns, but if you believe in civilian disarmament, if you believe in limiting access to firearms so that only the government has them, and you support the politicians who vote accordingly, you’re a traitor to the people of your country because you’re enabling the government to further erode the social contract, to modify it when it is not the will of the people to do so.

  54. If this site isn’t centrist enough he should abandon the internet. As far as gun sites go it doesn’t get anymore balanced. Guess he missed the “I am a gun owner” series.

    • Fo shizzle. Pro gun, anti police state, anti drug war, anti “no fly” list, anti “whatever the hell those internet censoring bills were called”, general live and let live attitude…

      Compared to other gun blogs, TTAG is a bunch o’ commies.

  55. Ridiculous screed, this site is not even remotely right wing. If he is bothered by commenters then I guess he wants you to censor right wing blowhards that comment here? Let their bigotry speak for itself, if they are so bigoted, Mr.Centrist…

    The main Centrist figure I am aware of is John Avlon and he is 100% anti-gun. I read one of his books a few years ago, it had Ayn Rand and Harry Truman on the cover along with I think MLK Jr and others. It was one of the most horrible things I’ve ever tried to read and today he makes his living writing blatant left wing propaganda for CNN, I know I have seen at least one horrid anti-2A screed from him and he is Mr.Centrism.

    Centrism is a schizophrenic way of thinking, they try to answer the problem with America’s false left/right political dichotomy with one thing: compromise. They will compromise on anything and everything in the name of ‘getting things done.’ I think Hegel called this synthesis in his work on dialectics and Marx believed it ultimately led to Communism.

    Anyway, ‘Centrism’ is incoherent drivel that serves as bait for donkey-curious Republican morons. The Democrat and republican parties are both corrupt and the answer is not to get them together and be more corrupt in unison. All we can do passively is support 2A rights vehemently by exclusively supporting candidates who endorse those rights, because it is 2A rights that will ultimately bring the corrupt to their knees. The corrupt are in fact obsessed with destroying 2A rights so they make it easy for us to examine the liberal candidates who are tasked with destroying these rights and follow the money and networking as best we can. Centrism is at the forefront of destroying 2A rights and promoting globalist nonsense.

  56. Just based on the comments clearly we’re split on the issue. I’m seeing 33/33/33 “You should stay I share your opinions”, “I don’t agree with you but quitting the discussion isn’t the right thing to do”, and “grrrrrrrrrrrr liberals! I hate them!”

  57. …who helps split the vote so the party s/he most identifies with loses. There is too much extremist noise in both major parties. That too helps people to vote outside their base. Unfortunately, it is usually the conservative thinkers who lose and the socialist thinkers who capitalize on this weakness.

  58. I’m more liberal than anything else and I’ve never felt unwelcome or annoyed here. When someone points out that liberals and democrats are the primary ones arguing in favor of gun control they are 100% correct. This frustrates me about my fellow liberals and I’m not afraid to admit the truth.

  61. “Liberal” used to be a good word, until people who called themselves that started letting murderers out of jail, while demanding the rest of us give up our liberties, chief among them the right to self defense. As far as where the center is, I don’t buy the fallacy that picking the middle on any argument automatically gives you the right answer. That’s a sorry substitute for thought, because some things are right or wrong, true or false, no matter who disagrees with them.

    And we don’t have to give in to the intellectual blackmail of the so-called centrists who want to con us out of our birthright as Americans. We’re the ones who are normal, they’re the fringe. Profanities come to mind as to what they can do, so I’ll stop here.

