Do Gun Owners Have Any Rights Which Liberals Are Bound to Respect?

[BigStiCK]

about making it costly and inconvenient to exercise your rights, and thus serve as an effective deterrent to doing so. The problem is that many are not willing to accept that it is also true for waiting periods for the thing that they don't like. There are some of us that

Oh, there are other differences that are less hypocritical, while most liberals will support the policy of abortion on demand, any type, for anyone, at any time, for any reason, without any screening, no waiting periods, no background checks, no notifications - with absolutely no restrictions, most (not all, but most) do not even come close to taking a similar stance regarding gun ownership. Liberal abortion advocates even want to force other people to pay for their abortions.

Gun rights advocates do not take such an extreme position on gun rights, yet we are the ones being portrayed as "unreasonable", lacking "common sense", and as "fanatics".

• Most are okay with restrictions on some types of arms (i.e. sawed off shotguns, machine guns, anti-tank missiles, surface to air missiles, nuclear weapons, grenades, bombs, actual assault rifles, etc.).
• Most are also okay with restrictions on some types of people (minors, mentally unfit, felons, etc.),
• Many gun owners are willing to accept reasonable delays (in our modern world, "instant check" taking a minute or two is the established standard). Gun rights supporters don't think people should be able to purchase guns with the expressed intention of murdering people or committing crimes.
• Gun rights supporters are in favor of effective screening (that "instant check" that gun rights supporters like the NRA got passed in Congress, for example) to keep minors, the mentally unstable, and felons from gaining arms.
• Gun rights supporters are not taking their employers to court demanding that employers should be forced to provide then with whatever guns and ammunition they want, in order to protect their health and safety.

Boy, you NAILED it! I'm tagging this thread based on your post alone.
Good Job!

P.s. Former Air Force Ssgt here.

[seo]

I find it very difficult to believe any liberal respects our rights to own a firearm.

You mean liberals like Reagan, Bush, Arnold, etc.?

[ja308]

You mean liberals like Reagan, Bush, Arnold, etc.?

No offense pal, but you really should examine the NRA list of anti gun media. It appears you've been lied to and and are unable to get beyond the talking points .

So compare Reagan with Jimmy Carter ! You still think Reagan's a liberal ?
Compare Bush with Akgore who proclaimed the need to do something about registering guns.
Finanaly compare moron swarznegger with even bigger moron Gray Davis .

Now for the record , exactly what makes you such an expert ?

[Warrior King]

One of the tactics of those who oppose our right to keep and bear arms is to label any of their proposals as “reasonable” or “common sense” – leaving our positions to be seen as “unreasonable” and “nonsensical”.

The fact is that since most Americans are in the middle ground on 2A issues, they can easily be influenced by the language used. We can’t allow our enemies to control the definitions used, or we will lose the debate before it even begins.

The real test of what is “reasonable” in terms of gun control is to look at how the same policy would be viewed if applied to another aspect of life. If what seems “reasonable” for one matter that is less important to someone seems “unreasonable” for a matter that is important to them, we must expose that hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, exposing the hypocrisy of the “Antis” may also cause some of us to have to examine ourselves for hypocritical thinking.

If a waiting period is “reasonable” to allow a person to “cool off” and avoid “rushing into” a major decision, then it is “Common sense” for the same waiting period that applies to gun purchases should also be applied to abortion. These are both decisions where a life may end up being at stake, so both should require the same amount of deliberation – right?

Gun rights supporters and abortion rights supporters both know that "waiting periods" that are often proposed in order to supposedly "give people time to cool off and not make decisions in the heat of the moment" are actually more about making it costly and inconvenient to exercise your rights, and thus serve as an effective deterrent to doing so. The problem is that many are not willing to accept that it is also true for waiting periods for the thing that they don't like. There are some of us that

Oh, there are other differences that are less hypocritical, while most liberals will support the policy of abortion on demand, any type, for anyone, at any time, for any reason, without any screening, no waiting periods, no background checks, no notifications - with absolutely no restrictions, most (not all, but most) do not even come close to taking a similar stance regarding gun ownership. Liberal abortion advocates even want to force other people to pay for their abortions.

