PDA

View Full Version : How best to help the RKBA movement....


Booshanky
07-24-2009, 6:29 PM
This is a cross post from over at bumpfire.net, but I think it's relevant enough to be posted here.

The biggest problem I see with the RKBA movement right now.

Far too many people get into the idea that being a gun owner means that you have to be conservative. If you've voted for liberal politician X, you're not a "true" gun owner. You don't really believe in the RKBA. You're just a poser, or worse, a saboteur. To get a better idea of what I'm talking about, here are two posts. I don't mean to pick on KenpoProfessor because this really isn't about a single person, it's a very common trait I see in a lot of discussions about gun politics that I read at a lot of places. I only highlight these posts simply because I remember them recently and they're what prompted me to write this thread.


Generally cross posting from other forums is a no go, all it does is create strife. If you want to discuss it here, discuss it here, if you want to discuss it there, discuss it there, feel free to discuss it at both but leave ll the linking out. Linking to posts by people BANNED from calguns is a definite NO GO. ~rkt


This kind of infighting can only serve one purpose: to ensure that less people own guns and make us seem intimidating and unfriendly. This isn't just my opinion either. I received a lot of messages on CG from people saying that they were glad that someone who is Liberal like myself speaks up on that forum, and that they didn't do it out of fear of being banned or frowned upon.

I understand that liberal politicians have a pretty poor record of defending the 2nd amendment, but we all need to understand that the vast majority of voters out there are not people who vote simply on a single issue. The reasons why people vote the way they do can and do change from day to day and from election to election. There will never be any such thing as a permanent majority in state legislatures or the federal government. So when we say that a person is unwelcome in our group simply because they voted for the "wrong" politician, all we're doing is shooting ourselves in the foot.

We need to spread the gun feaver across all political parties and across the ideological spectrum. Putting all our eggs in one basket is a recipe for failure.

Remember how they said that only Nixon could go to China? I feel the same way about guns. Only liberals and moderates can bring antis over to our side to ensure the protection of our rights because they have the trust that the antis need. I've said it a bunch of times before, but I think it should be said here. Every single anti-gunner I've taken to the range to go shooting has had a great time, and the only source of their anti-gun beliefs was ignorance. They didn't know anything about guns. Heck, the first time I took my wife to the range, she thought you could go to the end of the range, pick up the bullets you shot, and put them back in the gun.

So I propose this. If someone says they enjoy shooting, lets welcome them with open arms regardless of their political ideology or affiliation. Don't get me wrong, it's perfectly ok to debate the finer points of gun politics with people and all that good stuff, but lets keep away from these broad statements that make people feel unwelcome. Things like the aforementioned posts.

If we can start doing this, we can only make our rights stronger.

What do you guys think?

Gator Monroe
07-24-2009, 6:33 PM
Gun politics does not include denial and subtrafuge .

technique
07-24-2009, 6:43 PM
So I propose this. If someone says they enjoy shooting, lets welcome them with open arms regardless of their political ideology or affiliation.

I always have welcomed every shooter from every walk of life Boo...:)

forgiven
07-24-2009, 7:00 PM
Gun politics does not include denial and subtrafuge .

:iagree:

M. Sage
07-24-2009, 7:06 PM
Part of the issue is, too, that most liberal politics run counter to the very thing that draws most people to hold gun ownership dear; individual sovereignty. A slave with guns is still just a slave.

unusedusername
07-24-2009, 7:22 PM
While I agree with the principals of individual sovereignty, this idea encompasses *much* more then just gun ownership.

If we want to encourage individual sovereignty that is one thing, but it is an entirely different thing then encouraging gun ownership.

M. D. Van Norman
07-24-2009, 7:41 PM
Remember how they said that only Nixon could go to China? I feel the same way about guns. Only liberals and moderates can bring antis over to our side to ensure the protection of our rights because they have the trust that the antis need.…

There is much truth here.

At the national level, the Republican Party has long been able to take gun owners for granted. When out of power, Republicans do little to defend the right to arms. When in power, they do nothing to directly advance it.

At this point, before we have more favorable court decisions behind us, only Democrats can advance our cause. This is especially true in California, where their ongoing rulership is guaranteed for the time being.

So here is the bottom line, if you want Democrats and “liberals” to support your right to arms, you are going to have to support some of their causes. That means immigration rights, homosexual marriage, abortion rights, and a host of other issues that rile “conservatives” but actually harm no one.

Booshanky
07-24-2009, 7:51 PM
Part of the issue is, too, that most liberal politics run counter to the very thing that draws most people to hold gun ownership dear; individual sovereignty. A slave with guns is still just a slave.

Oh sure, I completely agree. But I notice this trend toward thinking that if someone is no sufficiently conservative, they are just completely disregarded when in reality we could simply nurture that person toward our side.

CavTrooper
07-24-2009, 7:58 PM
Conservative, Liberal, Independent... doesnt matter what one calls themselves, if they line up with those who want to take away our rights, they are no friend of mine.

M. Sage
07-24-2009, 7:59 PM
While I agree with the principals of individual sovereignty, this idea encompasses *much* more then just gun ownership.

If we want to encourage individual sovereignty that is one thing, but it is an entirely different thing then encouraging gun ownership.

But to a lot of people there isn't really a dividing line. I own guns and practice with them because of my views on individualism. My gun addiction is (mostly) subservient to that.

Oh sure, I completely agree. But I notice this trend toward thinking that if someone is no sufficiently conservative, they are just completely disregarded when in reality we could simply nurture that person toward our side.

A lot of it is lashing out due to frustration. I've had conversations on the issue of self-determination with people (one of them an anarchist... you'd think an anarchist would be all for self-determination, but they aren't - they don't even know what anarchy means) that rival the gun control debate you posted here recently. More often than not trying to convince someone of the benefits of individual sovereignty is like banging your head against a wall. Too many people would rather wear a dog collar than be free (gratuitous manga reference), and they'd rather see you in a collar along side them despite your wishes to the contrary.

I've got to admit: the discussion with the "anarchist" (they abuse the name!) has convinced me to give up on trying to win "converts" to the side of the pursuit of individual liberty.

Now my attitude is: Make your bed. Sleep in it. Don't complain when bad things happen because of it. I will resist.

M. D. Van Norman
07-24-2009, 7:59 PM
Conservative, Liberal, Independent … doesnt matter what one calls themselves, if they line up with those who want to take away our rights, they are no friend of mine.

But the Democrats and Republicans are the parties in power, and they both try to take away certain rights.

Experimentalist
07-24-2009, 8:09 PM
My comments that follow are stereotypical, but I think they're useful.

Winston Churchill is credited with saying “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

Generally speaking... anti-gunners tend to be emotional, and pro-gunners tend to be more logical. Much of what goes on here at CalGuns involves careful, logical interpretation of the penal code. Much of what I've heard from the antis involves fear and loathing.

I agree a credible spokesperson is essential to getting your message across; a John Lennon would be much more effective than a Rush Limbaugh.

But the message must also be tuned to the audience. Logic, wrapped in emotion, may be the most effective.

CavTrooper
07-24-2009, 8:13 PM
But the Democrats and Republicans are the parties in power, and they both try to take away certain rights.

If anyone desires to take away one right, they are not adverse to taking them all away.

If you support them, you are no better than them.

M. D. Van Norman
07-24-2009, 8:14 PM
Logic, wrapped in emotion, may be the most effective.

It is always the most effective, but “liberals” have no monopoly on illogical emotional rhetoric.

Experimentalist
07-24-2009, 8:16 PM
If anyone desires to take away one right, they are not adverse to taking them all away.

If you support them, you are no better than them.

But the Right wants to take away the right to abortion.

If you truly do not side with any group that wants to limit rights, than you are truly alone.

M. D. Van Norman
07-24-2009, 8:17 PM
If anyone desires to take away one right, they are not adverse to taking them all away.

If you support them, you are no better than them.

Perhaps, but we have little choice. The Democrats and the Republicans are running the show. These are the guys we have to work with, even while trying to advance more libertarian ideals.

CavTrooper
07-24-2009, 8:31 PM
But the Right wants to take away the right to abortion.

If you truly do not side with any group that wants to limit rights, than you are truly alone.

Please remind me which Amendment that one is?

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 8:38 PM
Gun politics does not include denial and subtrafuge .
You mean like this (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsacUnitedStates.pdf)?
Please remind me which Amendment that one is?
The right to privacy also doesn't exist in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment makes it quite clear that there are lots of rights not enumerated.

-Gene

M. D. Van Norman
07-24-2009, 8:41 PM
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.…

If that is not an enumerated right to privacy, then I certainly don’t know what would be.

Hopi
07-24-2009, 8:43 PM
You mean like this (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsacUnitedStates.pdf)?

-Gene

Like a spear through the heart of partisan ideologues...

hardway
07-24-2009, 8:43 PM
I like Gene's sig line. Something to the effect of " Its hard to be a gun rights supporter when the left hates guns, and the right hates rights."

I'm a simpleton, but I believe the 2nd amendment is our insurance policy on keeping the rest. If someone knowingly opposes that right then they are the enemy.

M. D. Van Norman
07-24-2009, 8:52 PM
So, as Boo was trying to say, a “liberal” who supports the right to arms should be treated as an ally, even when he wants to spend tax money on health care for illegal immigrants.

Gator Monroe
07-24-2009, 8:56 PM
Please remind me which Amendment that one is?

what he said .

CavTrooper
07-24-2009, 8:58 PM
So, as Boo was trying to say, a “liberal” who supports the right to arms should be treated as an ally, even when he wants to spend tax money on health care for illegal immigrants.

Anyone who says they support the 2A but goes on to donates to, vote for, or otherwise support someone who is anti 2A cannot be trusted.

7x57
07-24-2009, 8:59 PM
The right to privacy also doesn't exist in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment makes it quite clear that there are lots of rights not enumerated.


You've never stated a rule by which those rights may be identified. If there is nothing which could *not* be identified as a right, there is no meaning to the class of things that are.

7x57

M. D. Van Norman
07-24-2009, 8:59 PM
Anyone who says they support the 2A but goes on to donates to, vote for, or otherwise support someone who is anti 2A cannot be trusted.

What if said person can bring the anti-gunner around to the pro-rights side?

CavTrooper
07-24-2009, 9:00 PM
What if said person can bring the anti-gunner around to the pro-rights side?

How, when they themselves are not on the pro-rights side?

7x57
07-24-2009, 9:00 PM
Anyone who says they support the 2A but goes on to donates to, vote for, or otherwise support someone who is anti 2A cannot be trusted.

OK, now this is senseless. It would only be true if it were restated as:

Anyone who says they support the 2A above all other considerations but goes on to donates to, vote for, or otherwise support someone who is anti 2A cannot be trusted.

7x57

M. D. Van Norman
07-24-2009, 9:01 PM
what he said .

What I said: the Fourth Amendment.

Zebra
07-24-2009, 9:02 PM
So, as Boo was trying to say, a “liberal” who supports the right to arms should be treated as an ally, even when he wants to spend tax money on health care for illegal immigrants.

I think what Boo said was more like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Joinordie.jpg

This Dem vs. Rep thing is counter productive.

Frank

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 9:02 PM
You've never stated a rule by which those rights may be identified. If there is nothing which could *not* be identified as a right, there is no meaning to the class of things that are.


I consider that a feature. Where one eviscerates some unenumerated rights, one has to accept that the right to start a business or just go about your commerce can also be eviscerated. That was the other nasty bit about Slaughterhouse Cases.

Just be glad that there isn't official state licensing for your career (yet.) I say yet because Al Gore et. al. are trying to make the case for scientific malpractice....

-Gene

Scarecrow Repair
07-24-2009, 9:08 PM
"Conservatives" are just that, conservative. Change worries them, upsets them, makes them uneasy. Anyone who promotes change is scary.

"Liberals" want change. The status quo is what worries them, the idea of standing still, of doing the same thing over and over. It bores them. Anyone who stalls change frustrates them.

Everyone is partly conservative, partly liberal. We all know people who still use manual typewriters just because it works for them, ditto for land lines and won't own a cell phone. We all know people who buy every new iPhone or iPod even if the old one is perfectly fine and not even close to running out of storage space or even features. Got to have the latest and greatest computer or car, regardless of whether it actually has any benefit. If we are not of the same persuasion, either the landline or newest iPhone type, we tolerate them with knowing winks. But the more radical of each extreme don't take such counter-examples well, and shy away from such strange people.

Most people don't need guns any more than they need iPods. Those quotes from kenpoProfessor are typical -- would I carry if I didn't have to fuss with a permit or worry about school zones, sensitive areas, etc? Probably, but I bet 90% of the people who carry don't actually need it, they just want to. I don't know kenpoProfessor's individual case, but I do remember him from here, and I doubt very much that even his own particular brand of jerkery has resulted in daily threats to his life or work. He likes guns, he likes to carry, more power to him, but I doubt he actually needs to carry for his own safety.

And face it, guns aren't iPods or manual typewriters, they can do things the others can't, so people who don't understand the fascination with guns freak out. Guns are more polarizing than milk to PETA or cars to Greenpeace precisely because killing is not a side effect, it is the desired effect.

I know I am going to get lots of insults about being a gun grabber for saying 90% of carriers don't need guns. Well, tough luck. You have just identified yourselves as one of those who will never be very useful to RKBA.

M. D. Van Norman
07-24-2009, 9:09 PM
How, when they themselves are not on the pro-rights side?

But this hypothetical “liberal” is on the pro-rights side where firearms are concerned. That is what we are most concerned with here.

If you want the whole pro-rights package—which, CavTrooper, I think you don’t—then libertarian Republicans and Democrats are going to have to start voting for actual Libertarians.

Since that is not going to happen, we have no choice but to accept allies who may be less than pure in some respects.

Gator Monroe
07-24-2009, 9:13 PM
Conservative, Liberal, Independent... doesnt matter what one calls themselves, if they line up with those who want to take away our rights, they are no friend of mine.

If by rights you mean RKBA , I'm with you .

Gator Monroe
07-24-2009, 9:15 PM
But this hypothetical “liberal” is on the pro-rights side where firearms are concerned. That is what we are most concerned with here.

If you want the whole pro-rights package—which, CavTrooper, I think you don’t—then libertarian Republicans and Democrats are going to have to start voting for actual Libertarians.

Since that is not going to happen, we have no choice but to accept allies who may be less than pure in some respects.

I choose pure in 2A , over Pure in Choice & Gay issues & open borders & Amnesty .

M. D. Van Norman
07-24-2009, 9:22 PM
I bet 90% of the people who carry don’t actually need it, they just want to.…

This is what frustrates me so much. If I needed to carry a sidearm due to some imminent threat, then I would carry a sidearm … regardless of what the Constitution, the penal code, my mother, or you had to say about it.

In fact, what I want is to never have to worry about it.

M. D. Van Norman
07-24-2009, 9:24 PM
I choose pure in 2A , over Pure in Choice & Gay issues & open borders & Amnesty .

One of our rare moments of agreement, because that is exactly what I’m talking about. :cool:

What was it that Bill said about donkey-sex maniacs?

nobody_special
07-24-2009, 9:25 PM
If you want the whole pro-rights package—which, CavTrooper, I think you don’t—then libertarian Republicans and Democrats are going to have to start voting for actual Libertarians.

