Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 01-04-2014, 1:00 PM
tankarian's Avatar
tankarian tankarian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,795
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mud Eagle View Post
The Liberal Gun Club isn't new.
Right. Got it.
What did their 300 members do for the Second Amendment so far?
Bashing the NRA and voting for gun grabbing politicians doesn't count.
__________________
BLACK RIFLES MATTER!

Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 01-04-2014, 1:02 PM
tankarian's Avatar
tankarian tankarian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,795
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mud Eagle View Post
The Liberal Gun Club isn't new.
Right. Got it.
What did their 300 members they barely managed to gather since 2008 do for the Second Amendment so far?
Bashing the NRA and backstabbing gun owners by voting for gun grabbing politicians doesn't count.
__________________
BLACK RIFLES MATTER!

Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 01-04-2014, 1:03 PM
Excelsior Excelsior is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: California, thanks be to God!
Posts: 4,216
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Code7inOaktown View Post
Ignore the peanut gallery. Gun owners, by nature tend to be conservative, however not all are. We do indeed have to reach out to groups that have somehow been convinced to vote against gun rights to turn this state and other anti-gun states (MA, HI, NJ, NY) back to free states. The morons here who just want to pile on and drive out people who support 2A right'scan't see the forest.

However, as a liberal, the only way this can happen is for you to go single issue. You must become a single-issue voter. No more voting for anti-gun Democrats. No more voting for anti-gun Republicans. They're not Democrats, they're not Republicans, they're anti-gun right politicians. Until we convince them it's not worth the political mileage of constantly throwing gun owners and our rights under the bus, you absolutely cannot vote for them.

I went to the range with a friend who voted Obama twice and Democrat all of his life. Had had built two ARs to get under the deadline. He said he will no longer vote for any anti-gun politicians. Period.

That must be the line drawn in the sand.

Please, everyone, don't play the blame game and who took whose right away. Anti-gun pols in California are on a rampage if we don't all stand united against them, we will lose.
Absolutely not. While our vote may indeed be the single biggest way we support the 2A, it's not the only way. Not by a long shot. It's the aggregate qualities of a candidate most vote for.

As unlikely as a scenario is, all else being equal, I would vote for a pro-life/anti-2A candidate over a pro-abortion/pro-2A. That in no way makes me "anti-2A" nor does it make me "liberal."

NOW, can once vote for a specific politico because they are anti-2A, while actually being pro-2A? Obviously not but that's not what you said.
__________________
[CENTER]CALIFORNIA: Love it, leave it /CENTER]

The right to keep and bear arms comes not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.

Last edited by Excelsior; 01-04-2014 at 11:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 01-04-2014, 1:08 PM
USMC VET's Avatar
USMC VET USMC VET is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sacramento Area
Posts: 994
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
A 1,000 gun owners would be more of an outlier than "all types." There are much better representatives of diversity within the traditional gun rights movement. There must be more than 1,000 of any flavor in the NRA.

The liberal gun club is a place that doesn't tolerate political dissent and that talks about "common sense gun laws" as being those that prevent "those people" from owning guns, while allowing "our kind of people" to be responsible gun owners. It's the typical "cultural intolerance" hangout for the modern far left.

Supporting a bigoted organization just because they are on our side is not a good idea. Pretending that they are *not* bigoted just because they label themselves "liberal" is contrary to reality.
Agree %100
__________________
SO MANY GUNS....never enough money

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 01-04-2014, 1:08 PM
Code7inOaktown Code7inOaktown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East Bay
Posts: 632
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boanerges View Post
Well I would tend to think that if every Keynote Speaker in the last 7 years is right wing, that might, just might, say something about the nature of the organization. I could go back farther if you would like, but somehow I don't think that would convince you either.
Have you considered that's because Democrats and the left have been using gun rights as a wedge issue for years? To Democrats, the gun issue is like the gay marriage issue to the far right. They dredge it up to try to get the base out.

I finally joined the NRA last year after years of resistance and I realized I should have joined sooner. The NRA is a single issue party. They would have Jon Stewart speak if he actually pulled his head out of his hypocritical butt and supported the 2nd Amendment the way he supports other Amendments.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 01-04-2014, 1:16 PM
tankarian's Avatar
tankarian tankarian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,795
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Got myself a brand spanking new sig line
ll
ll
V
__________________
BLACK RIFLES MATTER!

Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 01-04-2014, 1:20 PM
sandman21's Avatar
sandman21 sandman21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boanerges View Post
Well I would tend to think that if every Keynote Speaker in the last 7 years is right wing, that might, just might, say something about the nature of the organization. I could go back farther if you would like, but somehow I don't think that would convince you either.
Because it's evidence of nothing more than more right wing people are pro gun and that left wing individuals refuse to participate. Please show me evidence the NRA is refuses speakers because they are left wing? Please show me evidence they have given money to further right wing issues. How do explain the NRA's support for Democrats?
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 01-04-2014, 1:26 PM
Code7inOaktown Code7inOaktown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East Bay
Posts: 632
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excelsior View Post
Absolutely not. While our vote may indeed be the single biggest was we support the 2A, it's not the only way. Not by a long shot. It's the aggregate qualities of a candidate most vote for.

As unlikely as a scenario is, all else being equal, I would vote for a pro-life/anti-2A candidate over a pro-abortion/pro-2A. That in no way makes me "anti-2A" nor does it make me "liberal."

