There's some hope for our liberal friends.

[jdubois]

There's an interesting discussion going on over on reddit.com about liberals and gun ownership. There are the usual liberal arguments being passed around, but there's even more of a significant number of folks who are describing themselves as liberals/progressives but affirming their belief in our second amendment for what it is.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/8wimc/is_anyone_else_here_a_liberal_or_progressive_but/

 

[Lynne]

 

[Rob]

Liberals make my head hurt...in general.

Interesting to hear something like that from 'the other side' though.

 

[PaulD]

One of the posters on that board makes a good point about how ridiculous it is to characterize political beliefs into one of two categories. Also, the extreme right and extreme left often resemble each other in their actions even if their motivations aren't the same.

 

[drgrant]

One of the posters on that board makes a good point about how ridiculous it is to characterize political beliefs into one of two categories. Also, the extreme right and extreme left often resemble each other in their actions even if their motivations aren't the same.

The problem is that most voters feel compelled to pick some sort of allegiance based on whoever is "less worse" instead of selecting the candidate that they really believe in. This starts the "chain of pain" where you have McCain and Obama voters yelling at each other when the irony is that neither candidate likely represented their views very well at all. The end result on either side is candidates that are fundamentally mediocre garbage. Then we elect one of them.... ironically enough, the voters get exactly what they ask for- crap. People are too busy "electing the guy from their "side" that has the highest probability of beating the other guy" instead of electing the best person for the job.

Another huge problem is voters now freely elect people who, by definition, shouldn't even be considered for position of power from either side. For example, many of these pols basically shit on the constitution whenever it's politically expedient for them to do so, and the voters let them get away with it. The voters simply do not care about things like civil rights or the principles which built/maintain our nation anymore. The sad reality is we live in an age where the populous is more concerned about the results of American Eye-Dull than they are about things like illegal wiretapping, guns getting confiscated, or a government that is taxing everyone to death and destroying our currency/money supply. It's easier to self-medicate with weed, alcohol, and television. It's like Huxley's "Brave new world" minus the community orgies and eugenics. [sad2]

-Mike

 

[Gonzo]

"AR-15's are the Barbie Dolls for gun enthusiasts"

Too true.

 

[lupis42]

One of the posters on that board makes a good point about how ridiculous it is to characterize political beliefs into one of two categories. Also, the extreme right and extreme left often resemble each other in their actions even if their motivations aren't the same.

Indeed. I always categorized myself as more on the "liberal" side of the fence, for three simple reasons:
Because I hate the inclusion of religion into government, especially the attempt to use government to enforce religious or social values, whether those values are good or not. (Examples include family values and PC values).
Because I believe that *completely* free markets are, in many cases, subject to substantial and problematic asymmetries and externalities which can and should be corrected for by well thought out, minimally intrusive legislation. (Think labeling laws on food as an example)
And because I think that suspending civil rights/liberties in the name of catching terrorists is completely inappropriate and unacceptable. No exceptions. Our civil rights and freedoms were already overly subjugated *before* the [STRIKE]PATRIOT[/STRIKE]FACIST act.

In the last half dozen years, I've come to realize that certain other positions of mine (such as political correctness, and copyright, and the RKBA) are equally anathematic to the modern American left.

I'm sick of left-right politics, and I'm not convince that adding in a couple more axes (by giving us third parties for example) would even solve the issue, although it would certainly be a start.

All of this is a long-winded way of getting to a point, which goes as follows: Unless you consider yourself to be well represented by Ann Coulter, don't assume that people you consider liberals are well represented by similar examples. For most people, politics really aren't that simple, and trying to demonize the other side most often just makes you look like a tool.

 

[livefreeorhere]

The problem is that most voters feel compelled to pick some sort of allegiance based on whoever is "less worse" instead of selecting the candidate that they really believe in. This starts the "chain of pain" where you have McCain and Obama voters yelling at each other when the irony is that neither candidate likely represented their views very well at all. The end result on either side is candidates that are fundamentally mediocre garbage. Then we elect one of them.... ironically enough, the voters get exactly what they ask for- crap. People are too busy "electing the guy from their "side" that has the highest probability of beating the other guy" instead of electing the best person for the job.

+1 and as the campaigning season winds on you start liking each candidate less and less. This crap is why I chose the Douglas Adams quote for my sig line. It's funny 'cause it's true but I guess that also makes it not funny

 

[P-14]

“I don't mean to be negative, but you can't reason with real moonbats. They're not interested in the truth. It's a waste of band width.” News Shooter – NES Forum

Maybe they're beginning to see the light at the end of the 2A tunnel....