That's what I did in the last election, and I was heavily criticized for it... :rolleyes:

Zebra
07-24-2009, 9:30 PM
Actually to conserve means 'to keep in a safe or sound state.'

Nothing you want in regards of CA firearms laws.

Liberal means, at least at 'yourdictionary.com,' 'suitable for a freeman; not restricted.'

We really need to get our language back.

"Conservatives" are just that, conservative. Change worries them, upsets them, makes them uneasy. Anyone who promotes change is scary.

nobody_special
07-24-2009, 9:31 PM
Most people don't need guns any more than they need iPods. Those quotes from kenpoProfessor are typical -- would I carry if I didn't have to fuss with a permit or worry about school zones, sensitive areas, etc? Probably, but I bet 90% of the people who carry don't actually need it, they just want to. I don't know kenpoProfessor's individual case, but I do remember him from here, and I doubt very much that even his own particular brand of jerkery has resulted in daily threats to his life or work. He likes guns, he likes to carry, more power to him, but I doubt he actually needs to carry for his own safety.

And face it, guns aren't iPods or manual typewriters, they can do things the others can't, so people who don't understand the fascination with guns freak out. Guns are more polarizing than milk to PETA or cars to Greenpeace precisely because killing is not a side effect, it is the desired effect.

I know I am going to get lots of insults about being a gun grabber for saying 90% of carriers don't need guns. Well, tough luck. You have just identified yourselves as one of those who will never be very useful to RKBA.

Yes, you're going to catch a lot of flack for this one - and rightfully so, because you're completely wrong.

Carrying is done for self-defense. Most people (probably >90%) rarely encounter situations where they might need to defend themselves against violence on a day-to-day basis. However... it can happen to anyone, and it's not as if you can say "hold on, let me run home and get my gun" while you're being robbed at the point of a knife, is it?

The logic you're using here is precisely the same that the California legislature has used to pass most of it's idiotic gun laws... the police are the "only ones professional enough" for guns, most people don't need such dangerous implements.

It's hogwash.

M. D. Van Norman
07-24-2009, 9:32 PM
That’s what I did in the last election, and I was heavily criticized for it … :rolleyes:

Not by me. ;)

Gator Monroe
07-24-2009, 9:38 PM
Not by me. ;)

wHAT YOU GUYS DID IS NOT AS BAD as voting for Waxman, Feinstein,Boxer, Obama et all

M. Sage
07-24-2009, 9:52 PM
I know I am going to get lots of insults about being a gun grabber for saying 90% of carriers don't need guns. Well, tough luck. You have just identified yourselves as one of those who will never be very useful to RKBA.

Thank goodness we don't have a Bill of Needs, huh? ;) But freedom isn't about need, it's about "I want to do this, and it doesn't harm anybody else if I do it, so I'm going to do it."

wHAT YOU GUYS DID IS NOT AS BAD as voting for Waxman, Feinstein,Boxer, Obama et all

No it isn't. :rolleyes: What about all those poor suckers who voted for Specter, huh? They certainly wasted the hell out of their votes.

I'll keep voting independent and I want everybody else to start, too. If we all do it, the big parties will go where they should have long ago: away.

What was that you were saying about denial and subterfuge?

Gator Monroe
07-24-2009, 10:01 PM
Thank goodness we don't have a Bill of Needs, huh? ;) But freedom isn't about need, it's about "I want to do this, and it doesn't harm anybody else if I do it, so I'm going to do it."



No it isn't. :rolleyes: What about all those poor suckers who voted for Specter, huh? They certainly wasted the hell out of their votes.

I'll keep voting independent and I want everybody else to start, too. If we all do it, the big parties will go where they should have long ago: away.

What was that you were saying about denial and subterfuge?

Of Office holders is it safe to say 20% of GOP are anti's / 80% of Dems are Anti's ?

M. Sage
07-24-2009, 10:04 PM
Of Office holders is it safe to say 20% of GOP are anti's / 80% of Dems are Anti's ?

And 0% of the people I voted for are antis. The odds of you voting for an anti are much higher than the odds that I did.

Also, the odds that you voted for someone who wants to enact some kind of legislation that restricts personal freedom outside of the whole 2A issue is much higher, and for the same reasons.

I'm voting for the person, not the party.

gravedigger
07-24-2009, 10:25 PM
I apologize in advance for the length of this response!

Scarecrow Repair, I don't know where to begin with your post. For me, there is a STANDARD, a foundation. It is the U.S. Constitution. I am conservative and always have been. There was NEVER a time in my life when I had ANY traits attributed to what are currently called "liberals." Liberals have no standard. They form all of their opinions from wherever happens to be the most convenient position at the moment. They are like a leaf blowing around in the wind, and then demanding that when some issue needs their attention, the rest of the country should see things from their particular perspective at that particular moment.

"Conservatives" are just that, conservative. Change worries them, upsets them, makes them uneasy. Anyone who promotes change is scary.

I'm all for "change" as long as that change doesn't involve shoving the Constitution into a shredder. The Constitution is the blueprint for what CAN be changed, and what CANNOT be changed, and in many cases, it defines the limits placed on that change.

That is the thing about the "change" liberals seek. When you peel away all of the B.S., it ALWAYS comes down to, "We want to do this thing that is totally repugnant to anyone with good sense, but that pesky U.S. Constitution is in the way again, so lets ignore it."

"Liberals" want change. The status quo is what worries them, the idea of standing still, of doing the same thing over and over. It bores them. Anyone who stalls change frustrates them.

True. Lazy liberals who embrace the idea that, even though they are free to go out and EARN their own success, they'd rather feed off of the success of others, taxing the "rich" and handing the money to the "poor." I am not opposed to a liberal achieving self-enrichment. The problem comes when we realize that their idea of self-enrichment is to use the courts to FORCE the producers to give the spoils of their labor to the feeders rather than going out and earning their own rewards. Fairness Doctrine, Air America, hiring quotas, scholarships based on race rather than accomplishments and the list goes on and on.

Everyone is partly conservative, partly liberal. We all know people who still use manual typewriters just because it works for them [..] We all know people who buy every new iPhone or iPod [..] But the more radical of each extreme don't take such counter-examples well, and shy away from such strange people.

One glaring FACT about the gun grabbers is that they do not ascribe to this philosophy. They are intolerant of parents who teach their children about God while insisting that they have the RIGHT to decide to NOT teach their spawn about God. Liberals are ONLY tolerant of their own ideals. Anything that strays from the liberal mantra is fiercely opposed.

I'm a gun owner, and I believe in absolutely unrestricted OC and CC anywhere as long as you don't fall under the usual and sensible exceptions (mental case, felon, violent criminal record etc.) I ALSO believe that a law-abiding citizen has the absolute RIGHT to NOT own, carry or use a firearm for self-defense if that is their choice.

You cannot flip that statement and apply it to liberals. They are not indifferent about what another person does. They want their beliefs and choices to be hoisted upon ALL citizens. They have CHOSEN to not own or carry a gun, while refusing to offer me the same choice.

Most people don't need guns any more than they need iPods.

Sorry, but in a free society, the word "need" doesn't come into play. Liberals like to posture themselves as the final arbiters of what someone else does, or does not need.

You don't "need" a five bedroom house. You don't "need" a seven figure income. You don't "need" an SUV. You don’t "need" to own a gun.

I especially love, “You don’t "need" to have the ability to defend yourself. Look around you. Society is civilized. People are walking around, riding bicycles, shopping … what makes you think YOU "need" the means to defend yourself against an attack here?

I’m sure that words very similar to those were uttered just prior to Columbine, VA Tech, the Lane Bryant store in Chicago, the Utah Mall, the Colorado Springs Church, the McDonalds San Ysidro massacre … The list of places where someone suddenly and without warning found his or herself in immediate "need" of a weapon for self-defense is endless.

In a FREE country, the word "need" is repulsive to a free man. When someone tries to tell me what I "need" based solely on what they believe THEY have decided I "need" I can barely stomach the sight of them.

But you see, liberals do not associate the word "need" with the word "EARN." They think that someone else (read: the rich) is responsible for providing everything, which is why the person's "need" comes into play in the discussion. If *I* am providing something for you, *I* get to decide whether you "need" it or not. If you are providing the thing for yourself, *I* shouldn’t have squat to say about it, as long as it is legal. Obama, RIGHT NOW, is telling us all about how medical costs are out of control because a doctor will prescribe one medicine that in OBAMA’S opinion, the patient may not "need" when another less expensive medication might work just as well. Since Obama will be paying the bill, HE will get to decide which medicine is "needed", if any.

Guns are more polarizing than milk to PETA or cars to Greenpeace precisely because killing is not a side effect, it is the desired effect.

I disagree. No one desires to kill another person in a self-defense situation. The gun is carried to equalize the situation. The desired effect is to neutralize the assault, have the BG run away and make it home safely. If the assailant does not cease his aggression, the side effect is that he may be shot, and he may be killed.

I know I am going to get lots of insults about being a gun grabber for saying 90% of carriers don't need guns. Well, tough luck. You have just identified yourselves as one of those who will never be very useful to RKBA.

You know, whenever I am in a fast food joint and the 44 oz. soda I drank 30 minutes ago catches up with me, and I find myself in some dirty grungy bathroom covered in graffiti, a bathroom with only ONE exit, I always wonder if, while taking care of business, I’m going to hear screams coming from the lobby and someone shouting, “Get on the floor M_____ F____!! Bang! Bang! …” and then I think, if that were to happen, and the guy in the stall next to me was a liberal, I wonder if I could resist knocking on the wall and saying, “Relax fella. The liberals have decided that we don’t "need" a gun for self-defense.”

M. D. Van Norman
07-24-2009, 10:35 PM
And the point of this thread, which you are so epically missing, is that not all “liberals” have decided that we don’t need guns. Some “liberals” support the right to arms.

These are the “liberals” we should befriend (and support when necessary).

lioneaglegriffin
07-24-2009, 11:11 PM
Part of the issue is, too, that most liberal politics run counter to the very thing that draws most people to hold gun ownership dear; individual sovereignty. A slave with guns is still just a slave.

black slaves did go hunting on occasion. What's to stop them from taking that hunting rifle and shooting masta between the eyes? the rest of the town would find out and anyone darker than tan would die a painful death.

M. Sage
07-24-2009, 11:14 PM
black slaves did go hunting on occasion. What's to stop them from taking that hunting rifle and shooting masta between the eyes? the rest of the town would find out and anyone darker than tan would die a painful death.

Don't even get me started on the fact that most of the armies throughout history, even modern history, have been composed of slaves.

People forget that even the Soviet Army's ranks swelled... with slaves.

lioneaglegriffin
07-24-2009, 11:25 PM
Don't even get me started on the fact that most of the armies throughout history, even modern history, have been composed of slaves.

People forget that even the Soviet Army's ranks swelled... with slaves.

Sparta, Persia, Rome, French and the Abbasid's comes to mind when i think of slave armies.

The Slave Army of Toussaint L'Ouverture was the only one i can think of to succesfully revolt.

Scarecrow Repair
07-24-2009, 11:36 PM
It's hogwash.

Yes, Iknew plenty of people would go out of their way to get indignant and pretend to misunderstand me.

I repeat, 90% of gunnies DO NOT NEED guns to save their lives every day. You can pretend to be as outraged as you want at the implication that your are not the linchpin of the universe and that the entire society will fall to pieces if you don't pack all day every day.

What that has to do with RKBA is zilch. You want to read what I didn't write, go ahead. We also have freedom of the press in this country -- how many people actually read newspapers? We also have freedom to petition Congress -- how many people have actually done so? Freedom of assembly -- how many people actually do assemble in protest? The list of rights goes on and on, and very few of us actually exercise them on a daily basis. That doesn't mean they should not be defended, but if you want to think the universe will fall apart without you carrying 24x7, go ahead, but you are useless in furtherance of rights precisely because you have no sense of realism and would rather work up a false outrage than see reality.

hoffmang
07-24-2009, 11:39 PM
I repeat, 90% of gunnies DO NOT NEED guns to save their lives every day.

Interestingly I was thinking about exactly this on the way to work this morning. One of the problems with getting people to understand the Second Amendment is that almost no one really needs the protection of the First Amendment. Those that have truly been at the edge where the First Amendment save's their future - well, those people are more likely to understand why the Second Amendment is important too - or the Fourth.

Rights are most important when one is doing something unpopular. For really good reasons very few people get close to that edge. That's really, honestly social progress.

-Gene

Scarecrow Repair
07-24-2009, 11:40 PM
Scarecrow Repair, I don't know where to begin with your post.

You should have begun by saying right up front that you were not responding to what I said, but what you wanted to be outraged by.

I said *zilch* about not protecting rights. I said there are way too many people who act as if the world revolves around them, and I said that dose of unreality makes them useless in defending rights.

Thank you for proving my point.

gravedigger
07-25-2009, 12:12 AM
And the point of this thread, which you are so epically missing, is that not all “liberals” have decided that we don’t need guns. Some “liberals” support the right to arms.

These are the “liberals” we should befriend (and support when necessary).

I beg to differ. Many people call themselves "liberals" but they really aren't. They just can't differentiate between liberals and democrats. If you have decided that guns are necessary, you are NOT a liberal.

Liberals INSIST that their "progressive" followers march in lockstep with their agenda, and they are NOT free to pick and choose from among the requirements.

In Order To Be a Liberal

You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

You have to believe that the same public school teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read, is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.

You have to believe that self esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

You have to believe there was no housing before HUD.

You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels, can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

You have to believe that without a federal Department of Energy, there would be no gasoline or electricity.

You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez, and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than George Washington, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas A. Edison.

You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

You have to believe second-hand smoke is more dangerous than anthrax or sarin gas.

You have to believe Rosie O'Donnell is brilliant.

You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

You have to believe that corporations create oppression and governments create prosperity. (This one is really important)

You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists or Islamic fundamentalists.

You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

You have to believe that outdoorsmen don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.

You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a Muslim Kenyan-born socialist “community organizer” with NO experience belongs in the White House.

You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.

You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

Or, if you prefer …

http://alohahawaii.home.att.net/leftwing.html

lioneaglegriffin
07-25-2009, 1:05 AM
You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez, and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than , General Robert E. Lee

who cares about Robert E. Lee? he lost, Now Sherman thats a general so good they named a tank after him. R.E.L got a war pig (COD4 reference) named after him?

i got a couple issues with conservatives as well,
what about being against big government unless it involves imposing your morality on other people?
or being fiscally conservative yet spending billions on military projects that are not used.

sharpie613
07-25-2009, 3:03 AM
I beg to differ.

In Order To Be a Liberal

You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding. As opposed to the early 80's method of indifference?

You have to believe that the same public school teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read, is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.Abstinence works until it doesn't. The drive to breed trumps all.

You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.This one should have read "You believe there is no causal relationship between increased malpractice fees and increased healthcare costs".