NOW, can once vote for a specific politico because they are anti-2A, while actually being pro-2A? Obviously not but that's not what you said.
Well, that's it then isn't it. You have prioritized a woman's right to choose (which I also support and yes, I am planning on joining NOW too. I joined the NRA last year and will donate to NOW this year) over the 2nd Amendment. However, I would point out: Abortion in California is not going to change. Yes, conservatives are pulling the absolute same hypocritical, anti-abortion moves that the anti-gun supporters are pulling on us in California but I don't live in those other states.

I don't know if you keep up on current events but we came one veto away from the banning of all semi-automatic rifles in California.

And yes, by your supporting any anti-2nd amend candidate I believe you are indeed helping the anti-gun movement.

Let's say it came down to one vote on someone who was anti-choice and pro-gun vs. pro-choice and anti-gun. Your vote was the one that shifted the win over in the column. Your vote put an anti-gun justice on the court (which from what I can see is in no danger of suddenly swinging anti-choice).

Your vote decides the right between a drastic change in the supreme court and a roll back of all of the rights that we have gained in gun rights. What do you think your vote made you? Anti-2A or not?

Again, I'm going single issue for the foreseeable future as I don't see gay rights in danger. I don't see a woman's right to chose in danger (as the courts are settling the right-wing's equivalent of magazine limit with abortion correctly.) I do see our 2nd Amendment rights at danger right now because we have a huge, huge disparity between free states and non-free states. Hell, in New Jersey you can't even legally have hollow points outside your home. We are are in a critical period where not going single issue is, frankly, being anti-gun.

Last edited by Code7inOaktown; 01-04-2014 at 1:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 01-04-2014, 1:32 PM
sandman21's Avatar
sandman21 sandman21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excelsior View Post
First, I think those quickest to self label themselves as "conservatives" rarely are.

I like to see the fact more people are organizing against gun control. What I find pathetic are self labeled "conservatives" whining about it. I honestly believe some are afraid of losing their scapegoats...
First your opinion is meaningless to the point you completely side stepped.

Except for the fact that they have already publicly stated they would not support anyone who does not agree with them on other issues. That's as meaningless as a right winger never supporting a Democrat. Those on the right have done what's needed to gain other support for the 2A those on the other side have not done the same. You just want to keep the scapegoat that's it the NRA an right wingers fault for not reaching across the island that we are not gaining ground.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 01-04-2014, 2:19 PM
boanerges boanerges is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 324
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
That's a very naïve way at looking at it and it has some interesting side effects.

If you're judging an organization by the type of speakers, you'll then have to admit that all major universities are "left wing socialist organizations" even though they are not allowed to be when using public funding. This would also validate accusations made by conservative groups that universities are breeding grounds for the new generations of "little urban socialist achievers."

Now add to the mix that NRA doesn't exclude liberal speakers (it's the speakers who shun the NRA), while universities DO exclude conservative speakers intentionally, and you'll see that your approach to judging organizations by keynote speakers is, well, less than optimal in supporting your world view.

Now I'm going to add the little immature LOL, , LOL, to make my point even stronger.
I am not sure why you believe these situations are analogous. It would seem to me that a university would believe its mission was to present to its students a variety of points of view to challenge the student's preconceptions. From the tone of your response, evidently you do not believe public education is fulfilling this mission in an impartial manner although your use of the word "socialist" is a clue that you might have a rather strong bias.

An organization, such as the NRA, on the other hand. would probably view its mission to present speakers which would inspire its members to a deeper commitment to its cause and values and is thus reflective of those values. The fact that the NRA has had Glenn Beck as its Keynote Speaker for three of the last six years seems to indicate that Mr. Beck is strongly reflective of the values of the NRA. If Mr. Beck were a mainstream conservative I would be more willing to accept your premise but the fact is that Mr. Beck is so extreme that he got fired from Fox News is a strong indicator of the political leanings of the NRA.
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 01-04-2014, 2:31 PM
Code7inOaktown Code7inOaktown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East Bay
Posts: 632
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boanerges View Post
I am not sure why you believe these situations are analogous. It would seem to me that a university would believe its mission was to present to its students a variety of points of view to challenge the student's preconceptions. From the tone of your response, evidently you do not believe public education is fulfilling this mission in an impartial manner although your use of the word "socialist" is a clue that you might have a rather strong bias.

An organization, such as the NRA, on the other hand. would probably view its mission to present speakers which would inspire its members to a deeper commitment to its cause and values and is thus reflective of those values. The fact that the NRA has had Glenn Beck as its Keynote Speaker for three of the last six years seems to indicate that Mr. Beck is strongly reflective of the values of the NRA. If Mr. Beck were a mainstream conservative I would be more willing to accept your premise but the fact is that Mr. Beck is so extreme that he got fired from Fox News is a strong indicator of the political leanings of the NRA.
Well, I'd argue that the commencement speaker doesn't really mean anything. Does Bill Ayers making commencement speeches at many universities mean anything about those universaities? Does Obama attending a church where the reverend is described as "extreme" represent his views? No, as much as Fox News tries to say it does, it doesn't mean anything beyond they were in the same room.

The NRA only cares about gun rights. Glenn Beck and his fans are a means to an ends. Why do you think the NRA has backed Harry Reid many times? It's smart politics. If the NRA could get Ice T on stage as a speaker at the convention that would be something.

Pro-gun liberals need to embrace the NRA the same way they embrace centrist pols they didn't like. Wanted Kucinich but got Obama but voted for him anyway? Do the same with the NRA.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 01-04-2014, 2:36 PM
boanerges boanerges is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 324
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman21 View Post
Because it's evidence of nothing more than more right wing people are pro gun and that left wing individuals refuse to participate. Please show me evidence the NRA is refuses speakers because they are left wing? Please show me evidence they have given money to further right wing issues. How do explain the NRA's support for Democrats?
I obviously am not privy to the inner workings of the NRA. If you are, please enlighten me. Where are all the Democrats they support on the speakers list? Don't you find it curious there is not a single one on there?

