“If I walk into a gun store with an Obama T-shirt – which I wouldn’t wear, because he’s too conservative – I don’t fit.” – Liberal Gun Club board member Eric Wooten, Liberals find comfort level in ‘NPR of gun clubs’ [at sfgate.com]
“If I walk into a gun store with an Obama T-shirt – which I wouldn’t wear, because he’s too conservative – I don’t fit.” – Liberal Gun Club board member Eric Wooten, Liberals find comfort level in ‘NPR of gun clubs’ [at sfgate.com]
Interesting article.
I am glad the site is posting stuff like this to draw attention to the broad spectrum of gun owners and hopefully make this blog more approachable for different types of people.
Been there, done that: https://guardamerican.com/index.php/blog/151-personal-self-defense/103-when-you-are-a-target
+1 I liked that article also…
And I read Big Gay Al’s Big Gay Gun blog too.
I live in Austin and I find it interesting that quoting gay people about gun rights issues seems to give more validity to my arguments or resonate more with anti gun people than just using logic alone.
Don’t ask me why.
Surprised? The left has sanctified the queer as defining Politicallly Correct and righteous. Obvoiusly all that one says is more important than a knowledgeble observation from a normal citizen. If Rush announce he discovered he was gay the wackoleft would flock to worship him.
Truth.
I’m not particularly impressed. Not irked, either. The problem with liberal gun owners, just like with Fudds, is that they’re only superficially engaged in the debate and only marginally believe in the 2A. They’re the “2A, but……” crowd because they lack the insight afforded by hindsight. They think it can never happen here. They’re not down for the struggle, because they think there’s nothing to struggle against.
Seeing a liberal gun owner serves only to remind me that such a (rare) thing exists. It’s like seeing a dog walk on its hind legs or a squirrel water ski: yes, it’s out there, but so what? It has no positive impact on anything.
In the article, some even go so far as to state they are 2A absolutist, don’t support background checks (let alone “expanded” ones) and some of the same views those of us post here on TTAG…
Problem is, they’re still progressive liberals who vote for progressive liberals, and the progressive liberal agenda, as a rule, is to get rid of firearms. So they very well may be 2A absolutists, but they still throw their votes away.
You’d be surprised.
I personally known several liberal gun owners who are single issue voters. One is gay.
His reasoning? Being able to marry legally isn’t worth anything if people decide to kill or hurt him for being gay and he can’t legally defend himself.
You’re right, I would be surprised by such. Clearly those are outliers, though, as you concede and I agreed that I would indeed be surprised. The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong…..but that’s the smart money way to bet, anyway.
Well Jonathan. Sounds to me like you have criteria for what makes someone a “good” gun owner. Shall the rest of us line up in the circular firing squad for you?
I do indeed have my own criteria. It’s an important part of being an educated, thinking man. What is most assuredly not part of my thinking, is initiating violence against anyone. As a corollary, I’m not really into wishing or encouraging others to do so, either; not even against themselves. So my answer is “No.”
Would that liberals could in like manner abide by such a live and let live dictum; leaving me and my household firearms in peace. Good day, sir.
I also have my personal criteria for what makes a “good” gun owner. As a (so far at least) free American I have that right.
I am a Second Amendment Absolutist, which means that EVERY American citizen (and some legal immigrants) have the right to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. This in no way limits me from expressing an opinion as to who I think should not do so, as a general rule.
“Not good” gun owners are gangsters, criminals, thugs, and/or dangerously mentally defective individuals who may not generally consider it necessary to refrain from violating my rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc. For that reason I am quite concerned when had-core far-left Progressive Liberals decide to avail themselves of the RKBA because they are my most obvious political opposition and I know that individually and generally they do not respect my rights as a conservative to disagree with them AND they are working separately or as a group to destroy the foundation this nation was created upon.
So yes, they have the same RIGHT to the Second Amendment protections as anyone else, this cannot be denied. It does not mean I have to consider their exercise of that right a good idea for me or for my country. Therefore, IMO, they are NOT “Good gun owners.”
Jonathan, I’m glad you’re so open minded and accepting of the inclusiveness of the People of the Gun. Maybe you could come up here to Maryland and help us Fudds in our fight for our basic rights, since your position is so pure.
No thanks, Bill. You had your chance, but blew it. You’re owned by the government now. Next you’ll be lining up like in CT to get barcoded on your feet or an RFID implanted in your backside.
Now, to the extent that my support of NRA, SAF, GOA and federal officeholders from Texas should happen to help you out, too, that’s great. However, I’m not going out of my way to help you or any other slave-stater who’s sat on his rear for decades, sighed a condescending sigh, and rolled his eyes whenever the rest of us sounded the alarm of statist encroachment. Put another way: I’m not willing to send Texas boys to do what Maryland boys should be doing (really, should have long since done) for themselves. The future is now. Too bad, so sad.
because, of course, those Marylanders surely didn’t avail themselves of all legal measures of fighting the good fight for their gun rights, right? and they blew it because… well, obviously they just got slammed by the government, but this is clearly somehow Marylanders fault for reasons Jonathan — Houston has not clearly defined.
unless Jonathan — Houston meant they should literally have taken up arms against the government early in 2013 or something.
I consider myself an independent, but around here I’m a flaming liberal… and I’m fairly close to the “2A absolutist” side of things.
I was thrilled by the Colorado recalls, because I want Democrats to get the message that they don’t have to like guns… they just need to keep their damned hands off the issue. Do that, and we’re cool.
AKA “Gun Owners for Gun Control.”
Oh, yes…..that’s the brass tacks of the situation.
Let me guess the response: ” Just Because Your a Democrat/leftist voter, you don’t hate the RKBA .So anyone who says otherwise is a racist, bigoted hick .”
Now that we got that out of the way, it’s still wrong, and here’s why-the Democrats ,like it or not, are the only major party with credibility on issues like gay marriage, expanded Abortion , etc.And the Democrats have gun control as a part of the partys core platform.There is no rationalizing that fact away.
If you don’t support the GOP, you’re backing the gun grabbers.Oh yes, I know you’d rather die then ever vote for some repugnant GOP candidate.Yes, I realize a Democrat candidate might appeal to you better because they’re more aligned with social issues.I honestly DON’T have a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with are people who call themselves gun rights activists abd supporters while voting for civil disarmament.You can’t have it both ways, and I respect a voter who says in the clear
“I like guns, but I don’t see the problem with gun laws and can live without them versus legalized marijuana, immigration, and women’s issues.”…..
Rather then the liar who says “Molon Laabe! No more infringements!But universal background checks are a good idea, and who needs 30 rounds anyways…… Ahem..* good stranger, can you direct me to the nearest Democrat campaign office?*”
“If you don’t support the GOP, you’re backing the gun grabbers.”
I think you’re forgetting that some of the most formative gun control measures were signed by GOP presidents, including Reagan.
I’ll be honest and say that I identify closely with this group, and struggle with the fact that if I’m going to vote pro 2A that in most cases it’s going to be a GOP candidate.
Ultimately I feel like government should have a far more limited role than it currently does, including telling women they can’t get an abortion.
+1
I think you’re forgetting that some of the most formative gun control measures were signed by GOP presidents, including Reagan.
I’ll be honest and say that I identify closely with this group, and struggle with the fact that if I’m going to vote pro 2A that in most cases it’s going to be a GOP candidate.
Your second point weakens your first…
Ultimately I feel like government should have a far more limited role than it currently does, including telling women they can’t get an abortion.
Both (major) parties are in favor of a strong State; the question is, which will do more damage to our rights. When it comes to gun rights, the choice is clear.
It’s a matter of priorities. I’d vote Libertarian if I thought they had a chance in Hell of ever winning, but they don’t…and they never (IMHO) will.
+1
I wish there were Libertarian options too. 🙁
A long standing argument I have with my family (who are all very conservative) is that they want limited government… except in the cases of enforcing morality they believe in or litigating against behavior that makes them uncomfortable.
Freedom is freedom. I STILL don’t understand why gay rights is such a hot topic issue and why so many “Christians” freak out about it.
Not working on the sabbath is IN THE 10 COMMANDMENTS but gets no attention, whereas gay marriage is a national debate.
::confused::
With the abortion debate, I understand where the arguments are coming from so it is not nearly as frustrating to me that so many people draw a line in the sand about it.
“Gay rights” is such a hot button issue because the issue is framed in incorrect terms. All gay people in this country have always had a legal right to get married.
The real issue is the definition of marriage. The issue has been framed this way in order to make it easier to demonize anyone opposed.
It infuriates me that progressives have managed to sell this lie so easily to the american people.
@Marcus
I hear what you’re saying but I still don’t understand the issue.
If it’s a Biblical marriage/definition issue, why aren’t people against gay marriage simultaneously going after divorce?
I’d think a 50% divorce rate is a lot more of a threat to traditional marriage than a tiny number of gay people who already can and do adopt kids.