  63. There is a lot of name calling and categorizing of people here based on their views. If we want to win this battle we need to be inclusive not exclusive. I agree that you do not have to be right wing conservative to be pro gun or pro 2A. I believe there is a difference to a constitutionally guaranteed right Vs. other rights under the law. I have the view that constitutionally guaranteed rights need to give rights not take them away. I am a libertarian in that I do not feel the government has a role in how I live my life as long as I do not hurt others. Therefore I do not feel the government should limit marriage if gays want to marry they should only be held to the same laws as heterosexuals. Abortion should be limited to when the fetus can live on its own outside the mother not at conception. When conservatives/christian conservatives start pushing their religious agenda on others who do not have those same beliefs they will not have the support of those individuals when they need them. When we show we are respectful of others who do not hold the same view as we do we will have a better chance of swaying them to our side when we need their help. I have argued with christian conservatives regarding nativity scenes in our town on city property and they always argue that this is a christian community and if people don’t like it go somewhere else or why are these outsiders coming in and causing trouble. My argument to them is what would happen if a large community of Muslims moved in and had the votes to elect enough officials to office to impose their religious laws on you. How many of these Christians would like to be told their wives had to wear burkas or could not drive or could not be out in public with out their husbands permission? If we go on the idea that majority rules then we would have to put up with this without complaints yet I don’t see that happening someone would be filling a lawsuit or trying to get those laws overturned yet if it’s their religious views it’s ok. This is why I feel we only need to make constitutional changes as it preserves rights not limits them. I feel we need to be inclusive and welcoming of anyone who is pro 2A or pro gun as the prevailing image is of the right wing conservative republican with all the associated baggage in the same way some here look at and comment about the liberals. Someone who feels their rights were limited by the republicans in other areas and are on the fence or not a gun person may make their choices (voting/recall voting) based on how they feel they were treated and won’t be swayed by the idea we are fighting for freedom from repression or tyranny under the constitutionally guaranteed rights. They may just feel that at this juncture the majority rule and if we are on the short end of the stick this time so what. So maybe in general we should all be more centrist and keep religion in our churches and keep government out of our personal lives/what we put in our bodies/ out of our bedrooms and let it protect our borders, maintain our infrastructure and manage foriegn policy. It might just allow us, the people, to work together in times like this instead of fracturing us. Just my .02 cents or maybe my 2000.00 cents.

    • Well said.

      As a secularist Libertarian, I agree with you across the board.

      Using the force of law to impose one’s religious beliefs on another is exactly the approach that we condemn in the actions of Islamists when they seek to impose Sharia.

      Follow your faith, preach it from the pulpit if you want – but please do not attempt to force it on me or my family.

  64. Okay; I’m a regular reader of this site – I’m relatively young, in my early 30s,

    -I am full on in support of the 2A,
    -I worked my ass off to try to fight the HB-1224 mag cap legislation in Colorado,
    -I voted for Cheri Garou (R) in my district because I thought she was sensible about these issues, but have voted (D) in the past;
    -I am a CCW permit holder,
    -I have gotten about 15-20 friends to come on board in support of 2A and become gun owners,

    But, since I’m obviously a “guest” here in the OFWG circles, please answer this with a yes or no:

    -If I am not anti-gay,
    -If I am not religious or Christian,
    -If I do not care if people smoke pot,
    -If I’m not a fan of Ayn Rand,
    -If I roll my eyes at Rush,

    … I should STFU, FOAD, GTFO, my support isn’t needed, and “not let the door hit me on the way out”, because this tent can afford to be much smaller.

    Yes?
    Just checking. I’ll await instructions.

    • “-If I roll my eyes at Rush,
      … I should STFU, FOAD, GTFO”

      Yes, absolutely.

      Oh, maybe you’re referring to Limbaugh? Nevermind. I was thinking of a different Rush, one that came before Limbaugh’s talk shows. (In my defense, the immediately preceding Rand reference threw me).

    • Now that’s a silly argument. You voted for the people who supported the Second Amendment even if they might be against gay marriage (not the same thing as being anti-gay), liked Rush, an Ayn Rand acolyte and didn’t want to legalize weed. You place a high value on those who support the RKBA over some those other issues.

      A week ago I had exchange with someone here who decided that those other issues are more important then the RKBA. I am not even telling him FOAD. I even gave him a Bravo Zulu for being honest about it. Anybody who supports the Second Amendment in its full meaning should feel welcome here. Even those who don’t are welcome here even we beat on them. That is just the rough and tumble of free speech.

    • Smoke all the dope u want pal. Don’t give a shit what u think really, as long as u vote for pro-second amendment candidates, u r ok with me.

      • +1…and if you contribute to the RKBA +1,000 and if you get out there and fight for the RKBA +1,000,000

        I’ll take all of the allies I can get.

    • Oh, it’s getting smaller, all right. Do you feel like you’ve strayed into an uncaring, country club scene here? Your views, no matter how much they overlap the others, are encapsulated, minimalized, and spit upon?

      Welcome to the other club. The one where members warmly welcomed newcomers, regardless of views on non-2A matters?

      It was a cruel joke; you really stumbled into hostile territory the moment you landed here.

      TURNS OUT THEY DIDN’T MEAN IT. Turns out this is a hornet’s nest of massive intolerance and cruel exclusivity; I’ve seen it many times before; I know it when I see it.