The fact of the matter is they rarely support Democrats, even if they are pro-2A. As has already been shown in this thread, they considered supporting Harry Reid until the hue and cry from the right forced them to not support him: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/0...ng-harry-reid/

If they are not a right wing organization, why did the NRA give Dan "gun grabber" Lundgren a "C" rating when his record is possibly the worst of any politician on gun rights. Possibly because he had an "R" behind his name?

Why did the NRA not argue for due process incorporation of the 2nd Amendment rights rather that P & I incorporation in McDonald v Chicago if not for fear it would open the door to a further extension of gay rights?

I don't necessarily fault the NRA for what it is doing. They view their primary mission to be self perpetuating. To do that they have chosen to play to their right wing base. The problem is that with Heller and McDonald the playing field has changed dramatically and unless they are willing to be more inclusive we may suffer some catastrophic losses.

Probably the fundamental misconception you make is that others choose not to participate. Most of us regardless of our political perspectives write letters to people like Governor Brown urging him to veto gun control legislation and influence the process in any way we can.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 01-04-2014, 2:51 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,390
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boanerges View Post
An organization, such as the NRA, on the other hand. would probably view its mission to present speakers which would inspire its members to a deeper commitment to its cause and values and is thus reflective of those values.
Separate the mission and direction of an organization from the feelings and political position of its members as those are two separate concepts.

NRA's mission is "advancement of 2A" and the organization supports many Democrats solely based on their 2A view regardless of how liberal/conservative they are. If you can find where NRA made an endorsement decision based on non-2A positions, you would have a case about the NRA.

Individual members indeed are predominantly right-leaning. However, trying to extend that to the NRA organization would be like saying that "I can't listen to rap music because I'm white and I don't feel welcome" or "Harley Davidson is a right wing company."
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 01-04-2014, 2:52 PM
Code7inOaktown Code7inOaktown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East Bay
Posts: 632
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boanerges View Post
I obviously am not privy to the inner workings of the NRA. If you are, please enlighten me. Where are all the Democrats they support on the speakers list? Don't you find it curious there is not a single one on there?

The fact of the matter is they rarely support Democrats, even if they are pro-2A. As has already been shown in this thread, they considered supporting Harry Reid until the hue and cry from the right forced them to not support him: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/0...ng-harry-reid/

If they are not a right wing organization, why did the NRA give Dan "gun grabber" Lundgren a "C" rating when his record is possibly the worst of any politician on gun rights. Possibly because he had an "R" behind his name?

Why did the NRA not argue for due process incorporation of the 2nd Amendment rights rather that P & I incorporation in McDonald v Chicago if not for fear it would open the door to a further extension of gay rights?

I don't necessarily fault the NRA for what it is doing. They view their primary mission to be self perpetuating. To do that they have chosen to play to their right wing base. The problem is that with Heller and McDonald the playing field has changed dramatically and unless they are willing to be more inclusive we may suffer some catastrophic losses.

Probably the fundamental misconception you make is that others choose not to participate. Most of us regardless of our political perspectives write letters to people like Governor Brown urging him to veto gun control legislation and influence the process in any way we can.
You know, I think your problem is you are unable to actually admit that Democrats from metro areas are responsible for the vast majority of anti-gun legislation. If you're truly a fact-based person, that's a fact. We know it, we live it every day in California.

It doesn't take too much work to see that the NRA supports and backs Democrats. I found this in five seconds Google. For gods sake, this is from Think progress too.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...evention-plan/

Well, either that or you just a troll from the anti-gun groups here trying to force a wedge issue to prevent more Democrats from joining the NRA. The fact is, a lot of actual Democrats are pro-gun, it's just the metro politicians that aren't.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 01-04-2014, 3:12 PM
garand1945's Avatar
garand1945 garand1945 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 461
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think a lot of the anger and suspicion has to be looked at in the context of the last year. The battle for the 2A has been raging since Newtown. Many new oppressive gun laws were passed almost exclusively by Democrats who are for many purposes synonymous for "liberals." Many bills were stopped by the NRA through it's lobbying efforts on the strength of it's large membership. The NRA is effective because it's not a George Soro funded org or a American Hunters and Shooters Association astroturf. "I am the NRA" is real and matters.

Given this, many of us 2A supporters are still on high alert. Our right is still under attack, and the CA legislature is already gearing up to pass new bans. We're on red alert, shields up, phasers ready to fire because the Klingons are on our port bow.

So along comes a group that in it's name identifies itself with the values/voting block that has banned wants to ban guns, and goes one further and talks about how they formed because of their distaste of the NRA (The NRA that has protected our right this last year very effectively), and yeah, you are going to get some blowback, some skepticism, and doubt.

If they had not said anything attacking the NRA and solely focused on the mission at hand, then it would have been a different story. But since they did, I find it hard to believe that a 1,000 member org is going to be the savior to turn the Democratic party into a pro 2A Shall Not Be Infringed platform.

Attacking the NRA is not a good way to make friends around here.