You have to believe that self esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.For most of human history, if you wanted to be an artist, you aligned with a church or government and found a patron. If you didn't do this, then you could still be an artist until you starved or died of exposure

You have to believe there was no housing before HUD.

You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.Most of the liberals I know have a very strong opinion regarding who starts wars. Hint: It isn't the military

You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels, can't deliver the quality that PBS does.When I think of PBS television, quality is not the first thing that comes to mind. Again, most of the liberals I know don't watch PBS, they listen to it on the radio. On a related note, try finding a non-spanish radio station. That is the free-market at work, more so than TV.

You have to believe that without a federal Department of Energy, there would be no gasoline or electricity.

You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez, and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than George Washington, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas A. Edison.Important, not important, not important, important, important, important. History usually does a pretty good job of sticking to the important people. In a hundred years, Gloria Steinem will be a footnote at best. Harriet Tubman has the bonus of being interesting. What would you say about Crispus Attucks?

You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

You have to believe second-hand smoke is more dangerous than anthrax or sarin gas.How do people reconcile the fact that cigarettes are proven to be very harmful with their desire to believe that all the smoke from the very same cigarette has no effect on people breathing it in? Just clear the doorway. Cigarette smoke is not pleasant for non-smokers.

You have to believe Rosie O'Donnell is brilliant.Find a new bogeyman, please. We all laughed at the "guns cause crime like spoons make Rosie fat" but it was almost 10 years ago.

You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.Liberals think this about Communism; Socialism is just hunky dory as far as they are concerned.

You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.How else would there be abortion, if not on-demand?

You have to believe that corporations create oppression and governments create prosperity. (This one is really important)Most people these days don't think too highly of corporations or governments. Clinton era lending policies coupled with Bush era regulations added to corporations focused on squeezing that last bit of profit out of a company--with little or no regard as to what will happen a few years from now when they discover that all the high risk folks they actually lent money to can't pay any of it back-- caused a lot of hard feelings amongst the people.

You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists or Islamic fundamentalists.Again, most of the hippies/liberals I know hate nuclear *anything*, so they hate guns and nukes about equally.

You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.The term "gender roles" sounds like hippie nonsense, but do you think gay people would choose to risk being beaten up, ostracized from friends and family, and be treated like second class members of society just for funsies?

You have to believe that outdoorsmen don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.

You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.This makes perfect sense because she clearly won the nomination last year. Oh, wait...states voted for the black guy over her because so few people like her and trust her.

You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a Muslim Kenyan-born socialist “community organizer” with NO experience belongs in the White House.Jail? Never heard that part about jail before, unless this refers to that memo that surfaced a couple months ago. This analogy doesn't line up. A Bill Ayers or Reverend Wright reference would have been better. Sarah Palin would have also made a good counterpoint to the original Obama counterpoint. In other words, conservatives=spurious Obama friends, and Palin=Obama.

You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.Ugh, bestiality in the gay parade? When that stuff comes on I turn the channel so I'm probably not an expert. I do think that if there was bestiality going on, someone would be arrested. Cops at Pride are relaxed, but not *that* relaxed. Manger scenes are nice. Jesus was an awesome guy. Some of his followers were/are wound a little too tight, however, and forget the opinion Of Thomas Jefferson regarding separation of Church and State and the conflict created when people want the aforementioned manger scenes in front of government buildings but want to exclude Hanukkah, Eid, Santa Claus and the Solstice.

You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.

You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
The term coined by Hillary?

Or, if you prefer …

http://alohahawaii.home.att.net/leftwing.html

This is a classic example of the problem. We have been groomed to think of politics as teams for so long that when people say we have to choose, we believe them.

I fully support the right of any non-felon to have a full auto MP5 on the back seat driving to get an abortion before their gay wedding. As the saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. You keep your nose out of my life, I will do the same. Don't involve kids, don't make it a public spectacle, don't hurt anyone who doesn't want to be and you get no problem from me. Don't people just want to be left alone, with the freedom to change the channel if something bothers them on TV, to go to church or not, to think on their own, to have the biggest gun debate in their life be with the wife/husband regarding purchases of new ones? Ugh...

Gene's sig is more and more true each day.

artherd
07-25-2009, 3:30 AM
So, as Boo was trying to say, a “liberal” who supports the right to arms should be treated as an ally, even when he wants to spend tax money on health care for illegal immigrants.

Most Definitely!

You can be all for self-reliance, social justice, puppies & kittens, even free speech and religion.... And if you don't have a gun absolutely none of it matters.

artherd
07-25-2009, 3:36 AM
It's funny, most people will never have need for a fire extinguisher - or side-curtian airbags.

Yet we understand intuitively their import.

How do we create that intuitive level of awareness surrounding our civil rights?

-Ben.


Interestingly I was thinking about exactly this on the way to work this morning. One of the problems with getting people to understand the Second Amendment is that almost no one really needs the protection of the First Amendment. Those that have truly been at the edge where the First Amendment save's their future - well, those people are more likely to understand why the Second Amendment is important too - or the Fourth.

Rights are most important when one is doing something unpopular. For really good reasons very few people get close to that edge. That's really, honestly social progress.

-Gene

artherd
07-25-2009, 3:40 AM
I fully support the right of any non-felon to have a full auto MP5 on the back seat driving to get an abortion before their gay wedding.

I've said I believe I have the right to drive a tank down main street, naked, while screwing a sheep.


...as long as I don't hit any cars. ;)

Scratch705
07-25-2009, 4:26 AM
well as long as the tank doesn't have any hatches open so i can't see you screwing that sheep... then go right ahead.

btw, in the UK you can get a road legal tank....

Gator Monroe
07-25-2009, 9:16 AM
I beg to differ. Many people call themselves "liberals" but they really aren't. They just can't differentiate between liberals and democrats. If you have decided that guns are necessary, you are NOT a liberal.

Liberals INSIST that their "progressive" followers march in lockstep with their agenda, and they are NOT free to pick and choose from among the requirements.

In Order To Be a Liberal

You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

You have to believe that the same public school teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read, is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.

You have to believe that self esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

You have to believe there was no housing before HUD.

You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels, can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

You have to believe that without a federal Department of Energy, there would be no gasoline or electricity.

You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez, and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than George Washington, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas A. Edison.

You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

You have to believe second-hand smoke is more dangerous than anthrax or sarin gas.

You have to believe Rosie O'Donnell is brilliant.

You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

You have to believe that corporations create oppression and governments create prosperity. (This one is really important)

You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists or Islamic fundamentalists.

You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

You have to believe that outdoorsmen don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.

You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a Muslim Kenyan-born socialist “community organizer” with NO experience belongs in the White House.

You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.

You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

Or, if you prefer …

http://alohahawaii.home.att.net/leftwing.html

I must add You have to believe Israel is the Bad Actor in the middle east also .

PEBKAC
07-25-2009, 10:27 AM
First I would posit that part of the reason that the two sides of the gun issue don't see eye to eye is that it would seem that the way the arguments are typically formulated ensures neither side can convince the other because each is making a different argument type.

From what I have seen:

Pro-gun, typically make a legal argument using the second amendment as a shroud of protection. Occasionally a detailed moral argument is made, but I haven't seen very many of them.

Anti-gun, typically are making a moral argument (regardless of how flawed or fallacious it may be) using gun's rather morally questionable status with regards to intention when designed as a starting point.

So, how does one deal with this?

I would posit that if you want to convince an anti to change try NOT USING THE SECOND AMENDMENT when arguing about it. Moral argumentation holds that all laws, and I mean ALL, are completely void of morality or immorality until proven otherwise. Whether they know it or not, to a certain extent this is probably where the anti is coming from. With figures like Ghandi and MLK being constantly shown as doing "the right thing" (despite what they were doing being illegal at the time) and being exceptional people throughout the duration of the school curriculum it is no wonder this is the starting point for most.

This leaves you with two options if you want to try and convert them: prove second amendment is a moral law, or prove outside the second amendment that guns are moral, and of course back up either argument with lots of evidence.

Straight 2A arguments, and perhaps even arguments that use 2A as a starting point or any kind of justification will likely not work on antis given how they typically argue this. And this is not an entirely unexpected reaction given the standing of law from a moral perspective. I would posit that we all kind of start with the assumption that 2A is a moral law around here, whether we know it or not, and this is part of the reason that our arguments typically don't work. That or we are holding a morality = legality position which would give us the same starting point as the above, but needs to be fixed pronto because moral is quite fallacious from a moral perspective and thus, probably from an anti's perspective as well.

Further while on the topic of how to convert antis, I would posit that overbearing is a probably bad way to try and convert someone, much less normalize them to the issue. Even if you have a "no compromise" attitude, to convert someone, you will have to tone yourself down quite a bit initially. Only constant and subtle is the way to go to bring someone around, and just slowly up the ante. It will take time to undo all those false assumptions and fallacious arguments they have been fed, and you will probably have to keep a straight face when hearing out some of the arguments and assumptions (before, of course, politely pointing out some of the places these assumptions or arguments go wrong). But, remember, overbearing causes a reaction of equal or greater energy (so to speak) and it usually ain't a positive one. However constant but subtle with slight ante upping never seems to be detected. Kinda sneaky, but I've seen it work on other issues... ;)

Obviously, if on any of these points, you think I have erred, point it out. :)

nobody_special
07-25-2009, 10:36 AM
Yes, Iknew plenty of people would go out of their way to get indignant and pretend to misunderstand me.

I repeat, 90% of gunnies DO NOT NEED guns to save their lives every day. You can pretend to be as outraged as you want at the implication that your are not the linchpin of the universe and that the entire society will fall to pieces if you don't pack all day every day.

Actually, I did not misunderstand what you originally wrote. Let's have another look, shall we? (Emphasis added.)

Most people don't need guns any more than they need iPods. Those quotes from kenpoProfessor are typical -- would I carry if I didn't have to fuss with a permit or worry about school zones, sensitive areas, etc? Probably, but I bet 90% of the people who carry don't actually need it, they just want to.

Now, if you want to talk about using a gun to save their lives every day, I doubt that would apply to most police, never mind ordinary citizens like me. But that's not what you wrote, so that's not what I was responding to.

What that has to do with RKBA is zilch. You want to read what I didn't write, go ahead. We also have freedom of the press in this country -- how many people actually read newspapers? We also have freedom to petition Congress -- how many people have actually done so? Freedom of assembly -- how many people actually do assemble in protest? The list of rights goes on and on, and very few of us actually exercise them on a daily basis. That doesn't mean they should not be defended, but if you want to think the universe will fall apart without you carrying 24x7, go ahead, but you are useless in furtherance of rights precisely because you have no sense of realism and would rather work up a false outrage than see reality.

Lots of people read newspapers, and petition their member of Congress for some purpose. And the freedom of assembly is not solely for protests. Many people do exercise constitutional rights on a daily basis.

hvengel
07-25-2009, 11:43 AM
... And the freedom of assembly is not solely for protests.

In fact the freedom of assembly is much broader than just having protests. It could be argued that that we are practicing the right of assembly here at this time since we have assembled on-line to discuss various topics related to politics. Any meeting (virtual, on-line, on the phone or in person...) that is conducted to organize anything (business, political, charitable, religious, target practice...) is part of the right of assembly whether that assembly is public or private.

Can'thavenuthingood
07-25-2009, 12:39 PM
It's funny, most people will never have need for a fire extinguisher - or side-curtian airbags.

Yet we understand intuitively their import.

How do we create that intuitive level of awareness surrounding our civil rights?

-Ben.

I think we talk or address it not so much in a 2A approach but as a Safety matter regarding family and kids.
Look how much has been accomplished by using safety, kids and health. Like it was alluded to earlier, if you are not alive or healthy enough nothing matters.

I think the general public's current actions reflects this thought through the purchasing of guns & ammo where they haven't for decades. To be safe or ensure safety of family the public turns to basic survival instincts and looks for a club.

Vick

retired
07-25-2009, 12:50 PM
So here is the bottom line, if you want Democrats and “liberals” to support your right to arms, you are going to have to support some of their causes. That means immigration rights, homosexual marriage, abortion rights, and a host of other issues that rile “conservatives” but actually harm no one.

M. D. Van Norman, you actually believe the presence of illegals in this state and the U.S. harm no one. There is sufficient information to prove both the economic and physical harm they have caused and I would be surprised if you haven't come across that.

Did I perhaps misinterpret what you wrote.

Booshanky
07-25-2009, 12:51 PM
Conservative, Liberal, Independent... doesnt matter what one calls themselves, if they line up with those who want to take away our rights, they are no friend of mine.

I think this is a common refrain. The main problem that I see with it is that it draws these black and white distinctions between people when it's clear that hardly anyone is ideologically "pure" one way or another. So instead of building a community around the RKBA, we instead shut people out.

For example, lets say that there's a Mexican-American member of the forum. They have family members in Mexico who they are trying to unite with here. They are huge 2A proponents and fully support all pro-gun legislation, but they feel the Republican party is hostile toward them.

Are they going to choose gun rights over their family? Likely not. So they vote for another politician who may not be as friendly toward gun rights, but they will still fight that politician and try to force them toward a more 2A friendly position.

This sort of situation plays out CONSTANTLY along the entire political spectrum. I, for example, dislike the way the republican party is hostile toward homosexuals, promotes wars which I disagree with, and uses Christianity to divide the population. However, (as many who know me personally), I am a huge gun nut. I promote all aspects of firearm ownership and would get a CCW if I could.

The way that many in the RKBA community feel, me and the other people I describe are unwelcome in the community. When we are shunned, then the RKBA community becomes simply a community of ultra-conservative people who will inherently shrink in number and lose their rights for no other reason than the fact that they wanted to be ideologically pure as a movement.

This can, and will, only result in failure.

So look, if you know someone who votes for politicians who are not as 2A friendly as you wish, debate that with them! Make it incumbent on them to fight their politicians the way that you can't since you aren't a member of the group. But to shut them out entirely is self defeating.


Am I wrong here?

artherd
07-25-2009, 1:05 PM
Look how much has been accomplished by using safety, kids and health.

We do have a plan to involve OHSA eventually ;)

yellowfin
07-25-2009, 1:27 PM
I'd say you hit it on the nail head, Boo. If we didn't have a political system trying like hell to control people we wouldn't have either side doing what they do to mess with other people's lives, and with a limited government that would stay in its tiny little box they wouldn't be doing the things that either of us dislike about them. They shouldn't be in our gun cabinet, bedroom, wallet, medicine cabinet, doctor's office, gas tank, refrigerator, place of worship or un-worship, computer, employment office, or fuse box. If I understand you correctly, you want yourself and friends to be left alone and not treated badly just as much as the rest of us, just for different reasons other than just RKBA.

aileron
07-25-2009, 5:31 PM
Please remind me which Amendment that one is?

9th.



The right to privacy also doesn't exist in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment makes it quite clear that there are lots of rights not enumerated.

-Gene

Err... never mind... Gene answered it, I think I'll read the whole thread before thinking of responding to anyone else...