Gun rights advocates do not take such an extreme position on gun rights, yet we are the ones being portrayed as "unreasonable", lacking "common sense", and as "fanatics".

• Most are okay with restrictions on some types of arms (i.e. sawed off shotguns, machine guns, anti-tank missiles, surface to air missiles, nuclear weapons, grenades, bombs, actual assault rifles, etc.).
• Most are also okay with restrictions on some types of people (minors, mentally unfit, felons, etc.),
• Many gun owners are willing to accept reasonable delays (in our modern world, "instant check" taking a minute or two is the established standard). Gun rights supporters don't think people should be able to purchase guns with the expressed intention of murdering people or committing crimes.
• Gun rights supporters are in favor of effective screening (that "instant check" that gun rights supporters like the NRA got passed in Congress, for example) to keep minors, the mentally unstable, and felons from gaining arms.
• Gun rights supporters are not taking their employers to court demanding that employers should be forced to provide then with whatever guns and ammunition they want, in order to protect their health and safety.

You ever deal with anyone with a personality disorder?

Take a narcissist for example...they love to accuse you of doing things that they do, so you are always on the defensive and proving you are not what they, being insane, accuse you of being, and in fact they actually are. It is a very effective tactic.

Before Hitler committed suicide, surrounded by Soviet Armies he claimed that the German people had failed him and were not worthy of his leadership.

Ex Sen. Yee is your classic insane, but functioning Narcissist.

Disarming the public while he secretly becomes an illegal arms trader. Narcissists are threatened by the power, and talents other people have. Guns are a form of power so a Narcissist (politician) will be most threatened by who they deem to be "the little people" having the power of a gun...

Only people with high status according to the Narcissist politician should be entitled to have guns (when they allow it), and better yet people under their direct control like the military and police...The "little people" will be allowed to hunt and so as Yee advocated, a single shot rifle is all they need.

When people in general or politicians try to limit your rights and lecture you about what you need or should want based on their estimation of your capabilities which in the case of a narcissist will be low (you cant be trusted etc.) that is a red flag that you are dealing with a narcissist.

Narcissists love positions that give them power, status and authority. Narcissists are famous for their lies, fabrications and manipulations... Think De Leon and his ghost gun press conference...

According to mental health professionals there are a disproportionate number of narcissists in politics.

Most of the leading gun control advocates like Bloomberg etc. are most likely high functioning Narcissists.

As long as we are locked into an eternal dialectic where we have to disprove and challenge their ridiculous laws and claims they are winning.

Narcissists love to call the shots, and pull the strings. It gives them a sense of power and they love the attention. It has nothing to do with public policy, the truth, facts ( De Leon "Ghost Gun" press conference) or the public good and everything to do with their need for power and control. Narcissists love controversy as long as they are getting attention...key words here are "crazy making" "narcissist supply" "entitlement" "manipulation" "objectification" all actual clinical terms which explains some of the dynamic how most of us feel when we look at how the California government treats us and our rights.

Narcissism when extreme is a form of mental illness. It was called NPD at one time...

We need to somehow break out of Alice in Wonderland and stop arguing with the kooks and dingbats.

In other words we are not dealing with a political debate, we are dealing with a mental health care crises masquerading as civic debate.

At the end of the day after the German people for example entrusted their destiny to Hitler, and their country was in ruins, most realized that the guy was an insane psychopath, particularly the Generals that had to deal with him day to day.

Maybe it is time to stop the debate and just expose these dingbats for the insane frauds that they are. Call them gun o phobic or entitled narcissits, what ever it takes to expose their true insane mental outlook.

[HBrebel]

Liberal/conservative here we go again. Who cares? Our rights are there for us to fight for not for any lame political party to approve or disapprove. Never ask the system to grant you rights, you already have them. They want your guns tell them MOLON LABE.

[HBrebel]

http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/0...-the-liberal-a

as long as I am armed, I have my rights