It should be all our goals to make both parties support the 2A. I don't think most 2A supporters want this to be a wedge issue to bring their party victory. I think they just want the government to get the hell out of saying what guns they can and can not have.
__________________
Join the NRA and fight the gun grabbers! https://joinnra.nra.org/join/join.aspx

NRA Lifetime Member

"I suspect that even time travelers are susceptible to the Colt .45"
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 01-04-2014, 3:44 PM
cannonfodder's Avatar
cannonfodder cannonfodder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: San Ramon
Posts: 165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tankarian View Post
Okay then. Maybe they should invite Leland Yee, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Joe "Double Barrel" Biden in 2015.
How about Eric and Barry, MAC, MrColionNoir and TheYankeeMarshal?

People with more sensible personalities and more accurate facts.
__________________
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." - George S. Patton

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. ” – Karl Marx


'When fascism comes to America, It will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." ~ Sinclair Lewis 1935
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 01-04-2014, 3:55 PM
SanPedroShooter's Avatar
SanPedroShooter SanPedroShooter is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles Harbor
Posts: 9,740
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Here is what I would love to see. Democrats showing so much support for the 2A, that the NRA board becomes stocked with left leaning progressives..

Impossible? Politically yes, and certainly not now that the democrats have seen that they can make the fundamental right to keep and bear arms a wedge issue in some states. But in theory the NRA supports our friends and crushes our enemies.

Could the NRA 'turn blue'? Damn right it could. But its up to left to make it happen, not us.

We have our principles on this issue laid out, you either agree or you don't. We've been compromising since 1934.
__________________
Join the NRA
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp

Last edited by SanPedroShooter; 01-04-2014 at 4:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 01-04-2014, 4:22 PM
a1c's Avatar
a1c a1c is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 8,869
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

It really is a chicken-and-egg problem.

Many gun-owning progressives and liberals don't want to join the NRA because the organization actively supports politicians that are actively opposed to things that liberals support: same sex marriage, abortion rights, universal healthcare, immigration reform, etc.

Now I sometimes hear that the NRA doesn't have an official stance on those issues, and it's true. However, the line-up of speakers at NRA national events or the columns LaPierre and other leaders publish in Rifleman Magazine or other mailing material clearly is designed to resonate with conservatives, not liberals. The NRA is an organization that thrives on consolidating its base, and not on expanding it outside its traditionally fertile conservative base. Colion Noir is a rare step in a more diverse direction, but he remains a novelty item.

It's marketing. As long as the NRA associates itself with conservative politicians espousing conservatives issues, it will keep alienating gun-owning liberals who do not want to give a cent to an organization that might support a politician opposing their social values.

Now if the NRA was less than a top-down organization (which it is, and it's part of its incredible efficiency), it would be more appealing for some gun-owning liberals or progressives to join it and change its culture from the bottom. But the NRA doesn't really listen to its base much - it sets the agenda, and cultivates its core base. Which, again, is why it's so powerful.

I personally think it would be a good idea to join this LGC which in my opinion (and I'm socially liberal, or, rather, libertarian), seems a little too eager to accept some gun control measures to keep the peace.

Again, I personally think the fight is at the personal level. It's about changing attitudes, one person at a time. I've always been a proponent of the "Take a liberal to the range" approach. There is no way I can convince my lib friends to join the NRA because of whom the organization supports. So I have to do the advocating instead.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 01-04-2014, 4:33 PM
elSquid's Avatar
elSquid elSquid is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Left coast.
Posts: 8,285
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tankarian View Post
Right. Got it.
What did their 300 members do for the Second Amendment so far?
Bashing the NRA and voting for gun grabbing politicians doesn't count.
Well, it appears that they've managed to get a front page newpaper article and national coverage with the message that it's ok for liberals to like guns AND that a lot of gun laws - like AW and magazine bans - are ineffectual.

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/php...7124&mode=view



-- Michael
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 01-04-2014, 4:34 PM
SanPedroShooter's Avatar
SanPedroShooter SanPedroShooter is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles Harbor
Posts: 9,740
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1c View Post
It really is a chicken-and-egg problem.

Many gun-owning progressives and liberals don't want to join the NRA because the organization actively supports politicians that are actively opposed to things that liberals support: same sex marriage, abortion rights, universal healthcare, immigration reform, etc.

Now I sometimes hear that the NRA doesn't have an official stance on those issues, and it's true. However, the line-up of speakers at NRA national events or the columns LaPierre and other leaders publish in Rifleman Magazine or other mailing material clearly is designed to resonate with conservatives, not liberals. The NRA is an organization that thrives on consolidating its base, and not on expanding it outside its traditionally fertile conservative base. Colion Noir is a rare step in a more diverse direction, but he remains a novelty item.

It's marketing. As long as the NRA associates itself with conservative politicians espousing conservatives issues, it will keep alienating gun-owning liberals who do not want to give a cent to an organization that might support a politician opposing their social values.

Now if the NRA was less than a top-down organization (which it is, and it's part of its incredible efficiency), it would be more appealing for some gun-owning liberals or progressives to join it and change its culture from the bottom. But the NRA doesn't really listen to its base much - it sets the agenda, and cultivates its core base. Which, again, is why it's so powerful.

I personally think it would be a good idea to join this LGC which in my opinion (and I'm socially liberal, or, rather, libertarian), seems a little too eager to accept some gun control measures to keep the peace.

Again, I personally think the fight is at the personal level. It's about changing attitudes, one person at a time. I've always been a proponent of the "Take a liberal to the range" approach. There is no way I can convince my lib friends to join the NRA because of whom the organization supports. So I have to do the advocating instead.
Do you really think the NRA ignores its base that much?

I think they at least know which lines they cant cross. They've gotten their dicks stepped on for straying before.