I agree with you on the divorce rate, certainly. A marriage based on procreation does no good if the family implodes in the middle of raising offspring and scarring.
However they are different issues, though closely related. Quite frankly I don’t know why a gay couple would want to borrow form christian tradition. I don’t know why the marriage equality movement hasn’t centered on “civil unions.” It isn’t “separate but equal” as traditional marriage has always been a legal option for any gay individual, in other words a gay person has always had the legal right to get married.
My personal belief is that a union between two people of the same sex is simply different from marriage and that any legal constructs surrounding the issue need to be based in reality. It’s pretty much that simple. To me the marriage equality movement is the logical equivalent of wanting to legislate that pi be equal to 3.
My biggest gripe with the whole thing is that it has allowed some folks to demonize other folks for even attempting to explain their beliefs instead of blindly falling in line.
But I should not forget to mention that I am grateful to receive a response as well spoken as yours.
Than start voting Libertarian.
Luckily, the good thing about the GOP is that yes, there are Republicans, but you also have Libertarians in there that have joined because it’s their best chance to get elected (Hey, look, Ron Paul)
When the Libertarians start fielding candidates from Earth I’ll start considering voting for them.
Wrong. Really the only major gun bill Reagan signed was the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. It amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 by repealing parts of the original act that were deemed by studies to be unconstitutional. The NRA, those anti-2A zealots, lobbied in FAVOR of this bill. So what did it do?
It made it easier to transport long rifles interstate, ended federal records-keeping on ammunition sales and prohibited the prosecution of someone passing through areas with strict gun control with firearms in their vehicle, so long as the gun were properly stored.
Yes, there was that whole machine gun thing. That was slipped into the bill as an 11th hour amendment by Rep. William J. Hughes, a New Jersey Democrat. It’s a judgment call as to what, on balance, expands firearms freedom and legislation is about compromise. I wouldn’t have supported the machine gun amendment, and Reagan should have pushed back on it, too. But you can’t credibly claim the guy is all about going in reverse because he took one step back for three steps forward. Especially against the backdrop of the Brady Bill going nowhere on Reagan’s watch; his post-presidency pronouncements notwithstanding.
I believe Tim is referring to Reagan when he was governor, not president. The Mulford Act was the end of open carry in California. It was passed in 1967 to stop the Black Panthers from holding legally-armed protest marches. Its sponsor was a Republican Assemblyman, and it was signed by Republican Governor Reagan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
Hmmm…perhaps, but that’s not what he said. He referred to presidents, since we’re talking nationally. I’m aware of the open carry law in CA you mention, but that’s a separate issue from national policies. No moving of the goal posts!
Jonathan,
The Reagan point was that GOP presidents have supported certain gun control. Regardless of the severity or geography of the signed, it happened. I believe that the fact that it was localized to CA does not change the matter – it was gun control supported by a GOP president.
Time and place make a huge difference. What works in a given state may not be appropriate on a national scale. What’s reasonable in one era, may not be appropriate in another. What it took to counter domestic terrorists like the Panthers in 1960’s California, who were going around intimidating people, may not be suitable for all of America in the 1980’s.
You’re talking about one state vs. an entire country, and actions separated by a generation. But I’m holding fast: the original point was PRESIDENTS and NATIONAL POLICIES and whether those policies, as the bill Reagan signed, were among the most “formative” of gun control measures. That bill expanded firearms freedom more than restricted them. Seriously, how many firearms owners run around with machine guns vs. those who, say, buy ammunition? That’s less than 1% vs. 100%. The OP was demonstrably wrong, a point which nobody can deny, and I’m not letting anyone move the goal posts to save him.
Abortion I a nice buzzword and is frequently used to paint all conservatives as socially backward or fascist. It’s almost as convenient as simply saying that just because you are conservative you MUST be a racist.
While there are certain far-right and zealously religious factions within conservatism who are “No abortion” absolutists, I think you will find that the majority of conservatives, and quite possibly Libertarians as well, are more inclined to say, “You may not arbitrarily kill your unborn child,” than to demand “You CANNOT have an abortion.” Reasonable people, and IMO the majority of conservatives are reasonable people, understand that the government has no authority to mandate this issue and that for each individual the situation and the resolution of the issue is personal and variable.
If a man shoots his pregnant girlfriend through the womb with a .22 LR with intent to and the result of causing her to lose the baby is he guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, or murder? Keep in mind that in MOST cases, without outside intervention, the baby in the womb WILL be born. At what point do natural rights go into effect?
It depends on the laws of the state, you may live in a state where it’s considered murder, but in other states it’s either not murder or it’s a separate charge. Take a look at Connecticut for an example, they have a separate felony charge for killing the fetus unless the fetus is delivered and lives unassisted for a certain timespan before expiring. There are no absolutes in the Abortion debate no matter how you wish to frame it. You may believe it’s murder from day 1 of conception, but the law in does not.
Work to change the law if you don’t agree with it.
Conservative inflexibility on abortion mirrors Anti-gun Democrat inflexibility on the RKBA. Both are emotion and not logic driven.
How quickly we forget… http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/robert-farago/pascal-ttags-ai-ct-gun-owners-judge/
How do you change a party’s platform?
One way is to vote for another party. However, when that option isn’t readily available (as in those states where a party has a super-majority), being a part of the party in power gives you a voice for change.
Let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth. These folks have influence, too, and alienating them doesn’t help the overall RKBA cause.
Really, if you’re voting GOP because of gun control, I can’t fault you for that. The GOP is far from perfect and is no sure bet on gun control either, but gun control has been part of the Democrat party platform for a long time. Fair enough.
But that also means that you can’t change the Democratic party platform. They don’t care what you want because you’ll never vote for them.
But they do have to care about these people. These are the people who could shift the party away from gun control. At the very least, they’re going to have a better chance of converting someone on the far left than a conservative ever will.
And the leftist statists are also ELITISTS, with special consideration these days going to the LGBT crowd. Don’t think for a minute that they do not fully believe that even if the rights of conservatives and most others to keep and bear arms were taken away there would be a carve-out for them because of their potential victim status and their elite place in the Progressive/Liberal pantheon.
They do not give a shit about us or the Second Amendment and will quickly switch to “Gun rights for gays!” rather than “Gun rights for all!” if the political situation requires it.
Fascism, socialism and communism are historically leftist systems and once in power THEY are the ones with the guns AND the right to guns, in order to enforce their political ideals on those of us who want none of it. How quickly the forget, or fail to learn, that none of those historic socialist/fascist systems had much tolerance for LGBTs once the revolution succeeded. Can you say “Useful idiots?”
Here’s the problem with your strictly Democrat vs Republican argument; the last presidential election. All my adult life, even though I was until very recently a registered Democrat (just changed to no party affiliation) I never voted strictly along party lines. I always voted for the candidate and that means I voted Republican (Reagan &Nixon nationally and others locally) when I felt they were the better candidate. In the last presidential election we had a Democratic candidate who all the conservatives suspected might support gun control vs. a Republican whose proven gun control record was conveniently ignored. Do you seriously believe, post-Newtown, that Romney would have acted differently than Obama, given his record while Governor of Mass? My ccw instructor was constantly reminding us to be careful for whom we voted. The record shows it wouldn’t have made any difference.
I respectfully submit that having Obama as president actually DID make a difference. If Romney had been elected he would have pushed for the same gun control packages that Obama pushed for. With a Republican president pushing for the law the House and Senate Republicans would not have held out against it. A good amount of the resistance to the gun laws was simply partisan.
I am an Independent and a Liberal. I am also a Gun Rights Advocate. I support the Second Amendment… without a “but”. I have been to the state capital and demonstrated on the steps three times last year and appeared on local TV all three times. In the final protest, the local Public Broadcasting station aired my interview and followed it by having a House Republican and a House Democratic representative both answer my interview by saying (both at the same time and using the same words “there is no way the proposed restrictions will pass”.
Being a Liberal, in my case properly identified as a classical liberal, does not mean you must be anti-gun. For me, it means “quit telling me how to live my life”. I support abortion, gay marriage, legalized pot and, oh yeah, gun rights. I see absolutely no contridiction here.
As for who i support and vote for? The PARTIES are divided along entrenched lines. That does not mean that either party can depend on my vote. I tend to be a single issue voter when there is a strong anti-gun candidate. When there is no difference on guns, I have to look deeper and choose which demon I will vote for. In some cases it may be a R, some cases a D and, when it is an option, an I.
Don’t assume you know Liberals. Painting with a broad brush alienates your natural ally along with your enemy.
What if we all agreed that the federal government is an abomination and just stopped funding the whole damn thing and we each minded our own business? Is that something we can agree on?