Hunter4life1990
07-25-2009, 6:29 PM
Conservative, Liberal, Independent... doesnt matter what one calls themselves, if they line up with those who want to take away our rights, they are no friend of mine.

amen, remeber we defend our rights and god help those who doubt us.:44:

Aleksei Vasiliev
07-26-2009, 1:36 AM
In Order To Be a Liberal

You have to believe [...]

So what you're saying is "Liberals don't exist"? Because I don't fit most of those, and I doubt anybody does. I do believe it's part of the Right-Wing Conspiracy, but that's just because I'm paid to troll Team Sarah by George Soros.


The thing is, we (being the "left") can more easily change people's opinions about the RKBA. A conservative telling a Democrat to oppose an upcoming gun control bill stands absolutely no chance of convincing them, a left-winger stands a slightly higher chance. The politician won't be losing a vote if they ignore the conservative.

Conservatives are stereotyped as supporting guns. The left is not. So if I tell my "liberal" friends why it's important for people to be allowed to own guns and for them to own guns, they will listen to me more than they would to a conservative.

Ladyfox
07-26-2009, 1:55 AM
Are they going to choose gun rights over their family? Likely not. So they vote for another politician who may not be as friendly toward gun rights, but they will still fight that politician and try to force them toward a more 2A friendly position.

This sort of situation plays out CONSTANTLY along the entire political spectrum. I, for example, dislike the way the republican party is hostile toward homosexuals, promotes wars which I disagree with, and uses Christianity to divide the population. However, (as many who know me personally), I am a huge gun nut. I promote all aspects of firearm ownership and would get a CCW if I could.

The way that many in the RKBA community feel, me and the other people I describe are unwelcome in the community. When we are shunned, then the RKBA community becomes simply a community of ultra-conservative people who will inherently shrink in number and lose their rights for no other reason than the fact that they wanted to be ideologically pure as a movement.

This can, and will, only result in failure.

I think you pretty much hit this one right on the head Boo and said it a LOT better than I ever have.

This is one of the reasons why I've never really liked the current political system as it stands. For either side it's too much like "my way or the highway" with no room for compromise either way without resorting to a liberal amount of wood shampoo being metted out by the winner because they can get away with it for the next 4 years. There was a time when I did believe that the voting system works but when you have too choose between a redneck Republican who sounded even more extreme than Bush Jr. but did not look to be anti-2A to a Democrat that talks real pretty and is'nt so much a Bible thumper but turns out to be two-faced I've pretty much given up.

I think my boss had the right idea in that no matter how much of a religious zelot someone is if they support keeping your guns vote for them. At least that way we'll have something to fight with should they wish to come take your kids away from you compared to voting for someone that sounds a bit saner but would rather see you without the means to defend yourself.

CavTrooper
07-26-2009, 10:02 AM
I think this is a common refrain. The main problem that I see with it is that it draws these black and white distinctions between people when it's clear that hardly anyone is ideologically "pure" one way or another. So instead of building a community around the RKBA, we instead shut people out.

For example, lets say that there's a Mexican-American member of the forum. They have family members in Mexico who they are trying to unite with here. They are huge 2A proponents and fully support all pro-gun legislation, but they feel the Republican party is hostile toward them.

Are they going to choose gun rights over their family? Likely not. So they vote for another politician who may not be as friendly toward gun rights, but they will still fight that politician and try to force them toward a more 2A friendly position.

This sort of situation plays out CONSTANTLY along the entire political spectrum. I, for example, dislike the way the republican party is hostile toward homosexuals, promotes wars which I disagree with, and uses Christianity to divide the population. However, (as many who know me personally), I am a huge gun nut. I promote all aspects of firearm ownership and would get a CCW if I could.

The way that many in the RKBA community feel, me and the other people I describe are unwelcome in the community. When we are shunned, then the RKBA community becomes simply a community of ultra-conservative people who will inherently shrink in number and lose their rights for no other reason than the fact that they wanted to be ideologically pure as a movement.

This can, and will, only result in failure.

So look, if you know someone who votes for politicians who are not as 2A friendly as you wish, debate that with them! Make it incumbent on them to fight their politicians the way that you can't since you aren't a member of the group. But to shut them out entirely is self defeating.


Am I wrong here?


Boo, by "Mexican-American trying to reunite with their family" Im assuming you are talking about illegal immigration, you just dont have the balls to actually say "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION".

Why stop there, why not talk about herion dealers or pedophiles? Your opposed to the drug policy arent you, so selling herion should not be illegal should it? Also, you want the government to stay out of the bedroom, dont you? So what buisness is it who somebody sleeps with?

Im sorry, theres just some things I dont support and cant line up with.

If a "Mexican-American" wont vote for candiate A or B because they belive in legal immigration then F em, they can rot across the border for all I care. My familiy traveled to the US the right way, they came legally, and they made themselves successful because if it. Aside from that, if any minority votes for a democrat, they are doing so out of pure ignorance. They do not understand that the democrat party has always been and continues to be the party of racism and slavery.

But all that is just getting away from the main topic which is the 2A and our Constitutionally protected rights.

Right or Left, Democrat, Republican or Independent, if any person desires to take away our rights, they are no friend to us. And if one person supports that position through donations or votes or whatever, they too are no friend of ours. Comprimise is a horrible thing, because once you comprimise away a portion of your rights, they will chip away at the rest.

Booshanky
07-26-2009, 10:13 AM
Boo, by "Mexican-American trying to reunite with their family" Im assuming you are talking about illegal immigration, you just dont have the balls to actually say "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION".

Illegal or Legal. A lot of Hispanics in the United States view the Conservative attitude toward Illegal Immigration to be thinly veiled racism. I won't make an opinion either way whether that's right or wrong, but that's how it is. Their voting records make this absolutely obvious. For every other reason, most hispanics should be republicans. They tend to be for family, for religion, etc. Yet they still vote democratic mostly because they view republicans as hostile to them.



Why stop there, why not talk about herion dealers or pedophiles? Your opposed to the drug policy arent you, so selling herion should not be illegal should it? Also, you want the government to stay out of the bedroom, dont you? So what buisness is it who somebody sleeps with?

Im sorry, theres just some things I dont support and cant line up with.

If a "Mexican-American" wont vote for candiate A or B because they belive in legal immigration then F em, they can rot across the border for all I care. My familiy traveled to the US the right way, they came legally, and they made themselves successful because if it. Aside from that, if any minority votes for a democrat, they are doing so out of pure ignorance. They do not understand that the democrat party has always been and continues to be the party of racism and slavery.

But all that is just getting away from the main topic which is the 2A and our Constitutionally protected rights.

Right or Left, Democrat, Republican or Independent, if any person desires to take away our rights, they are no friend to us. And if one person supports that position through donations or votes or whatever, they too are no friend of ours. Comprimise is a horrible thing, because once you comprimise away a portion of your rights, they will chip away at the rest.

You're really making my entire point here. You have ignored my entire premise here and instead gone all the way off the deep end associating anyone who does not vote for the "right" politician with drug dealers and pedophiles. That's absurd.


And your last sentence really sums it up nicely. You are obviously a fundamentalist in your views. My point is that that sort of fundamentalism only results in lowering the number of people who are pro-gun.

We live in a country where we have a say in our government. If we all line up behind your ideology, we will ONLY alienate people and make our ranks lower, thus lowering any influence we could possibly have as a group.


Having a ideologically pure and homogenous group can and will never help us.

Booshanky
07-26-2009, 10:25 AM
If we end up in a situation like we have now, with the Democrats owning a 60 seat majority in the senate and a majority in the house, as well as the presidency, what good does the all-or-nothing attitude do us? None at all.

However, if we are inclusive in our group, and we say to people "I'm glad you're pro 2a, I disagree with you on immigration policy, gay rights, etc, but I'm glad your with us and part of our group" then in situations like we have right now we still keep and protect our 2A rights without much issue.

But if we continue to say that being a gun owner and promoter of RKBA means that you have to be of a particular political lean, then when the other party gets more power, we then only lose. We have nobody on "the inside" to help us.


That's basically the biggest problem that I see with your argument, Cav.

GaffSD
07-26-2009, 10:28 AM
I have to agree that this should remain a one-issue board.

The homosexual marriage rang a bell... This is not necessarily a "conservative" or pro-gun issue (I have a dear, close gun-loving friend that admits proudly that this is a Mormon driven cause. This is their right.)...

I personally believe that homosexual married couples (legal, moral or not) have the right to defend their lives ANYWHERE that they might find themselves. And they have a right to use the gun of their choice to do it.

The Mormons, and everyone else, should enjoy the SAME RIGHT.

I do NOT believe that the government has a right to tell me to live my life as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others...

These days, I'm not sure where that puts me on the political spectrum.

Ron

CavTrooper
07-26-2009, 10:46 AM
....


Having a ideologically pure and homogenous group can and will never help us.

Youre either unwillng or unable to grasp the concept. personally, I think you are intentionally ignoring the point.

IF YOU ARE FOR INFRINGING ON ONE RIGHT, YOU ARE FOR INFRINGING ON THEM ALL.

If you choose to align with those who want to take away our rights you are no friend of mine.

Its funny, the way you attempt to smear someone who doesnt follow your views with little tags like "racist" and "fundamenalist", Saul Alinsky taught you well.

radioburning
07-26-2009, 11:24 AM
Getting more liberals and Democrats involved with gun culture, I think, would further our cause more than getting more conservatives and Republicans involved. Seems like conservatives talk about the "2nd above all else", yet vehemently attack and/or shun 2A supporters who don't line up with other conservative issues. Personally, I feel that this makes gunners lose credibility with people who are not really familiar with the gun rights movement. Seems like most of the people I talk to who are not very close to gun culture are surprised to find out I'm a gunner. I've heard things like "you're not like most gunners I've met" "you seem a lot less angry and dogmatic about it, but you get your point across", true story.

As M.D. Van Norman said in a post once, "sometimes gun owners can be their own worst enemy".

Like it or not, as time goes by America is going to continue to get more ethnically, culturally, and socially diverse. Binding gun ownership to only other hardcore conservative issues, at least politically, is gonna narrow our demographic down to a fringe niche, and screw us in the long run.

What's the saying? "Adapt, or die."

Booshanky
07-26-2009, 12:24 PM
IF YOU ARE FOR INFRINGING ON ONE RIGHT, YOU ARE FOR INFRINGING ON THEM ALL.

If you choose to align with those who want to take away our rights you are no friend of mine.

But that's the thing, ALL politicians on some level or another want to take away our rights. Find me a politician who doesn't.



Its funny, the way you attempt to smear someone who doesnt follow your views with little tags like "racist" and "fundamenalist", Saul Alinsky taught you well.

I never said they were racist, I said some Hispanics perceive them as racist and that I wasn't making a judgement either way. Also, calling you fundamentalist in your position toward voting and the 2nd Amendment is simply being accurate and isn't meant to pass judgment on you either way.

Kestryll
07-26-2009, 12:30 PM
Also, calling you fundamentalist in your position toward voting and the 2nd Amendment is simply being accurate and isn't meant to pass judgment on you either way.

Actually your use of the term is as a derogatory statement.

You have used the term 'fundamentalist' to denigrate people too often to sell it as 'accurate' or innocent'.

Booshanky
07-26-2009, 12:34 PM
Actually your use of the term is as a derogatory statement.


Definition of "Fundamentalist":

strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles

That's exactly the position that Cav is taking. It's not a derogatory term, it's simply accurate.

Is there a different term you prefer that I use? I really don't care either way, I'm just trying to be accurate in my speech.

technique
07-26-2009, 12:49 PM
Alright I'm not going to sift through all this nonsense....

Boo, how about some ideas on issues we can support. What "liberal" cause would be a good way to get our "conservative" foot in the door?

Booshanky
07-26-2009, 7:56 PM
Alright I'm not going to sift through all this nonsense....

Boo, how about some ideas on issues we can support. What "liberal" cause would be a good way to get our "conservative" foot in the door?

Are you asking what causes conservatives would be a better conduit for making more liberal?

technique
07-26-2009, 8:00 PM
Are you asking what causes conservatives would be a better conduit for making more liberal?

Ask me that again in English!:)

Gator Monroe
07-26-2009, 8:05 PM
If we end up in a situation like we have now, with the Democrats owning a 60 seat majority in the senate and a majority in the house, as well as the presidency, what good does the all-or-nothing attitude do us? None at all.

However, if we are inclusive in our group, and we say to people "I'm glad you're pro 2a, I disagree with you on immigration policy, gay rights, etc, but I'm glad your with us and part of our group" then in situations like we have right now we still keep and protect our 2A rights without much issue.

But if we continue to say that being a gun owner and promoter of RKBA means that you have to be of a particular political lean, then when the other party gets more power, we then only lose. We have nobody on "the inside" to help us.


That's basically the biggest problem that I see with your argument, Cav.

If your particular politicle lean is mostly (80%) Anti then status quo and continued support in hopes of bringing Party to 65% or 70% Anti is useless for the most part and will never happen so choose your Wedge issues wisely and vote accordingly .

M. Sage
07-26-2009, 9:21 PM
If your particular politicle lean is mostly (80%) Anti then status quo and continued support in hopes of bringing Party to 65% or 70% Anti is useless for the most part and will never happen so choose your Wedge issues wisely and vote accordingly .

You do realize why they're called wedge issues, right? The two parties (ptui) drive them between the American people like a wedge so that we won't wake up and realize they're both driving us down the road to ruin.

We'll be so busy infighting about the material our chains should be made of that we won't notice that we're already wearing them.

Gator Monroe
07-26-2009, 9:23 PM
You do realize why they're called wedge issues, right? The two parties (ptui) drive them between the American people like a wedge so that we won't wake up and realize they're both driving us down the road to ruin.

We'll be so busy infighting about the material our chains should be made of that we won't notice that we're already wearing them.

GOP Wedge issue (Support of 2A) Democrat wedge Issue (Desire to undermine 2A)

hoffmang
07-26-2009, 9:29 PM
GOP Wedge issue (Support of 2A) Democrat wedge Issue (Desire to undermine 2A)

Yep (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsacUnitedStates.pdf). Can you remind me whose Whitehouse wrote that?

-Gene

M. Sage
07-26-2009, 9:32 PM
GOP Wedge issue (Support of 2A) Democrat wedge Issue (Desire to undermine 2A)

Yep. Look again and read the bit about the chains. Or does the set you were issued not chafe? Mine sure the hell do.

dwtt
07-26-2009, 9:41 PM
The best thing that can happen to further the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms in CA is to get rid of the current ruling part that has perpetual power in Sacramento.