I seems to me the NRA toes the line the hardcore membership lays down.
__________________
Join the NRA
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 01-04-2014, 4:49 PM
Mud Eagle Mud Eagle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1c View Post
Many gun-owning progressives and liberals don't want to join the NRA because the organization actively supports politicians that are actively opposed to things that liberals support: same sex marriage, abortion rights, universal healthcare, immigration reform, etc.
The problem really is the "basket" of positions on social issues that both the conservative and liberal ideologies have.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 01-04-2014, 4:52 PM
sandman21's Avatar
sandman21 sandman21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boanerges View Post
I obviously am not privy to the inner workings of the NRA. If you are, please enlighten me. Where are all the Democrats they support on the speakers list? Don't you find it curious there is not a single one on there?
Rep. Heath Shuler, Rep. Joe Manchin, Rep. Max Baucus, all have spoken at the NRA convention, I could continue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boanerges View Post
The fact of the matter is they rarely support Democrats, even if they are pro-2A. As has already been shown in this thread, they considered supporting Harry Reid until the hue and cry from the right forced them to not support him: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/0...ng-harry-reid/
You can easily turn it around and say that Democrats rarely support pro-gun legislation even when they are pro-gun. “Considered” supporting Harry Reid?!?!? They did support Harry Reid until the 2010 race, when the NRA felt he no longer served it's best interest, because Reid decision to place show much support behind two anti-gun justices. If they are so right wing, why didn't they support Sharron Angle since she had a R behind her name?

"He is a true champion of the Second Amendment back in Washington, DC," LaPierre said of Reid at a dedication for a new shooting range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boanerges View Post
If they are not a right wing organization, why did the NRA give Dan "gun grabber" Lundgren a "C" rating when his record is possibly the worst of any politician on gun rights. Possibly because he had an "R" behind his name?
And they supported Harry Reid. Is he a right winger now? Was the candidate a Democrat with a superior rating?

Quote:
Originally Posted by boanerges View Post
Why did the NRA not argue for due process incorporation of the 2nd Amendment rights rather that P & I incorporation in McDonald v Chicago if not for fear it would open the door to a further extension of gay rights?
I guess you do know the inner workings of the NRA, of course you have some facts to backup the opinion? The NRA had a giant pissing match over both Heller and McDonald, and is an area the deserve much scorn over the mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boanerges View Post
I don't necessarily fault the NRA for what it is doing. They view their primary mission to be self perpetuating. To do that they have chosen to play to their right wing base. The problem is that with Heller and McDonald the playing field has changed dramatically and unless they are willing to be more inclusive we may suffer some catastrophic losses.
Again a person choice to exclude themselves does not mean the group is excluding them. You would like to see more democrat speakers then get involved in the NRA

Quote:
Originally Posted by boanerges View Post
Probably the fundamental misconception you make is that others choose not to participate. Most of us regardless of our political perspectives write letters to people like Governor Brown urging him to veto gun control legislation and influence the process in any way we can.
I was speaking about changing the NRA, so no misconception on my part. If a group tells Gov. Brown for example that no matter what they will never turn against him and Brown does exactly what they lobbying agaisnt what political price will be paid? None and it's completely meaningless.
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 01-04-2014, 4:52 PM
SanPedroShooter's Avatar
SanPedroShooter SanPedroShooter is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles Harbor
Posts: 9,740
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mud Eagle View Post
The problem really is the "basket" of positions on social issues that both the conservative and liberal ideologies have.
Okay, that's fine. But the NRA should be aligned with only one ideology.

The protections the 2A guarantees.

Endorsing politicians of both parties that support it is just American politics as usual. And the NRA does dirty work in DC better than anyone else.

Let the democrats fully support the 2A (like they swore an oath to) and watch the NRA come around.

They'd have to. Or they would be the worst kind of cynical hypocrites.

The ball is in the liberal court.
__________________
Join the NRA
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 01-04-2014, 5:18 PM
Sierra57's Avatar
Sierra57 Sierra57 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central CoCo County
Posts: 2,495
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tincankilla View Post
i was hoping that i could come to calguns and find some fellow liberals on here discussing this article, not a bunch of hacks trying to align gun ownership with conservativism.
Probably because most people in the Democrat Party these days object strongly to private firearms ownership and support politicians and activists who keep chipping away at private firearms ownership. The alignment with conservatism came about because conservatives still strongly advocate private firearms ownership, while Democrats have moved much further to the left and have largely have abandoned the field and consider 2A rights antiquated and uneccessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tincankilla View Post
the biggest opportunity for 2nd Amd supporters will not come from the NRA's old white male demographic, but from traditionally marginalized groups: youth, LGBT, women, racial and cultural minorities, labor unions, the poor, immigrants.
Women and legal immigrants are the two largest groups of new gun ownership. Trade unions have traditionally had a large proportion of gun ownership, because many of them are outdoorsmen, and/or have the common sense of wanting the option of protecting their families with a gun, if necessary. Not sure about growth rates (if any) in the other demographics you mentioned, but as long as they are law abiding citizens, they have every right to own firearms, if for no other reason than the mere fact that they want to protect themselves.

I think you'll find outside the right and left coasts and the narrow minded elitists who live in those areas, it isn't just "old white males" who own firearms.
__________________
Crazy eyed cupcake dog is back by popular demand!



THE OFFICIAL THREAD KILLER OF CALGUNS
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 01-04-2014, 6:01 PM
Gem1950's Avatar
Gem1950 Gem1950 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,889
iTrader: 160 / 100%
Default

Tag.
__________________
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine



"We keep you alive to serve this ship. Row well and live."