 

[LoginName]

I'm really not in the mood (nor do I have the time), to read the comments posted there, but I've read and heard that position/belief all too many times from liberals "I believe in and support the 2nd amendment".

However that statement is almost always followed with (take your pick)...

"but no one needs an "assault rifle" for hunting"...

"we register and license automobiles and drivers, there's no reason we shouldn't do the same with firearms and gun owners"...

"gun sales are regulated if purchasing from a licensed dealer. the same should apply to gun shows and private sales"...

""cop killer" bullets serve no purpose other than to kill and should be banned"...

"why would anyone need to purchase more than one gun per month"?

etc... ad nauseum.

 

[LoginName]

Maybe they're beginning to see the light at the end of the 2A tunnel....

I think for a lot of them it's because they realize that it's a losing issue and they'd rather throw in the towel; either that or run the risk of losing elections.

 

[jdubois]

However that statement is almost always followed with (take your pick)...

While all those excuses and conditions you listed are definitely in that discussion, there really are a bunch of others there who are unabashed gun enthusiasts and are actively arguing against all that crap, but are still describing themselves as liberals. That was my whole point of posting it.

 

[drgrant]

While all those excuses and conditions you listed are definitely in that discussion, there really are a bunch of others there who are unabashed gun enthusiasts and are actively arguing against all that crap, but are still describing themselves as liberals. That was my whole point of posting it.

I know several libs that are pro gun, or at least they say they are. The thing is, often times, they're only pro gun whenever it isn't politically inconvenient for them, which typically only will go as far as the primaries. Then out comes the "But, there are other issues besides gun control..." argument, and then they end up voting for the anti that they voted against in the primary. Go figure. (ETA- I've run into "conservatives"
that vote the same way, too. )

-Mike

 

[lupis42]

However that statement is almost always followed with (take your pick)...

I don't disagree that such (foolish) riders are often added to that statement. This thread is partially about a discussion at Reddit that is not taking that vein. The majority of the comments at Reddit have been supportive of the RKBA, especially as a tool to resist tyranny.

I'm really not in the mood (nor do I have the time), to read the comments posted there

If you have no desire to actually find out whether or not people live up to your expectations, why should you expect anyone else to bother reading what you post? One of the most important things that we can do in supporting the RKBA is to act as ambassadors for it, by engaging antis in polite and reasoned discourse, in order to dispel as many of the myths (such as the ones you listed) as possible. You aren't obligated to do that, but to dismiss other peoples opinions without listening not only reinforces in them those opinions, it reinforces in them the idea that people who share your opinion are "moonbats" unwilling to even debate the issue. How does that help anyone?

 

[terraformer]

The money shot.

I was Anti-Gun. I hate them. I hate little concealable weapons people carry around like its the wild west. I hate the NRA, etc. But we can't split hairs. The Government is not suppose to be this restrictive, they cannot be responsible for how people behave. We can do more to control the amount of guns in the hands of criminals, but by restricting them, we put ourselves in a dangerous, oppressive area that I am not comfortable with.

This will do more to sway liberals than any one of the pro-gun comments there. It is good to hear reasonable comments on the issue that basically fit "live and let live" and/or "we are not two party ideologies but many ideologies constrained to two parties".

 

[cekim]

Liberals make my head hurt...in general.

Me too - I am generally of a mind that anything prepared and cooked correctly can be made palatable, but I've had to remove them from the menu all-together...

 

[cekim]

This will do more to sway liberals than any one of the pro-gun comments there. It is good to hear reasonable comments on the issue that basically fit "live and let live" and/or "we are not two party ideologies but many ideologies constrained to two parties".

Indeed - that answer is the only answer with which we can all live...

If you don't like guns, don't buy them... Government restriction is bad for everyone. You might be happy with or ambivalent towards the ATF, FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS (boy that list is getting long...) this decade, but come the next YOU might be on the list of people whose civil rights they are trampling...

Best to limit their powers and give them a job to do that allows them to protect and defend the United States and its Constitution rather than target people who's political views they don't like...

 

[calsdad]

While all those excuses and conditions you listed are definitely in that discussion, there really are a bunch of others there who are unabashed gun enthusiasts and are actively arguing against all that crap, but are still describing themselves as liberals. That was my whole point of posting it.

It's good to recognize that these people are out there. Finding a liberal who is a supporter of 2nd amendment rights gives you a wedge issue to bring up all sorts of other rights issues that impact gun rights.

Make them see how a bunch of the rest of the liberal agenda has a direct impact on their gun rights and maybe what you get is a liberal who is opposed to the big government agenda.