      Nice work. YOU KNOW WHAT? I’m not gonna let the door hot me on the way out. I don’t want to damage YOUR DOOR.

      • William, you sound just as intolerant and angry as some of those you are taking offense over.

        I for sure don’t fit in with either big government wealth redistributing liberal progressives or state worshiping war mongering neo-cons and I don’t get the same feel here that you do. Are there some commentators here from both extremes? Sure, but I’ve also read enough comments by people here who support liberty for all, so I’m just not sure what’s got you so fired up?

        • +1 I think this forum respects 1A as much as 2A, mikeyb McNumeralsface isn’t banned, after all. As such you’re going to read things you don’t like in the comments, as I sometimes do. That’s free speech. We’re all here because we agree on ONE THING, we don’t have to agree on anything else. Sometimes we debate on subjects which aren’t germane to RKBA, once again that’s free speech. If you’re going to get mad and leave because of a few of the views expressed here, then I have to question your methods of dealing with real-world gun-grabbers or people on the fence.

  68. Most if not all of the issues brought up here would be non-issues if folks would focus on this struggle as a civil rights struggle. Leave politics, race, sexual orientation, ie all the pc things that govt uses to categorize us out of the discussion. Civil rights should transcend all of these superfluous issues.

    • Agreed but I’ll go even further about the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” than your label of it being a civil right, it isn’t just a civil right, it’s a fundamental human right and those who infringe upon it are human rights abusers.

  69. As a pro-abortion, pro-pot legalization, pro-gay marriage, pro-black, pro-2A, anti-big government Conservative, I have one question for our departing reader —

    Do you know Dan Baum?

  71. Listen guys and girls the fact is that for the past two decades the vast majority of anti-gun movements have been drafted, vehemently supported, and passed by democrats. If all of you liberal democrat gun owners are sick of getting blamed for the mess we’re in, then at least drop in “behind enemy lines” and help out by telling your Democratic reps they won’t have your vote if they don’t back off from anti-gun legislation. Convince your like-minded friends that not everyone who supports gun rights wants a picture of Jesus in every classroom or women to never have legal abortion as an option. Hell, you can even give libertarianism a try if you’re feeling adventurous. SPREAD THE WORD and be part of the solution.

    • Milsurp,

      I do not blindly support anyone. I may be a pro gun liberal, but if they are gun grabbers they will not get my support.

      We lost in CO by one lousy vote. Evie Hudak is in my district and I will be a liberal working to elect her opponent in 2014. Yep, the CO dems went too far and I’m done with them. There were a few no votes on the dem side but not enough. They were not in my district; but I will work to get them out too.

      I told them I am part of their bloc and that they WILL lose the votes of me and mine if they voted for the gun grabbing laws. I was not bluffing.

      CO voters did NOT want gun control . And it was Not only r’s. If you were here to see the public response, this was clear.

      They ignored all of us.

      They aren’t our kings, they are our representatives.

      And they lied and went against the public.

      Time to fire them.

      • I have no doubt in my mind good people like you worked at it and let your thoughts be known to your reps. I’m not saying there weren’t people coming out in droves of opposition. I’m just giving advice to people all throughout the country.

  72. William tells the truth. I know. I’m old enough to remember the way it was back then, and to know that history did not happen the way the revisionists say it did.

    Aharon and Ralph, do what he said. Look it up.

    • I lived it, so I don’t have to look it up. Jack Kennedy and Scoop Jackson would be spinning in their graves if they knew what had happened to their beloved party. And William wouldn’t know the truth or you if either one bit him on his @ss.

  74. As a representative of the “leave me the hell alone” crowd who could care less what happens on someone elses property, but who gets really pissed when someone tries to tell me what I can do on mine, such as own firearms to protect my family from criminals and tyrants, I have one thing to say to this guy: Get lost. The GOP may be rough around the edges, but guess what, they seem to be the only major political party standing up to the anti-second amendment crowd. I could care less what title someone applies to themselves, but let me be frank. When people who claim to be Communists, Socialists, Progressives, National-Socialist, Fascist, Democrats or Liberals preach in mass the same collectivist, totalitarianist ideology and use the same dirty tactics as these movements in the past, I tend to distrust and despise them. Really, pick your head up and look around. This march toward totalitarianism is real, and the consequences to our country — our lives — is absolutely real…and dangerous. This struggle is happening today. The lines are being drawn in the sand today. When this struggle is over, however far it goes, what side do you want the history books to say you were on? How can anyone not know where they stand on this? ** Sorry for the rant, but it felt good to get that out.