Having went to school and currently living in Berkeley, I have seen that people who identify themselves as liberal have bought into an ideological package. That package includes the mantra that guns are bad and cause crime, and gun control is good. It's a very small number of people who are politically liberal and willing to respect the 2nd A. We won't make any progress by appealing to this small and relatively insignificant group. The bigger problem is the much larger number of people who support liberalism, no matter what the consequences may be.

radioman
07-26-2009, 11:24 PM
I'm only one democrat, I'm 52 years old I have a gun of some type, be it a toy as a boy, pellet as a teen, or what I've owned for last 31 years. and yes I am a liberal, but not like the tree hugging tofu eating fools that live in Berkeley. that's not liberal, that's stupid. I am for rights...... all rights if gay's want to get married, what's the big deal. it would slow down adis, would it not? the death penalty is just wrong, when I was boy my mom told me two wrongs don't make a right. thou shall not kill, does that ring a bell, if not forgive me. woman right to have a baby or not is hers, and only hers. I do not want illegals here at all. Now this is what my gun is for. to defend my wife and kids, my home, my self and my borders and my county. yes I am a liberal not a fool, difi boxer pelose all need to go. they are not liberals, what they are is socialist, or two clicks short of Communist! I say this because only a Communist would try to take the rights so many have fought and died to defend. not all liberals are out of their fing minds,some, most, not all. we must take back Sacramento, they eat to much tofu up there, that's why they can't think, send them some raw meat, they need it. would I kill if I had to? yes. would I want to? no. I'm a liberai.

CavTrooper
07-26-2009, 11:52 PM
I'm only one democrat, I'm 52 years old I have a gun of some type, be it a toy as a boy, pellet as a teen, or what I've owned for last 31 years. and yes I am a liberal, but not like the tree hugging tofu eating fools that live in Berkeley. that's not liberal, that's stupid. I am for rights...... all rights if gay's want to get married, what's the big deal. it would slow down adis, would it not?

How would a goverment issued contract slow down AIDS?

the death penalty is just wrong, when I was boy my mom told me two wrongs don't make a right. thou shall not kill, does that ring a bell, if not forgive me.

Ive also heard "an eye for eye" and various other quotes, the death penalty serves a purpose.

woman right to have a baby or not is hers, and only hers.

If its her right to choose and only hers, its her and only her responsibilty to prevent pregnancy. Abortion as birth control is not right.

I do not want illegals here at all.

Agreed!

Now this is what my gun is for. to defend my wife and kids, my home, my self and my borders and my county.

Amen!

yes I am a liberal not a fool, difi boxer pelose all need to go. they are not liberals, what they are is socialist, or two clicks short of Communist! I say this because only a Communist would try to take the rights so many have fought and died to defend. not all liberals are out of their fing minds,some, most, not all. we must take back Sacramento, they eat to much tofu up there, that's why they can't think, send them some raw meat, they need it. would I kill if I had to? yes. would I want to? no. I'm a liberai.

Im sorry brother, but you dont sound much like a liberal. I think youre reaching for a label and latching on to "liberal" because its easier than defending your true beliefs.

technique
07-26-2009, 11:58 PM
How would a goverment issued contract slow down AIDS?



Monogamy...less partners to spread to.

CavTrooper
07-27-2009, 12:14 AM
Monogamy...less partners to spread to.

So you only get monogamy through a contract?

Kestryll
07-27-2009, 1:20 AM
Definition of "Fundamentalist":



That's exactly the position that Cav is taking. It's not a derogatory term, it's simply accurate.

Is there a different term you prefer that I use? I really don't care either way, I'm just trying to be accurate in my speech.

Context of you use of 'fundamentalist:
the usual fundamentalist christian vote-getters. Anti-Abortion, anti-gay, anti-sexual freedom,
Because he's not a religious fundamentalist.
some crazy fundamentalist christian

Given the history of negative connotation and use as a derogatory reference it's a fair assumption that you did not initially intend it as just a descriptor.

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 7:07 AM
Context of you use of 'fundamentalist:




Given the history of negative connotation and use as a derogatory reference it's a fair assumption that you did not initially intend it as just a descriptor.

Oh I see what you're saying. But in that context I'm speaking about religion. I was, I think pretty obviously, using the term in it's other context with regard to the attitude espoused by those like kenpo and Cav with regard to their attitudes.

And by the way, "Fundamentalist" with regards to religion is not necessarily a term that's solely derogatory. Many fundamentalist christians and other religious sects use the term with pride. Heck, I believe (and I'd have to check the etymology on this) that the term was invented by a Christian movement in the 30's.

The mormons have a sect called the FLDS church. The F stands for Fundamentalist.

While I'm certainly a critic of religion, (and have a whole family of fundamentalist christians I've learned from), the term really means different things depending on your relation to it.

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 7:11 AM
Ask me that again in English!:)

HAHA, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Ok, lemme see if I can figure this out. You're asking what ideas conservatives can get behind that liberals can't do as well right? Like, my argument here is that liberals are going to be much better to persuade antis toward our side.

So if that's what you're asking, then I'd say there are a lot of issues. The war is a good one.

M. D. Van Norman
07-27-2009, 7:52 AM
M. D. Van Norman, you actually believe the presence of illegals in this state and the U.S. harm no one. There is sufficient information to prove both the economic and physical harm they have caused and I would be surprised if you haven't come across that.

Did I perhaps misinterpret what you wrote.

You did not misinterpret me, and I stand by my assertion.

For this discussion, I am not concerned about “economic harm.” In any case, illegal immigration is a symptom of this rather than a cause. Immigration itself causes no physical harm, though a few immigrants will be violent criminals.

Of course, the perpetual existence of violent criminals is one reason why the right to arms is important.

Once again, to stay on point, if we can win security for the right to arms by supporting public medical care for illegal immigrants (or some similar “liberal” goal), we should do it.

CavTrooper
07-27-2009, 7:56 AM
using the term in it's other context with regard to the attitude espoused by those like kenpo and Cav with regard to their attitudes.



Boo, you dont think everyone sees what you are trying to do here? Your sorry attempts to play innocent while throwing out comparisons like this is transparent. Keep pressing the attack, dont let up, if you repeat it often enough and loud enough it might just become the truth. :rolleyes:

So why dont you just nut up and say what you really mean.

yellowfin
07-27-2009, 8:06 AM
Wow, bravo guys, bravo. The guy says we're not getting anywhere by arguing amongst ourselves and running people off from our cause and look what you do as a response. Disgraceful.

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 8:08 AM
Boo, you dont think everyone sees what you are trying to do here? Your sorry attempts to play innocent while throwing out comparisons like this is transparent. Keep pressing the attack, dont let up, if you repeat it often enough and loud enough it might just become the truth. :rolleyes:

So why dont you just nut up and say what you really mean.

I'm not trying to be derogatory or anything. I'm honestly posting this thread to start a discussion about where the movement should go.

The way I see it, we can go down the route you describe and ultimately make the RKBA movement more of an insider clique that is generally unwelcoming to all but those who are extremely to the right side of the political spectrum, or we can go down the route that I describe where we are welcoming to all those who promote the RKBA, even if they don't vote for politicians solely based upon the 2A.

That's not some sort of personal attack on you. And if you think I'm trying to subtlely say something mean toward you but am couching my language for fear of being banned or something, I'd just say it to you over at the other forum. But I'm not. My point and intent could not be more clear.

This isn't about you really. Your viewpoint is one that is very prevalent in the RKBA movment, and since you're the one voicing it here I'm using your posts as an example. I used kenpos as an example on the other forum. But this is a much larger issue than one that involves just you.


I actually really like you man. I think you're a person of good moral character. I think you have your heart in the right place and are very honorable. I just disagree with you on your viewpoints, and I'm glad we have a place like this where we can discuss these differences. Differences which are going to have to be more fully settled across the whole spectrum of gun owners if we are to ensure that our rights are fully and properly protected.

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 8:10 AM
Wow, bravo guys, bravo. The guy says we're not getting anywhere by arguing amongst ourselves and running people off from our cause and look what you do as a response. Disgraceful.

Don't even sweat it. I think this sort of conversation is one that needs to be had among us. Discussion, even heated discussion such as this is not a bad thing as long as we all have our hearts in the right place, and I think we all do.

Diversity means disagreement. There's nothing wrong with that.

M. D. Van Norman
07-27-2009, 8:11 AM
IF YOU ARE FOR INFRINGING ON ONE RIGHT, YOU ARE FOR INFRINGING ON THEM ALL.

CavTrooper, I completely agree with this sentiment, but it also describes exactly what you are doing.

For example, your opposition to “abortion on demand” is an attack on the right to privacy. Ultimately, the right to privacy is my right to walk down the street with a pistol in my pocket without having to worry about being hassled by the police.

We have to defend both rights, even if we find some of the consequences unpleasant.

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 8:14 AM
CavTrooper, I completely agree with this sentiment, but it also describes exactly what you are doing.

For example, your opposition to “abortion on demand” is an attack on the right to privacy. Ultimately, the right to privacy is my right to walk down the street with a pistol in my pocket without having to worry about being hassled by the police.

We have to defend both rights, even if we find some of the consequences unpleasant.

Or for example, the Bush administration using terrorism as an excuse to strip American citizens of their right to due process, habeus corpus, and cruel and unusual punishment.

In a lot of the political choices we are given, it has never been the case where one party or politician has been 100% for protecting all rights, and the other hasn't. Each person tends to choose which rights are more important to them.

Aleksei Vasiliev
07-27-2009, 8:18 AM
I really have to figure out if any of my friends are antis and take them shooting once I finally get my rifle Friday. And I should probably get involved bothering my representatives to oppose anti-gun bills.

How come the RKBA movement doesn't seem to have marches to show public support?

yellowfin
07-27-2009, 8:21 AM
How come the RKBA movement doesn't seem to have marches to show public support? Because press coverage and sabotage by the opposition usually makes it backfire.

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 8:22 AM
I really have to figure out if any of my friends are antis and take them shooting once I finally get my rifle Friday. And I should probably get involved bothering my representatives to oppose anti-gun bills.

How come the RKBA movement doesn't seem to have marches to show public support?

Probably because when the Black Panthers did it, that's what created a lot of the anti-gun legislation we all live under now.

I mean, if you're saying that we should go marching with our weapons. If you just mean having a demonstration, then yeah, I don't know why. Probably because it's not a particularly effective way of showing a nuanced opinion. We'd probably all just look like a bunch of reactionary scary people.


But yeah, take everyone out that you can. Ever anti I've taken shooting has loved it, and was solely anti out of ignorance since they never have lived around guns much.

I think if we all "adopted an anti" as the saying might go, it would go a long way toward destroying the image of a gun owner as an ignorant redneck whose sole argument for gun ownership is "from my cold dead hands". An image that a lot of anti's believe.

Pvt. Cowboy
07-27-2009, 8:23 AM
Once again, to stay on point, if we can win security for the right to arms by supporting public medical care for illegal immigrants (or some similar “liberal” goal), we should do it.

Firstly, who is this 'we' you're talking about?

Once we've established who 'we' is, how do you imagine that this horse-trading of endorsing liberal values in exchange for securing your right to arms will work?

yellowfin
07-27-2009, 8:23 AM
80 years before the Black Panthers did it, Herman Presser and his friends did it in Chicago and look what we got.

IGOTDIRT4U
07-27-2009, 8:27 AM
So here is the bottom line, if you want Democrats and “liberals” to support your right to arms, you are going to have to support some of their causes. That means immigration rights, homosexual marriage, abortion rights, and a host of other issues that rile “conservatives” but actually harm no one.


ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! There are at least 47 other states making great case law to support. I will NOT be controlled by an agenda I disagree with, a chiseling away of my rights, and my vote.

Whether CA likes it or not, things can and will change. Constantly conceding to issues that are brought on by one party or another in order to gain one issue, is dangerous.

M. D. Van Norman
07-27-2009, 8:47 AM
Firstly, who is this ‘we’ you're talking about?

Those of us who support the right to arms, regardless of our other differences.

MolonLabe2008
07-27-2009, 8:55 AM
I will never vote Democrat and there aren't too many Republicans that I will vote for either.

IGOTDIRT4U
07-27-2009, 9:03 AM
I really have to figure out if any of my friends are antis and take them shooting once I finally get my rifle Friday. And I should probably get involved bothering my representatives to oppose anti-gun bills.

How come the RKBA movement doesn't seem to have marches to show public support?

You missed being in attendance with the Pink Pistols at the SF Gay Pride parade earlier this summer?!?

Gator Monroe
07-27-2009, 9:17 AM
Boo, you dont think everyone sees what you are trying to do here? Your sorry attempts to play innocent while throwing out comparisons like this is transparent. Keep pressing the attack, dont let up, if you repeat it often enough and loud enough it might just become the truth. :rolleyes:

So why dont you just nut up and say what you really mean.

He is as easy to Read as Gator Monroe is (And at least I'm not in denial about my tendency to kvetch about Social progressives & Democrats and their Gay mafia friends & the Anti agenda they espouse, and am unoppolgetic about my shtik (unless I'm begging for a reprieve from Kes) .

radioman
07-27-2009, 9:32 AM
How would a goverment issued contract slow down AIDS?

If you are sleeping with only one person, less std. sleeping ten people more std

Ive also heard "an eye for eye" and various other quotes, the death penalty serves a purpose.
Yes the death penalty dose serve a purpose, it makes us no better then the ones we condemn, an eye for an eye, vengeance shall be mind satith the lord.


If its her right to choose and only hers, its her and only her responsibilty to prevent pregnancy. Abortion as birth control is not right.

It is still better then having a baby you can't support, and it is population control.

Agreed!



Amen!



Im sorry brother, but you dont sound much like a liberal. I think youre reaching for a label and latching on to "liberal" because its easier than defending your true beliefs.
it must the only liberals you have talked to are to full of tofu, and as I said there not liberals there fools.

Aleksei Vasiliev
07-27-2009, 9:40 AM
You missed being in attendance with the Pink Pistols at the SF Gay Pride parade earlier this summer?!?

I have no way of getting to SF at the moment :(
Sucks, cause SF is a great place. I wouldn't want to live there though, too big.


And yeah, Boo, I can see how marching armed would be bad. And it seems pretty likely people marching for RKBA would want to be carrying. I just really like marching, I guess.

I think it's important to show how many people own guns (look, California, you probably know some of these people!), though, and that seemed like the easiest way.

AJAX22
07-27-2009, 9:45 AM
A lot of people who consider themselves to be "liberal democrats" are in fact libertarian or even anarcho-capitalist.

A 'fiscally conservative' liberal, pretty much sums up the libertarian position...

Pro 2A People who still identify with the 'democrat' or 'liberal' moniker are incredibly useful in winning over converts to the 2A.

It is unrealistic to expect the general populace to grasp even basic economic theory (if they did they would ALL be fiscally conservative)

the right to self defense and opposition to tyranny is a reasonably simple concept however and one we can expect to spread within the ranks of the opposition.

If you dissagree with them still adhearing to the monikier well, keep it to yourself... you don't have to win everyone over on every issue... If it helps you deal with your own bias well think of them as "useful idiots"
(no offense boo et all, this is not intended as a slight against you)

I was a democrat for years, I was raised as a liberal democrat, and I have the same issues as most democrats do with the republican party being hijacked by religion and statist b.s.

Coming around on the firearm issue, and understanding that just because you are nominally X doesn't mean you have to think Y about Z is a huge first step.

Independent though is incredibly rare and a very large obstacle to people (in both major parties) in forming coherent intellectually honest positions which are not dictated by party membership.

M. Sage
07-27-2009, 9:57 AM
Once again, to stay on point, if we can win security for the right to arms by supporting public medical care for illegal immigrants (or some similar “liberal” goal), we should do it.

