Those Damned Liberals!

[jgreenberg01]

Here is why I believe that statements like the title of this thread are HURTING the gun community and furthering 2A rights attempts.



I absolutely LOVE this video! This is what I have been trying to say about the inflammatory rhetoric that 2A supporters tend to throw around. Labeling half of the population of the country as an enemy "aka liberal" is not only non-productive, but it is wrong and counter-productive.

There is a huge difference between "liberal politicians" and "liberal citizens." The politicians don't represent the people any more - I don't care which side of the aisle you lean towards - that is pretty much the case.

Maybe we can begin to stop the gun-grabbing politicians if we recruit people from all walks of the political spectrum. Maybe it's time to stop lumping all people with perceived left leanings into the same anti-gun pot because it simply isn't the case.

This is where I would typically say "Can't we all get along?" to elicit a chuckle, but this is really serious - as emissaries of the shooting community, we really need to spread the message that is in this video.

As always all IMHO, I could be wrong... actually no... I'm right about this.

[Rapier1772]

There is a huge difference between "liberal politicians" and "liberal citizens." The politicians don't represent the people any more - I don't care which side of the aisle you lean towards - that is pretty much the case.

This a very good distinction to make.
Unfortunately, too many of us (me included) just lump the idiots from all areas into one generalized crowd & dub them "liberals" regardless of which kind we're talking about.

[Cyberfly]

Part of my problem with liberals has been, that while I've tried to find middle ground with them and have gone out of my way to find SOMETHING that we could agree on, as soon as that happens, they tend to see it as a 'political win' then they go for the throat and try to take you down.
Maybe this isn't the case with all left leaning idiots, but it has been my experience.
I have a very good friend who I think the world of. He's a Viet Nam era vet and a dyed in the wool Yellow Dog Democrat, liberal to the core. He tries to claim that he's Libertarian, but we've concluded that just isn't the case. To him, Bam Bam can do no wrong. He happens to be a gun-loving libtard. He honestly believes that Socialism is just fine, that fire, police and public school services are proof positive that Socialism works in America and should be expanded to include all things. It's just...tiring. But I like the guy. I can't help it. I just try to avoid anything political with him. But even when we TRY to find middle ground on things like guns, he always has to drag his socialist politics into it.
Is he TOO left leaning to be one of those who could be included in the fight? Probably. No...most DEFINITELY. Could other, more moderate people who 'label' themselves as liberal be proponents in the fight? Of course. And they should be included.
But with people like my friend, Dave? He'll always be 'that damned liberal' to me.

[JollyRogers]

I think the word we are looking for is "moderate". Problem is, what I consider a moderate, isn't anymore, it is now right wing.

[jgreenberg01]

Did you mean right wing or left wing? Actually the truth is that it doesn't matter because there are plenty of people who go to extremes on both sides.

I have to believe though, that most people are firmly in the middle - even if the politicians, the media and the internet memes want you to believe otherwise. It's in their best interest to keep us at each others' throats so that we don't focus on what the criminals, I mean life-term politicians in power are really doing.

That's the point of this thread... it's time to stop demonizing people en mass and start focusing on what the real problem is. If we stop alienating those that may actually agree with our views on guns and our constitutional right to bear them, then maybe we can create a united front against those who are the actual enemy!

[kismetcapitan]

We have the right to bear arms. Constitution says nothing about "guns". Since a well-regulated militia uses guns, that's what we are guaranteed the right to bear.

Hundreds of years from now, when weapons are phasers and laser guns, we will have the right to bear those as well. I hate splitting hairs over the "right to bear guns" because even acknowledging that the debate is about guns is already a mistake. It's the right to individual self-defense with arms comparable to a militia. From my perspective, that makes me an absolutist on the gun debate. If magazines are unrestricted for the military, restricting them infringes on 2A rights. The restriction on machine guns also infringes on these rights.

It's absurd to get into hair-splitting debates with anti-gun people. It's very clear actually, and conceding "well, we can have this type of gun but not this type" is a mistake. Do we have the right to "bear" nuclear warheads? No. Those aren't "arms" - in the true sense of the word meaning weapons that are handheld.

[Cyberfly]

Nuclear warheads, like biological weapons, would fall under 'weapons of mass destruction'. Much like my ex-wife with a credit card...
Tanks, bazookas, machine guns, etc.? If you can afford one, afford to feed it and maintain it, hey...knock yourself out.
Just my opinion.

[Rapier1772]

Nuclear warheads, like biological weapons, would fall under 'weapons of mass destruction'. Much like my ex-wife with a credit card...
Tanks, bazookas, machine guns, etc.? If you can afford one, afford to feed it and maintain it, hey...knock yourself out.
Just my opinion.

[panzermk2]

Nuclear warheads, like biological weapons, would fall under 'weapons of mass destruction'. Much like my ex-wife with a credit card...
Tanks, bazookas, machine guns, etc.? If you can afford one, afford to feed it and maintain it, hey...knock yourself out.
Just my opinion.