Or, on a more limited scale, what if we each made the following pledge:
“I (state your name) do solemnly swear, that I will continue from this day forward, to be the same dumb asshole I’ve always been, and to ask no more than the same from my fellow citizens. However, I hereby pledge that I will limit my assaholism to my personal capacity and will never again call upon the violent, coercive power of government to force my assaholism on my neighbors, no matter how much fun that might appear. I may, in my personal capacity as a private asshole, do my utmost to obtain the silence, speech, money, property, complicity, endorsement, respect, time and attention of my neighbors. However, I will not vote for, nor will I tolerate or accept, the government’s violent assistance in furtherance of same. Further, I now, forever and publicly, grant to you my countrymen, permission to kick me in the crotch until death, if I should ever, in any manner, seek to use violence, mine or the government’s, in furtherance of my assoholic nature. So help me (insert deity or houseplant of your choosing)”
As far as defending the government, that would require several million people to change their tax withholding status simultaneously so that exactly zero dollars are withheld from their paychecks. It’s a very nice idea, but it’s exactly the sort of thing that a withholding tax is designed to obviate.
GAH! *defunding the government.
Romney would not have pushed for gun control after Sandy Hook for two reasons:
1) Romney lost the race because conservatives stayed home. Had he won, it would only have been because *barely* enough conservatives showed up to vote. He wouldn’t have turned and spurned them on his first day in office, certainly not his first term.
2) Romney wouldn’t have pushed because Romney doesn’t push. He’s a pushover. He runs from hard fights, he sure doesn’t pick fights. He won the governorship in 2002 with a slender 4% margin and a 49% plurality. He snuck into office. By 2006, his approval rating was in the 30%’s and he was doomed. That’s why he didn’t run for re-election: he didn’t want the fight and he didn’t want the loss on his record when he ran for president. No way he’d go all out in a no-win crusade like gun control.
Oh, and to suggest that Republicans only opposed it because they partisanly oppose Obama ignores two facts:
1) Several Dem senators also opposed the bill and were the ones whose votes made the difference. Are they partisan anti-Obamites? No, they represent red states, just like the Republicans, and don’t want to lose re-election. They feared their voters just like Republicans do.
2) Conservatives WILL turn on a Republican who betrays them. We see that with McCain, Rubio, and Perry on illegal alien amnesty. We see that with McConnell and Cornyn on Obamacare.
So no, none of that gun grabbing nonsense would have happened were it not for Obama being in office.
Yes, because he was a Republican Governor is a state that is 80% Democrat. He ran as far to the right as he could in Massachusetts and still win. Look what happened to Scott Brown who ran slightly farther to the right than Romney. He lost to the fraudulant Elizebeth Warren who was terrible campaigner on top of it. You cannot predict what Republican from a northeastern state will do when he is President based on what he did in his state.
Thre is another factor that you ignore. Romney knows how to count votes. He would not risk is credibility by supporting a bill that is going to go down to defeat.
Actually, I think Braenen nailed it (nice job Braenen). Nearly all of the opposition to anything Obama puts forth, regardless of merit, is strictly partisan politics at it’s absolute worst. Romney, with his proven gun control record, would’ve pandered to the anti-gun hysteria post-Newtown just like any politician and there would’ve been a much better chance of success with him in office.
That’s an opinion backed by prejudice and not fact and you know what they say about of opinions.
Joel? Romney’s no 2A tough guy, I’ll agree, so he’d never fight for us. But for him to pander to the anti-gun hysteria would make no sense. What would he gain? Nothing. The same liberals who didn’t vote for him before would still not vote for him. Conservatives who stayed home in 2012 would stay home again in 2016; only joined by new, freshly disillusioned conservatives who had voted for Romney once. Once….
Romney’s big agenda would have been the economy, because had he won, it would have been on that issue. You’re saying he would have tackled gun control, and ignored the issue that just got the last guy fired? Don’t think so.
It seems to me many people missed the presidential debates, including the one in which Romney promised not to back new gun restrictions. We got what we wanted out of him and then it didn’t matter, because people decided they didn’t trust either candidate. What good is it to extract commitments if it doesn’t affect the vote and voter turnout?
Romney’s word on gun control is worth exactly the same amount that Obama’s word for “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” is worth.
Romney can say what he wants. He would have seen the “support” for gun control and pushed it like it were crack.
In Maryland, declaring no party affiliation means that you can’t vote in the primaries. That’s where there is the most bang for the buck, if you will, because you actually have a tiny sliver of a voice in directly selecting the candidate, rather that through a delegate at a convention. I can still be a DINO or RINO, or vote Libertarian, or write in Mickey Mouse in the general election, but I had more of a hand in shaping the election itself by declaring a party affiliation. See how that works?
And the way the administration is mutating the country into Third World status, there may be a lot more DINOs and RINOs than you think among the Fudds. We’ll see in November.
If this isn’t the way your state runs, never mind…
I’m pro-freedom. And that means that, every election, I have to choose between the party that respects my 1st Amendment rights or the party that respects my 2nd Amendment rights.
I wouldn’t have to make that choice if the GOP were the defenders of freedom they claimed to be.
You seriously think the leftist progs that currently control the DNC are better on 1st amendment rights than the GOP? I cannot see where you are coming from on that at all.
+100. The Democrats do not support anything in the Constitution. They believe in an autocratic arbitrary government of men and not laws.
If our Libertarian contingent ever sat down at actually read the entire Constitution they would be appalled by what is in it. They act like the only thing in the Constitution is the Bill of Rights. I am sure they don’t even know why it was there. There was sufficient opposition to creating a Central Government with any power that in order to secure the votes for ratification that the rights that we fought for in the Revolution were secured from abuse. The Bill of Rights made things explicit. Having created Leviathan the Founding Father sought to chain it.
I’m not Christian. When someone is trying to force my children to pray to your god in the public schools, it’s not a Democrat. When someone says that only Christians can be patriots in this country, only Christians can be true citizens, it’s not a Democrat.
KR:
Allowing someone to pray in school is not forcing your child to do anything. What people like you are saying that you are offended by other’s speech or in this case non-speech about religion and you want that speech stopped. I am sure it comes as surprise to you, and many like you, that the ban on prayer in the public schools or any public venue did not start in 1787. It is a product of the Warren Court in the 1960s. I don’t think anyone would claim that prior to 1960 the US was a theocracy. The expunging of relgious values held by the majority is just a Progressive attack supported by people who call themselve Libertarians, on another aspect of civil society. The destruction of all competing social institutions is a major objective of Progressives. Without these mediating institutions there is nothing between you and the government.
Faux Libertarians elevate personal autonomy over all else. They ally themselves with Progressives because civil society is actually a bigger constraint on personal autonomy than government.
For those who dream of prayer in school, consider the implications:
http://egregores.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/prayer-in-school.jpg
tdiinva, unless you’re completely ignorant, you know it’s not about “allowing” a child to pray, it’s about prayer as a part of a group school activity. A staff member taking part of a class period or assembly to lead a prayer is improper, but it’s equally improper for them to turn a portion of the same over to a student for the same purpose.
On the other hand, if a group of students wants to meet at lunch to pray, that’s their business, and any school interference with that is unconstitutional. The ACLU has taken cases challenging such actions and won.
Carlos:
Moments of silence have been struck down as unconstitutional even though you can do anything during the moment, pick your nose, fantasize about Miley Cyrus or say a prayer. The national ACLU has never supported a student’s right to free exercise of religion on any school property. Some state and local chapters have had the integrity to do so.
Couldnt agree more, theyve become pseudo defenders at best, taking the stance only when it is beneficial and ALWAYS with a “but….”. All politicians see in only one color: green.
KtR,
Don’t wait until election night. Each political party begins at the local level. Find out where/when your local party (either one) meets. You might be surprised at how few people actually run the parties. I don’t want to be all roses and sunshine about our political process but the fact is you can accomplish 1000 time as much by being involved in the local party as you can by casting your vote. You don’t have to like everything the party believes in just to show up at a meeting.
+1
+ 1 billion
Remember the famous “New England town meetings?” That’s them outside the Northeast, and more powerful than City Hall meetings.
“I can’t put money into a group that gives campaign contributions to people who (say) how terribly wrong it is to walk down the street holding my girlfriend’s hand,” Hoeber said.
So instead, she’ll (presumably) put money into groups that give campaign contributions to people that not only say how terribly wrong it is own and carry firearms, but actually pass legislation prohibiting her from doing so.
This is why I don’t give money to either.
Fuck bipartisan politics.
When I read the article I got the impression that these are the type of “liberals” who would agree with the statement: “The only reason Socialism hasn’t worked yet is that we haven’t had the right people in charge.”
I think the quote is: “The only reason Socialism hasn’t worked yet is we haven’t killed enough people.” Paraphrased about French communism as I recall.
Didn’t they say that just before Pol Pot came to power?
You’re getting socialism confused with communism and revolutionary Marxism.
It may or may not be an effective economic system in the long term, and it isn’t conducive to the kind of individualism we tend to value, but Europe is proof that socialism works as a peaceful, democratic system.