So we should support being robbed? That's what public medical care is, after all; robbery.

You're talking about trading liberty for security.

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 10:00 AM
I will never vote Democrat and there aren't too many Republicans that I will vote for either.

This thread isn't about us voting one way or another, it's about us not instantly making people feel unwelcome and denouncing them if they do vote democratic, based simply on that one attribute alone.

If people like to shoot and promote gun rights, I say we welcome them with open arms and make them our ambassadors to the anti's.

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 10:02 AM
So we should support being robbed? That's what public medical care is, after all; robbery.

You're talking about trading liberty for security.

That could be said about progressive taxation in general, depending on your viewpoint.

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 10:04 AM
So here is the bottom line, if you want Democrats and “liberals” to support your right to arms, you are going to have to support some of their causes. That means immigration rights, homosexual marriage, abortion rights, and a host of other issues that rile “conservatives” but actually harm no one.

As much as I wish this would be the case, I have to disagree with you on this point. I don't think conservatives necessarily have to support any liberal issues at all, I just think they needn't be so hostile toward those who do, especially when they share the goals of the RKBA movement.

M. Sage
07-27-2009, 10:16 AM
That could be said about progressive taxation in general, depending on your viewpoint.

It could be, it is, and I'd say that it's an accurate thing to say, since I say it loud and often.

However there are far more issues than just that with government-provided health care that I won't get into here.

RE: Immigration rights, how can it be unreasonable to want someone to follow the law when it comes to immigrating to a new country? Hey, I guess I am willing for some horse-trading; people can ignore the immigration laws if I can ignore the tax laws.

radioburning
07-27-2009, 10:22 AM
How come the RKBA movement doesn't seem to have marches to show public support?

NRA members marched in the Huntington Beach 4th of July parade.

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 10:31 AM
It could be, it is, and I'd say that it's an accurate thing to say, since I say it loud and often.

However there are far more issues than just that with government-provided health care that I won't get into here.

RE: Immigration rights, how can it be unreasonable to want someone to follow the law when it comes to immigrating to a new country? Hey, I guess I am willing for some horse-trading; people can ignore the immigration laws if I can ignore the tax laws.

See, I think this kind of argument is a little unproductive in regards to the topic of this thread. I'm not arguing that you need to support illegal immigration or high taxation or something, I just think that there is a fairly large constituency of gun owners who simply shun any other gun owners and gun rights advocates if they aren't as hard-lined about those issues as you are.

It's not really about horse trading as much as just ignoring the disagreements between us and embracing the similarities, like RKBA.

Kestryll
07-27-2009, 10:35 AM
So here is the bottom line, if you want Democrats and “liberals” to support your right to arms, you are going to have to support some of their causes. That means immigration rights, homosexual marriage, abortion rights, and a host of other issues that rile “conservatives” but actually harm no one.

Just out of curiosity, if you seriously think and expect that I would arbitrarily throw out my beliefs and convictions on these other issues what makes you think I wouldn't do the same for my supposed convictions on the right to bear arms?

And why should I not expect you to sell us out in favor of something else you find interesting down the road?

IGOTDIRT4U
07-27-2009, 10:41 AM
Just out of curiosity, if you seriously think and expect that I would arbitrarily throw out my beliefs and convictions on these other issues what makes you think I wouldn't do the same for my supposed convictions on the right to bear arms?

And why should I not expect you to sell us out in favor of something else you find interesting down the road?

EXACTLY! Well said!

My words earlier:

"ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! There are at least 47 other states making great case law to support. I will NOT be controlled by an agenda I disagree with, a chiseling away of my rights, and my vote.

Whether CA likes it or not, things can and will change. Constantly conceding to issues that are brought on by one party or another in order to gain one issue, is dangerous. "

radioman
07-27-2009, 10:42 AM
Immigration is not a right, nor should it be, there was a time when a kid wanted a job the kid could go in to fast food. not now, who works in fast food now, we can't ignore that. if they want a permit to come here and pick our vegges, fine. so long as we take tax out of what they make, then they can go home. We can find middle ground, we must find middle ground, if we are ever to have rights of any kind. I fight with you, you fight with me, and we don't see our rights slip away until it is to late, so is boo right, do we work to keep our rights, or do we fight and let them slip away?

radioman
07-27-2009, 10:49 AM
Just out of curiosity, if you seriously think and expect that I would arbitrarily throw out my beliefs and convictions on these other issues what makes you think I wouldn't do the same for my supposed convictions on the right to bear arms?

And why should I not expect you to sell us out in favor of something else you find interesting down the road?

Kestryll it's not about selling out, it is about finding middle ground. lemmings have the same beliefs and convictions, thank god we don't.

Aleksei Vasiliev
07-27-2009, 10:51 AM
I don't think it's necessary to support any "liberal" positions. Just work on convincing "liberals" that RKBA isn't a conservative position, it's a freedom position.

Kestryll
07-27-2009, 11:02 AM
Kestryll it's not about selling out, it is about finding middle ground. lemmings have the same beliefs and convictions, thank god we don't.

To you that is what it is about but reread M.D.'s post and tell me that is not what it is about to him:
So here is the bottom line, if you want Democrats and “liberals” to support your right to arms, you are going to have to SUPPORT some of their causes. That means immigration rights, homosexual marriage, abortion rights, and a host of other issues that rile “conservatives” but actually harm no one.

This is one of the issues that makes it difficult for conservatives to work with liberals even on a common issue.
Too many play it as negotiating or ultimatum serving.

"If you want my help on this topic you have to give up your convictions on other topics and support my beliefs.."
This is not working together nor cooperation, this is ideological blackmail and it rarely works and often adds more division and strife.

To be sure there are those conservatives who throw out the "Well you voted for.... so you can not be a true 2A supporter." This is no more helpful in the long run.

The problem is, and one of the reasons I am trying to limit non-2A political fighting in OT, is that even on non-2A topics people build an image and impression of others and that image and impression carries over to 2A issues.

People tend to think "It's not really gun related so I can throw this out there" and not realize that others WILL remember that later and it hampers having any kind of working relationship.

radioman
07-27-2009, 11:05 AM
I don't think it's necessary to support any "liberal" positions. Just work on convincing "liberals" that RKBA isn't a conservative position, it's a freedom position.

If you don't meet in the middle, how do you get someone to see your point of view, there might be something in my point of view you can work with, so then there might be something in your point of view I can work with. we need to find trust and we can't do that if we won't look at the other point of view.

IGOTDIRT4U
07-27-2009, 11:08 AM
I don't think it's necessary to support any "liberal" positions. Just work on convincing "liberals" that RKBA isn't a conservative position, it's a freedom position.

Yep!

technique
07-27-2009, 11:09 AM
HAHA, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Ok, lemme see if I can figure this out. You're asking what ideas conservatives can get behind that liberals can't do as well right? Like, my argument here is that liberals are going to be much better to persuade antis toward our side.

So if that's what you're asking, then I'd say there are a lot of issues. The war is a good one.

Ok...that was kinda what I was asking.

Basically if "liberals" are willing to support RKBA then as a good gesture and in an effort to work together "conservatives" should support a "liberal" cause.

For a liberal cause you suggested the war (ending it?)

That is a huge step and definitely a touchy subject...baby steps Boo.:)


But you have the idea...I would be willing to support some causes in exchange for liberal support on RKBA. So long as those causes have nothing to do with PETA.:eek:

radioman
07-27-2009, 11:10 AM
CavTrooper, I completely agree with this sentiment, but it also describes exactly what you are doing.

For example, your opposition to “abortion on demand” is an attack on the right to privacy. Ultimately, the right to privacy is my right to walk down the street with a pistol in my pocket without having to worry about being hassled by the police.

We have to defend both rights, even if we find some of the consequences unpleasant.

that is called middle gruond

radioman
07-27-2009, 11:14 AM
Ok...that was kinda what I was asking.

Basically if "liberals" are willing to support RKBA then as a good gesture and in an effort to work together "conservatives" should support a "liberal" cause.

For a liberal cause you suggested the war (ending it?)

That is a huge step and definitely a touchy subject...baby steps Boo.:)


But you have the idea...I would be willing to support some causes in exchange for liberal support on RKBA. So long as those causes have nothing to do with PETA.:eek:
Not of all of us are vegges eater I like my stake pink in the middle.

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 11:18 AM
Ok...that was kinda what I was asking.

Basically if "liberals" are willing to support RKBA then as a good gesture and in an effort to work together "conservatives" should support a "liberal" cause.

For a liberal cause you suggested the war (ending it?)

That is a huge step and definitely a touchy subject...baby steps Boo.:)


But you have the idea...I would be willing to support some causes in exchange for liberal support on RKBA. So long as those causes have nothing to do with PETA.:eek:


Yeah, it's a big subject, but it's one of those things that I think conservatives are going to be inherently better at doing than liberals. I can talk all day long about the war and how I disagree with it. And while some people might intellectually agree with me and my points, there is always that underlying subtext that I'm just a dirty hippy and I should just be ignored.

The same way that a lot of anti's view conservatives who support the RKBA as ignorant rednecks who are prone to violence. I can come in and say "hi, I'm a liberal just like you, here's why I think gun ownership and gun rights are a good thing". I'll be listened to much more than a conservative would.


So I gotta repeat again that I disagree with van norman about the idea that we necessarily need to horse-trade in ideology. I think we just need to get past this idea that being a liberal means that one is not welcome in the RKBA community. I think we should embrace liberals as long as they support the RKBA, and utilize them as ambassadors to the anti's because they will be listened to more.

That doesn't mean that you have to agree with all liberal positions by any means. Heck, I think it's great to have debates with those we disagree with. I'm just saying we shouldn't make them feel unwelcome when they are the people who will be able to change the most minds on this issue. Otherwise, if we simply try to make the RKBA movement a conservatives-only issue then we just shoot ourselves in the foot for no good reason at all.

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 11:19 AM
I don't think it's necessary to support any "liberal" positions. Just work on convincing "liberals" that RKBA isn't a conservative position, it's a freedom position.

Bam. You got it right on. And, when that message comes from the mouth of a liberal (like you or me), it will inherently be listened to with more of an open mind than if it were to come out of the mouth of a conservative.

Hopi
07-27-2009, 11:27 AM
I don't think it's necessary to support any "liberal" positions. Just work on convincing "liberals" that RKBA isn't a conservative position, it's a freedom position.

I agree that RKBA is a freedom position, as is marriage 'equality' and the repeal of prohibitions etc, but both sides have differing opinions on what 'freedom' means and who deserves it. That's where the politics plays a role. That's the reality.

IGOTDIRT4U
07-27-2009, 11:30 AM
Bam. You got it right on. And, when that message comes from the mouth of a liberal (like you or me), it will inherently be listened to with more of an open mind than if it were to come out of the mouth of a conservative.

Boo, now you are being silly and derogatory. You implied that open minded people will listen more if something comes from the mouth of a liberal than if it came out of the mouth of a conservative. Soooo, you are saying conservatives are not open minded? Or are you playing the hypocrite, because saying liberals more likely would not listen to a conservative under the assumption they are close minded, is, well, not very "OPEN MINDED"...!!!

radioman
07-27-2009, 11:32 AM
Yeah, it's a big subject, but it's one of those things that I think conservatives are going to be inherently better at doing than liberals. I can talk all day long about the war and how I disagree with it. And while some people might intellectually agree with me and my points, there is always that underlying subtext that I'm just a dirty hippy and I should just be ignored.

The same way that a lot of anti's view conservatives who support the RKBA as ignorant rednecks who are prone to violence. I can come in and say "hi, I'm a liberal just like you, here's why I think gun ownership and gun rights are a good thing". I'll be listened to much more than a conservative would.


So I gotta repeat again that I disagree with van norman about the idea that we necessarily need to horse-trade in ideology. I think we just need to get past this idea that being a liberal means that one is not welcome in the RKBA community. I think we should embrace liberals as long as they support the RKBA, and utilize them as ambassadors to the anti's because they will be listened to more.

That doesn't mean that you have to agree with all liberal positions by any means. Heck, I think it's great to have debates with those we disagree with. I'm just saying we shouldn't make them feel unwelcome when they are the people who will be able to change the most minds on this issue. Otherwise, if we simply try to make the RKBA movement a conservatives-only issue then we just shoot ourselves in the foot for no good reason at all.

boo your right not all liberals live in fear, and it is up to us that don't to bring the ones that do in to the light. but to "use" is not the way to go, "work with" would be a better way to go.

Kestryll
07-27-2009, 11:38 AM
Bam. You got it right on. And, when that message comes from the mouth of a liberal (like you or me), it will inherently be listened to with more of an open mind than if it were to come out of the mouth of a conservative.

You're discussing how to get people to work together and you throw this little shot out there.

How exactly is it you expect conservatives to be willing to work with liberals when you continue to make disparaging and insulting remarks about them WHILE TRYING TO ENGENDER COOPERATION?!?!

radioman
07-27-2009, 11:55 AM
to all the conservatives here, I bet that we talked face to face, we may not be that far apart, HMO's are getting out of hand and we need to do something, we need to stop illegals from moving in, and not 2A but 1 true 10A and 14A. free market, we have to fix it, our money is just paper. you see we all want to get the same place, we just take different road to get there.

Aleksei Vasiliev
07-27-2009, 12:03 PM
You're discussing how to get people to work together and you throw this little shot out there.

How exactly is it you expect conservatives to be willing to work with liberals when you continue to make disparaging and insulting remarks about them WHILE TRYING TO ENGENDER COOPERATION?!?!

How is saying that a liberal will have a more open mind when listening to a liberal than a conservative an insult?

M. Sage
07-27-2009, 12:10 PM
to all the conservatives here, I bet that we talked face to face, we may not be that far apart, HMO's are getting out of hand and we need to do something, we need to stop illegals from moving in, and not 2A but 1 true 10A and 14A. free market, we have to fix it, our money is just paper. you see we all want to get the same place, we just take different road to get there.

But the "liberal fixes" (especially with regards to health care) are to cast heavier chains upon us, not to lift off the chains causing the problems in the first place.

radioman
07-27-2009, 12:21 PM
But the "liberal fixes" (especially with regards to health care) are to cast heavier chains upon us, not to lift off the chains causing the problems in the first place.

That why we need to work together, remember we have fools on our side, difi, boxer, pelosi, we can't win, I'm turning in my membership to the democrat party for just that. if not for fools we could work together, I do see your point on that, but if we can't work together then what.

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 12:24 PM
You're discussing how to get people to work together and you throw this little shot out there.

How exactly is it you expect conservatives to be willing to work with liberals when you continue to make disparaging and insulting remarks about them WHILE TRYING TO ENGENDER COOPERATION?!?!

How is what I said there a disparaging or insulting remark? I think it's simply a matter of fact. Anti-gunners tend to shut out and ignore any conservatives who try to win them over. On the opposite side, conservatives tend not to listen to liberals about issues like the war.

We all inherently sort of tend to only listen to people who we already agree with. How many liberals do you think really listen to the arguments that Anne Coulter makes? They just think "Oh yeah, of course she says that....." and they ignore her.