:thumb:

[Cyberfly]

That reminds me of a guy I met years ago...he actually KEPT all of the 'pre-approved Visas' that he was sent. He'd activate them and stick them in his sock drawer. His plan? If he ever had to file bankruptcy, he was either going to cash advance all he could on them and then file on them, OR, he was going to buy a shipload of silver and gold and then file on them.
Although I knew it was totally WRONG, I admired his thinking.

[Rapier1772]

Speak of the infidels... :laugh:
http://gma.yahoo.com/gun-club-liberals- ... 23198.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gun owner and Second Amendment advocate Marlene Hoeber isn't your typical member of the National Rifle Association. In fact, she isn't a member of the NRA at all.

The Oakland, Calif., laboratory equipment mechanic regularly visits firing ranges, where, along with other members of her gun club, she shoots a variety of weapons. "Guns are fun to play with," she says. She even makes her own ammunition.

She has no use, however, for the NRA's conservative political agenda. By her own description, Hoeber is a feisty, liberal, transgender, tattooed, queer, activist feminist.

She belongs instead to another gun advocacy group entirely--The Liberal Gun Club--whose membership ranges, she says, "from socialists, to anarchists who can quote Marx, to Reagan Democrats."

There's more at the link...

[kismetcapitan]

I always thought I was a liberal. After all, I'm a member of the Libertarian Party :P

I still call myself a "true" liberal. While I'm a politically active member of the NRA, I like reading about these other groups. They may not be politically oriented along the NRA axis, but anything that promotes responsible self-defense is good for our society. Non-Americans may call our gun culture barbaric, but then they don't have the crime that we do either.

[Cyberfly]

I used to be a liberal.
Way back when I was young and stupid and thought I knew everything...then I got older, realized I didn't know everything, my parents were actually CORRECT, the fundamentals they fought to instill in me were for my own good and the good of others and that I was ultimately responsible for my own actions.
Then I realized, I wasn't as smart as I thought I was. And once I BECAME smarter, realized I was truly a conservative...go figger.

[nrv216]

I used to be a liberal.
Way back when I was young and stupid and thought I knew everything...then I got older, realized I didn't know everything, my parents were actually CORRECT, the fundamentals they fought to instill in me were for my own good and the good of others and that I was ultimately responsible for my own actions.
Then I realized, I wasn't as smart as I thought I was. And once I BECAME smarter, realized I was truly a conservative...go figger.

Its like my dad always said, "If you are 18 and conservative its because you have no heart. If you are 30 and liberal its because you have no brain."

nrv216

[jgreenberg01]

Yeah, and that's exactly what I was talking about in the OP. I really, truly believe in my heart of hearts that lumping all "liberals" into a giant pile is doing everyone a disservice and throwing fuel on the huge fire of a divide we have in this country.

I have to believe that the vast, Vast, VAST (did I mention vast?) majority of those "liberals" you detest are actually centrist. They may believe that some of what the left pushes is reasonable. But they also believe that what the right spouts is reasonable as well. Personally, I think many of the folks on the very far right or very far left are color blind and leave no room for common sense - they vote strictly along party lines and absolutely will not even consider anything that other side says as possibly reasonable.

I am a libertarian with a mix of socially liberal leanings and fiscal conservative leanings. Above all else I believe in smaller government and that ours is spiraling outward uncontrollably.

So a hypothetical question: if one believes in a woman's right to choose and is a staunch supporter of 2A rights and thinks that the important word in the term illegal alien is illegal - does the belief in the right to choose completely eclipse the 2 conservative viewpoints and make that person a damned liberal?

Sorry, but I just don't believe in absolutes, and I think that inflammatory statements just further the divide that is being created by the media and politicians to keep us focused on the wrong things.

[Cyberfly]

You pretty much nailed it Jeff. You have to find politicians who share AS CLOSE to the same beliefs that you do. If you agree on 80% the same thing with one and only 30% with the other, do you vote for the R or D? You vote for the one that is closest to your core beliefs. At least, I do.
I wish the Libertarian Party had a solid footing here, I'd sign up in a heartbeat.

[nrv216]

I think that everything said here is pretty basic. Not every liberal is stupid and not every conservative is smart. Same concept applies to every racial, religious, gender or other sexual stereotype. The issue is finding people smart enough to be able to see stereotypes for what they are. Personally, I would never associate with someone who is too sensitive to laugh at a stereotype or too stupid to see the error in treating a stereotype as a rule.

As far as politics go, liberal and conservative have become highly diluted terms that I firmly believe are just used to increase the perceived divide between Americans as a whole. All the while, the government can erode our freedoms from either end. "I'll support a conservative who is wishy washy on the second amendment because, at least I'm not voting liberal!"

Its just too bad that most Americans are too stupid to make a decision that is more involved than Republican or Democrat and those of us who are smart enough to wade through the issues and possibly vote for a moderate, independent, libertarian, etc are becoming increasingly disenfranchised by the whole process.

I still think what my dad said is funny.

nrv216