Is it? Two problems with Europe as an example of success in socialism-
First, the United States bankrolled a huge part of their collective defense against the Warsaw Pact, which gae them extra funds available for social welfare spending. I have to wonder if their programs are sustainable in the face of proper national defense spending. The fact that the Cold War effectively stopped all the intra-European fighting that had happened over the previous several centuries didn’t hurt, either.
Second, and this is too complex a subject to be completely explored here, but I also have to wonder how much of the low Western European birth rate is from the rise of the technological society and its attendant drawing of time away from traditional family raising, and how much is from a more general shift in attitude from socialism affecting their worldview. Either way, they stand to be displaced and overwhelmed by waves of poor foreigners, drawn to the comparatively huge government benefits.
The point is, if there’s something inherent in the European way of life that leads them to go extinct, it’s not a perfect model of success as a culture.
Truth
Well…It’s sort of technically true. They are simply glossing over the fact that our species is incapable of producing the “right” individuals.
Plain and simple, this proves that Liberals are cognitively dissonant. On the other hand, it proves that some of them are also aware of the value of a gun, for when the Final Solution is implemented, some of them will be doing the implementing and no doubt will enjoy themselves immensely. At least for a short while they will.
I am pretty sure that, outside of economics, a liberal that supports gun ownership is called a libertarian.
“Outside of economics” there isn’t a whole lot left.
Most “libertarians” are against abortion rights and gay marriage. They’re just Republicans who like to smoke weed.
nothing wrong with smoking a little weed. there are worst things like alcohol.
What if you smoke weed while you drink alcohol?
So, libertarians don’t exist in state where weed is legal then?
Erm…
What are your sources for this claim? I consider myself Libertarian and the vast (99%) of other Libertarians I have met want the government out of all citizen’s personal lives.
I know the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”, but I am a former moderator at DebatePolitics and I can’t name a single self-identified “Libertarian” on that site who was not pro-life and anti-gay. Apparently, while taxation is morally intolerable slavery, forced gestation is just “allowing nature to take its course”.
Well for what it’s worth, I am Libertarian and pro-choice and pro gay marriage.
My personal views on morality are irrelevant and I won’t even mention them. Freedom is freedom.
Where people back me into a corner though is how long abortion should be legal for and what constitutes a late term abortion.
I will admit I don’t have answers for these questions.
No. They often view the fetus as a human being. It is not a question of whether or not a woman has the right to get an abortion or not, it has always been a question of whether or not a fetus is a human being, and being against abortion is the pro-rights position if a fetus is a human.
They are not about violating a woman’s right to an abortion, they are about upholding the rights of a new human.
To say they are against abortion rights is to assume they share your view on the underlying issue, which they do not.
And no, there is no basic, scientific proof that fetuses are not human. The scientific evidence points to a fetus being alive, being human, and not being part of the mothers body.
KtR,
I can agree to statement A below if you can agree to statement B
A: If a fetus is NOT a human being, then neither I nor the government (even a government with exceedingly broad powers) have any interest in that fetus and it would be wrong for either I or the government to take any action to prevent abortion.
B: If a fetus IS a human being, then I and the government (even a government with exceedingly narrow powers) owe that human being the same duties and recognition of rights as any other human being and it would be wrong for any person, including that human being’s mother, to kill that human being.
What I’m getting at here, is that abortion is a matter one’s view of facts, not a matter of one’s political philosophy.
A fetus is a human being. Period. But arguing that it has a “right to life” is false– nobody has any right to any thing that another person must be forced to provide. This is core Libertarian doctrine, yes? This is the basis of their rejection of supposed liberal “rights” such as the right to a job and the right to healthcare.
And the thing is, that fetus is growing *inside* of a woman. That fetus is attached to her body and it is deriving nutrients from her body and it is imposing changes upon her body. That’s all well and good if she wants a baby and is willing to subject her body to those things– but if she doesn’t, then forcing her to endure those things for the sake of the fetus is subjecting her to involuntary servitude and violating her right to self-defense.
It doesn’t matter whether or not a fetus is a human being. It’s also growing within a human being, and that human being has rights that supercede any rights it can claim to have.
KtR,
Are you then in favor of repealing all laws which make the state in loco parentis? As well as all laws which prosecute parents for failing to care for their children? Same with the state’s ability to terminate parental rights?
It’s going to be 30 below tonight. If at some point I no longer consent to my children consuming my food, clothing, and shelter, may I eject them from my home without moral consequence? Would you object to the state punishing me for doing so?
Certainly a human fetus has no more right to life than anyone else. However, if someone crushed my skull with giant pincers, the state would punish that person. Since you concede that a fetus is a human being, how do you morally differentiate the two? Because one needs his mother? I’m 37 and my mom’s making me dinner tonight.
Apologies for screwing up the threading, but I couldn’t get a reply link on your last post.
There *is* a fundamental difference between the child in the womb and the child in the crib, or at least in the relationship of the parents to the latter– the child in the crib, the parents have *consented* to support the child, by taking the child home from the hospital and giving the child their family name and signing the birth certificate. This is a thing they have agreed to do, and can thus be held legally responsible for.
And even then, society recognizes the right of the parents to sever this relationship. Not immediately, and not at the expense of the child’s safety– but that’s rather the difference between removing an unwanted child from your *uterus* and removing a formerly wanted– and welcomed– child from your *couch*. There’s also the fact that non-lethal options *exist* to remove an unwanted child from your home, that do not exist when the child is occupying your uterus.
And in reference to your relationship with your mother, I support her right to self-defense– if you attempt to attach yourself to her uterus and induce metabolic changes in her body, she has the right to stick a pair of cartoonishly giant scissors in your now adult-sized skull and vacuum your fully-deveoped adult brains right out.
If all you’re doing is coming over to her house for a nice dinner, her rights are pretty much limited to guilt-tripping you about not calling her more often.
Call your mother; she worries. And enjoy your dinner tonight.
KtR,
I find it interesting that while our conversation has wandered far afield, we’ve managed to circle back to the original issue of the blogpost: Are “pro-gun” “liberals” (I’m not using quotes as a term of insult, I’m just acknowledging that both of those terms are ambiguous) a pure good for the community or is there some cost?
Specifically, I take issue with your understanding of the very right of self defense which the 2A community holds dear. The lack of a less than lethal option is but one element of the legal defense known as self defense, the other element include reasonable foreseeability of harm. The slow loss of nutrients via an organ designed to deliver those nutrients would not suffice for this element in any context outside of the womb.
More importantly, your identification of assailants is flawed. Assault requires specific intent on the part of the assailant. The fetus of course has no such intent. In fact, it would appear that the mother has put the fetus in the position—the egg, fallopian tubes, uterus, and vagina all belong to her, don’t they? The fetus didn’t bring about the conditions which put him there—she did. Of course menstruation, ovulation, fertilization, cell division, etc. may all be non volitional acts on her part but they are certainly not attributable to the fetus. Tort law does impose a duty to rescue where one’s acts (intentional or negligent) put another in a position to require rescue.
At worst, the fetus’s status would be that of an unintentional trespasser, and in that case, the law does not allow deadly force to remove the unintentional trespasser. More appropriately, the fetus would be a presumed invitee or foreseeable trespasser. If a homeowner has a sidewalk, the law presumes that he invites pedestrians to walk down that sidewalk. This is so even if the sidewalk was there when he bought the home, or if his HOA requires him to have a sidewalk. In that case, not only may he not exclude pedestrians from the sidewalk, he owes them certain duties such as maintaining a safe sidewalk; this is so even if he in fact does not consent to people using the sidewalk. The law is similar for foreseeable trespassers. If a landowner has a junkyard, and local children have habitually trespassed there, then the landowner owes certain duties to those children even though they are trespassers; he may not kill them.
“I find it interesting that while our conversation has wandered far afield, we’ve managed to circle back to the original issue of the blogpost: Are “pro-gun” “liberals” (I’m not using quotes as a term of insult, I’m just acknowledging that both of those terms are ambiguous) a pure good for the community or is there some cost?”
It would seem to me that being pro-gun is a clear issue of right and wrong; self defense is an individual right and community defense is a collective responsibility, and all but the least intrusive of gun regulations are unwarranted infringements upon our ability to exercise that right and uphold that responsibility. Thus it is always objectively more correct to be pro-gun, and encouraging everyone to adopt pro-gun attitudes and political positions is objectively good.
We can argue about the rightness of other liberal positions: for my part, I adopt some and reject others, in largely the same absolute moral terms. I am pro-choice in the same fashion that I am pro-gun, and for the same reason, the two being my highest political priorities and the only issues for which I am willing to overlook all other moral concerns. Fundamentally, while other policy debates concern matters of the general welfare, these are matters of fundemental liberty, the difference between freedom and slavery.
“The lack of a less than lethal option is but one element of the legal defense known as self defense, the other element include reasonable foreseeability of harm. The slow loss of nutrients via an organ designed to deliver those nutrients would not suffice for this element in any context outside of the womb.”