It's like I said earlier, only Nixon could go to China.

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 12:28 PM
Boo, now you are being silly and derogatory. You implied that open minded people will listen more if something comes from the mouth of a liberal than if it came out of the mouth of a conservative. Soooo, you are saying conservatives are not open minded? Or are you playing the hypocrite, because saying liberals more likely would not listen to a conservative under the assumption they are close minded, is, well, not very "OPEN MINDED"...!!!



Oh no no no no no. If what I said could be misconstrued in any way, I think it would be that I was saying that anti-gunnners tend to be close minded.

But that's not what I was saying at all. I mean that people in general tend to listen to those they already agree with, and they tend to have pre-conceived notions about those they disagree with and thus tend to close their minds to them.

When a hardcore conservative guy goes up to an anti-gunner and makes arguments for gun ownership, they will tend to be ignored because the anti-gunner will just put their blinders up and close their mind to the argument because of where the idea is coming from.

But if a liberal goes up to another liberal who happens to be an anti, they'll get more traction because the information is coming from a more "trusted" source.

See what I'm saying?

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 12:29 PM
boo your right not all liberals live in fear, and it is up to us that don't to bring the ones that do in to the light. but to "use" is not the way to go, "work with" would be a better way to go.

You're right, that is a better choice of words.

M. D. Van Norman
07-27-2009, 12:29 PM
So we should support being robbed? That’s what public medical care is, after all; robbery.

Hyperbole aside, I’m not talking about new spending. Like it or not, we are already taxed.

If my choice right now were between a secure right to arms or lower taxes, I would choose the right to arms. I can only assume that most members here would make the same choice.

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 12:30 PM
How is saying that a liberal will have a more open mind when listening to a liberal than a conservative an insult?

I think he (as well as IGOTDIRT4U) misunderstood me and thought that I was saying that conservatives were close minded, when in fact I was implying that liberal-anti-gunners are close minded when hearing pro RKBA info from conservatives.

M. D. Van Norman
07-27-2009, 12:47 PM
Just out of curiosity, if you seriously think and expect that I would arbitrarily throw out my beliefs and convictions on these other issues what makes you think I wouldn’t do the same for my supposed convictions on the right to bear arms?

And why should I not expect you to sell us out in favor of something else you find interesting down the road?

I’m not expecting anyone to throw out their convictions, but I am asking for prioritization. We’ll never get everything all at once.

In line with what Boo is saying, “conservative” RKBA advocates need to be less hostile to “liberal” RKBA advocates. We should cultivate these “liberals” instead of alienating them by insisting that they don’t exist. The pro-gun “liberals” themselves will have to carry the water with Democratic leaders, but sometimes, I think that “conservative” Republicans will have to lend political support.

Ending the vitriol and the hatred is the first step.

M. D. Van Norman
07-27-2009, 12:58 PM
Soooo, you are saying conservatives are not open minded? …

“Liberals” think that they are open minded, just like “conservatives” think that they are logical. :D

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 1:02 PM
I would also point out that I tend to get a lot of PM's from other members of the forum here who are liberal gun owners, thanking me for speaking my mind on issues like this. The constant refrain that I hear from them is that they don't speak up the way they wish they could because they don't feel that their opinions would be welcome here, or worse, that they would suffer hostility because of them.

That's the kind of thing that I'm trying to mitigate and discuss with this thread.

Despite the kind of intense debates that I get into with people like .454, Molonlabe2008, etc, I can guarantee that if we were all to head to the range and bring our rifles we'd all have a great time. A "blast" if you will. *rimshot*

We can all disagree on political topics, but lets not let that disagreement get in the way of the fact that we all, deep down, are total nerds for guns.

MolonLabe2008
07-27-2009, 1:05 PM
Despite the kind of intense debates that I get into with people like .454, Molonlabe2008, etc, I can guarantee that if we were all to head to the range and bring our rifles we'd all have a great time. A "blast" if you will. *rimshot*

We can all disagree on political topics, but lets not let that disagreement get in the way of the fact that we all, deep down, are total nerds for guns.

I would like to comment on this, but I'd probably get perma-banned.

So, I won't go there.

Hans Gruber
07-27-2009, 1:07 PM
...

We can all disagree on political topics, but lets not let that disagreement get in the way of the fact that we all, deep down, are total nerds for guns.

http://nerdarama.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/ogre.jpg

M. D. Van Norman
07-27-2009, 1:16 PM
To further clarify, I’m not saying that “conservative” gun owners have to get behind every “liberal” agenda item. However, I think political support will be necessary in some cases.

That said, let me address the convictions Kestryll doesn’t want to compromise. These convictions often address certain social problems (such as abortion, drug abuse, etc.). Where such problems impinge on natural rights, though, cultural influence will always be more effective at dealing with them than legislative fiat.

Booshanky
07-27-2009, 1:20 PM
I would like to comment on this, but I'd probably get perma-banned.

So, I won't go there.

Ok, well just to speak for myself, I don't have anything against anyone here personally. I enjoy a good honest debate about issues. And nothing any of us has said here would get in the way of having a good time at the range with any Calgunner.

-Mark

MolonLabe2008
07-27-2009, 1:33 PM
Ok, well just to speak for myself, I don't have anything against anyone here personally. I enjoy a good honest debate about issues. And nothing any of us has said here would get in the way of having a good time at the range with any Calgunner.

-Mark

I'm old and cranky. I don't put up with much anymore.

Just because someone has an AR15 and some handguns doesn't make them my buddy.

Why would I hang out with people who do not share a majority of views?

I think the only things you and I have in common are guns.

gewgaw
07-27-2009, 1:46 PM
I'm old and cranky. I don't put up with much anymore.

Just because someone has an AR15 and some handguns doesn't make them my buddy.

Why would I hang out with people who do not share a majority of views?

I think the only things you and I have in common are guns.

Wow, just wow. If you only hang out with people you share a majority of views with, that's your choice, but it seems rather limiting.

The level of heat in this thread is amazing, considering the thread was started as an attempt to bridge the gap between people who disagree politically, but agree when it comes to RKBA.

One would think one would want as many allies as possible in this fight for the 2A and RKBA. Now I'm totally fine if someone doesn't want to hang out and be buddies with people based only on a single factor (like guns), but seems to me that for everyone on Calguns, that's what the common cause is -- guns.

When a thread comes up on this site to write/fax/call our State Senators to oppose AB962, no one cares about your political party membership, or gives you a litmus test on political philosophy. What we have in common is our opposition to overbearing limits on our RKBA.

Just like not all conservatives agree on Sarah Palin, not all liberals agree on gun control. Some Catholics think the Pope is crazy. Some Jews eat pork.

People who would think nothing of going to a Dodgers (or Angels or Giants!) game with a stadium full of other fans, even high five and share a beer with them regardless of who they voted for -- all of a sudden, you can't do the same at the shooting range because one of them thinks gays can't marry and the other one thinks they should be able to?

This isn't a zero-sum game, people. We CAN all win, without someone having to lose.

M. D. Van Norman
07-27-2009, 1:50 PM
I would be very lonely, if I only hung out with people who always agreed with me.

In other words, no one agrees with me all the time.

gewgaw
07-27-2009, 1:51 PM
To further clarify, I’m not saying that “conservative” gun owners have to get behind every “liberal” agenda item. However, I think political support will be necessary in some cases.

That said, let me address the convictions Kestryll doesn’t want to compromise. These convictions often address certain social problems (such as abortion, drug abuse, etc.). Where such problems impinge on natural rights, though, cultural influence will always be more effective at dealing with them than legislative fiat.

Agree. Wherever the political support is logical, and consistent with that individual's philosophy, there should be support given.

I am more libertarian in my stance than liberal, but I feel RKBA is a natural intersection of interests among those who believe that individual liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution serve as the foundation of our society. That is not something that is owned exclusively by any political faction in this country.

MolonLabe2008
07-27-2009, 3:02 PM
Wow, just wow. If you only hang out with people you share a majority of views with, that's your choice, but it seems rather limiting.

The level of heat in this thread is amazing, considering the thread was started as an attempt to bridge the gap between people who disagree politically, but agree when it comes to RKBA.

One would think one would want as many allies as possible in this fight for the 2A and RKBA. Now I'm totally fine if someone doesn't want to hang out and be buddies with people based only on a single factor (like guns), but seems to me that for everyone on Calguns, that's what the common cause is -- guns.

When a thread comes up on this site to write/fax/call our State Senators to oppose AB962, no one cares about your political party membership, or gives you a litmus test on political philosophy. What we have in common is our opposition to overbearing limits on our RKBA.

Just like not all conservatives agree on Sarah Palin, not all liberals agree on gun control. Some Catholics think the Pope is crazy. Some Jews eat pork.

People who would think nothing of going to a Dodgers (or Angels or Giants!) game with a stadium full of other fans, even high five and share a beer with them regardless of who they voted for -- all of a sudden, you can't do the same at the shooting range because one of them thinks gays can't marry and the other one thinks they should be able to?

This isn't a zero-sum game, people. We CAN all win, without someone having to lose.

It is really simple.

I'm not going to compromise my principles to appease a handful of liberals.

Look at the mess we are in now.

We all know that the originator of this thread voted for Obama, yet Obama and the Democrats, who are in control, are....spending more money.....are giving us the largest deficits ever.....raising taxes.....taking over the auto industry....trying to take over our medical industry....denying us CCW reciprocity....attempting to kill jobs and production and increase our energy rates through "Cap and Trade"......continuing two wars.....taking orders from lobbyist....appointing an inexperienced and incompetent supreme court nominee who is an activist judge and does not believe in the individual right to bear arms....etc...etc...etc...

And you want me to accept some people just because they have some guns and are weekend warriors.

No thanks. You can keep your "hope" and "change."

sorensen440
07-27-2009, 3:04 PM
And you want me to accept some people just because they have some guns and are weekend warriors.

No thanks. You can keep your "hope" and "change."
Yes I don't think its too much to ask that we all act like adults

M. D. Van Norman
07-27-2009, 3:24 PM
I always think back to what my mother taught me. “If you can’t say something nice, then don’t say anything at all.”

MolonLabe2008
07-27-2009, 3:55 PM
I always think back to what my mother taught me. “If you can’t say something nice, then don’t say anything at all.”

I always think back to what my father taught me. "Don't let them run over you."

M. D. Van Norman
07-27-2009, 4:00 PM
Fair enough, but if you’re constantly aiming invective at them, they may try harder to run you over.

gewgaw
07-27-2009, 4:43 PM
It is really simple.

I'm not going to compromise my principles to appease a handful of liberals.

<snip>...

And you want me to accept some people just because they have some guns and are weekend warriors.

No thanks. You can keep your "hope" and "change."

No one's asking you to compromise your principles. Or appease anyone.

All I am saying is, wouldn't it be smart to make common cause on the one issue of RKBA, with people who feel the same about it? No one's asking you to marry a pot-smoking lesbian tax collector peacenik. Just that if she's fighting for the 2A and RKBA, why not support her in that cause?

The US saw fit to make common cause with the Soviet Union during WWII. The stakes were too high to fail. After the common cause is achieved, we can go back to debating our political differences.

I think there is strength in diversity when it comes to defending the RKBA -- which last I heard applies to "weekend warriors", hunters, target shooters, soccer moms and Navy SEALs equally and without prejudice.

Whiskey_Sauer
07-27-2009, 4:48 PM
We all know that the originator of this thread voted for Obama, yet Obama and the Democrats, who are in control, are....spending more money.....are giving us the largest deficits ever.....raising taxes.....taking over the auto industry....trying to take over our medical industry....denying us CCW reciprocity....attempting to kill jobs and production and increase our energy rates through "Cap and Trade"......continuing two wars.....taking orders from lobbyist....appointing an inexperienced and incompetent supreme court nominee who is an activist judge and does not believe in the individual right to bear arms....etc...etc...etc...

I struck out the irrelevant parts as far as this forum is concerned for you.

Pvt. Cowboy
07-27-2009, 5:06 PM
I'll admit that RKBA applies to all free people, more or less. Politically, the similarities between any two Calgunners potentially ends there.

Count me in with MolonLabe on this one. Just because you've acquired a popgun doesn't automatically mean you're a kindred spirit, drinking buddy, fellow in arms, or anything else. Good grief, you've seen what sort of trash shows up at shooting ranges, haven't you? Some of them are the reason I keep guns loaded and handy in the first place. Why would you think I would seek to find anything in common with a gangbanger or some shaggy haired college twit wearing a 'Che' shirt pretending he's shooting his SKS at Dick Cheney? The latter case is someone I'd only engage by offering kindly range advice that he needs to pack his SKS bolt full of heavy axle grease as the Soviet engineers intended in order to make it utterly reliable (Haha, just kidding. Don't do this).

Moreover, to think that there's some redemption center for political goodwill from the left wing in that if we just advocate illegal aliens receiving state-funded health care in exchange for a reversal of the .50 caliber ban or agree to transgendered bathrooms in CA's middle schools in exchange for statewide 'shall-issue' CCWs or whatever, well that's just patently absurd. Never thought I'd ever read something like that on a gun rights board.

I've seen a similar debate such as this on another board that I frequent that deals with vintage hotrods and classic muscle cars. As you'd expect, there's far more tobacca-chawin' good old boys posting in the forums over there than there are mincing urbanite liberals. Inevitably, political debates arise and finally the minority liberals became offended and started a discussion about how we all need to seek common ground and respect other's opinions (no matter how insane or repellent) because we're allegedly 'all in this together' thanks to our mutual admiration of classic cars.

Guess what started the debate over there? A 'car-crusher' bill being advanced by California liberals to seize and destroy vintage vehicles that can't pass modern emission control standards. Sound familiar? Seems that everywhere I go there's some tiny liberal contingent of political mutants who don't fit the typical left wing stereotype because they either own a shotgun or a 1962 Studebaker and demand that everyone else be nice to them even though they're the ones voting radical liberals into office who seek to destroy the very thing 'we're all in this together' for. Why must liberals insist on being credited for helping to solve a problem they entirely created in the first place?: "Hey, you're a stupid racist! Oh wait, come have a beer at the White House with me. Gosh! See what a magical healer I am?!".

Anyway, I reject the proposal to come live in the liberal fantasy world that is a cross between a Yoplait commercial and a Massengill douche commercial where everyone would come to an understanding if we just all sit down and talk it out. I'll remain over here and be as courteous as my patience allows when I see advocated the stupendous notion of extending government health care to illegal aliens in exchange for reversing SB23, and you're all free to wander down to a secluded beach at sunrise wearing a linen gauze sun dress and commune with the seagulls or sit in your swing set under a mulberry tree eating zero-calorie yogurt with your legs folded underneath you.

We can coexist, but we're hardly on the same team. We can defeat the common enemy together of course, but there's still going to be a Cold War between us on most other things. Doesn't mean I hate you, just that I want separation from you.

gewgaw
07-27-2009, 5:18 PM
I'll admit that RKBA applies to all free people, more or less. Politically, the similarities between any two Calgunners potentially ends there.