 

[terraformer]

It's good to recognize that these people are out there. Finding a liberal who is a supporter of 2nd amendment rights gives you a wedge issue to bring up all sorts of other rights issues that impact gun rights.

Make them see how a bunch of the rest of the liberal agenda has a direct impact on their gun rights and maybe what you get is a liberal who is opposed to the big government agenda.

Dude, NO! Once you find that common ground for learning to "live and let live" the rest is just ideological noise and we can finally get along. If any of you find that liberal friend who supports the 2nd A and try to indoctrinate them as a conservative, you will likely just tick them off and reinforce the notion that conservatives are looking to force their morals on them. Instead, take them shooting and have fun.

 

[livefreeorhere]

While all those excuses and conditions you listed are definitely in that discussion, there really are a bunch of others there who are unabashed gun enthusiasts and are actively arguing against all that crap, but are still describing themselves as liberals. That was my whole point of posting it.

I've definitely made some generalizations about liberals but I really do feel that it's important for pro-2A people to try not to burn too many bridges on the left side for the above reason! It does more to have a liberal explain the reasoning behind the 2A to another liberal who may be anti-gun because the anti-gunner isn't going to immediately dismiss the pro 2A liberal!

I was glad to read a few of the comments from liberals on that page. thanks for posting it!

 

[TomH]

"But, there are other issues besides gun control..." argument, and then they end up voting for the anti that they voted against in the primary. Go figure. (ETA- I've run into "conservatives"
that vote the same way, too. )

-Mike

Yep, like voting for McCain (hardly a conservative) last election... a last ditch effort to prevent the socialist decline. Never again.

 

[Nickle]

Dude, NO! Once you find that common ground for learning to "live and let live" the rest is just ideological noise and we can finally get along. If any of you find that liberal friend who supports the 2nd A and try to indoctrinate them as a conservative, you will likely just tick them off and reinforce the notion that conservatives are looking to force their morals on them. Instead, take them shooting and have fun.

One of the smarter things I've heard lately.

Yup, exactly that.

Get them to "live and let live" and let it go.

Get them shooting.

The rest, they can (and will) pretty much do on their own.

Eventually, you'll notice they're Libertarians with a leftist bent, and we should be able to live with that.

Even if they don't change, they'll slowly turn into "Issue Voters", with their issue being 2A issues.

 

[calsdad]

Dude, NO! Once you find that common ground for learning to "live and let live" the rest is just ideological noise and we can finally get along. If any of you find that liberal friend who supports the 2nd A and try to indoctrinate them as a conservative, you will likely just tick them off and reinforce the notion that conservatives are looking to force their morals on them. Instead, take them shooting and have fun.

I didn't mean what I wrote to say that a liberal should be converted into a conservative. I meant it to say that I would be happy if at least liberals weren't trying to shove big government down my throat. If one of us (for example) believed in gay rights - and the other one didn't, as long as we could both agree to not use the church or the state to shove our respective ideas down each other's respective throats. That is probably the best you can hope for.

Many of the original founders of this country were "liberals" - if the modern day "liberals" could at least get back to believing what the founding fathers did - we would be a hell of a lot better off.

The whole meaning of liberal and conservative has gotten so screwed up in this country as to be almost meaningless in my opinion.

Reading further thru the comments - it does appear there is at least some reason for hope:

According to a historian that I saw on the daily show (can't remember the name), before any society has transformed to totalitarian rule it passes through a period of informal intimidation where groups loosely connected to the government intimidate the populace into going along. Historically, this has never succeeded in a society that had ready access to weapons.

So while the weapons we have won't stop the military, they may keep it from coming to that, if history is a guide.

permalinkparentreply

dontal 15 points16 points17 points 5 hours ago[+] (1 child)
dontal 15 points16 points17 points 5 hours ago[-]


Which is why one of the first acts of a totalitarian leaning government is to disarm or prevent an armed populace.

permalinkparentreply

Taladar 1 point2 points3 points 27 minutes ago[+] (0 children)
Taladar 1 point2 points3 points 27 minutes ago[-]


The first acts of a primitive government perhaps, more sophisticated ones rely on all kinds of propaganda tricks to keep the population split into lots of little groups without threatening anyone, directly or indirectly. They don't need to indoctrinate kids, they simply make them stupid by ruining the education system. They don't convince them to go to war, they do "police actions" instead,...

permalinkparentreply





egarland 20 points21 points22 points 14 hours ago[+] (0 children)
egarland 20 points21 points22 points 14 hours ago[-]


This makes a ton of sense and makes my argument better than I did. Thanks for pointing it out.

permalinkparentreply



Jason_Hendrix 1 point2 points3 points 4 hours ago[+] (0 children)
Jason_Hendrix 1 point2 points3 points 4 hours ago[-]


where groups loosely connected to the government intimidate the populace into going along

Do you think we're going through that now? The whole "get your political base more unified and well-armed than the other political base" might actually be a passive-aggressive example of that.