I am curious as to how you define “harm”, then. From my perspective, the foreseeability of harm in pregnancy is 100%; pregnancy induces profound chemical and structural changes in the woman, some of which are permanent. The most desirable result of a perfectly ideal pregnancy is a medical procedure that takes hours to complete and weeks– if not longer– to recover from. The harm of an *ideal* pregnancy is considerably greater than the harm of simple assault, and the risk of greater harm is likewise very real.
“Assault requires specific intent on the part of the assailant.”
For the purposes of criminal prosecution, yes. For the purposes of justifying self-defense, it does not. I have the same right to shoot dangerous animals and crazy people as I have to shoot deliberate criminals.
“At worst, the fetus’s status would be that of an unintentional trespasser, and in that case, the law does not allow deadly force to remove the unintentional trespasser.”
Again, there is a considerable difference in the degree of intrusiveness between an unwanted person in your yard and an unwanted person in your uterus. Intentional or otherwise, the law would absolutely allow you to shoot someone to prevent them from subjecting you to similar physiological changes as occur in pregnancy.
“If a homeowner has a sidewalk, the law presumes that he invites pedestrians to walk down that sidewalk. This is so even if the sidewalk was there when he bought the home, or if his HOA requires him to have a sidewalk. In that case, not only may he not exclude pedestrians from the sidewalk, he owes them certain duties such as maintaining a safe sidewalk; this is so even if he in fact does not consent to people using the sidewalk. The law is similar for foreseeable trespassers. If a landowner has a junkyard, and local children have habitually trespassed there, then the landowner owes certain duties to those children even though they are trespassers; he may not kill them.”
Are you seriously arguing, then, that womens’ reproductive organs are like public throughfares that must be maintained for the benefit of all passers-by? Because that argument is pretty much the exact logical conclusion of the pro-life position and the exact reason that I feel morally compelled to opposed that position as a form of State-imposed slavery.
KtR,
Your last post, like your self defense or as I call it, the “blame the fetus” argument in general, ignores the fact that this entire situation began with the volitional act of at least one person (the man in the case of rape) or, much more often, two people–neither of whom are the fetus, and one of whom is the mother herself, or the “victim” in your self defense argument. The fetus did not decide, and took no action, to attach himself to his mother’s womb. The mother’s body and physiology did all of that. Even if she was raped, her body did all of the work after fertilization. (Certainly we can’t blame her for that since these functions are non voluntary, but the same can be said for the fetus’ attachment to the uterus) More importantly, her body did all of that AFTER, one or more people (in most cases to include the mother) deliberately engaged in conduct, the natural result of which is pregnancy.
To attempt to put this in the context of your self defense argument, self defense requires “an absence of aggression or provocation;” . State v. Soukup, 656 N.W.2d 424, 428 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Apr. 29, 2003). See also State v. Basting, 572 N.W.2d 281, 285 (Minn.1997). Of course, defining provocation in this context is forcing a square peg in a round hole, as is the entire self defense abortion argument. However, provocation doesn’t require an absolute certainty that one’s acts would provoke an assault, only that an assault would be reasonably foreseeable.
Applying your understanding of self defense to the average concealed carry enthusiast would appear to invite just the parade of horribles the anti gunners are always telling us about–every bar fight ending in a gunfight, etc.
At that point, you’re arguing that the woman’s consent to one activity with one person constitutes an agreement– a contract– with another person, who does not even exist at the time of the original activity. I don’t think the argument that sex is consent to pregnancy holds water.
No one was talking about contract law. One does not need to contract to refrain from killing some one. In the absence of a contract, A may still not kill B.
We’re talking about your position that the fetus is a human being, and that the killing of that human being is lawful because the fetus is assaulting the mother and the mother is acting in self defense. There are limits on the right, or excuse, of self defense. One limit is that there must be no provocation. In plain English, the fetus is there, attached to the mother because she put him there. She doesn’t need to have consented or contracted to anything, she brought about the very situation which she now claims is an assault. That is the definition of provocation, which means this cannot be self defense.
If I incessantly curse at and insult a fellow bar patron, he will probably just walk a way and not assault me. Subjectively, I can say that I have not consented to being pummeled. However, the patron becoming enraged and using physical force against me is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of my behavior. If we came to blows and I am charged with assault, arguing self defense would not avail me.
That is exactly right in today’s context. Prior to the 1980s Libertarians focused on markets and republican government. A Libertarian could be for or against abortion. For or against drug legalization. For or against legalized vice. These were not make or break issues because they believed that proper place to decide these things through representative government. In the 1980s this kind of Libertarianism was corrupted by Friedman’s economic determinism and Rand’s objectivism. Objectivism itself was a rejection of classical liberal emphasis on civil society. Basically the Libertarian movement was taken over by 60s radicals who saw the value of free economic exchange and found that Rand’s objectivism supported their lifestyle choices. If you compare Libertarian positions with Democrats and Republicans the only place where they are compatible with Republicans is on economics. They have more in common with the most radical elements in the Democratic Party than anybody else. We no longer have a Libertarian movement in the United States. Libertarianism is just market oriented radical syndicalism.
Generally, using “liberal” with a small “l” denotes the classical political term from history which equates liberal with liberty and libertarian. To use that in the modern political context is either disingenuous, or an intentional misdirection.
At the beginning of the 20th century Democrats were Progressives and to a great degree enamored of the Fascists. When those political labels became unpopular they co-opted the liberal label as Liberal in the sense of according people social liberty as opposed to political liberty.
Libertarians generally want smaller and less intrusive government. They do not want the government attempting to control every portion of our lives. This is a far cry from giving absolute freedom and license to do whatever you want. The government does have SOME legitimate functions, after all. (See the Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 8.) To equate the big “L” Liberal with the general political opinions of a modern Libertarian is absolutely wrong. There may be some small areas of overlap, there are few areas of agreement.
You have to give the lady in the article credit…Marlene has great taste in pistols. That tricked out S&W in what looks to be .44 special is the cat’s meow.
What they fail to realize is that the NRA would spit the vitriol just as harshly at GOP members who push an anti-gun agenda. It just so happens that the DNC has gun control has part of their party platform, so it is simply natural that the NRA would set their sights on Democrats as a whole.
I hope that this group gains influence and can begin to erode support for gun control from within the liberal enclaves as we chip away at their armor from the outside. Maybe their castle of sand and glass can fall.
Then how in the world did Romney get the NRAs approval after denying his peoples 2nd amendment rights? make no mistake, what ever excuses people like to throw up he DID sign an AWB as governor yet he got a fantastic rating from the NRA. Why would they do such a thing especially for a man running for the most powerful seat in the nation?
Hopefully this helps us get past the myopic view of ‘liberals.’ There are plenty of conservatives who vote for Republicans for one issue but disagree with their stance on other issues – the Log Cabin Republicans come immediately to mind.
This is a very good thing. Liberals stand for many very popular opinions, Democrats, on the other hand, our ‘liberal’ party, have added gun control to their list of stances. Anything that we can do to divorce liberalism from gun control is positive. If there were more pro-gun democrats then no gun control could ever get passed… When everyone who’s pro-gun flees the Democratic Party it leaves the Democratic Party free to adopt as many extreme anti-gun measures as it wants since it’s electorate either doesn’t care or agrees with the anti-gun message. Pro-gun democrat is not an oxymoron – If there were more of them guns would be a political no-no since neither side would have an anti-gun electorate. Cheer these people.
I’m fiscally conservative but socially liberal. What befuddles me is that gun control is deemed by leftists to be a socially liberal cause, when it’s really a suppression of freedom and a removal of choice. Why does the ACLU protect our civil rights yet is for the most part deafeningly silent on the 2nd, even going so far as to contradict Heller and state it is a collectivist right (yet deeming all other rights an individual one)?
“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
Gotta love Heinlein.
I don’t care what your political or sexual orientation is. If you want to learn about the safe and legal ways to employ a gun to defend yourself, I’ll be happy to teach you and spend the time sharing what I know. First, because everybody’s got a God-given and blessed right to defend themselves. Second, if I can make friends with you on this issue, you may change your voting preferences to pro-gun down the line.
I would like to be able to take my guns to the gun range with my married gay friends using public transit while breathing pollution free air forever.
I’d rather go there riding a pony.
Unicorn.
Don’t forget politcians’ tendency to misrepresent/mislead/misdirect on issues they want to advance but can’t get away with doing so openly. And this translates to creating false-flag operations groups to help give them cover – MAIG, MDA, both being good examples. I simply mistrust someone to their core who would find reasons to be “uncomfortable” around shooters as a group, since shooting folks tend to be no-nonsense & uncomplicated, family-oriented people. Having a discomfort problem in those circumstances is a lot more telling than bringing a ham tray to a bar mitzvah.
You know, this is turning into a real internal conflict for me. I doubt anyone has noticed, but since the huge response to the Phil Robertson post (which I participated in) I’ve largely absented myself from the comments here, and any activity on the forum.