  75. Media,be it cable news, or blogs such as this here… only prey upon many peoples desire for drama or conflict… in a way. It is almost the same system that keeps the country fighting amongst each others, democrats republicans ect. In the end, the people loose. I find it hard myself some days to cut through the layers, from each side… pro and anti. As long as you still support number two, may you live a long and happy life… hopefully as far away from the bs as possible. Good luck.

  77. Mussolini used to rail on about liberals. Of course by liberal he meant free-market capitalists. Words are funny things.

  79. ‘Liberal’ isn’t what modern Democrats are today; they’ve morphed to ‘Leftist’.

    Modern Democrats, post-Carter, have increasingly trended to the Left. After Al Gore lost in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004, Democrats didn’t rush to Center (as Republicans are being urged to and doing so, now, directed by the likes of Karl Rove, the Blue Bloods Bush, Dole and McCain, and pundits of the NRO sort) but instead they embraced their fringe, the far-Left. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and legion ‘Professional Left’ pundits and MSM JournOListers have orchestrated and ‘Community Organized’ once-proud Democrats to their current fever pitch of radicalism.

    Republicans are now ineffectual, confused, and are pushing back against their base; running to ‘Center’, which is not the same Center it used to be. The new Center is much farther to Left than it ever was.

    Over at protein wisdom, Jeff G (a classical Liberal) coined the phrase ‘Losing more slowly’ to describe the shift to Left the GOP takes every time they compromise with Leftists. And every time they compromise, the winners on the Left move farther Left, then demand the GOP move with them. Or they demonize, organize, and buy enough support to win yet another election.

    I voted for Jimmy Carter in ’76, because he was not (yet) a Leftist. And, living in Tennessee, I voted (twice) for Al Gore as US Senator. Again, he was not yet a Leftist, but an NRA-favored ‘Blue Dog’. But I fought heavily against him in 2000, and because he lost Tennessee, he lost the election.

    But we didn’t really win with Bush in there, either.

    But now, today, if one can’t see that we are now on the verge of losing this Republic forever, to some Leftist radical’s CHANGE, isn’t paying attention. I’m thinking that the only way we will get out of this crazy left-pendulum swing is by hitting rock-bottom, and rebuilding.

    Problem with that, rock is hard. Be ready. Those millions of bullets the DHS bought? They aren’t for target practice.

  80. He labels those he disagrees with because they label while blasting them for it? Truth be known he probably got the ax pulled on him for his mouth not his hair.

    His attempt to paint liberals in another light is bogus. Then to top the drivel off he portrays himself as someone who wants rights for all and tolerance for all (which to me is PC BS) then tucks tail and leaves the site because he can’t tolerate it?

    Child please.

    He’s proven himself a typical liberal preaching the hypocritical tolerance of all message then finds he can’t tolerate something (truth in this case) and stomps his foot and gets his feelings hurt and leaves. Ridiculous. Good riddance.

  81. I agree with a lot of what Sr. Bixby says. I’m a pro-gun-rights liberal. Lifetime member of the NRA. Volunteer firearms instructor for youth groups from time to time. But I stopped giving money to the NRA after it became a conservative group instead of just a Second Amendment group. Having said that, I read TTAG because I think this blog represents a more diverse group of gun owners than a lot of other forums. Oh, I’m an ACLU member too. The whole Bill of Rights is pretty cool really. I want to keep it all.

    • I believe that Governmet is creating a diversion by getting different special interests groups to spar with each other to hide the fact that they are not doing their jobs. It seems to be the only thing that they are putting all their effort in.
      There are other fish to fry don’t you think? Like the budget, getting people to work, just to name two.
      I remember when this country was built on pride and hard work. The politicians took from the people and left us a few crumbs. Now they are taking everything and trying to take more.
      Our government(s) wants to keep everyone fighting with each other so they won’t unite and force us to do our job and serve the poeple.

      • It could be. One thing I believe for sure is that certain social issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc. are used drive wedges between people. I guess gun control is one of those issues.

        A bigger problem may be that corporate power is playing so much of a role in our government today that the needs of the country are being subverted for the greed of profiteers. Teddy Roosevelt warned against this in his New Nationalism speech. Today the conservatives have us believing that ideas like Roosevelt’s are liberal socialism and are a threat to liberty.