"Is that a desert country?" "No; a fat country; fat people." "You are not fat?" "No. I'm different..."
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 01-04-2014, 7:16 PM
cannonfodder's Avatar
cannonfodder cannonfodder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: San Ramon
Posts: 165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1c View Post
It really is a chicken-and-egg problem.

Many gun-owning progressives and liberals don't want to join the NRA because the organization actively supports politicians that are actively opposed to things that liberals support: same sex marriage, abortion rights, universal healthcare, immigration reform, etc.

Now I sometimes hear that the NRA doesn't have an official stance on those issues, and it's true. However, the line-up of speakers at NRA national events or the columns LaPierre and other leaders publish in Rifleman Magazine or other mailing material clearly is designed to resonate with conservatives, not liberals. The NRA is an organization that thrives on consolidating its base, and not on expanding it outside its traditionally fertile conservative base. Colion Noir is a rare step in a more diverse direction, but he remains a novelty item.

It's marketing. As long as the NRA associates itself with conservative politicians espousing conservatives issues, it will keep alienating gun-owning liberals who do not want to give a cent to an organization that might support a politician opposing their social values.

Now if the NRA was less than a top-down organization (which it is, and it's part of its incredible efficiency), it would be more appealing for some gun-owning liberals or progressives to join it and change its culture from the bottom. But the NRA doesn't really listen to its base much - it sets the agenda, and cultivates its core base. Which, again, is why it's so powerful.

I personally think it would be a good idea to join this LGC which in my opinion (and I'm socially liberal, or, rather, libertarian), seems a little too eager to accept some gun control measures to keep the peace.

Again, I personally think the fight is at the personal level. It's about changing attitudes, one person at a time. I've always been a proponent of the "Take a liberal to the range" approach. There is no way I can convince my lib friends to join the NRA because of whom the organization supports. So I have to do the advocating instead.
Agreed.
__________________
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." - George S. Patton

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. ” – Karl Marx


'When fascism comes to America, It will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." ~ Sinclair Lewis 1935
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 01-04-2014, 8:04 PM
Excelsior Excelsior is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: California, thanks be to God!
Posts: 4,216
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1c View Post
It really is a chicken-and-egg problem.

Many gun-owning progressives and liberals don't want to join the NRA because the organization actively supports politicians that are actively opposed to things that liberals support: same sex marriage, abortion rights, universal healthcare, immigration reform, etc.

Now I sometimes hear that the NRA doesn't have an official stance on those issues, and it's true. However, the line-up of speakers at NRA national events or the columns LaPierre and other leaders publish in Rifleman Magazine or other mailing material clearly is designed to resonate with conservatives, not liberals. The NRA is an organization that thrives on consolidating its base, and not on expanding it outside its traditionally fertile conservative base. Colion Noir is a rare step in a more diverse direction, but he remains a novelty item.

It's marketing. As long as the NRA associates itself with conservative politicians espousing conservatives issues, it will keep alienating gun-owning liberals who do not want to give a cent to an organization that might support a politician opposing their social values.

Now if the NRA was less than a top-down organization (which it is, and it's part of its incredible efficiency), it would be more appealing for some gun-owning liberals or progressives to join it and change its culture from the bottom. But the NRA doesn't really listen to its base much - it sets the agenda, and cultivates its core base. Which, again, is why it's so powerful.

I personally think it would be a good idea to join this LGC which in my opinion (and I'm socially liberal, or, rather, libertarian), seems a little too eager to accept some gun control measures to keep the peace.

Again, I personally think the fight is at the personal level. It's about changing attitudes, one person at a time. I've always been a proponent of the "Take a liberal to the range" approach. There is no way I can convince my lib friends to join the NRA because of whom the organization supports. So I have to do the advocating instead.
Great posting with some real insight that's sorely lacking on some of these threads. I think you missed something though.

I think the biggest thing that drives people away from the NRA is not its policies or the politicos it aligns itself with, but rather some of the loud, self-described "conservatives" it attracts.

There are a lot of extremely ignorant, often stultified extremists (they call themselves "conservatives" which they are not) who feel the need to speak on behalf of he NRA at the local gun counter at WalMarts, barbershops, local gun shops, ranges, Ducks Unlimited meals, etc. -- and especially on forums like this one.

I have often winced at being a member of the NRA. Not because it's conservative but because its loudest members are often its most extreme, ignorant and stultified. In a word they are embarrassing.

They also aid the enemy with their antics.
__________________
[CENTER]CALIFORNIA: Love it, leave it /CENTER]

The right to keep and bear arms comes not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.

Last edited by Excelsior; 01-04-2014 at 8:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 01-04-2014, 9:15 PM
cannonfodder's Avatar
cannonfodder cannonfodder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: San Ramon
Posts: 165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excelsior View Post
Great posting with some real insight that's sorely lacking on some of these threads. I think you missed something though.

I think the biggest thing that drives people away from the NRA is not its policies or the politicos it aligns itself with, but rather some of the loud, self-described "conservatives" it attracts.

There are a lot of extremely ignorant, often stultified extremists (they call themselves "conservatives" which they are not) who feel the need to speak on behalf of he NRA at the local gun counter at WalMarts, barbershops, local gun shops, ranges, Ducks Unlimited meals, etc. -- and especially on forums like this one.

I have often winced at being a member of the NRA. Not because it's conservative but because its loudest members are often its most extreme, ignorant and stultified. In a word they are embarrassing.

They also aid the enemy with their antics.
You are absolutely correct.
__________________
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." - George S. Patton

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. ” – Karl Marx


'When fascism comes to America, It will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." ~ Sinclair Lewis 1935
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 01-04-2014, 9:40 PM
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 5,242
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excelsior View Post
Great posting with some real insight that's sorely lacking on some of these threads. I think you missed something though.