I AM a liberal, on every subject except guns. I question whether the people who self identify as liberals now are the real thing, though, since they seem to have thrown away the Liberty part of Liberal in favor of a sort of compulsory collective progressive agenda. This is not the Democratic Party I grew up (born in ’48) with. I was born into a Union family, surrounded by active members of the UAW and UMW. Without that form of collective effort we would still be living in an exploitative Bangladeshi type, sweatshop and industrial disaster prone society. Group efforts like industrial unions are a good thing when organized by the workers themselves. When imposed from above, not so good.
I believe in maximum freedom for the individual, and a social contract based on the golden rule. A lot of the comments here, particularly on the Gays, Negroes, Ducks, and Beards post, just remind me how many members of the “gun culture” want liberty for themselves but are ready to throw folks they really don’t know anything about (and have no interest in learning about) under the bus.
I most certainly can’t support much of the left’s current social planning, but if you think I could vote for any of the modern crop of Republican hate mongers you’re mistaken. They flat out scare me, almost as much as the Obamanistas.
So, what do I do? I can’t vote for a party full of racists, creationists, climate change deniers, and other fugitives from reality, and I find it hard to go along with their opponents either.
I guess the main reason I won’t give up my guns is that I don’t trust ANYONE in twenty-first century politics.
I’ve voted in every election since I turned twenty-one, but I honestly don’t see any potential candidates on the national level that I can support in any way.
I tell you, it’s a pisser.
word
I grew up in poor rural Mississippi. EVERYONE used the N word. Then when I reached a certain age I learned that that is something you just do not say. We should know better and move on. Is that Liberal? I do not think so. But because I grew up in poor rural Mississippi I get what Paula Dean said and understand why she said it. It was not an issue for me. I also understand what Duck Dynasty guy had to say because I grew up around people who feel the same way. I do not. I have moved on beyond that. Is that Liberal? I do not think so. As far as Liberal and Democrat, I miss the JFK Liberal Democrat types. Diane Feinstein can go suck an egg and several other Liberal Democrats too for that matter.
Good Post LeadBelly.
This is why I’ve taken to calling them “progressives,” because of the leftist fetish for endlessly attempting to push society towards a Utopian condition.
Quite frankly this whole thread is chock full of folks not quite understanding what the other side actually believes. One of the biggest problems with political discourse is folks seem to be reluctant or unable to say exactly why what someone said is “hateful.” Though by and large the closer to libertarian /classical liberal someone seems to be, the better they seem to be at explaining exactly why they hold their own beliefs and exactly what they see as a problem in the opposition’s beliefs.
I do hope you understand that neither believing something is sinful or wishing to uphold traditional marriage is either hateful or mongering.
Denying some people equal protection under the law because your god called them “abominations” *is* hateful.
^ Pretty much this.
There are lots of things I am personally not happy with or don’t support that I believe should be legal.
Why? I believe in freedom. Freedom does not mean that only things I do or am comfortable with are protected.
They are not being denied equal protection under the law. The exact same rights to marriage are available to gays as are to straights. Many gay people have even gotten married. The push is to have something different from marriage be included under the word “marriage.”
It does bother me greatly to have something called hateful when it is clearly not based in hate.
I think you will find that it is a very small minority who actually want to outlaw homosexual activity, and that they vote for both of the major parties.
Can you acknowledge that it’s possible for someone to oppose government sanctioned gay marriage without being anti-gay? If a group wanted to pass a law saying that every single shot hunting gun must be referred to as a “Legitimate Sporting Weapon” I would oppose that even though I like all kinds of guns including single shots.
Using the violent power of government to get society’s stamp of approval (marriage certificate) on your relationship, when you know full well, that many within that society do not approve of your relationship, is an act of violence and dishonesty.
Of course, we as a society are originally to blame for ever putting a social institution in the hands of the government, and we deserve what we get. The government never should have been in the relationship approval business.
Really? So there’s one thing a gay couple can do that allows them to file as married for tax purposes, allow them to be legally family in a medical emergency, have full access to bank accounts etc?
No, there’s not. I know there are multiple hoops they can jump through to get similar benefits but it’s not the same.
See, here’s the thing. I am not a huge fan of the gay movement or homosexuality in general but freedom is freedom. Period.
And yes, to answer the inevitable counter argument about polygamy, I do think that should be legal as well.
As long as people are consenting and legally fit within the confines of our culture, I don’t see any reason why they should not have the ability to marry.
Furthermore, I believe marriage (on the legal/secular side) should be a contract for 5 or 10 years. This way divorce will be less of an issue since a couple could opt not to renew their contract, and the contract itself would stipulate how assets are split if that happens.
The divorce rate is 50%. In my mind, this is WAY more pressing of an issue both culturally and religiously than a tiny number of gay people who want to wear wedding rings.
Well said. For what it’s worth, I agree.
This is why I don’t vote.
I don’t see any differences right now in the bipartisan landscape that excites me enough to actually hit a ballot box.
Based on what I have seen, it will be the next generation that finally breaks out of bipartisan politics enough to make me care about voting again.
A previous, liberal poster above made a great point about the Romney vs Obama election: for me, as a single issue voter, it was a vote between a known anti gun candidate and a suspected anti gun candidate.
So.. meh.
I (the afor mentioned LIberal) encourage you to reexamine your decision to not vote. You may be picking the lesser of the two demons but at least you can put some weight behind your beliefs. It is not much in the big picture but it does count. Be a part of the solution.
So why not vote Third Party? Or write in someone you like? If everyone had your attitude we would have a dictatorship, with the winner being decided by the one vote cast.
Stop whining and DO SOMETHING!
I’d rather whine.
If it were a popular vote I’d care, but the electoral college system was the last nail in the coffin of my apathy.
I have to wait for more entrenched, bipartisan voters to die off before a 3rd party has much of a chance.
You seem to be confused. Democrats are the hatemongers. Just listen to the rhetoric about race, gender and sexual orientation. They have constructed a social hierarchy that the old apartheid regime in South Africa would be proud of.
I agree it’s frustrating. However, you have a lot more racists among the Dems than the Repubs. In many states, trans-racial adoption has been blocked by Democrats, then finally enabled when Repubs came into power. We still see Democrat pundits mocking trans-racial adoptees and their parents on national tv.
The irony is I agree with the fact that Dem /policies/ are more racist than Rep…. but the Dem party has WAAAY more card carrying minorities.
I hope within my lifetime the majority of Americans will consider themselves independent.
“I believe in maximum freedom for the individual, and a social contract based on the golden rule.”
What exactly is a “social contract”? Most legal contracts are entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently between two consenting parties. This is a strange creature of which you write, a contract which existed before I was born, which I am bound to follow whether I agree with it or not. “Sounds like orc mischief to me.”
If your social contract conflicts with my individual freedom, which one wins?
Reading comprehension? His “social contract based on the golden rule” by definition CANT conflict with your individual rights.
Welcome to the “the ruling political parties have slid out from under the middle” club. You’ll find we have a shocking number of members who came here from both left and right.
Welcome back LB. You sound like the kind of guy that would make a campfire conversation or cigar bar memorable.Like to hear more on the folk music for example but that would be OT here so drop a note in forum if you like.
To me guns in the personal context are about personal freedom – self defense first; hunting second; and god forbid it should ever come to it: defense against the tyranny of a government the Framers had seen.
Thats why I personally get ticked when someone tells me what I should believe about abortion, taxes, gay marriage, god or you name it, as if there is some checklist to be an approved pro-gun guy.
So I say more power to the Liberal Gun Club and I hope some come hear to read and comment on guns.
“I guess the main reason I won’t give up my guns is that I don’t trust ANYONE in twenty-first century politics.”
I feel the same way, and I’m only in my 30s.
I have a serious question (posting with an anonymous nom de screen). This doesn’t necessarily fit with the topic, but I’m posting here since it’s still pretty active:
How many of you who are racist/prejudiced are that way from a “racial superiority” standpoint, and for how many of you is it cultural, as in, you believe in everyone being equal as long as they are law-abiding, decent, possess a work ethic, etc?
Again, I’m seriously interested in your answers.
In general Democrats are far more obsessed with superficial biological markers like skin color than I am. I view people as individuals, not as members of a racial identity group. However, I have to acknowledge that current urban black culture is causing 3% of the population to commit almost half the murders, mostly of other blacks. It seems harmful to me to deny that there is a serious problem there that needs to be helped, and much if it is due to the breakdown of the family. I’m socially liberal when it comes to gay rights etc, but one thing no one wants to talk about is that kids in single parent households are more likely to commit or be victims of crimes, and they have higher poverty rates as well.
Every time I hear the “multiculturalism will destroy America” I have two reactions – One, You are exactly right but the American Indians just called and they want their country back so you and I have to leave ASAP. We are no longer welcome here. Two, You are exactly right and we should kill those in our society that we do not want. I suggest we start with the Jews since their numbers are small and should be easy to take out.