 

[calsdad]

He he - I am starting to like these people:

One man defending his home is worth ten attacking it. That's common military understanding stretching back to the time of Sun Tzu.

Using a VOLUNTEER army against your own population in a democratic nation is one of the stupidest militaristic concepts known. The logistics of fueling, repairing, manning, and directing the modern military war machine (I.e. Tank Battalions, Helicopters, Jet aircraft) is entirely dependant on civilian support. A modern democratic government of a sizable population that managed to retain control of its' military during a coup, would find itself engaged in a quagmire of guerilla warfare beyond its' ability to cope.

Modern governments have many (much more subtle) ways to subjucate a population.

permalinkparentreply

ThyLabyrinth 3 points4 points5 points 3 hours ago[+] (1 child)
ThyLabyrinth 3 points4 points5 points 3 hours ago[-]


Just controlling the majority of food stocks and water supply should be enough to take care of the major population centers.

permalinkparentreply

monkeiboi 6 points7 points8 points 3 hours ago[+] (0 children)
monkeiboi 6 points7 points8 points 3 hours ago[-]


To control the water supply and food centers in a country like the United States, you would need a standing army of at least 25 million. And that's just the urban centers, Your most costly operations and most resistance would undoubtably occur in the rural areas. Even if you effectively controlled 80% of the population, that still leaves 50 million revolutionaries. Not too mention the fact that food stocks and water supplies only last so long, The majority of provisions and raw materials originate from rural areas. You may control all the Wal-Marts, ammo factories, and gas stations in New York, but the corn is being grown in Kansas, the metal is being mined in Pennsylvania and refined in Kentucky, and the gas is being extracted in Alaska and Texas.

Just ask the British in 1777.

permalinkparentreply






load more comments (1 reply)





darkreign 70 points71 points72 points 14 hours ago[+] (43 children)
darkreign 70 points71 points72 points 14 hours ago[-]


You're telling me that you don't think 100 million people with guns could do a significant amount of damage?

Look what a few thousand Iraqi insurgents have done to the most powerful military in the world! Would you rather us stand by and do nothing?

permalinkparentreply

elroy31337 10 points11 points12 points 3 hours ago[+] (0 children)
elroy31337 10 points11 points12 points 3 hours ago[-]


Russians couldn't take Afghanistan, either -- and that was mostly just guys with AK's and RPG's...

permalinkparentreply



prox546 1 point2 points3 points 1 hour ago[+] (0 children)
prox546 1 point2 points3 points 1 hour ago[-]


They have a nice supply of unexploded munitions to work with as well as more freely available explosives in general. I feel like they also probably have more people with the knowledge it takes to make improvised explosives. I think we americans might be a little a rusty at fighting the imperialist dogs, I don't even think I was around the last time we had to fight off an oppressive government.

When I think about what's been said here, I imagine government eyes have probably skimmed this at least once.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Deleted

 

[terraformer]

He he - I am starting to like these people:

I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that... You are starting to like liberals did you say???

 

[Sleepytime]

I think for a lot of them it's because they realize that it's a losing issue and they'd rather throw in the towel; either that or run the risk of losing elections.

These anti-gunners will never give up until they have their way. And it won't stop just at guns. If the language of the laws reads "assault weapon" who's to say that they couldn't group knives, machetes, hatchets... they have already proven they can redefine words when it fits their agenda.

They are playing possum and waiting for us to turn our backs. Don't believe for a second that your guns are safe just because they haven't rattle the cage for a while. Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the Mod Squad are just laying in wait.

 

[calsdad]

I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that... You are starting to like liberals did you say???

Based on their comments I wouldn't quite classify some of these people as what I consider standard-issue liberals. They seem more "libertarian" to me. Which is something I don't have a problem with.

If people in this country could realign their political thinking into "statist" and "non-statist" we would probably be a lot better off. You would have liberals and conservatives who are opposed to big government and defenders of the constitution on one side - and all the other losers on the other.

 

[lupis42]

who's to say that they couldn't group knives, machetes, hatchets...

Have you seen this thread?

 

[lupis42]

If people in this country could realign their political thinking into "statist" and "non-statist" we would probably be a lot better off. You would have liberals and conservatives who are opposed to big government and defenders of the constitution on one side - and all the other losers on the other.

And by side you mean side of the Canadian Border?


Gaaaah. Cannot punctuate. Must go home.