<snip>

We can coexist, but we're hardly on the same team. We can defeat the common enemy together of course, but there's still going to be a Cold War between us on most other things. Doesn't mean I hate you, just that I want separation from you.

That's fair, and anyone here would respect anyone's right to keep their own company. And yeah, I agree with you, there are some total goofballs I've seen at the range who I would not want to drive next to on the freeway, let alone shoot next to.

I think the focus on defeating the common enemies of RKBA is a good focus. No hate, no misunderstanding, no compromise on any other issues if that's what it takes. Live and let live for all else, but working towards the same end as far as the 2A is concerned.

MolonLabe2008
07-27-2009, 5:29 PM
I'll admit that RKBA applies to all free people, more or less. Politically, the similarities between any two Calgunners potentially ends there.

Count me in with MolonLabe on this one. Just because you've acquired a popgun doesn't automatically mean you're a kindred spirit, drinking buddy, fellow in arms, or anything else. Good grief, you've seen what sort of trash shows up at shooting ranges, haven't you? Some of them are the reason I keep guns loaded and handy in the first place. Why would you think I would seek to find anything in common with a gangbanger or some shaggy haired college twit wearing a 'Che' shirt pretending he's shooting his SKS at Dick Cheney? The latter case is someone I'd only engage by offering kindly range advice that he needs to pack his SKS bolt full of heavy axle grease as the Soviet engineers intended in order to make it utterly reliable (Haha, just kidding. Don't do this).

Moreover, to think that there's some redemption center for political goodwill from the left wing in that if we just advocate illegal aliens receiving state-funded health care in exchange for a reversal of the .50 caliber ban or agree to transgendered bathrooms in CA's middle schools in exchange for statewide 'shall-issue' CCWs or whatever, well that's just patently absurd. Never thought I'd ever read something like that on a gun rights board.

I've seen a similar debate such as this on another board that I frequent that deals with vintage hotrods and classic muscle cars. As you'd expect, there's far more tobacca-chawin' good old boys posting in the forums over there than there are mincing urbanite liberals. Inevitably, political debates arise and finally the minority liberals became offended and started a discussion about how we all need to seek common ground and respect other's opinions (no matter how insane or repellent) because we're allegedly 'all in this together' thanks to our mutual admiration of classic cars.

Guess what started the debate over there? A 'car-crusher' bill being advanced by California liberals to seize and destroy vintage vehicles that can't pass modern emission control standards. Sound familiar? Seems that everywhere I go there's some tiny liberal contingent of political mutants who don't fit the typical left wing stereotype because they either own a shotgun or a 1962 Studebaker and demand that everyone else be nice to them even though they're the ones voting radical liberals into office who seek to destroy the very thing 'we're all in this together' for. Why must liberals insist on being credited for helping to solve a problem they entirely created in the first place?: "Hey, you're a stupid racist! Oh wait, come have a beer at the White House with me. Gosh! See what a magical healer I am?!".

Anyway, I reject the proposal to come live in the liberal fantasy world that is a cross between a Yoplait commercial and a Massengill douche commercial where everyone would come to an understanding if we just all sit down and talk it out. I'll remain over here and be as courteous as my patience allows when I see advocated the stupendous notion of extending government health care to illegal aliens in exchange for reversing SB23, and you're all free to wander down to a secluded beach at sunrise wearing a linen gauze sun dress and commune with the seagulls or sit in your swing set under a mulberry tree eating zero-calorie yogurt with your legs folded underneath you.

We can coexist, but we're hardly on the same team. We can defeat the common enemy together of course, but there's still going to be a Cold War between us on most other things. Doesn't mean I hate you, just that I want separation from you.

This^

Gator Monroe
07-27-2009, 9:33 PM
Kestryll it's not about selling out, it is about finding middle ground. lemmings have the same beliefs and convictions, thank god we don't.

The Middle ground is folks here admitting that they will hold their nose & Vote for a GOP STATE ASSEMBLY candidate in their area if he/she is not an Anti AND THEIR OPPONENT (DEMOCRAT) is an Ardant Anti (And the same goes for a State Senator or US congressperson too . Sage you listnin ?

M. Sage
07-27-2009, 9:38 PM
The Middle ground is folks here admitting that they will hold their nose & Vote for a GOP STATE ASSEMBLY candidate in their area if he/she is not an Anti AND THEIR OPPONENT (DEMOCRAT) is an Ardant Anti (And the same goes for a State Senator or US congressperson too . Sage you listnin ?

Yeah, I'm listening, but I'm not going to do it. Why would I vote for someone who's willing to vote yes on TARP (Conryn) just because he or she isn't anti-gun?

There's more than one issue. Like I said before, I'm pro-gun because of my individualist bent, I'm not an individualist because I'm pro-gun. If someone wants to violate any of my rights, that person is my enemy and I will not support them.

Gator Monroe
07-27-2009, 9:42 PM
Yeah, I'm listening, but I'm not going to do it. Why would I vote for someone who's willing to vote yes on TARP (Conryn) just because he or she isn't anti-gun?

There's more than one issue. Like I said before, I'm pro-gun because of my individualist bent, I'm not an individualist because I'm pro-gun. If someone wants to violate any of my rights, that person is my enemy and I will not support them.

So Dems are less likely to violate our right these days ? (You coulda foole many with that one)

Zhukov
07-28-2009, 12:25 AM
So Dems are less likely to violate our right these days ? (You coulda foole many with that one)

Both parties are equally likely to violate our rights, it just depends on which right you want to point to on which day.

M. Sage
07-28-2009, 4:52 AM
So Dems are less likely to violate our right these days ? (You coulda foole many with that one)

Please don't put words in my mouth. For what it's worth, if you do decide to try putting words in someone's mouth, it works better if the person you're doing it to hasn't already refuted the position you're trying to pin on them.

M. D. Van Norman
07-28-2009, 8:00 AM
[A lot of helpful invective.]

Your problem is that you think you have the numbers and the message to win in a straight-up fight, but you don’t.

Pvt. Cowboy
07-28-2009, 9:12 AM
Your problem is that you think you have the numbers and the message to win in a straight-up fight, but you don’t.

If you have a genuine proposal to overturn long established and onerous CA anti-gun legislation with the help of newfound support amongst gays, illegal aliens, and progressive liberals, then I think we'll need to see what amounts to a coherent plan first.

The particulars of the following quote really haven't been addressed going on some twenty pages worth of thread that you two guys voluntarily brought over from your other website:


At this point, before we have more favorable court decisions behind us, only Democrats can advance our cause. This is especially true in California, where their ongoing rulership is guaranteed for the time being.

So here is the bottom line, if you want Democrats and “liberals” to support your right to arms, you are going to have to support some of their causes. That means immigration rights, homosexual marriage, abortion rights, and a host of other issues that rile “conservatives” but actually harm no one.

I thought that we already an official plan, as noted in your sig line (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1726119&postcount=21). Are you proposing that the CalGuns Foundation's charter should officially endorse gay marriage, abortion, and driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants and so forth?

Bugei
07-28-2009, 9:30 AM
I read this thread, each and every post. And I have to say I think it's academic. It seems to be about swaying people to the pro-2A side in the hope that we'll get better legislation through electing different people.

To me, this is all academic. Voting isn't going to get us out of this mess.

In California, the Democrats rule and the Democrats aren't going to go pro-2A en masse. Ever. They've spent too much time supporting gun control to back away from it. At the national level, the Democrats want to burn half the Constitution and the Republicans want to burn the other half. A Democrat or a Republican is going to win, and either one is going to ignore me. Sotomayor isn't alone; a lot of Beltway pukes simply do not believe that I have a right to defend myself or to purchase, own and carry the tools to do it with.

CGF is gaining ground, but only in the courts. Left/right, Democrat/Republican, conservative/liberal: these are of interest in a court, but they're not what makes the case. We have to sue for every inch that was taken from us, and every inch is precious.

Gun control is a luxury. If you believe that you can afford it, it's because you've been so safe and protected that you didn't need guns...but you've been protected by people with guns, "authorized" people with guns. History convinces me that eventually the "authorized" people with guns feel "authorized" to do any damn thing they feel like.

So why will everyone eventually be RKBA? Simple. The only thing that will convert someone to the RKBA cause reliably is the feeling that they need the guns to survive. Sooner or later, this culture war is going to devolve into a shooting war. The government will push too hard, someone will push back, the government will overreact and the fight will be on.

The survivors will be big believers in RKBA.

In the meantime, I will continue to vote for people that actually believe what I believe, not the guy who "has a chance to win". I will kvetch at the legislators who do get elected, because my guy won't. It won't help, but it's my duty.

M. D. Van Norman
07-28-2009, 11:05 AM
Are you proposing that the CalGuns Foundation’s charter should officially endorse gay marriage, abortion, and driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants and so forth?

I am proposing nothing of the sort.

The Calguns Foundation is using litigation, and litigation will probably win us this round of the fight, but it won’t end the fight. After the courts have determined the legal limits of the right to arms, we will still have to establish a framework of regulation to make it useful. That will come through legislation and all the political horse trading that entails.

No. I’m not advocating regulation of the right to arms, but I’m realistic enough to know that we will have to live with such, if we want to protect our rights without actual bloodshed. It is the only favorable outcome that is politically possible.

The bigger issue is cultural evolution. If we want to expand respect and appreciation for the right to arms, we have to break its perceived lockstep connection to “conservative” philosophy. The “gun culture” simply cannot survive solely as a province of white, straight Christians.

.454
07-28-2009, 11:54 AM
How best to help the RKBA movement....

It's simple, really. Stop voting for gun hating politicians.
Hope this helps.

Pvt. Cowboy
07-28-2009, 11:58 AM
The bigger issue is cultural evolution. If we want to expand respect and appreciation for the right to arms, we have to break its perceived lockstep connection to “conservative” philosophy. The “gun culture” simply cannot survive solely as a province of white, straight Christians.

I'll comment later when we finally see the actual plan you've been asked for.

Hopi
07-28-2009, 12:01 PM
It's simple, really. Stop voting for gun hating politicians.
Hope this helps.

That's a tough task on both sides.

-Reagan....anti-gun; support for bans, and signed gun grabbing law as both CA Gov and Prez
-Clinton....anti-gun
-W. Bush....anti-gun; support for gun ban in DC landmark SCOTUS case
-McCain....anti-gun; supports gun bans
-Obama....anti-gun legislative past and philanthropy....nothing yet as Prez

radioman
07-28-2009, 12:24 PM
I have done this many times, voted GOP as I can't vote for the likes of DiFi, Boxer, Pelosi.

radioman
07-28-2009, 12:26 PM
and this is what I got. hopi's post

radioman
07-28-2009, 12:30 PM
It's simple, really. Stop voting for gun hating politicians.
Hope this helps.

And where do we find them, in a box of cracker jacks?

radioman
07-28-2009, 12:49 PM
Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic Party in 1792 as a congressional caucus to fight for the Bill of Rights and against the elitist Federalist Party. In 1798, the "party of the common man" was officially named the Democratic-Republican Party and in 1800 elected Jefferson as the first Democratic President of the United States. Jefferson served two distinguished terms and was followed by James Madison in 1808. Madison strengthened America's armed forces — helping reaffirm American independence by defeating the British in the War of 1812. James Monroe was elected president in 1816 and led the nation through a time commonly known as "The Era of Good Feeling" in which Democratic-Republicans served with little opposition.

John Quincy AdamsThe election of John Quincy Adams in 1824 was highly contested and led to a four-way split among Democratic-Republicans. A result of the split was the emergence of Andrew Jackson as a national leader. The war hero, generally considered — along with Jefferson — one of the founding fathers of the Democratic Party, organized his supporters to a degree unprecedented in American history. The Jacksonian Democrats created the national convention process, the party platform, and reunified the Democratic Party with Jackson's victories in 1828 and 1832. The Party held its first National Convention in 1832 and nominated President Jackson for his second term. In 1844, the National Convention simplified the Party's name to the Democratic Party.

In 1848, the National Convention established the Democratic National Committee, now the longest running political organization in the world. The Convention charged the DNC with the responsibility of promoting "the Democratic cause" between the conventions and preparing for the next convention.

William J. BryanAs the 19th Century came to a close, the American electorate changed more and more rapidly. The Democratic Party embraced the immigrants who flooded into cities and industrial centers, built a political base by bringing them into the American mainstream, and helped create the most powerful economic engine in history. Democratic Party leader William Jennings Bryan led a movement of agrarian reformers and supported the right of women's suffrage, the progressive graduated income tax and the direct election of Senators. As America entered the 20th Century, the Democratic Party became dominant in local urban politics.

In 1912, Woodrow Wilson became the first Democratic president of the 20th Century. Wilson led the country through World War I, fought for the League of Nations, established the Federal Reserve Board, and passed the first labor and child welfare laws. This is who we were, how did the dems come to what they are now.

MolonLabe2008
07-28-2009, 1:36 PM
That's a tough task on both sides.

-Reagan....anti-gun; support for bans, and signed gun grabbing law as both CA Gov and Prez
-Clinton....anti-gun
-W. Bush....anti-gun; support for gun ban in DC landmark SCOTUS case
-McCain....anti-gun; supports gun bans
-Obama....anti-gun legislative past and philanthropy....nothing yet as Prez

Ron Paul and Sarah Palin. Both are very pro-gun.

Hopi
07-28-2009, 1:40 PM
Ron Paul and Sarah Palin. Both are very pro-gun.

Ron Paul....I like what he says, but he brings a basketball to the baseball field.

Sarah Palin....irrelevant. She will be fun to watch on her 30 minute show following Hannity.

M. D. Van Norman
07-28-2009, 3:54 PM
I’ll comment later when we finally see the actual plan you’ve been asked for.

Here is the plan in three easy steps.


Stop spewing hate at “liberals” in general and “liberal” gun owners in particular.
Allow “liberal” gun owners to influence Democratic and other “liberal” political leaders.
When appropriate, support political alliances that will help to advance the right to arms.

It’s really not that complicated.

Scarecrow Repair
07-28-2009, 4:19 PM
Here is the plan in three easy steps.


Stop spewing hate at “liberals” in general and “liberal” gun owners in particular.
Allow “liberal” gun owners to influence Democratic and other “liberal” political leaders.
When appropriate, support political alliances that will help to advance the right to arms.

It’s really not that complicated.

That's about it. The most discouraging thing on here is when some narrow mind proclaims his undying love for Republicans and undying hatred for Democrats, as if there actually were any honest politicians.

People who give their undying love or hatred have removed themselves from any future influence. Politicians don't give a whistle in vacuum for past votes, only what they can do to get more votes next time. If they already have yours, they will ignore you and concentrate on those they don't have.

If someone put up a standing offer to buy any and all 1911s regardless of condition price, just as the undying have to politicians, they'd get all sorts of junk dumped on them and have to cough up. No one is crazy enough to do that. Yet these same people proudly announce they will vote Republican no matter who the party puts up, no matter how small their chances of beating the Democrat come the general election, and no matter how sorry their track record is and promises are. They end up with junk.

You undying do nobody any favors that way, not yourself, not the gun rights movement, not society, nobody but the politician you are undying for.