Honestly, which one of these two paths do you want to go down?
Neither is necessary. You forget that the “native americans” were not one people, but many different people, many of whom were in a near perpetual state of war with the others. So if you hold that the particular group of natives that we got the land from rightfully owned it, you must accept that our claim to it is no less valid than theirs was, since they stole the land from another tribe.
Simply insisting that new immigrants to the United States adopt a few basic tenets of “Americanism” is sufficient. There is no need to insist that they totally abandon every last bit of culture they grew up with.
Culture has been defined as “the way we do things ’round here.” I like to say it is “whatever things people use to relate to one another.” Or, more simply, culture is common ground. Even people who have never played base ball understand that “grand slam” or “home run” refer to a huge success, or the base metaphors for amorous progress. So by definition multiculturalism, or a society with many distinct cultures within it, means there are several distinct groups within a society that have no way to relate to one another. Insisting against multiculturalism is nothing more than insisting that these separate groups plug themselves into the overarching national cultural pot luck.
In short: you are welcome to keep as much of your own culture as you can, as long as you are adapting yourself to your new country and not asking us to adapt to accommodate you.
And I mean “you” rhetorically, not specifically the commenter I’m replying to.
I agree with you 100%. I just wanted to illustrate the extremes of both directions. I prefer somewhere in the middle. I do not think you can define America without including things like drink like you are Irish on St. Patrick’s Day even if you are not Irish, eat Mexican food on Cinco De Mayo even if you are not Mexican, live in the state of GA even if you are not a penal colony inmate, Live in PA even if you are not a Puritan, support civil rights even if you are not a minority, etc… I feel the same way about Christianity. Strip away the Pagan influences and you do not have much left over and have lost the very definition.
Nice try. In polite company this is called thread hijacking. Anyone can come piss on the campfire and later point back to that as evidence that TTAG is a another example of racists. Common troll behavior in other words. Lots of other places online to go for that.
Dude, you actually think the antis even know what TTAG is, and infiltrate it? I haven’t even heard of it until a couple months ago.
I don’t have the time or inclination to judge anyone on anything but the quality of their character.
Not an Obama fan, but I am tired of hearing the Kenyan Muslim socialist thing too. Let’s face it, he’s Nixon, and Nixon was not a fan of the 2A even though he was a Republican.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/richard-nixon-gun-control_n_2851660.html
I am looking for evidence that this is a false flag operation, because there have been so many, but have not found any evidence yet. They have not yet used any of the orwellian terms like “reasonable.” Supporting pro-2A democratic candidates in primaries is a good thing, especially in Maryland. Seeing as how I do not support the homophobic xenophobic hyperinflation wing of the GOP (there are a lot of people like me who think small government means that the government should not be enforcing morality), nor do I support the soviet central planning wing of the Dem party, this could be a group I support, in addition to all the other gun-rights groups I support. However, I am going to hold off to see if it turns out to be yet another false flag operation.
The Kenyan and Muslim titles are fairly speculative, but calling a duck a duck is still a legitimate act, and he is fucking socialist #1.
Because giving away billions to insurance companies (Obamacare), refusing to prosecute bankers and bailing out big corporations is socialist…? A real socialist would have nationalized the banks, publicly flogged the CEOs and CFOs of AIG, Countrywide, etc., and turned the whole healthcare system into one big Medicare program…
People forget that Obamacare was originally a Republican plan. Maybe if the Democrats had *read* it before they *passed* it, they might have realized that– and spared as all a good deal of grief.
This crap again?
Please, get better talking points.
Obamacare WAS (mostly) a republican plan. The real leftists want to replace it with single-payer medicare for all. The real leftists in the Dem party are cheering all the ACA problems (sabotage?) because what they really want to do is make a case to eliminate the private market altogether. There are lots of parts of Obamacare that need to be scaled back and fixed, like the medical mandates, but people like the fact that insurance companies cannot deny you and the mandate ensures that works. Repealing Obamacare won’t fly, and if it does get repealed, you’ll hate what it gets replaced with even more (medicare).
The Mandate was a Heritage Foundation idea that was related to a catastrophic policy back in the Hillarycare era.
Pretty much everything else in the Obamacare bill sprang from the fever dreams of generations of Progressives, as interpreted by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
I realize that it’s such a spectacular debacle that the Democrats are trying to spread the blame around and make it a bipartisan debacle, but it’s not going to work around here. Try Daily Kos, they’d buy it.
“Because giving away billions to insurance companies (Obamacare), refusing to prosecute bankers and bailing out big corporations is socialist…?”
Yes, it is. Socialism has never been about taking care of people. It’s about amassing political power for power’s sake. it is the Royal Scam in different clothes. 1000 years ago our kings didn’t openly call themselves tyrants, they co-opted the moral code in place at the time and concocted an explanation as to why they should run our lives. It’s the same thing now. Then it was that God had hand picked the King. Now it is altruism, or environmentalism, or Islamism, etc. Either way it is a class which looks to all others as its natural prey and seeks to ride us jackbooted and spurred.
Remember Romneycare? Look at Massachusetts. That’s what BO is trying to turn the country into.
Now back to the topic at hand…
Who was president again during the first round of bailouts?
If Obama is socialist #1, Nixon was #0. Nixon imposed wage and price controls and wanted to ban handguns. Obama and the left wing of the Democratic party like Warrren ARE socialists. But lets be fair, government grew enormously under Bush as well. Bush gave us medicare part D, two unfunded wars, and even setting war spending aside govt spending grew faster than the overall economy. Republicans like corporate welfare, democrats like other welfare. I am mostly against both. There are big govt socialists in both parties
dwb. You are entitled to your opinion but again the typical polite behaviir in a blog comment area is to more or less stick to the subject which in this case is about the Liberal Gun Club. Goung on and on about Obanacare is sort of NOT about guns.
thread police! Do i make you uncomfortable? mwaa
The modern progressive/liberal movement is more often than not
diametrically opposed to liberty. It’s not just guns but everything.
The more liberal politicians are the more likely they will vote
against gun rights. This happens not necessarily because they
hate guns but because they choose state power over the
individual. A politician may be a staunch 2A supporter with an
A++ NRA rating; but if they continue to drive the country toward
fiscal collapse or increasing state power, nothing has been gained.
By voting for politicians who are pro-gun but incompetent and
irresponsible in other areas (particularly economics) the country
only trades one possible downfall for another.
This
I concur. I’ll even go further and say that no one here can cite five policies/programs/initiatives, widely understood to be liberal positions, that don’t involve filching people’s freedom. They either force someone to do something they don’t want to, or forbid them from doing something they’ve a right to, or just take more of their money to spend on what the Constitution gives them no power to. There’s no such thing as a freedom-embracing liberal.
Gun control, like liberalism is based on flawed principals because they ignore the laws of human nature. In liberalism we are supposed to feel sorry for the poor so we take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Unfortunately the money taken from the rich is money that would have been used in capital investments to create jobs so the poor could gain employment. They believe that giving the poor a big screen TV will motivate them to get off their butts and get a job to better their lives, but it has the opposite effect in reality. Mothers no longer need husbands because they have the government to support them so they make capricious decisions about sex which makes men free to shirk their responsibilities. In the end you have generations of people who have grown up having never once seen a parent get up and go to work, destined to a life of (comfortable) poverty.
Gun control makes the assumptions that the government can simply dictate the behavior of criminals and the hoplophobic assumption that the mere presence of a firearm can cause a pernicious change in the behavior of otherwise law abiding citizens. Both fly in the face of reality. But in both cases we are expected to ignore the reality we can plainly see with our own eyes and “do something” for the “poor” and for the “children”.
“Mothers no longer need husbands because they have the government to support them so they make capricious decisions about sex which makes men free to shirk their responsibilities. In the end you have generations of people who have grown up having never once seen a parent get up and go to work, destined to a life of (comfortable) poverty.”
That’s an insult to any single mother who’s ever busted her ass working to take care of her kids and herself.
And it’s an insult to any woman who ever got tired of getting punched in the face when her supportive husband came home with whiskey on his breath.
And it’s an insult to all the women I know who have careers of their own so they don’t have to rely on anyone.
One of the faults of the “family values” people is that they fail to acknowledge that families aren’t always all they’re cracked up to be.
But on welfare, you have a point. It’s broken. It doesn’t give people a chance to get up. Instead, it just trains them to stop trying. Throwing more money at that is the epitome of waste.
H.R.
In my experience, people who are black and white, “simple solution” on social issues are either upper or middle class and have never actually dealt with the issues they have such strong opinions about.
It’s easy to say all single mothers are waste of space teen pregnancies on the dole if you don’t have any single mothers in your family or know of any.
It’s quite another matter to know women who have almost been killed by their now x husbands and who were not allowed by said husband to get an education while married and watch her struggle to work 2 jobs, go to school, raise her kid, and do it all without any assistance because she is too proud.