    • Not a fan of ‘Big Gov’ getting bigger while stealing more of our money while giving us less say in our lives. The ACLU are monsters, by the way.
      You must really hate your liberal friends for trying to take your guns away. I would lose my effing mind talking to those libtards.

      • “Libtards.” I’ve noticed you write that a lot. It reminds me of some of the gun-control people who don’t have any intelligent argument so they call us “gun nuts.” Same kind of thing, and it doesn’t contribute at all to a discussion.

  86. Well, since you like to hark back to the Revolutionary era…..Centrists were the cowards who decided not to fight for either their mother nation or their new one.

    • You should be called Pat 2. There was probaby a pretty confusing time before all the laws were written, when you did not really know where the new country would be headed and were afraid of losing the power, support, and connection with your home country. I think your name is lower case, by the way.
      Pat 1

  87. I love these posts. When thin skinned, whiny little girls, threaten to take their toys and go home if we don’t stop straining their ability to think critically.

    “The people who seek to roll back our liberties – liberties as in ACLU, as in liberal – are not liberals. They are statists.”

    Semantics. “Liberal” is what they call themselves. That’s what we’re talking about when we say liberal and you damn well know it.

    “To equate the two is the same as equating imply and infer, which you likely do. It’s like equating heard and said.”

    You’re right. No one is comparing our founding fathers to the wannabe dictators of today. We’re just calling them by their given name. Get over it.

    “I’m a centrist, and dislike the bashing of same. Centrists are the only ones who actually DO anything in government,”

    You have position 1 and position 2, unthinkingly picking position 1.5 doesn’t make you correct. It just means you’re too intellectually lazy to find out which position is best.

    “Not every gunnie is a conservative, long live the status quo, let’s limit government except in the bedroom ultra-rightist.
    Lots of us believe in liberty. Not in the Patriot Act and “free speech zones” of your recently ousted “God in the White House.””

    What the hell is your point? If you’re talking about the authors then you’re out of your god damn mind. They’re as libertarian a group of gun bloggers as you’re going to find. If you’re talking about the commentators then stay and fight. Don’t just go find an echo chamber somewhere, defend your position you fvckin coward.

    “How did I get here? I was born here, in California in the peace and love sixties. Did you ever have some hic in a pickup threaten you with an axe because of the length of your hair? I did, when was eight. That was in ’70.”

    What the actual fvck are you talkin about? Seriously, what the hell is your point? What does that have to do with anything at all?

  88. I sort of thought this site was more libertarian than anything else. I really do not know where the guy who wrote the article is coming from. I support the Libertarian Pary and voted for Gary Johnson and was for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries. I really have not always been over joyed with some of the Republican Politicians either.

  89. Sure there are liberal gun owners. But when it comes down to it, they punch the voting ticket for the Democratic party, which hates your gun rights. Therefore, when push comes to shove, liberal gun owners, don’t give a damn about their gun rights. If they don’t own an AR 15, they don’t see why anyone would “NEED” an “assault rifle”. As long as nobody comes for their revolver or shotgun, they are cool with that.

    Labels? You mean, NRA members, or TEA Party members or patriot group supporters, who are “more dangerous than muslim terrorist. You mean those labels?

    Put it this way, Mr. Centrist! I am a ONE ISSUE VOTER! Michael Bane, (OUTDOOR TV and podcast guru), says it best! I like, him, pull the lever in the voting booth for GUNS every time. Where a candidate stands on GUNS is all I need to know about that person. You can say you will vote for who will represent your stand on city parks, state taxes, or the multitude of issues. We vote one issue, Guns! Because if those elected persons get peoples right to gun ownership and self defense, they also get that the 2nd amendment isn’t about duck hunting and RESPECT for the 2nd amendment and our REPUBLIC!

    So, leave the Truth about Guns if you wish, your not worthy to call yourself one of us anyway. Mr. Centrist, you DON’T GET IT!

    • “Where a candidate stands on GUNS is all I need to know about that person.”

      I used to apply this philosophy. I voted for whomever the NRA told me to vote. That was until state boards of education began pushing “intelligent design” as an alternative to science class, until Old Man Bush told me that a citizen can’t be both an atheist and an American, until Junior invaded another country without just cause, until Chicken-Hawk Cheney said, “So what?” to my concerns over the misuse of our military, until local politicians here in Tennessee attempted to thwart the First Amendment rights of a group of Muslims to build a community center … and so on. Today I feel that the best I can hope for in contemporary American politics is gridlock so no one can do too much damage to anyone else.

Comments are closed.