I think the biggest thing that drives people away from the NRA is not its policies or the politicos it aligns itself with, but rather some of the loud, self-described "conservatives" it attracts.

There are a lot of extremely ignorant, often stultified extremists (they call themselves "conservatives" which they are not) who feel the need to speak on behalf of he NRA at the local gun counter at WalMarts, barbershops, local gun shops, ranges, Ducks Unlimited meals, etc. -- and especially on forums like this one.

I have often winced at being a member of the NRA. Not because it's conservative but because its loudest members are often its most extreme, ignorant and stultified. In a word they are embarrassing.

They also aid the enemy with their antics.
LM*AO

The irony!
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Endowment Life Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 01-04-2014, 10:08 PM
tankarian's Avatar
tankarian tankarian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,795
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
Well, it appears that they've managed to get a front page newpaper article and national coverage


-- Michael

So did AHSA.
__________________
BLACK RIFLES MATTER!


Last edited by tankarian; 01-04-2014 at 10:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 01-04-2014, 10:33 PM
elSquid's Avatar
elSquid elSquid is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Left coast.
Posts: 8,285
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tankarian View Post
So did AHSA.
When did the AHSA speak out against AW and magazine bans?

-- Michael
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 01-04-2014, 10:43 PM
mossy's Avatar
mossy mossy is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: equestria
Posts: 6,121
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

i am so sorry, its late and i found the photo editor on my computer

__________________
best troll thread in calguns history
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=406739

Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 01-04-2014, 10:45 PM
garand1945's Avatar
garand1945 garand1945 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 461
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1c View Post
It really is a chicken-and-egg problem.

Many gun-owning progressives and liberals don't want to join the NRA because the organization actively supports politicians that are actively opposed to things that liberals support: same sex marriage, abortion rights, universal healthcare, immigration reform, etc.


So then who should the NRA support, given that there are only a handful of 2a Democratic candidates? And they do support the pro 2a Democrats.

The NRA is not out to defeat Democrats, they are out to defeat the anti-2a candidate. Don't blame them because that candidate is almost always a Democrat. That is the chick and egg problem.
__________________
Join the NRA and fight the gun grabbers! https://joinnra.nra.org/join/join.aspx

NRA Lifetime Member

"I suspect that even time travelers are susceptible to the Colt .45"
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 01-04-2014, 11:42 PM
Excelsior Excelsior is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: California, thanks be to God!
Posts: 4,216
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garand1945 View Post


So then who should the NRA support, given that there are only a handful of 2a Democratic candidates? And they do support the pro 2a Democrats.

The NRA is not out to defeat Democrats, they are out to defeat the anti-2a candidate. Don't blame them because that candidate is almost always a Democrat. That is the chick and egg problem.
So many here just don't get it...

It's often not what the NRA says, it how it says it. I really don't think it knows any better. There is also a certain level of pride/feel-goody (to some) that stems from the NRA's messages that are hideously deleterious to the overall +2A message.

I'll use Pope Francis I again as an example. He's not doing anything different than Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI other than to project a great deal more warmth. He's focusing on the positive, not the negative. That's profound.

Even anti-Catholic bigots are falling in love with him -- yet the message remains the same. WLP simply doesn't have the ability to communicate at the level the head of the NRA should.
__________________
[CENTER]CALIFORNIA: Love it, leave it /CENTER]

The right to keep and bear arms comes not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 01-04-2014, 11:50 PM
garand1945's Avatar
garand1945 garand1945 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 461
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excelsior View Post
So many here just don't get it...

It's often not what the NRA says, it how it says it. I really don't think it knows any better. There is also a certain level of pride/feel-goody (to some) that stems from the NRA's messages that are hideously deleterious to the overall +2A message.

I'll use Pope Francis I again as an example. He's not doing anything different than Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI other than to project a great deal more warmth. He's focusing on the positive, not the negative. That's profound.

Even anti-Catholic bigots are falling in love with him -- yet the message remains the same. WLP simply doesn't have the ability to communicate at the level the head of the NRA should.
You may have some valid points, but the do not address the issue you quoted.

a1c can correct me if I'm wrong, but what I took him to be referring to is the financial support and endorsements that work to elect pro 2A candidates who are conservative, and they don't want their money going to those candidates.

You are talking about messaging which is completely different. They may well be upset with the messaging, but even if the messaging changes, it sounds like they don't want a dime of their money going to conservative pro 2A candidates. They want complete agreement on a wide range of issues and refuse to be single issue voters when it comes to the 2a.
__________________
Join the NRA and fight the gun grabbers! https://joinnra.nra.org/join/join.aspx

NRA Lifetime Member

"I suspect that even time travelers are susceptible to the Colt .45"
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 01-05-2014, 2:53 AM
Tarn_Helm's Avatar
Tarn_Helm Tarn_Helm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thumbs down You cannot be serious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1c View Post
Some gun owners with liberal views have a club of their own (they're affiliated with the CMP markmanship program):
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...bs-5107330.php

Their forum is located here:
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com

I'm glad those guys are given this publicity. The public needs to know gun owners come in all types.
You could not be more wrong.

"The public" needs to know what the Second Amendment implies, entails, and implicitly prescribes, it the public needs to know the theory of institutionalized power that the Second Amendment was formulated to combat.

Today's relativism is wholly incompatible with the absolutism with which the right to bear arms was freighted in eighteenth-century American political thought as expressed by the generation of the Founding Fathers.