I think the gun rights movement is similar. It’s easy for elitist politicians to say you don’t need a gun to defend yourself, especially if said politician was a trust fund baby who’s never known a life that didn’t include multiple vacations per year with armed guards.
However, after living in the bad part of town or being stuck in a lease living next to a drug dealer, I bet those people’s opinions on the right to self defense would change.
::shrug:: People in general are stupid and generally have a hard time feeling empathy for lives or experiences they have not personally encountered.
It’s the oppisite: people are too free with empathy and too generous with other people’s money. All that does is insulate poor decision makers from the consequences of their actions; ensuring both the exporting of those costs onto others and the continuation of the poor decision making.
Actually I think it’s the same thing.
Empathy is not the same thing as pity or generosity.
For instance, I have empathy for homeless people which is why I don’t give them money. If I give money, I give it to charity and only after doing research to make sure it’s not a charity that only uses 10% of donations on the actual problem it exists to solve.
You are talking about the type of person/politician who would give a homeless man a 100 dollar bill, not understanding that he will probably be robbed by someone stronger because it’s a large sum of money, maybe even killed for it, or he could just buy enough drugs or booze to kill himself.
People who don’t understand the issues at hand before doling out large sums of money at social problems to feel generous fall in the same boat (in my mind) as people who would prefer to pretend people with certain problems don’t exist because they don’t personally know any.
Such is why I am politically independent.
You don’t have to be a working single mother to be insulted, anybody who works and pays taxes should be insulted. My standard of living is barely above those living on the dole, but every year I have to pony up several hundred dollars that the government just gives these people for not working. You don’t think I’m insulted?!?
Your money does not go toward anyone on welfare. 100% of federal income tax goes to paying interest to the Federal Reserve for money printed the previous year.
The More You Know…
You have every right to be insulted. If I could strip the monthly “entitlements” away from those who misuse them and refund it back to people like you, I’d do it in a heartbeat. I know some like that and they have no conscience.
But it’s not the fault of women who refuse to depend on men (who are often not very trustworthy). I know several women with Master’s degrees and careers who don’t need a husband or the government to take care of them. Don’t blame good people for those who take advantage of the system.
HR
Those women who do it without a man or the government deserve the utmost respect from all of us. And I certainly don’t begrudge those who truly can’t survive on their own a meager existence. But it’s folly to think you can simply throw (somebody else’s) money at a problem and it will miraculously disappear. The liberal philosophy dictates that you make people comfortable in their poverty, not to give them the tools to better their own lives.
I believe you mean Progressivism. Liberalism, in the broader scope, does not make these claims.
I mean the “Great Society” brand of liberalism. Progressivism also denies the demonstrable realities of human nature though.
Bottom line is that if you subsidize poverty you will get more of it and if you penalize labor you will get less of it.
You vote for whoever the party gives you to vote for. One party, or two, or more, they all want to screw us, the disagreement is over, in which position? Politics is a closed system, only insiders ever get to the point of election. There are no “good” choices, just worse choices. (Yes, I know, that is painting with a wide brush, but, I been around long enough to see a wide canvas).
Sigh. Another “liberals support gun rights too thread” I am sure they do. Except in Connecticut. Or Maryland. Or California. Or Colorado. or New York. Or Massachusetts. I know, I know, libs support gay rights and abortion and smoking pot. Great. One thing I will never have to do living in Tennessee is stand in a line and register my guns like some of you on here will. Also, I will never be arrested for loading 8 in my mag like some others might. Flame all you want, I don’t care. Believe Romney would have been as bad as Obama on the 2A all you want. Don’t care. Just my two cents on the issue, some of you may have a different opinion. Good for you.
Pleasant, aren’t you?
And I live in Texas. I moved here. No lines for me.
No lines in Texas. It is a red state after all. Usually very pleasant, there are just some topics that stick in my craw.
Fair enough!
I read this article yesterday on The Blaze and wondered when it would make its way here. SMFH, over and over while reading it. I got a good laugh when realizing that their logo so closely resembles a Lobster Back. These people are the most dangerous, the ones who openly vote for politicians they know are against their personal liberties and they do it anyway.
and furthermore, Ive noticed that there have been a lot of “left leaning gun owners exist also” posts lately.
Not really suprising that an elite (or at least someone who fancies themselves an elite) feels contrary to the established platform. The platform is for the unwashed masses, surely not for the choosen of the party.
Dan Zimmerman,
Seems like a number of people would like to know if this group is a real deal, or another smoke screen.
Can you use your TTAG cred’s and reach out to them and find out how and when they got involved with protesting against gun control? When they got vocal about haters smearing ALL gun owners as the American Taliban?
They sound like they’re just a group of liberals who simply like to get together and shoot guns. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless THAT is the smoke screen, which the haters would love nothing more than to remove all political activism from the gun movement.
You don’t need to be a TTAG writer to check them out. They have a discussion forum of their own that you could register on and engage in some discussions yourself.
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/
They are also a CMP affiliated club.
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/membership/
CMP? Big whoop…..
I want to know where they stand on the 2A if the Democrat party has gun control as part of their platform. I wanna know where they stand when ‘liberals’ call gun owners ‘terrorists’, and that would include ‘liberal’ gun owners as well.
I wanna know how they justify giving money and supporting ‘liberal’ candidates who want to strip them of their 2A rights, when they don’t support the NRA cause they say the NRA gives money to 2A politicians who want to ‘strip them of their right to walk down the street holding their girlfriends hand’.
I wanna know just how ‘out’ are these gun owners to friends and family……are they ‘out’ to other groups they belong to who might have ‘been in the closet’ about their lifestyle?
Chub. Need anyone to come wash your clothes or do your homework? Are your fingers busted? Took me about 5 minutes to follow the links to their website and skim for context. Jeez….
No offense, but you asked for investigation and I showed you where to do that for yourself. Why place the burden of that on TTAG’s writers when we’re all educated adults who are perfectly capable of doing our own research?
If they were a false flag group, would they go to the trouble of becoming affiliated with the CMP?
As for your questions, you could register on their forum and ask them. Or you could just scroll through some old posts on the LGC discussion forum to get an idea of what they’re about.
They’ve got discussion forums over at the Liberal Gun Club website. Far as I can tell, the posters there are almost all dyed-in-the-wool liberals… and all 100% supporters of the right to keep and bear arms. They’re not all as hard-line as I am on this issue, but some of them are, and they’re all at least as credible on gun rights as the average Republican.
Thanks for posting about this.
Interesting, thanks for taking the time to go over there and investigate. Im curious to see what this spawns.
Right around the Newtown shooting, I was annoyed by the people who populated my chosen AZ gun forum. They came across as poorly educated, fundie religious, birther gun nuts. So I began searching for other forums and stumbled upon the Liberal Gun Club. It was a eye opening experience but ultimately I found a majority of their membership far, far too leftist and skulked back to my old forum.
They have a sub-forum for people that got banned from Daily KOS for defending 2A. That was some fun reading.
If anyone knows of an in-between; a gun forum without leftists or goofs who make everything about “libtards” and Obama, I’m there.
Functionaly they support the 2A because it is there. They want to own a gun and they can. They don’t much care about the hoops to jump through because they can still get a gun and most issues liberals care about require a great deal of government bureaucracy so whats the diff’.
What they don’t connect is that when any right becomes a privilege, ALL rights are in danger.
2A should simply be a right that everyone across the political spectrum supports 100%.
No matter what you believe, the 2A is there to allow you to defend yourself from criminal aggressors, as well as political tyrants of all shades.
Liberals seem to forget that every four years, a conservative tyrant could be just around the corner. The same goes for conservatives. No single party is immune from a takeover. No party affiliation is a guarantee against a cabal of narcissistic power-hungry murderers from taking control of this country.
Liberals were dead terrified of Bush not leaving office in 2008. I remember there being a serious undercurrent of fear on various liberal forums I was on (I thought I was one at the time, did not know I was really a libertarian) that the neocons were going to fake a disaster in order to declare martial law and maintain power. A lot of liberals went out in bought guns in 2008, just the same as a lot of conservatives did.
They emitted a collective sigh of relief upon Obama’s inauguration, and then gave up on the idea that they may have to do something about it by force. They have attacked the 2A ever since, having associated its supporters entirely with the religious right, and actively denying that there is anyone on the left who supports the 2A. Supporting it now means that you’re not “in” with the party’s approach to governance.
Here’s to hoping that more liberals wake up to what’s really important.
Call them what they are: The exceptions that prove the rule.
Is that a finger on the lens? It needs to move further to the left. There, that’s better…
Barry TOO conservative? The one man alive I would ban from owning firearms.
Effing loons. Socialists killed over 100 million people in the 20th century.
ברוך אתה ה’ א‑לוהינו, מלך העולם, שהחינו וקימנו והגענו לזמן הזה.
Comments are closed.