Also incompatible is the casuistry espoused by the high courts of this country, as described in Sanford Levinson's Constitutional Faith.

We have fatefully opted for a method of interpretation opposed to the very idea on which the country's Founding Fathers based our founding documents.

This is precisely why we cannot hang onto our rights.

Any suggestion that there is some sort of worthy opinion that opposes the fullest and most free exercise of the Second Amendment is entirely wrong--wrong.

There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

















__________________
"The Religion of Peace": Islam: What the West Needs to Know.
". . . all [historical] experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms
[of governmental abuses and usurpations] to which they are accustomed."
Decl. of Indep., July 4, 1776

NRA Benefactor/Life Member; Lifer: CRPA, GOA, SAF & JPFO


Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 01-05-2014, 3:51 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,390
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a1c View Post
Many gun-owning progressives and liberals don't want to join the NRA because the organization actively supports politicians that are actively opposed to things that liberals support: same sex marriage, abortion rights, universal healthcare, immigration reform, etc.
...
It's marketing. As long as the NRA associates itself with conservative politicians espousing conservatives issues, it will keep alienating gun-owning liberals who do not want to give a cent to an organization that might support a politician opposing their social values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonfodder View Post
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excelsior View Post
I think the biggest thing that drives people away from the NRA is not its policies or the politicos it aligns itself with, but rather some of the loud, self-described "conservatives" it attracts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonfodder View Post
You are absolutely correct.
Here is the problem with the political left (intentionally not calling them "liberals" as they are not pro-freedom) in a nutshell: intolerance of difference in opinions and craving of acceptance as a condition for their support.

A simple example. I support almost all of the ACLU positions (less their official 2A stance which is a disgrace) even if I have likely very little in common with almost all of the members. If I were a lefty, I'd shun ACLU because I don't like their members and would try to justify it by trying to blame the ACLU for attracting the PETA types.

A person of principle will stand up for what is right. A wishy-washy person will look at the peers and seek acceptance before substance.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 01-05-2014, 4:06 AM
Excelsior Excelsior is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: California, thanks be to God!
Posts: 4,216
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garand1945 View Post
You may have some valid points, but the do not address the issue you quoted.

a1c can correct me if I'm wrong, but what I took him to be referring to is the financial support and endorsements that work to elect pro 2A candidates who are conservative, and they don't want their money going to those candidates.

You are talking about messaging which is completely different. They may well be upset with the messaging, but even if the messaging changes, it sounds like they don't want a dime of their money going to conservative pro 2A candidates. They want complete agreement on a wide range of issues and refuse to be single issue voters when it comes to the 2a.
"...So then who should the NRA support, given that there are only a handful of 2a Democratic candidates?" <--- That not the crux of the NRA's problems. It not only who the NRA supports or what it says. It HOW it says things.
__________________
[CENTER]CALIFORNIA: Love it, leave it /CENTER]

The right to keep and bear arms comes not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 01-05-2014, 7:12 AM
DesertWalker DesertWalker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Here is the problem with the political left (intentionally not calling them "liberals" as they are not pro-freedom) in a nutshell: intolerance of difference in opinions and craving of acceptance as a condition for their support.

A simple example. I support almost all of the ACLU positions (less their official 2A stance which is a disgrace) even if I have likely very little in common with almost all of the members. If I were a lefty, I'd shun ACLU because I don't like their members and would try to justify it by trying to blame the ACLU for attracting the PETA types.

A person of principle will stand up for what is right. A wishy-washy person will look at the peers and seek acceptance before substance.
Here is the problem with the political "right". I hesitate to use the word "right" because they are so often wrong. Intolerance of difference of opinions.(many expressed right here on Calguns). Craving of acceptance by parroting words already written by fellow Calgunners and FOX or Limbaugh or Beck. Thinking that they are the only ones who are people of principle. Always knowing what is "right", meaning all others who don't agree with you are wrong. and, last but not least, sitting at the right hand of God while pretending to have an exclusive perspective on what the Founding Fathers were thinking in the 18th century..........see how this stereotyping mind set works both ways? People who want to lump left or right into two big factions are naiive and child-like in their thinking. The world just does not work that way.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 01-05-2014, 8:17 AM
Excelsior Excelsior is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: California, thanks be to God!
Posts: 4,216
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertWalker View Post
Here is the problem with the political "right". I hesitate to use the word "right" because they are so often wrong. Intolerance of difference of opinions.(many expressed right here on Calguns). Craving of acceptance by parroting words already written by fellow Calgunners and FOX or Limbaugh or Beck. Thinking that they are the only ones who are people of principle. Always knowing what is "right", meaning all others who don't agree with you are wrong. and, last but not least, sitting at the right hand of God while pretending to have an exclusive perspective on what the Founding Fathers were thinking in the 18th century..........see how this stereotyping mind set works both ways? People who want to lump left or right into two big factions are naiive and child-like in their thinking. The world just does not work that way.
Yup. Keep in mind that there are a great many floating around the gun world that claim to be "conservative" yet they're not.

They're extreme. They like to fantisize about being the polar opposites of what they love to term "uber liberals", yet they're really one in the same -- extremists.

Extremists who are indeed naive and child-like in their thinking. It can be downright painful to watch them prattle-on with their parroted diatribes because they never learned how to think in a critical manner. Many don't realize how foolish they look to others. "Forensics" is a show on TV to them and nothing more.

They do a lot of damage to the pro-2A camp.
__________________
[CENTER]CALIFORNIA: Love it, leave it /CENTER]

The right to keep and bear arms comes not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.

Last edited by Excelsior; 01-05-2014 at 8:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:44 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.